Upload
matt-mackowiak
View
34
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mackowiak 2
Arctic Race: How the United States is Countering Russia’s Arctic Moves
The effects of climate change can be seen all over the world. Water levels are rising, the
global temperature is increasing, and above all, glacial and polar ice is melting. Territorial
claims, increased militarization, and improving infrastructure have been key areas of activity in
the Arctic, and states that currently claim territory in the Arctic have begun a race to improve
infrastructure in the area. The United States has long controlled Alaska, the top quarter of which
is a barren, Arctic tundra. This territory, though previously thought to be nothing more than a
stretch of tundra grass and permafrost, is proving to become strategically more important for the
national security interests of the United States, as well as the Arctic territory controlled by
American allies. Examining United States actions in the Arctic and the reasons these actions
have been undertaken can shed some light onto what role the Arctic may play in the near future.
United States Involvement in the Arctic
The Far North has only recently been seen as a strategic region for world militaries. Due
to the Cold War and the currently pressing issue of climate change, the Arctic is now a vital area
that the U.S. is interested in controlling. One key area in which the United States has been
involved in regards to the Arctic is the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum centering on cooperation and
coordination in the Arctic, consists of the 8 states that possess territory in the Arctic region. The
members include Russia, the U.S., Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland.1
The 8 member states of the Council rotate chairmanship every two years, as stipulated by a pre-
determined order of members, and as of April 24, 2015, the United States is chair of the
Council.2 This is significant for the U.S., as it allows for a leadership role among the Arctic
1 “The Arctic Council, a backgrounder,” The Arctic Council, accessed March 10, 2016, http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us.2 “Arctic,” U.S. Department of State, accessed March 7, 2016, http://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/arc/.
Mackowiak 3
states, and as such, the United States has been able and will continue to be able to have much
influence over the decisions of the Council. The downside to the Arctic Council, however, is
that all of its activities exclude military security, according to the Ottawa Declaration which
brought it into existence in 1996.3
Chairmanship of the Arctic Council is important when focusing on development and
cooperation in the Arctic, but when it comes to security, the United States has also undertaken
militarization to match that of the Russian Military in the Arctic. Considering that the Defense
Department’s approved budget for the 2015 fiscal year devoted most of the funds to facilities
sustainment, maintenance, repair, and modernization ($5.5 billion for all branches combined), it
is evident that the United States believes modernization to be essential as the Arctic ice melts.4
This is reinforced by the fact that “in the 2016 defense bill, the US Congress tasked the
Department of Defense to draw up a strategic plan for defending US national security interests in
the Arctic.”5 This came soon after Russia renovated old Arctic military bases and it shows that
the Arctic has been recognized and prioritized by Congress to deserve special treatment in
allocating funds for defense.
To further emphasize U.S. involvement in the Arctic militarily, a map of all military
activity in the region can be considered. The following map details the number of ships and
military personnel that each of the member states of the Arctic Council operates above the Arctic
Circle:
3 “The Arctic Council, a backgrounder,” The Arctic Council, accessed March 10, 2016, http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us.4 “United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request,” United States Department of Defense, Chapters 1-5 – 1-6. 5 “U.S. Concerned About Militarization of the Arctic,” Sputnik News, accessed March 6, 2016, http://sputniknews.com/military/20150901/1026414546.html.
Mackowiak 4
As can be seen, the United States’ military presence in the Arctic stacks up rather well
compared to the other Arctic Council members in troop numbers, but is somewhat lacking in
naval vessels compared to the likes of Canada, Norway, Russia, and even Denmark. However,
due to the recommendation by Congress to allocate more defense funds to the Arctic, these
figures will most likely rise within the next few years. Also important to consider in this figure
are the claims made by each of the countries; the Barents Sea is contested by Russia and Norway
and the Bering Strait by Russia and the U.S. Coupled with the levels of military personnel and
equipment in the area, this makes for a tense environment. The Arctic Council thankfully
provides a forum for the members to discuss such issues, but should military escalation in the
6 Sophie de Beauvais, Nam-Thompson, and DeMello, “Map Room: Arctic Militarization,” accessed March 4, 2016, http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/summer2015/map-room-arctic-militarization.
