The Svalbard Islands, a remote Arctic archipelago under Norway’s sovereignty since the Svalbard
Treaty of 1920, have long been known for their unique international status. Citizens from treaty
signatory countries, including Italy, Russia, and China, among others, are allowed to settle and
conduct economic activities in this exceptional territory, provided they comply with Norwegian
law. This arrangement has created a notable degree of economic freedom, allowing anyone to buy,
sell and trade property or land in Svalbard.

Nevertheless, a recent decision by the Norwegian government regarding Svalbard has gathered
significant international attention due to its potential implications for the territory’s distinct
economic and geopolitical status.

In an unexpected move, Norway has intervened to halt the sale of a piece of land in the southwest of
Spitsbergen, the largest and only inhabited island in the Svalbard archipelago. This particular plot of
land, known as Søre Fagerfjord, has been labelled as “the northernmost private property in the
world” and represents the last remaining privately owned land in Svalbard. With the Norwegian
state already owning 99.5% of the archipelago’s total area, the 60-square-kilometer property of
untouched mountains and glaciers is an extraordinary rarity.

The price tag? A cool 300 million euros. But it’s not the hefty price the issue here. It’s the
Norwegian government’s reasons for halting the sale. Their primary concern? The possibility of
foreign actors, particularly China, gaining a strategic foothold in a region that’s rapidly growing in
importance.

China’s increasing presence in the Arctic has become a concern for Norway. Styling itself as a
“near-Arctic state,” China has been investing heavily in Arctic infrastructure, scientific research and
economic projects. This growing Chinese interest has clearly unnerved Norway, prompting the
Minister of Trade and Industry herself, Cecilie Myrseth, to step in personally. In Myrseth’s words,
foreign ownership of this land “could disturb stability in the region and potentially threaten
Norwegian interests.”

This decision proves Norway’s determination to protect its strategic interests in the region. As the
Arctic becomes more accessible and economically attractive due to climate change, countries in the
region are beginning – even though rather shyly – to take measures to maintain control over their
resources and strategic areas.

Norway’s move also raises questions about the balance between national sovereignty and
international commitments symbolised by the Svalbard Treaty. While the treaty guarantees certain
economic rights to citizens and businesses of signatory countries, Norway is clearly drawing a line
when it comes to perceived national security issues. “Perceived” as some commentators argue that,
despite government insistence, Søre Fagerfjord currently holds little to no economic value or
importance for Norway.

This seemingly far and localised incident actually offers several insights applicable on a global
scale. First, it highlights how the lines between economics and national security are becoming
increasingly blurred. Norway’s decision to block a purely commercial sale on national security
grounds underscores how, in our globalised era, even straightforward economic transactions can
have deep geopolitical implications.

Secondly, this case begins to shed light on the growing tension between principles of economic
openness and concerns for national sovereignty. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920, with its vision of
international cooperation, now finds itself face-to-face with the ever-changed world of the 21st
century. The situation in Svalbard also provides insight into the difficulties that smaller countries
might encounter when trying to balance their national interests with the influences of major powers.

In conclusion, the Søre Fagerfjord case goes beyond territorial sovereignty and economic interests.
It serves as a wake-up call, urging us to reconsider our models of global governance, our national
security strategies and our approach to international cooperation in a rapidly changing world. It
reminds us that in the 21st century, even a remote patch of Arctic land can become the focal point
of complex, interconnected global dynamics.

Tommaso Bontempi

Also read the publication:
What’s a Jack London Effect?