U.S. Arctic Policy

For the past three decades, the Arctic has largely been a venue of international cooperation. For example, the eight countries with territory in the region (the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden) have engaged in joint scientific research. However, rising temperatures from climate change are causing governments to change their behavior. As sea ice disappears on the Arctic Ocean, the region presents opportunities for economic development. Melting ice will lead to the emergence of shipping lanes across the previously impassable area. As a result, some countries have increased their military presence, as the opening of the Arctic Ocean creates strategic advantages and vulnerabilities. With new opportunities and risks emerging, many countries—including the United States—face new decisions in pursuit of their interests in the Arctic.

To many countries, the Arctic offers economic promise. Using trans-Arctic sea routes more frequently could result in shorter shipping times and allow access to remote natural resources. Specifically, the Northern Sea Route (NSR), an emerging trade route along the Russian coast, and the Northwest Passage, which extends through the Canadian archipelago and around the Alaskan peninsula, provide intriguing opportunities for the future of global trade. The NSR could cut times by up to 40 percent. With the shipping industry carrying over 70 percent of all global trade, trans-Arctic routes that reduce trade times could save shippers millions of dollars. Russia and China, which considers itself a “near-Arctic state” without any territorial claims over the region, have made the NSR an economic priority. The two nations have worked together to oversee the route’s development with icebreaker ships and new ports. However, unresolved questions about the extent of Russia’s jurisdiction over the route have sparked concern. Arctic policy experts fear that Russia could exercise undue control over Arctic shipping through the NSR. Developing infrastructure and investing in ice-breaking capability along the NWP could ensure unfettered U.S. access to Arctic shipping during the passage’s open season. However, some economists worry that developing maritime routes in the Arctic is not worth the considerable investment required to develop ports; they argue that existing routes remain far easier than the unpredictable and dangerous waters of the NWP. 

The Arctic also exposes new strategic challenges. Russia has taken advantage of melting ice to increase its military activity in the Arctic. The Kremlin has conducted military drills and reopened over fifty bases along the NSR. Russia’s growing military presence could strengthen its influence over shipping on the NSR. This development would provide Russia with strategic economic leverage over the West. Moreover, U.S. strategists worry that Russian military activity in the Arctic exposes vulnerabilities in national security. Russia’s growing presence in the Arctic could disrupt crucial lines of communication between the United States and its allies in Europe or hinder their movements in the region. Some security experts argue for greater U.S. military presence and cold-weather capabilities to check Russia’s control. These security experts find it critical that the United States constrain any strategic advantage Russia could gain from activities in the Arctic. However, U.S. military buildup in the Arctic bears risk as well. It could backfire and provoke greater Russian aggression or lead to miscalculations that spark a military conflict.

Despite emerging opportunities and challenges, many policymakers argue that countries need to preserve cooperation in the Arctic, especially in the face of climate change. Environmental experts note that increased traffic will destabilize fragile ecosystems and communities already weathering the effects of global warming. As warming temperatures make previously untouched reserves of minerals, oil, and gas more accessible. The opportunity for increased mining and extraction of these resources will threaten to worsen the environmental damage. These experts advocate for the United States to prioritize cooperation on sustainable development and scientific research. Instead of prioritizing economic or military aims in the region, environmentalists believe that Arctic policy should revolve around securing the livelihoods of Arctic communities as climate change intensifies. However, economic and security development in the Arctic is already well underway, threatening an already precarious environmental situation. Moving forward, policy experts will have to weigh the question of how to maintain cooperation without adversely affecting U.S. interests.