Mackowiak 5
Arctic continue, this may lead to conflict. Undoubtedly, the U.S. military is a significant force in
the Arctic, but is nonetheless in need of improvement.
Why is the United States interested in the Arctic?
There are several key reasons that the United States is interested in the Arctic, all of
which stem from the race for resources that has developed between members of the Arctic
Council. To begin, the Russian Federation, being the most influential state in the Arctic region
so far, has taken to claiming vast areas of seabed in Arctic waters. Russia has laid claim to the
Sea of Okhotsk, the body of water surrounded by Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands, and mainland
Russia. Though somewhat controversial, the proposal was approved by the United Nations in
2014, officially giving Russia control of the supposedly vast oil and natural gas reserves at the
bottom of the sea in the “Peanut Hole”.7 The Russian addition of the Sea of Okhotsk allows
Russia access to the fuel reserves under the seabed, meaning that neither the United States nor
any other state beside Russia may harvest these reserves.
To compete with the Russian drive to acquire Arctic oil, the United States is interested in
claiming the remaining Arctic oil fields. In 2008, the United States Department of the Interior
sold $2.6 billion worth of oil bids in the Chukchi Sea, north of the Bering Strait.8 This bid
emphasizes the desire for the U.S. to become a more prominent player in the world oil market.
Should the U.S. gain access to larger areas of the Arctic Ocean, the payoffs of oil could be very
significant. It is estimated that the Arctic region contains close to 160 billion barrels of oil –
13% of the world’s total undiscovered supply. This is enough oil to keep up with global demand
for the next five and half years.9 Therefore, the more Arctic oil reserves the United States is able
7 John R. Haines, “Ali Baba’s Cave: The Sea of Okhotsk’s Contentious Triangle,” Foreign Policy Research Institute (2014): 590, accessed April 1, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.orbis.2014.08.009.8 Ben Block, “Arctic Melting May Lead to Expanded Oil Drilling,” accessed April 1, 2016, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5664.9 James Cowling, “Arctic oil exploration: potential riches and problems,” accessed April 1, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-14728856.
Mackowiak 6
to secure, the larger share of 160 billion barrels the nation could sell for revenue. This could
help the United States to shift away from being dependent on foreign oil and closer toward being
a leading oil producer, which would greatly improve the American economy.
Oil and natural gas reserves aside, the United States’ reasons for getting involved in the
Arctic also involve militarization. As previously demonstrated, six other states maintain military
facilities in the Arctic region, most notably and most threateningly among these being Russia.
Though the Arctic Council makes it unlikely that any conflict will erupt in the Arctic, Russian
military presence and suspicious remilitarization of previously abandoned facilities imposes
serious concern to the United States and calls for strengthening of defense. The Russian
Federation has dramatically increased its military presence in Cold-War-Era bases such as
Alakurtti and the Novosibirsk Islands,10 and the increased production of icebreakers for Russia’s
Great Northern Fleet11 are significant steps toward Arctic control. With all of these recent signs
of Russian escalation, and with a mandate by the U.S. Congress to increase military spending in
the Arctic, it seems only logical to increase U.S. military presence in the Arctic to keep up with
Russia’s militarization and thereby maintain security in the Far North.
Looking Ahead: the Future of U.S. Arctic Involvement
With the race for the Arctic underway, the future of the region must be considered. With
drastic militarization, territorial claims, and bids for underwater oil fields, the United States’
place in the Arctic is somewhat uncertain but may be able to be determined when the current
Arctic political climate is considered. Increased Russian militarization will bring increased
American militarization. Similar to Cold-War-Era escalation, both the Russian and NATO
10 Heather A. Conley and Caroline Rohloff, New Ice Curtain: Russia’s Strategic Reach to the Arctic (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 11, 19-30.11 Milosz Reterski, “Breaking the Ice,” Foreign Affairs, last modified December 11, 2014, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2014-12-11/breaking-ice.
