Download Free Defending U S Economic Interests In The Changing Arctic Is There A Strategy Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Defending U S Economic Interests In The Changing Arctic Is There A Strategy and write the review.

Any Alaskan can tell you our State is ground zero for the changes apparent in the Arctic today. Sea ice disappearing faster than scientific models have predicted; open seas eroding the coastline and thawing permafrost, undercutting our many villages along the coast. And warm water temperatures are changing the migration patterns of our fish and marine mammals. The opening of this fifth ocean has broad implications for our nation. It's been said there's suddenly a lot more water up there, and it's our responsibility. We need to make sure our nation is prepared to fulfill that responsibility and address the implications for national security, energy development, and increased marine shipping and tourism.
The United States must make protection of its environmental and economic interests in the Arctic a major priority; it needs to develop a comprehensive strategy to accomplish this or face being frozen out by the other Arctic nations. Due to drastic climate change, which has increased accessibility to the region, the Arctic region holds increasingly significant implications for the national interests of the United States. This situation is being influenced mainly by four dynamics: climate change, the economy, sovereignty issues, and the environment. This paper examines the elements of each of these dynamics and their specific implications for the United States. The emerging relevance of the Arctic has substantial promise for the United States and other Arctic nations, especially in terms of its potential energy resources. However, the Arctic also is a unique and vulnerable ecosystem. Endangering such an ecosystem could have global impacts that are not yet known, so rushing into the region without having protective regimes and response capabilities in place would be imprudent and irresponsible. The new and dynamic situation in the Arctic presents the United States with opportunities that go beyond the region, and can be used as a catalyst to begin reshaping world opinion, particularly as it concerns foreign affairs, energy policy, and the environment. By effectively using its instruments of national power, the United States can simultaneously secure its own interests while promoting a cooperative regional approach to the issues of an emerging Arctic region. In doing so, the United States could improve its international reputation and influence the security environment worldwide. The proposed U.S. Arctic Strategy could foster a new atmosphere of cooperation in the Arctic that provides for the sustainable development of its vast economic opportunities while protecting it as a critical environment.
The United States is one of eight Arctic nations. Approximately 1,000 miles of the Alaskan coastline border and 200,000 square nautical miles of the U.S. exclusive economic zone are encompassed in the Arctic Ocean. As economic opportunities in the Arctic steadily increase, the U.S. is realizing the strategic importance of the Arctic, but lacks the infrastructure, command and control structure, and Arctic-capable assets to meet national strategic objectives. Since 2009, the U.S. has progressively released strategic documents outlining the U.S. interests and national objectives in the Arctic. Although these documents recognize the increasing interests of the United States in the region, they do not adequately address all the strategic risks at stake in the Arctic and do not provide clear guidance to the Department of Defense (DoD) for defensive lines of effort. The U.S. strategic approach to the Arctic is that of accepting the current stable and conflict free Arctic region as remaining the same in the future. This strategic approach is adequate for the near term; however, it lacks specific guidance to DoD on how to prepare for possible conflict in the future. Recent events involving Russia in the Ukraine and China in the South China Sea provide historical context to the willingness of nations to use military means to defend their national interests. Without adequate defensive posturing, competition over Arctic resources could become the first direct existential threat to U.S. sovereignty. This paper will provide a strategic assessment of the Arctic, from the Department of Defense perspective, and provide recommendations for the combatant commander to prepare defensive lines of effort, should they be needed in 10-15 years or beyond.
The United States is one of eight Arctic nations. Approximately 1,000 miles of the Alaskan coastline border, and 200,000 square nautical miles of the U.S. exclusive economic zone are encompassed in, the Arctic Ocean. As economic opportunities in the Arctic steadily increase, the United States is realizing the strategic importance of the Arctic, but our nation lacks the infrastructure, command and control structure, and Arctic-capable assets to achieve national strategic objectives. Since 2009, the United States has progressively released strategic documents outlining the U.S. interests and national objectives in the Arctic. Although these documents recognize increasing interests of the United States in the region, they do not adequately address all the strategic risks at stake in the Arctic and do not provide clear guidance to the Department of Defense (DoD) for defensive lines of effort. The strategic approach of the United States to the Arctic is one of accepting the current stable and conflict free Arctic region as remaining the same in the future. This strategic approach is adequate for the near term; however, it lacks specific guidance to DoD on how to prepare for possible conflict in the future. Recent events involving Russia in the Ukraine and China in the South China Sea provide historical context to the willingness of nations to use military means to defend their national interests. Without adequate defensive posturing, competition over Arctic resources could become the first direct existential threat to U.S. sovereignty.
A tremendous change in the Arctic climate is causing far-reaching impacts on every nation and on the Earth as a whole. The recent changes in the Arctic create numerous areas of interest for the United States, largely driven by national security and economic goals. Given the multiple US interests in the Arctic, in January 2009, President George W. Bush published a national Arctic strategy: National Security Presidential Directive 66 - Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25). Thereafter, numerous departments and agencies developed their supporting Arctic strategies and conducted studies, assessments, and research. However, the United States has failed to put forth the effort and funding necessary to implement its national strategy as laid out by NSPD 66/HSPD 25. An examination of the national policy, along with the various department and agency policies, exposes the intricacies and shallowness of the different assorted Arctic policies. Finally, a detailed assessment of actions taken by US Government departments and agencies in the seven areas laid out in the USG policy, reveals poor overall implementation of policy, which if not corrected, will leave the US militarily, politically, environmentally, and economically vulnerable in the Arctic.
