A FEW weeks ago, this column focused on how the Suez Canal traffic jam would speed up development of the Artic seaway. When the Ever Given got stuck in the canal and brought global trade nearly to a standstill (we are still not back to normal), it taught many lessons and led many people to draw conclusions.
It taught shipping companies that they had reached the limit of ship size based on current infrastructure. Ever Given barely squeaked through the Suez, so until it and the Panama Canal are expanded, larger ships will not be able to use those time-cutting avenues. The problem is, they have already built bigger ships and even larger ones are in the works.
It also taught them that they must seek alternative routes, for contingency if nothing else. When Egypt charged the operators of Ever Given one billion dollars for the rescue operation, they may have signed their bankruptcy papers. They should spend that one billion wisely, because shippers the world over have decided not to be the next victims of Egyptian greed. They are rerouting as fast as you can say Exodus, and one beneficiary of the flight from Middle East shipping lanes is the Arctic.
We hesitate to think about the Arctic as a major northern shipping lane, but like so many developments in human history, there are pros and cons. As competition for control of the Arctic heats up, let us consider some issues.
Pros: A shipping route through the Arctic Ocean is the most direct pathway between Europe and Asia. Utilizing it would save time and money, resulting in lower prices on everything from oil to Legos. Adding another major route means that the world would not be so dependent on Panama and the Suez. The next time a containership gets stuck, shippers will have more options to reroute, reducing the impact of an Ever Given-like crisis.
Beyond the practical side, there is the argument for stability and security. From the Suez crisis of 1956 to Somali pirates to Yom Kippur, the Middle East has proven to be too unstable to support a global trade network. Even now, Israelis and Iranians attack each other’s ships in a tit-for-tat that encourages the world to look elsewhere. The militant behavior of Middle East nations repels investors and stakeholders in the world’s economy. They want something safer, something quieter.
Cons: I wince at the thought of giant cargo ships and oil tankers plying the pristine waters of the Arctic Ocean. Mankind has made a polluted mess of every other area of the world we have touched. The Arctic would be better off without our intrusion. Just imagine an oil tanker spill near the North Pole on the scale of the Exxon Valdez, or a container ship running aground, dumping thousands of containers into northern waters. How would we begin to clean up such a mess? What would that cost be like, if pulling Ever Given out of the Egyptian sand cost a billion dollars?
I also do not like the inevitable struggle for control over the route. Russia is fast-tracking its Arctic plans, pumping billions of rubles into port facilities and polar-oriented companies, and is in a prime location to dominate the route. Is the rest of the world comfortable with that? The United States and China are also ramping up their efforts but are far behind Russia and are geographically at a disadvantage. Will the Arctic, so long a neutral zone in world affairs, become the next boxing ring for superpower rivalry? We will not have to wait long to find out.
BC Cook, PhD lived on Saipan and has taught history for 20 years. He currently resides on the mainland U.S.
BC Cook