Mackowiak 7
militaries will attempt to offset one another, as evidenced by the 2015 defense budget proposal.
One key American base that may see drastic change is Thule Air Force Base.
On the frozen coast of north-western Greenland, Thule Air Base is the most isolated US
military facility, located at the halfway point between New York City and Moscow. It is a joint
facility between the United States and Denmark, and since the end of the Cold War, Thule has
been last on the priority list of facilities scheduled to be modernized. However, since last year,
this has changed drastically. At the height of the Cold War, the base served as a location from
which to launch a possible air attack against the Soviet Union should the situation arise. Though
only 1,000 troops are currently stationed at Thule, the facility has the capacity to hold 10,000.12
13
The above map shows Thule’s location relative to the rest of the United States and to the
rest of the Arctic. The base is one of the only locations in the world specifically designated for
cooperation with NASA and to serve as an early warning radar station for ballistic missiles
traveling through Arctic airspace.14 Though it has not needed to serve this purpose since the
height of the Cold War, Russian developments could call for more personnel and resources to be
12 Jeremy Bender, “The Most Isolated US Military Base Could Get a Lot More Important,” Business Insider (2014), accessed April 1, 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/importance-of-us-thule-air-base-2014-11.13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.
Mackowiak 8
stationed at Thule. Russia’s modernization and reoccupation of Cold War air bases brings with it
the capability for the state to use these bases as stations for nuclear weapons, including
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s). Due to this possibility, the United States and its
NATO allies may want to take security measures to ensure that the northern frontier is
adequately defended, meaning that Thule would need to be reinforced with updated missile
tracking systems. ICBM’s pose a significant threat to all states, and the fact that Thule could lie
so close to Russian nuclear bases puts it at a perfect location for ICBM defense. This, in addition
to possible troop influxes to the Arctic could meant that Thule Air Base may become one of the
United States’ most strategically important facilities within the next five years.
The Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), adopted by
the UN General Assembly in 1982, establishes jurisdiction limits on the ocean area that a state
may claim as its own. This includes a 12-mile ocean area off of the state’s coast and a 200-mile
economic zone based on the extent to which the coastal shelf off the coast of a state extends.15
This law helps states to determine their maritime territory so long as the state is aware of the
length of its continental shelf. How does this play into the future of the Arctic?
U.S. involvement in the Arctic will involve increased construction of icebreakers. The
American Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that determines the United States legal maritime
territory off of its coast must be accurately mapped, so that the U.S. can legally stake a claim in
the Arctic in accordance with UNCLOS. Currently, the U.S. relies on its allies in NATO (mainly
Canada) to map the ocean floor north of Alaska16 in order to ascertain how deep the water is
when drilling for oil. Icebreakers are used to complete this task, which have been successful for
the Russians, who currently possess over 40 in total and have successfully mapped much of the
15 National Center for Public Policy Research, “The Law of the Sea (LOST) Background”, accessed April 1, 2016, http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org/.16 Diane Andrews Henningfield, “The North and South Poles,” (2010): 139-140.
Mackowiak 9
Arctic Ocean for the Russian Federation.17 To catch up in the race, it is necessary for the United
States to construct more icebreakers to map the Arctic Ocean floor with its own ships, which will
allow for faster results and a more efficient way of going about the process.
Though Canada and the U.S. currently work together to survey the Arctic shelf, the two
continue to dispute how to divide the Beaufort Sea and the Northwest Passage, causing a strain
in relations, according to the CIA.18 This strain could make Canada less willing to share
information on mapping of the continental shelf, emphasizing the point that the United States
must increase production of Arctic icebreakers. If the OCS is accurately mapped, the United
States will be able to submit its claim to the United Nations like every other player in the
Arctic.19 The members of the Arctic Council are also trying to stake claims based on the extent
of their continental shelf, so the sooner the United States can do the same, the better for the U.S.
defense of its rightful territory on the ocean floor, territory which could yield profitable oil
reserves, as previously noted. Because of this, it is not difficult to see that the future may hold
increased construction of American icebreakers.
