 |
|
Melting Borders: Economic and National Security Concerns Associated with Arctic IcemeltBy Dick Rumpf, George Backus, D.Eng, and Jean Millick
The attack submarine USS Annapolis (SSN 760) rests in the Arctic Ocean after surfacing through three feet of ice during Ice Exercise 2009 on March 21, 2009. Photo: US Navy: The Arctic region is rapidly changing in a way that will have long-term effects on the rest of the world. The Arctic Icemelt is opening the Arctic Ocean to the possibility for shorter commercial shipping routes, access to untapped mineral resources, and expanded commercial fishing. This region is poised to become a strategic link in the global supply chain, likely with northern Russia as its main hub. The potential for conflict is increasing since boundaries and international laws are not well defined or accepted by everyone. As the ice pack melts, borders are being redrawn resulting in increasing tension and fears of future conflicts over shifting borders and newly accessible resources. Five nations have territorial claims in the Arctic: Russia, Canada, the U.S., Denmark, and Norway. Other nations, with no Arctic coastlines, are also showing interest. Economic Concerns The Arctic Icemelt provides several significant economic concerns due to the ability to significant increase shipping, infrastructure and processing development along the route. There will also be increased economic and strategic competition among nations vying for influence in this region. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) is the shortest link between Western Europe and Eastern Asia, connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans along the northern coast of Russia. The Northwest Passage (NWP) also connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; however, it tends to be less navigable than the NSR. As a result, open Arctic shipping routes could reduce transportation costs by an average of 40% on key Asian-European routes, cutting some distances by two-thirds. Such reductions could attract up to 80% of the global transportation market during ice-free periods of the year. The NSR route has additional advantages over other shipping routes including avoidance of cargo ship size restrictions imposed by the canals and the increasing piracy problems in the Indian and Eastern Pacific Oceans. If Arctic trade and supply chains develop as predicted, the balance of political and economic power will rely on the use and control of these routes.
“Arctic sea routes - Northern sea route and Northwest passage.” UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. 2007. UNEP/GRID-Arendal. http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/arctic-sea-routes-northern-sea-route-and-northwest-passage. National Security Concerns The opening of the Arctic presents many security challenges due to the potential for changing global economic power balances and could lead to large conflicts. Disagreements over its control are becoming more confrontational. International law states that countries have resource management and exploitation control over territorial waters extending 200 nautical miles beyond their Territorial Sea Baseline that is 12 nautical miles from the coastlines low water mark. However, Russia is claiming a bigger slice maintaining that the seabed under the Arctic is part of the Siberian continental shelf. The Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty and seeks to control its 200 nautical miles of Arctic waters. In 2008, Canada conducted its largest military exercise in the region and committed $40 million to scientific research projects to support its Arctic seabed claims. Canada has declared that the now-opening Northwest Passage cannot be traversed without passing through its territorial waters, a view rejected by the U.S. and European nations. The Arctic has become a prime focus for Russia’s economic growth as demonstrated by its expanding military presence and its massive Arctic nonrenewable energy projects. The Russian Security Council has drafted the “The Fundamentals of State Policy on the Arctic up to 2020”. The document affirms the need to ensure “the transformation of the Arctic zone into the main strategic resource base of the Russian Federation.” President Medvedev stated: “The main issue is that of reliably protecting our national interests in the region.” Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian envoy to NATO feels that NATO has no business in the Arctic and has declared, “I refuse to discuss possible cooperation, including military cooperation, in the Arctic with my NATO colleagues”. Russia intends to establish a separate military force to enhance security and is expanding its fleet of Arctica-class nuclear icebreakers to make possible year-round navigation in the western section of the Northern Sea Route. In addition, there are also plans to double the capacity of the northern port of Murmansk by 2015. Norway and its Nordic neighbors are weighing a possible military pact to defend each other against potential aggression on the Arctic. The ‘pact’ was recommended in a February report commissioned by the governments of Norway, Demark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland and will be considered at a May summit of foreign ministers from these nations. Other nations, without Arctic coastlines, are