Bush Signs Off on New U.S. Arctic Policy
The White House on Monday released a long-awaited document broadly laying out U.S. policy toward the Arctic, a region whose potential for oil, gas, and mineral exploitation is for the first time being unlocked by a historic ice melt driven by climate change.
The presidential directive was issued with just over a week to go in the Bush administration, but the policy review behind it lasted about two years. The last such review was completed in 1994.
"The United States is an Arctic nation, with varied and compelling interests in the region," the new policy states, including "broad and fundamental national security interests . . . and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests."
There are eight countries with land above the Arctic Circle: the United States, Canada, Denmark (through Greenland), Norway, Russia, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. The first five have frontage on the Arctic Ocean, where potential disagreements over economic control of energy deposits would be most likely to play out.
Canada and Russia both have stepped up naval patrol and other military activities along their swaths of the Arctic, and the new U.S. policy envisions that the United States will "assert a more active and influential national presence to protect its Arctic interests and to project sea power throughout the region." It also reiterates the American position that U.S. vessels have the right of international navigation both through the Northwest Passage and through straits along the Northern Sea Route. Those sea lanes are expected to see significantly greater ship traffic as seasonal ice melting continues.
The presidential directive refers to a need to "develop greater capabilities and capacity" to protect U.S. "air, land, and sea borders in the Arctic region." It does not delve into the issue of funding an expansion of the U.S. fleet of ice breakers, as key analysts and, apparently, the U.S. Coast Guard hope to see in the future.
The new policy calls for Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the legal framework for activities in much of the Arctic. The United States is not yet a party.
The document also foresees that "energy development in the Arctic region will play an important role in meeting growing global energy demand." Scientists believe that the Arctic holds major deposits of natural gas and oil. Such energy development, the directive states, should proceed "in an environmentally sound manner."
Environmentalists, however, fear that energy operations, combined with increased shipping, fishing, and tourism, all will create ecological problems in a fragile region where, in general, human activity has been light.
"The Arctic has always been important to us," Paula Dobriansky, the outgoing under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs, said in an interview last year. Arctic issues, she said, need to be handled with "a collective approach."
- Read more about how climate change is triggering a global race for the Arctic.
Reader Comments
White House Directive doesn't go far enough
While the administration gets high marks for getting this new Arctic policy mostly right, unfortunately it does not go far enough. The policy does not specifically call for building new icebreakers, despite the fact the Coast Guard’s few ships are a geriatric bunch desperately in need of revitalization and/or replacement. This is perhaps its biggest flaw. Leaving specific language out for new icebreakers is a major oversight that one can only chalk up to OMB intransigence. The Coast Guard certainly wanted them and fought hard to get specific language towards reenergizing this capability, as did Senator Murkowski who is deserving of tremendous credit for this policy coming together.
The policy also does not authorize the US to help give the Arctic Council teeth to empower it to deal with security issues. The policy specifically says it should stay neutered and operate within its limited mandate.
For a full analysis, visit http://securitydebrief.adfero.com/new-us-arctic-policy-gets-it-mostly-right/
NW Passage
I dont understand why the us really wants our land!!! It' s ours and you never know. Somewhere underneath that ice there could be something rare that the world needs. This is why Bush wants our land. He also wants room to travle freely but if the canadians give that land to the U.S then Canada will be sandwiched inbetween the U.S and then whho knows what could happen??
NW Passage
The US only cares because of the legal precedent that recognizing the NW Passage might have on other contested straits that are crucial to its freedom of navigation. The question is, why does Canada care? Under UNCLOS, we have the right to protect and environmentally regulate waters up to 200 miles from our coast regardless of whether it's internal or international, along with rights to all of the resources in the NW Passage and our Arctic waters. In practical terms, virtually nothing would change should the status of the NW Passage be determined to be an international strait. A lot of things need attention and resources in the Canadian North. The NW Passage should not be atop the list.
advertisement