Conclusion
The Arctic has become a stage set for a frigid chess match as states attempt to lay claims
to the ocean floor and scramble for newly accessible natural resources. The Russian Federation
at the moment is leading the way to a new and militarized Arctic, reopening Cold War bases and
increasing its military capacity throughout the Far North. The members of the Arctic Council,
with the United States as acting Chairman, attempts day after day to increase cooperation among
its member states, and is indeed making a difference in the Arctic, but military security continues
17 Milosz Reterski, “Breaking the Ice,” Foreign Affairs, last modified December 11, 2014, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2014-12-11/breaking-ice.18 CIA World Factbook, “Transnational Issues: United States,” accessed April 1, 2016, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.19 Diane Andrews Henningfield, “The North and South Poles,” (2010): 139.
Mackowiak 10
to be a pressing issue that it is not permitted to solve. Because of this, it is the duty of individual
states to protect their national security interests in the Arctic.
Russia has prompted the United States to increase defense spending on sustaining and
modernizing military facilities, which undoubtedly includes Arctic Air and Naval bases. The
U.S. stations a relatively large amount of military personnel at Arctic bases in comparison to
other Arctic states, but is behind in naval vessels used to break Arctic ice as well as military
submarines.
The United States has good reason to get involved in the Arctic. For one, due to Russia’s
efforts to secure Arctic oil fields, United States national interest favors Arctic involvement
because of potentially vast undiscovered oil reserves in the Chukchi Sea and other areas off the
Alaskan coast. Drilling for oil in the Arctic could yield massive amounts of revenue for the
United States and establish it as a world leader in oil exporting. Also, involvement in the Arctic
is necessary for protecting U.S. national security because of increasing militarization of the area
throughout Russia.
The future of the Arctic will involve increasing numbers of troop deployments by the
U.S. military, most likely at facilities such as Thule in Greenland, and military infrastructure to
counter ICBM’s will be constructed and updated. As far as United States territorial claims off
the Alaskan coast, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea permits a state to claim the ocean
floor along the continental shelf at the state’s coast, and so increased construction and updates of
the U.S. icebreaker fleet is essential for this purpose.
As can be seen, the Arctic is becoming a strategically important arena for resource
harvesting. The United States, prompted by Russia, is using the area now more than ever to
secure its national interest, and the Arctic is more vital now than it ever has been. As the climate
Mackowiak 11
continues to warm, polar ice will continue to thaw as international relations in the Far North
continue to heat up.
Bibliography
“The Arctic Council, a backgrounder.” The Arctic Council. Accessed March 10, 2016.
http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us.
This source was an official website for the Arctic Council and contained a lot of
procedural and general facts about the Council. It was very useful in describing how the
Council worked, what the members were and what the Council’s purview was when it
convened.
Bender, Jeremy. “The Most Isolated US Military Base Could Get a Lot More Important.”
Business Insider, 2014. Accessed April 1, 2016.
Mackowiak 12
http://www.businessinsider.com/importance-of-us-thule-air-base-2014-11.
This was the sole source I used when describing Thule Air Base. It was full of facts about
the base and also contained several pictures of the base and surrounding area as well as
anti-missile defense systems.
Block, Ben. “Arctic Melting May Lead to Expanded Oil Drilling.” World Watch. Accessed April
1, 2016. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5664.
This source was from an official think tank and I used it for concrete details when
describing U.S. oil field claims.
Callaghan, Terry V. and Mark Nuttall, ed. The Arctic: Environment, People, Policy. Amsterdam:
Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000.
I never explicitly cited this source in the paper, but it contains thought-provoking
information on indigenous peoples of the Arctic that I may want to explore later. I was
impressed at the amount of research done to put the book together.
CIA World Factbook, Transnational Issues: United States. Accessed April 1, 2016.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.
Being a CIA publication, I thoroughly trusted this source. The United States World
Factbook page did not contain much information about the Arctic, but I thought it was of
particular interest that the Arctic was mentioned as a key transnational issue for the U.S.
