As the U.S. turns inward, the world order tilts: Canada-Iceland seminar explores Arctic in flux

Note: All remarks were made under the Chatham House Rule, which permits reporting, but prohibits identifying speakers or affiliations.

The Third Annual Canada-Iceland Seminar, held at the University of Iceland in Reykjavík, unfolded under a stark and urgent question: “Are we on the verge of a diplomatic revolution that will fundamentally change the nature of political relationships in the international system?”

Over the course of a full day of panels and discussion, that question repeatedly returned, with the Arctic emerging not as a quiet periphery but as a crucible for a reshaping world.

From the outset, participants pointed to the shifting trajectory of the United States—not only in terms of political leadership but in its long-term orientation toward the international order it once built and led.

“The United States may be seeking to overthrow the very order it helped build after World War II,” one panelist warned.

Others noted that the recent pivot away from multilateralism is unlikely to be a short-term detour.

“The threat isn’t just who sits in the Oval Office. There are deeper forces at play that no election will erase.”

In this emerging reality, Canada and Iceland—along with other smaller Arctic states—find themselves navigating a world less anchored in norms and more vulnerable to great power competition. The postwar consensus that once defined transatlantic cooperation is fraying.

“NATO may not disappear—but it might slide into irrelevance,” one observer remarked. Another added, “The idea of greater North American-European defense cooperation could simply fade not through any grand decision but by inertia.”

That fading cooperation is felt most acutely in the Arctic, where geopolitical tensions now mirror broader global rivalries. The once-cherished idea of “Arctic exceptionalism”—that the region could be insulated from international strife—was widely viewed as obsolete.

“The notion of Arctic exceptionalism has lost currency. The region is no longer shielded from global tensions,” said one panelist. Another warned, “The Arctic is no longer the periphery; it’s becoming the proving ground for new geopolitical alignments.”

While Russia remains a visible concern in northern defense planning, the conversation consistently returned to China.

“It’s not about Russia anymore. It’s about China—and not just for one president but as a bipartisan strategic shift,” said one expert. “While Europe looks east and sees Russia, Washington is looking west—China, China, China.”

One participant drew a historical parallel, observing.

“We are not moving toward a new multilateral consensus but rather something that resembles a 21st-century version of the Concert of Europe—a loose arrangement of great powers negotiating interests behind closed doors.” That model, they warned, would exclude smaller states from decision-making and fundamentally alter the balance of influence in global affairs.

This strategic realignment carries ripple effects for allied nations, particularly those that have long relied on transatlantic unity for security guarantees.

“We are seeing blurred alliances and tenuous unity—on paper, the Western Arctic states look united but practice shows otherwise,” noted a speaker during the session on Arctic geopolitics.

Yet amid the sobering assessments there was also a call for creativity and resilience. Participants pointed to the need for agile diplomacy, value-based cooperation among like-minded northern states and pragmatic efforts to protect essential scientific, environmental and defense partnerships even as the geopolitical ground shifts.

The conference, hosted by the University of Iceland’s Institute of International Affairs, brought together a broad mix of scholars, defense professionals, government officials and Arctic researchers from both countries. Its timing just weeks ahead of pivotal decisions expected at NATO and Arctic governance meetings added weight to the gathering.

As one closing remark summed up, “The world may be more stable than we think—but it’s not the same world. And we’d better stop pretending it is.”