Avoiding a new ‘cold’ war: the US militarys new Arctic strategy
Arctic sea ice is thawing at greater rates year by year, creating a new shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. As nations take advantage of the new trade opportunity, they are also increasing their military presence in the area. Following Russia’s announcement it will reopen a Soviet-era military base, the US has now launched its own military strategy for the Arctic. So could climate change take us back to the era of Ice Station Zebra-style Arctic standoffs, or is the future looking more cooperative?
Ice on the Arctic Ocean shrank to its lowest recorded level last year – and some scientists expect the region will be ice-free in summer in a few decades’ time. As the prospect of a rush to exploit the oil and gas reserves under the sea emerges, so does the possibility of new tensions.
Even historical peacebroker, Norway, has been trying to persuade NATO to establish a strong presence in the Arctic in response to Russian rearmament and maneuvers on the Swedish mainland.
Against this backdrop the US Department of Defense [DoD]’s new Arctic strategy outlines the US military’s vision for the rapidly-changing Arctic region. Speaking at a security forum in Canada, US defence secretary Chuck Hagel set a more collaborative tone:
“Throughout human history, mankind has raced to discover the next frontier. And time after time, discovery was swiftly followed by conflict. We cannot erase this history. But we can assure that history does not repeat itself in the Arctic.”
Aims
The strategy describes the Arctic as “at a strategic inflection point” – suddenly faced with a wave of new activity from different nations driven by economic opportunity. It defines its aims for the Arctic thus:
“[A] secure and stable region where US national interests are safeguarded, the US homeland is protected, and nations work cooperatively to address challenges”.
The changing state of the Arctic also sees the military’s activities broaden to support the US government’s other aims. The US government has already released a national strategy for the Arctic region, which, it says, aims to promote sustainable economic activity while exercising “responsible stewardship” – which the military says it will support.
While much of the talk revolves around peaceful activities, melting in the Arctic could leave the US vulnerable to attack from hostile nations or actors. The US military already has around 25,000 forces stationed in Alaska – and the department intends to beef that presence up.
An important part of the strategy involves ensuring the freedom of the seas – an old doctrine designed to allow access to the high seas for merchant vessels. The new document shows the military sees that preserving this right is of national interest to the US. It is also ready to “challenge excessive maritime claims” from other Arctic nations.
The DoD also describes new research to assess the vulnerability of Arctic infrastructure, and find ways to adapt to climate change. The department will also take part in new information-gathering efforts track activity trends and map the region. There’s a fair chunk of scientific work in the pipeline, too, with the department aiming to add to existing scientific measurement of atmosphere, ocean and sea ice conditions as well as environmental forecasting.
Cooperation
The new document strikes a conciliatory note, portraying the military as a key player in promoting cooperation between countries. This is especially important as Arctic nations – and others – are establishing their own Arctic strategies in a “variety of international forums”. The document says:
“[T]hese changes present a compelling opportunity for the [DoD] to work collaboratively with allies and partners to promote a balanced approach to improving human and environmental security in the region.”
The military outlines a diplomatic role, proposing to seek out new ways to work with other countries, including Russia – including “non-contentious” opportunities for collaboration like science and technology projects. The department says it will coordinate research initiatives with the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, the US’s umbrella science body in the region.
Above all, the DoD wants to keep things stable on the security front, forging diplomatic links with allies and through international institutions like the Arctic Council and the International Maritime Organisation.
Hagel told reporters:
“By taking advantage of multilateral training opportunities with partners in the region, we will enhance our cold-weather operational experience, and strengthen our military-to-military ties with other Arctic nations. This includes Russia.”
Impacts
As well as potential tensions over resources, the prospect of increased tourism and commerce will increase the risk of accidents, from oil spills to the potential for overfishing as fishing boats travel outside the jurisdiction of current fishing agreements. The report says:
“Future challenges in the Arctic may span the full range of national security interests. These challenges and contingencies may take many forms, ranging from the need to support other … [departments] … in responding to a natural or man-made disaster to responding to security concerns that may emerge in the future.”
In addition to preparing for the possibility of oil pollution and increased rescue callouts, the department says it is building environmental considerations into its planning and operations in the area.
Uncharted territory
The idea of geopolitics might seem rather outdated, evoking memories of Cold War competition between great powers. But the prospect of competition over the Arctic’s resources as the world warms has resurrected concern about tension between and within states.
The DoD is careful to sound a warning note: the vision of an ice-free Arctic stuffed full of commerce may never materialise if conditions don’t change as projected. It also concerned about unhelpful press reporting about boundary disputes inflaming tensions unnecessarily – as well as the possibility that its own steps to address security risks might create an atmosphere of mistrust.
But while a standout word in the text is ‘cooperation’, scholars and experts are starting to question whether old ideas of the national interest are really up to the task of tackling climate change, a phenomenon with no regard for international borders. If a competition for resources, land or sea territory emerges, they argue there will be no winners.
Unless a paradigm shift among Arctic nations – and across the globe – occurs, squaring international cooperation with the national interest as they try to mitigate and prepare for climate change will be a daunting balancing act.