A Problem, Not An Opportunity: How New U.S. Military Strategy Threatens Arctic Cooperation

A joint strategy issued by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps last week has raised further concern about the future of peaceful coexistence in the Arctic. The strategy, which follows similar plans by the Air Force and is expected to be joined shortly by a strategy from the Army, is the first time all U.S. military services have released individual policies regarding the Arctic, according to Rob Huebert, a Canadian defence expert. “A Blue Arctic: A Strategic Blueprint for the Arctic,” tied U.S. national security to interests in the region and sent out a stark warning over Russian and Chinese presence there, “whose interests and values differ dramatically” from American ones, wrote outgoing Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite.

 

The statement, though not unexpected, lowers the bar for potential U.S. militarization in the fragile region, which is at a critical juncture in the fight against climate change. Russian territorial claims in the area have coincided with shrinking sea ice, with Arctic shipping routes set to transform the way the world trades by sea. Though the U.S. has been an Arctic nation since its purchase of Alaska in 1867, the latest policy blueprints represent “a break from U.S. Arctic policy,” which has typically been more environmentally oriented, “by instead honing in on the threats Russia and China pose to U.S. security,” according to The Arctic Institute, a regional thinktank. “They [the U.S.] know that the best way to a peaceful Arctic is through strength,” adds Huebert for the Barents Observer.

 

U.S. military strategies for the Arctic not only add unnecessary heat to growing great power competition but pose threats to perceptions about climate change there. Though abundant natural resources and opportunistic shipping lanes make the Arctic a valuable investment, the Navy statement frames environmental challenges as more of an opportunity than the threat that they are. The “Arctic Region has the potential to connect nearly 75% of the world’s population… rapidly melting sea ice and increasingly navigable Arctic waters will create new challenges and opportunities,” writes Braithwaite, a damaging sentiment that threatens to undermine decades of work to protect the region’s ailing climate. By viewing receding sea ice as a human opportunity rather than the immense ecological and scientific threat that it is, strategic hunger in this new great power rivalry serves to seek silver linings to a grey cloud that has not yet fully formed.

 

According to NASA, September sea ice—when sea ice is at its natural minimum- is now declining at a rate of 13.1% per decade. Home to numerous unique species as well as playing a critical role in global ocean and climate regulation, the Arctic nevertheless remains a relatively ungoverned frontier. The Arctic Council, a UN-type body composed of the eight Arctic nations as well as several indigenous people’s groups, holds sway in the region through mutual agreements, cooperation, and research but international law is comparatively brittle. With diminishing sea ice presenting opportunities to transport goods and people shorter distances as well as uncovering supplies of natural resources, competition for Arctic hegemony has gathered pace but has largely remained peaceful.

 

Russia, who have stoked disputes previously by planting a flag on the Lomonosov Ridge north of their Arctic shore, have typically been at the center of this. Under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), states are entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial water and a further 200 comprising an “exclusive economic zone,” for fishing and other purposes. The U.S. has accused Russia of abusing Article 234, concerning ice-covered sea areas, to establish territorial control over waters beyond those 12 miles, but has yet to file an official claim as it has not yet ratified the treaty, the only Arctic nation yet to do so.

 

With unlawful Russian territorial claims and so much at stake, the latest strategies from the U.S. military appear to represent a divergent path for future Arctic policy. Without the legal and diplomatic channels to challenge Russian activity that the UNCLOS affords, Washington is instead seeking to flex its muscles in the remote waters around the North Pole. But aside from the risk of a military confrontation, the stakes are high for peace of any kind in the Arctic. Instead of veiled threats, the U.S. should commit to climate solutions first before seeking military solutions to a problem that does not yet need to exist. It can do this by ratifying UNCLOS under the new administration and keeping its policies in line with those of other Arctic Council members, not diverging from the norm. If the U.S. should seek to challenge illegal Russian presence, it should do so through Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), not by placing warships off Russian shores. For the longevity of earth’s most fragile environment, climate strategies, not military strategies, are needed first.

Shane Ward
Follow me

Related