Arctic Encounter 2025: The importance of pragmatism in a post-exceptionism world

The Arctic Encounter Summit took place last week in Anchorage, Alaska. Despite being held later than originally anticipated, the organizers put together a thoughtful three-day program and it was attended by a broad community of researchers, diplomats, Indigenous representatives, and industry leaders.

I have three primary takeaways that – combined with the still-novel human contact post-COVID – really made the trip worthwhile.

1. As it turns out, the end of Arctic “exceptionalism” has not brought about the end of Arctic cooperation and dialogue.

Many have argued that the Arctic has moved into a “post-exceptionalism” world; that is, one in which broader global tensions do impact cooperation on regionally focused issues – such as emergency preparedness and education – that are arguably in and of themselves not particularly controversial. This came about in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when Arctic Council operations temporarily froze and several other modes of regional cooperation were paused or altered.

Yet there remains a large volume of Arctic dialogue and cooperation. The Arctic Council’s working groups are resuming. Participants also described how some local, tactical, and less formal dialogues are enabling necessary and limited information exchange, from community wellness checks following the massive Kamchatka earthquake to vessel communications to avoid unintended military consequences in Arctic waters. This may not be as much as many would like, and widespread lack of access between Western Arctic countries and the Russian Federation for Indigenous and scientific engagement, for example, is both very real and very problematic for those endeavors, even if the separation remains necessary for broader diplomatic reasons.

2. The polar bears in – and out – of the room are important to discuss, but so too are day-to-day Arctic realities.

Along with recent discussions of Arctic “exceptionalism” (or the loss of it), remarks at Arctic conferences about “the polar bear in the room” (a play on the same phrase except with “elephant” in it) have become a common way of raising the specter of difficult geopolitical issues or, perhaps more often, not raising them. This year’s Arctic Encounter did not shy away from Russia-China-U.S. relations, but the timely “polar bear” at center stage was Greenland’s future. After acknowledging both the recent resurgence of U.S. interest as well as Greenland being “open for business, not for sale,” discussions focused heavily on opportunities for investing in Greenland as well as educating conference participants on Greenland’s current political and economic situation. The Kingdom of Denmark currently being the chair of the Arctic Council also presents some additional opportunities to engage Greenlandic diplomats and scholars.

Such strategic discussions did see counter-balance from sessions focused on local governance models, practical issues from technology to permitting to workforce in mining development, and continuing needs for basic infrastructure in the north, including for sanitation. These topics were key reminders that there can be a danger of global political dynamics subsuming dialogue on issues such as countering hazards, ensuring survival in emergencies, and developing economies with both local and broader benefits, and many other areas that are still ripe for collaboration in a “post-exceptionalism” world. “Dual-use” infrastructure and technologies – that is, those that can be used for both civilian and military (or, perhaps simply multiple) purposes – was introduced several times as beneficial for both Arctic communities as well as national security presence, which is a different take than in some other recent conferences which have focused on potential threats posed if such instruments are in the hands of adverse actors.

3. Human and economic resilience could drive near-term opportunities for cooperation

In the face of some of the issues noted above, many Encounter participants discussed “what can we do for now” (until and if, presumably, wider diplomatic avenues are enabled). I came away thinking that the answer may be quite a lot, because irrespective of strained high-level political dialogues, the “many Arctics” of the North continue to see considerable similarities in opportunities and challenges that can benefit from the co-development of knowledge and solutions. The break in pan-Arctic research data sharing appears to have refocused would-be collaborators on developing more fruitful (for both sides) sharing with Indigenous and other local communities, translating scientific data into a wider range of tactically useful applications including for maritime safety, and developing new sea- and space-based scientific instruments and approaches.

The ”Blue” Economy also appears to be a growing theme around which collaboration efforts can rally in a variety of different ways. At a strategic and conceptual level, the focus and scope of this notion having to do with ocean-based economic development emphasizing sustainability, is ripe for potential further articulation and exploration under the auspices of the Arctic Council and the Arctic Economic Council, for example. Sectors within an ocean economy (“blue” or not), such as transportation and tourism, were also widely discussed at the Arctic Encounter. There were multiple conversations surrounding ways to operationalize agreements for partnering on icebreaking vessel production, as well as transportation logistics, which involved both local Arctic actors (e.g., Alaskan Airlines to Alaskan community members) to representatives from non-Arctic states as far away as Japan, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates.

I have never attended an Arctic conference where we unpacked geostrategic tensions and the necessity of “honey pots” for sanitation resilience (look it up) in the same day. Offering exposure to such a variety of Arctic policy issues is one of the strengths of the Arctic Encounter Summit. Another is that it is Alaska’s and the U.S.’s largest Arctic gathering, making it an important aspect of national presence on both regional dialogue and global dialogue that impacts the Arctic.

To remain so, the Arctic Encounter must continue to evolve with the needs of its community and to that end it would be nice to see more encouragement of specific knowledge and data-sharing in presentations so as to further enable information exchange.

Dr. Abbie Tingstad is a visiting professor of Arctic research at the Center for Arctic Study and Policy at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Coast Guard Academy, United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Arctic Today or that of any organization with which the author is affiliated.