On Wednesday, Mary Thompson-Jones, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, traveled to Bowdoin to deliver a lecture on diplomacy and the Arctic. With climate change dramatically altering the trajectory of the region, Thompson-Jones—who is also the chair of women in national security and diplomacy at the Naval War College—explored the importance of the politics of the region and how various global powers have sought dominance there.

Thompson-Jones began by highlighting several key historical events that have shaped Arctic development, starting with the initiation of the United States as an Arctic power via the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867. Known as “Seward’s Purchase,” this expansion of the United States intended to make the U.S. a continental power, as William Seward, then the Secretary of State, dreamed of purchasing British Columbia and eventually the rest of Canada to create a contiguous North American state.

“A lot has been said about how most nation states are effective when they are contiguous,” Thompson-Jones said. “India, for example, after the partition, had East Pakistan; it was separated by a very narrow land bridge. It was not successful. It ultimately, through a very bloody conflict, became what’s known today as modern Bangladesh. It’s hard to find successful examples of nation states that aren’t contiguous. Seward’s idea of contiguity was continental, and he wanted to see the United States become a continental power.”

Thompson-Jones then shifted to discussing various historical diplomatic successes in the Arctic.

One event she highlighted was the Svalbard Treaty of 1925. A small island territory located within the Arctic Circle, Svalbard has served an essential role in North Atlantic politics. Uniquely, the island has no Indigenous population and is only occasionally used by whalers as a stopover. This led to increased conflict regarding sovereignty, which the Svalbard Treaty aimed to address.

“Thanks to an American [Secretary of State Robert Lansing], we were able to carve out the Svalbard Treaty. [Svalbard] became Norwegian, except that the treaty that [Lansing] negotiated with other great powers had a unique way of dealing with this,” Thompson-Jones said. “Everyone has access to Svalbard. It can never be militarized…. Norway has sovereignty, but this treaty has now stood for exactly 100 years. It’s been successful, and Norway has been able to work within it. Russia has challenged the treaty at various points, but it stands. This has enabled Norway to have a lot more leverage in the High North and the Arctic.”

Moving to more recent developments, Thompson-Jones discussed the United States’ membership in the Arctic Council, an international and intergovernmental forum established in 1996 that aims to foster cooperation among various stakeholders in the region.

“This was a major moment of multilateral diplomacy,” Thompson-Jones said. “This was a Finnish and Canadian joint action. Finland and the Canadians got together and came up with this idea that we needed something for the Arctic. Eight countries that had either coastline or territory in the Arctic, and the United States and Russia, were okay with this.”

Thompson-Jones explained that a specific provision in the charter of the Arctic Council allowed for its success and continued efficacy.

“The one page charter for [the Arctic Council] has an asterisk at the bottom, and it says the Council will not deal with matters concerning security or defense. Russia wanted that. The United States wanted that, which I think has been good … because it allowed the Council to operate, to get its bearings.… It accomplished a lot. There’s a lot left to talk about when you remove security and defense, like sustainable development and the environment,” Thompson-Jones said.

As a career diplomat in the U.S. Foreign Service, Thompson-Jones also discussed the various ways diplomats can accomplish policy priorities outside of traditional channels.

“What I know from my career as a Foreign Service officer, mostly is Track 1 diplomacy. It’s what everybody sees. Big summit meetings. That’s traditional diplomacy,” Thompson-Jones said. “Track 1.5 is interesting because it’s this mixture of both bureaucrats, people from foreign ministries, people from the State Department, other government entities—along with unofficial people—and it’s an opportunity, because you don’t necessarily have the flags, you don’t have to give the talking points presented by your government. You have a bit more freedom. You’re free to listen more. The pressure is lower, and other voices are allowed to come into the room.”

Ari Faulkner ’28 was motivated to attend the talk because of his own academic interests in the region.

“I’ve always been interested in the Arctic as a vast region of increasing political importance, given the melting Arctic Ocean and Russia’s massive political influence over the region despite varying degrees of diplomacy in recent years,” Faulkner wrote in a message to the Orient.

The discussion of the intricate diplomacy in the region was especially intriguing to him.

“I enjoyed Thompson-Jones’ talk; particularly, her discussion of the wide range of activities that can constitute diplomacy was enlightening, especially given the current state of the U.S. foreign service,” Faulker wrote.