Transition Note 6 | Charting a course in the Far North is imperative
This article is part of a series of posts by ISD staff and fellows — Transition Notes — which provide insights and recommendations on key foreign policy issues as the federal government transitions to a new administration under President-elect Biden.
Want to stay up-to-date with the latest from The Diplomatic Pouch? Sign up for our newsletter, This month in diplomacy.
With little fanfare, and overshadowed by tumultuous domestic events over the subsequent week, the United States Navy published its Strategic Blueprint for the Arctic on January 5. Among other steps, the document outlines how the Navy will increase its presence in the Arctic, step up cooperation with regional allies, and — while short on specifics — how it will implement much needed infrastructure upgrades.
The Blueprint came just days after the latest National Defense Authorization Act authorized the creation of up to six new icebreakers, although the law has only provided partial funding for three so far. Currently, the United States only has one functioning icebreaker; Russia, a key competitor in the region, has over 40.
The Blueprint’s release comes as a reminder for the incoming Biden administration. Investment in Arctic policy should no longer be an afterthought in national security strategy and diplomacy, not least so the United States can keep pace with its authoritarian competitors round the world.
Open — and potentially turbulent — seas ahead
ISD’s research has shown that the Arctic is a microcosm of some of the most pressing diplomatic and national security challenges that the United States will face in the years ahead. In the Far North, issues pertaining to Russia, China, and climate change intersect in a unique way. This presents both problems and possibilities.
The rapidly changing Arctic — it is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe — will have profound environmental, social, cultural, economic, and geopolitical effects that extend well beyond the region. Warmer temperatures and melting ice cause rising seas and increasingly strong and unpredictable storms around the globe, and pose new ecological risks to local livelihoods. But less ice for longer periods each year also brings the promise of new transportation routes and access to natural resources. These opportunities do not come without challenges. There will be more sea traffic in a region lacking infrastructure, environmental safety measures, and widespread search and rescue capabilities.
Strategic competition
Beyond the need for nations and organizations to build new infrastructure and increase their regional presence, governments have militarized the Arctic in a way not seen since the Cold War, with the potential to create a spiraling security dilemma between geopolitical rivals. In recent years, Russia has increased its infrastructure and militarization of its Arctic region. Some of this is to be expected, as roughly one-third of Russia lies in the Arctic, but it also adds to growing geopolitical tensions between Russia and the United States and its allies.
The strategic significance of an open Arctic has also begun to bring in non-Arctic nations. Declaring itself a “Near-Arctic State,” China released its first official Arctic policy in January 2018, stating its intention “to understand, protect, develop, and participate in the governance of the Arctic” — and build a “Polar Silk Road.” The white paper is not so much a new strategy, but highlights Beijing’s ongoing interests in the Arctic and ties the region firmly into China’s global Belt/Road initiative. The Chinese have been investing in and seeking dual-use scientific expeditions for a number of years.
Over the past four years, the Trump administration has enacted policies to roll back Obama administration environmental regulations in the region in order to open up avenues for resource exploration. Trump administration officials have also aimed harsh rhetoric toward Russia and China, and clashed with fellow Arctic Council members over climate change. These types of actions are unhelpful, especially given a renewed need for a multilateral effort to combat climate change. Washington and others need to work together in coming years to build out Arctic capabilities and ensure the region remains peaceful.
Charting a course
There is no doubt that the incoming Biden team has its hands full on many serious, and daunting, domestic and foreign policy issues.
The Arctic, though, is likely to arrive quickly on senior policymakers’ radar screens due to the multitude of cross-sector issues at play in the Far North. It will help that many Biden administration nominees and appointees had experience in the Obama administration, when the Arctic become more of a policy concern. Likewise, the appointment of former Secretary of State John Kerry as special presidential envoy for climate will almost certainly make the Arctic a high-level issue.
There are a number of ways the incoming administration can approach the Arctic in a way that seeks stability, growth, and collaboration, including:
- Step up shared research and knowledge to encourage effective Arctic policymaking. The Arctic is changing faster than any other region on earth. Without the knowledge upon which to base assumptions, policymakers will be unable — and may at times be unwilling — to create effective strategies for the future as well as policies for today.
- Encourage and support collaboration among regional scientific actors, while better communicating Arctic issues to the public. In many instances, scientific relationships built over years of collaboration help to keep avenues of discussion open during geopolitical tensions, as well as provide pertinent scientific data. Meanwhile, scientists and policymakers alike need to do a better job to explain the science and relevance of the Arctic (to America and the world) to each other and the broader public.
- Commit diplomatic and intelligence capacity to better understand the interests, priorities, and actions of relevant Arctic stakeholders. As the U.S. Coast Guard, Navy, and other military entities build out their capacities in the Far North, the intelligence and diplomatic community needs to do the same. Washington needs to have a better understanding of Russia’s regional endgame, as well as the ability, through timely intelligence, analysis, and diplomacy, to work to steer China’s Arctic policy toward constructive ends.
- Reinvigorate our relationship with allies and partners and work to create an Arctic Council for the 21st Century. As is the case across the board internationally, the Biden administration will need to shore up our relationships with other Arctic nations. The new team should pay special attention to collaboration with Canada on our Arctic approach in order to create a “North American Arctic.” Likewise, there needs to be serious discussion on what reforms, if any, the Arctic Council needs to make in light of the rapidly changing region.
Like it or not, what happens in the Arctic — whether issues of environment, resources and economics, or security — does not stay in the Arctic. U.S. policymakers will need to incorporate the region more holistically into policy.
Kelly McFarland is a U.S. diplomatic historian and the director of programs and research at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. Follow him on Twitter @McFarlandKellyM
Read ISD’s working group report, “The New Arctic: Navigating the Realities, Possibilities, and Problems”:
