Recently I watched Yuval Noah Harrari speak at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Just on Youtube, not the real deal. What I found interesting is his stark distinction between nationalism and globalism and that they are mutually reinforcing. He described how the Fifa World Cup is both very nationalistic and globalist at the same time. This is because people celebrate the wins of their unique nation and at the same time they respect the rules of how to play football which is universally accepted. The parallel of this story is visible in the paper we will discuss today. “How China Sees the Arctic” is a fascinating overview of how one of the largest countries in the world communicates with different ideas about how it wants to be seen in the Arctic region.
We focus on a specific example here to make it easy to grasp. A fictive pension-fund called “BenidormBucks” invests 25% of its portfolio into oil & gas companies. Most of these investments are done before the climate crisis occurs. Let us assume that the climate crisis is real and that the oil & gas industry plays a significant role in causing the crisis in the first place. On the one hand, you could see a clear problem arise in the fact that it becomes very difficult for people to let go of savings, or make other difficult choices when they have been working so hard to save all that money to enjoy their retirement. On the other hand, they might want to be part of the solution of putting the climate crisis to a stop. Pension funds and governments will use a myriad of stories to describe the issue at hand because there are also many arguments to be made. However, the obvious common purpose should perhaps be that our ecological collapse does not continue to the extent that we can not inhabit the earth any longer.
What is the research about?
This is primarily a literature review and document analysis which focusses on Chinese government officials and their policies in regards to what the “Arctic Circle” communicates about the area. The Arctic circle consists of the eight countries that have territory in the Arctic region (Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Russia, and the United States). The research primarily focusses on the two distinctive stories Chinese officials tell to the world and how those arguments can be placed into the discussion about a territorial and globalist approach.
The theme that is talked about the most in the paper is the territorial and globalist perspective that the Chinese officials’ layout. From a territorial perspective, China emphasizes its northern latitudes but from a globalist perspective, it mentions that climate change affects us all and so the current circumstance in the Arctic region affects us all. Those arguments are very different from each other, but together they mix to a solid argument why not just China but many countries on the planet might have a say on what happens on one of the most important areas of our planet that faces such rapid disruption.
In this research, it becomes avidly clear that we can not assess the Chinese arguments as such since they are not the only to have claimed about the usage of the Arctic territories. In contrast to Antarctica, the North Pole is sovereign land owned by eight countries. Other countries such as England, Germany, and Japan have their contrasting views on the Arctic territories. These countries neither have territory in the Arctic but continue to hold their claims since they are very near the Arctic and consider it a region with global importance.
What can curious executives learn from this?
Most of us face similar difficulties in defining the common purpose of what they do in their daily lives. This again creates a similar problem. In the example of the pension fund, the paradox could not be greater. The people that have worked their entire mature life for a company that might have nothing to do with the climate crisis, now suddenly know that a portion their money got invested in the very same industry that has a root problem in the cause of all of this (I don’t think I have to source this). The pension fund faces a similar problem because they might not have been fully aware.
As for China in the Arctic region, individual and territorial problems should not be the main concern in a debate that affects every living being on the planet. This is difficult because that requires a selfless and globalist approach to problems, something that humans historically speaking are not very good at.
In tinkering between the common purpose and your individual or territorial circumstance, I would suggest following the conclusions of this paper. Think about your circumstance as something that can be a contribution to both yourself and the world. China has invested significant resources in scientific research in the region together with members of the Arctic Circle. In doing so, it now sits closer to the action and can pursue their territorial interests. It is this interplay that is nor idealistic, nor completely selfish. That could be a great start to finding a new path between these two polarities.
Important notes
Full credit goes to Mia M Bennett. The one-and-only aim of this paper is to further promote it’s content to a wider audience. For the original paper please visit: https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2015.1017757
About the author
Bram van Kleef is a founder + consultant @ VanKleef/Andersson and is located in Amsterdam. He holds an MSc in Business Administration: International Business & Marketing from Kristianstad University in Sweden. For inquiries: info@vankleefandersson.com