also showing interest. The Chinese sent an icebreaker for its third Arctic expedition last summer. They have been given an observer status to the Arctic Council and plan to install the first Chinese long-term deep-sea monitoring system in the Arctic to keep an eye on marine changes. They are also studying the implications of global warming on their own climate. South Korean and Singaporean shipyards are building massive new icebreakers and ice-strengthened tankers to navigate new Arctic routes. Meanwhile, Japan is closely watching the shorter shipping routes opening up in the region. Challenges Economic expansion in and strategic use of the Arctic provides challenges. Lucrative prospects have ignited a fierce competition between nations with Arctic coastlines. A United Nations advisory committee established by a provision in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is currently reviewing Russia’s claim to the Arctic seabed. The U.S. is the only Arctic nation not represented on the 21-country Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf since it has not ratified UNCLOS, a United Nations text on maritime rights drafted in 1982. The U.S. signed the convention’s text in 1994 after securing changes to certain provisions deemed against U.S. interests. But Congress never ratified the treaty, despite a lobbying effort by former President George W. Bush in 2007. On January 9, 2009 President Bush issued a “National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive” on Arctic Region Policy whose first two directives were to 1) meet national security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic region and 2) protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources. The Obama Administration must expand on the Bush Arctic Policy to keep the U.S. a viable player in the Arctic region. Unfortunately, the need to replenish the U.S. geriatric icebreaker fleet was dealt a setback when $122 million for the Coast Guard polar icebreakers was fully eliminated from the Stimulus Bill. A 2006 study by the National Research Council recommended replacing the 30-year old Polar-class ships. Having transferred all of its icebreakers to the Coast Guard in 1966, the U.S. Navy has no ice-hardened surface ships. Arctic policy for the U.S. is coordinated by the State Department. On April 6, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted the first joint session of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and the Arctic Council. According to State Department press release, these groups are “the two most important bodies involved with diplomacy at the Poles.” The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental forum whose member nations include Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S.. The Council provides means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. Economic expansion and strategic use of the Arctic will provide challenges to the Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard), Department of Defense, Department of State, Environmental Protection Agency, and Intelligence communities concerning law enforcement, treaties, monitoring, and peacekeeping, marine safety, and protection of the environment. Immediate Steps the U.S. Can Take The U.S. needs to think strategically and develop long-term plans to protect economic and national security concerns in the Arctic. There are some initial steps that could be taken.
These steps will require the full support of the Executive and Congressional branches to understand the enormous National Security and Economic consequences of the rapidly melting Arctic ice and then follow through with the funding to implement the strategy to cope with all the issues in concert with all the involved parties. We can not wait to do business as usual, there is too much at stake. References: Dick Rumpf is President and Chief Executive Officer of Rumpf Associates International (RAI) which provides technical, programmatic, management services, and due diligence analysis to a litany of commercial and government clients. Mr. Rumpf is a former Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Engineering and Systems. Dr. George Backus works at Sandia National Laboratory in the Exploratory Simulation Technologies Department on national security, economic and behavioral simulation, and climate-change impacts. For almost 25 years, he was the president of Policy Assessment Corporation working with multinational corporations and countries on macroeconomic, technology, environmental, and energy policy at the highest levels. He was also the Director of Environmental and Energy Research at Cambridge Econometrics Ltd. (CE), UK. The CE analyses formed the basis for the widely known Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.” He has provided Congressional testimony on market dynamics and deregulation policy and previously taught at Purdue University and Dartmouth College. Ms. Jean Millick is Director of Operations of RAI. She has provided support, technology due diligence and market assessments for both defense and industry clients and has served as the technical representative for trade studies, program reviews, and contract negotiations. |
To subscribe: There is no cost to qualified subscribers who sign up for the e-zine version. Click Here
|
| © Copyright 2009 IDEEA, Inc. | Privacy |