Conley, Heather A. and Caroline Rohloff. New Ice Curtain: Russia’s Strategic Reach to the
Arctic. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
I personally love this source and used it more in the last paper to analyze Russia’s actions
in the Arctic, but the comparisons that I could make with the U.S. by reading this source
Mackowiak 13
helped me to analyze what the relations between Russia and the United States may look
like in the future.
Cowling, James. “Arctic oil exploration: potential riches and problems.” BBC News. Accessed
April 1, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-14728856.
I liked this source because of the exact numbers it gave in terms of how much oil was at
the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. I used it to quantify the reserves that the U.S. could
possibly harvest from the area near the Bering Sea.
De Beauvais, Sophie, Meechyun Nam-Thompson, and Matthew DeMello. Map Room: Arctic
Militarization. World Policy Institute. Accessed March 4, 2016.
I personally thought this was one of the best maps that could describe the militarization
of the Arctic based on not only the map and locations, but also on the tables that showed
the amount of troops and naval equipment stationed in the Arctic.
Dowdeswell, Julian and Michael Hambrey. Islands of the Arctic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
This source was great to develop a background understanding of Arctic climate and how
it is changing and also the fauna of each Arctic island, which was not necessarily useful
for this paper but was nevertheless interesting.
Haines, John R. “Ali Baba’s Cave: The Sea of Okhotsk’s Contentious Triangle.” Foreign Policy
Research Institute, 2014. Accessed April 1, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.orbis.2014.08.009.
I used this source in the paper centering on Russia’s claims, but it came in handy here
when comparing these claims to what the United States was doing. I found that it applied
to both Russia’s and the U.S.’ involvement in the Arctic.
Henningfeld, Diane A., ed. The North and South Poles. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010.
Mackowiak 14
This was one of the most helpful sources I consulted, and was filled with viewpoints on
both sides of every major argument about the Arctic. I intend to use this source for my
thesis project.
Manar, Elizabeth P., ed. "Arctic and Antarctic Ownership." Worldmark Modern Conflict and
Diplomacy. Vol. 1: 9/11 to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Detroit: Gale, 2014. 56-62. Gale
Virtual Reference Library. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
This source was also useful in gathering basic background information. It was short, but
credible and analytical.
National Center for Public Policy Research. The Law of the Sea (LOST) Background. Accessed
April 1, 2016. http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org/.
This source was especially helpful in describing the Law of the Sea that determines
which territory states legally own off of their coastlines. I needed this to strengthen the
argument of why the U.S. should increase construction on icebreakers.
Reterski, Milosz. “Breaking the Ice,” Foreign Affairs, last modified December 11, 2014.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2014-12-11/breaking-ice.
I had used this source in the last paper that I wrote, but still was able to use it twice in this
one because of its description of the Great Northern Fleet of Russia.
U.S. Concerned About Militarization of the Arctic. Sputnik News. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://sputniknews.com/military/20150901/1026414546.html.
This article was used to demonstrate the United States’ fear toward Russia’s territorial
claims and militarization. It was helpful when explaining why the United States was also
militarizing the Arctic.
United States Department of State. “Arctic.” Accessed March 4, 2016.
Mackowiak 15
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/ocns/opa/arc/.
This source was credible, as it was from the State Department, and it was useful in
understanding Arctic policy. I used it to cite the basic strategy that the U.S. had for
militarizing and protecting national interests in the Arctic.
United States Department of Defense. “United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015
Budget Request.” Undersecretary of Defense, March 2014. Chapters 1-5 – 1-6.
Another credible government source, this was useful when talking about the U.S.
Department of Defense budget for 2015. I thought it was clear and very easy to read and
understand, but I am not sure if it fit in well with the rest of the paper.
The White House, Washington. National Strategy for the Arctic Region.
This source did not have a publication date or authors, but it was official; the presidential
seal was in the center of the title page. It described the three key points on which U.S.
Arctic policy would be focused, the first being advancing U.S. national security interests.
I thought it was helpful in clearly identifying the U.S. plan for the Arctic.