Our vision for the Arctic protects and advances U.S. interests in the region, including providing for homeland security and defense; mitigating and building resilience to climate change and ecosystem degradation; expanding U.S. economic opportunities; protecting and improving livelihoods, including for Alaska Native communities; and upholding international law, rules, norms, and standards across Arctic countries. This National Strategy for the Arctic Region updates its 2013 predecessor and builds on established U.S. Arctic region policy1 to reflect changes to the strategic environment and to set forth the U.S. government’s approach to realizing this vision. This strategy addresses the climate crisis with greater urgency and directs new investments in responsible economic development to improve livelihoods for Arctic residents, while conserving the environment. It also acknowledges increasing strategic competition in the Arctic since 2013 and seeks to position the United States to both effectively compete and manage tensions. The strategy articulates an affirmative U.S. agenda for the Arctic over the next ten years and provides a framework for how the U.S. government will respond to emerging challenges and opportunities in the region.
The Arctic environment is in a state of flux and the U.S. government must be prepared to handle the evolution and capitalize on the opportunities. Once barren and desolate, the Arctic is slowly coming to life with industry and commerce brought about by receding ice conditions. Along with that comes the need for a comprehensive and actionable Arctic policy. The other Arctic nations that ring the North Pole are quickly adapting to the shifting Arctic. Unlike the U.S., they have established Arctic policies, are implementing plans to operate in the region, and taking advantage of the opportunities that this new frontier has to offer. The U.S. framework is the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. The plan is short on detail and aspirational in nature. It lacks clear direction and authority. The U.S. has yet to commit to its role as an Arctic nation. The U.S. Arctic lacks infrastructure such as a deep-water port, a joint military base, and additional heavy icebreaker assets. Additionally, there is no lead agency that has authority and funding to carry out U.S. Arctic objectives. Under the current state of affairs, the U.S. is vulnerable to security, economic, and sovereignty issues in the Arctic. CHAPTER I * INTRODUCTION * A. RESEARCH QUESTION * B. PROBLEM SPACE * C. THESIS ROADMAP * D. METHOD * E. LITERATURE REVIEW * CHAPTER II * ASSEMBLING THE EVIDENCE - REVIEW OF CURRENT U.S. ARCTIC FRAMEWORK * A. U.S. HAS AN ARCTIC "WISH LIST" (NOT POLICY) * 1. The U.S. is Not a Signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) * 2. The U.S. is an Active Member of the Arctic Council * CHAPTER III * CONSTRUCT THE ALTERNATIVES: THE OTHER NATIONS' ARCTIC STRATEGIES * A. CANADA * 1. Exercising Arctic Sovereignty * 2. Sovereignty and Increased Military Presence * 3. Arctic Council * 4. International Cooperation * 5. Protecting the Nation's Environmental Heritage * 6. Promoting Social and Economic Development * 7. Indigenous Relations * 8. Improving and Devolving Northern Governance * 9. Summary and Analysis * B. RUSSIAN FEDERATION * 1. Military Presence to Promote Security * 2. UNCLOS * 3. Arctic Council * 4. Economic and Natural Resource Development * 5. Summary and Analysis * C. KINGDOM OF DENMARK * 1. Sovereignty and Security * 2. Respectful Development of Resources and Environmental Protection * 3. International Cooperation (UNCLOS and the Arctic Council) * 4. Summary and Analysis * D. NORWAY * 1. UNCLOS and International Cooperation * 2. Role of the Arctic Counsel in Norway * 3. Summary and Analysis * E. SWEDEN * 1. International Cooperation * 2. Indigenous People * 3. Climate Monitoring * 4. Marine Transportation * 5. Summary and Analysis * F. FINLAND * 1. Environment and Climate * 2. Economic Activities * 3. Transport/Infrastructure * 4. Treatment of Indigenous People of the Arctic * 5. Regional and International Cooperation * 6. Arctic Council * 7. Summary and Analysis * G. ICELAND * 1. UNCLOS * 2. Arctic Council * 3. Upholding Security Interests * 4. Indigenous People * 5. Summary and Analysis * H. NON-ARCTIC STATES * CHAPTER IV * SELECT THE CRITERIA - WHAT ARE THE GAPS IN THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK WHEN COMPARED WITH ALTERNATIVES?. * 1. Long-Term Maritime Governance * 2. Native Population Needs * 3. Infrastructure Development * CHAPTER V * PROJECT THE OUTCOMES AND CONFRONT THE TRADE-OFFS - THE RISKS IN THE MARITIME DOMAIN IF THE U.S. DOES NOT CREATE AN EFFECTIVE ARCTIC POLICY * A. RISK TO SAFETY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY AT SEA DUE TO A LACK OF SEARCH AND RESCUE (SAR) ASSETS AND FACILITIES * 1. Potential Environmental Damage, and Interruption of Native Subsistence Whaling/Fishing Due to a Lack of Oil Spill-Response Equipment * 2. Risk To Sovereignty/ Natural Resource Claims Due to Not Acceding to UNCLOS * 3. Maritime Domain Awareness as a Means of Increasing Sovereignty * CHAPTER VI * FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS * A. COORDINATION AND DESIGNATION OF A LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY * B. INFRASTRUCTURE * C. MULTI-USE/JOINT BA