[Issue Briefing] America's Future Strategy Hidden in Arctic Glaciers

Editor's Note

This Issue Briefing is a product of the "Think Tank Joint Research" initiative, led by Yeo Si Jae (與時齋) and conducted in collaboration with major domestic think tanks. It was originally published on the Yeo Si Jae website on July 25, 2017. The United States, based in the Alaska region, is recognized as an Arctic coastal state and exerts influence over various issues related to transportation, military affairs, resource extraction, and sovereignty in the region. However, while leading international affairs research institutions, political figures, and prominent academics in the U.S. are emphasizing the importance of the Arctic and proposing measures for resource allocation to secure influence, the Trump administration has not yet shown significant interest in solidifying America's position in this region. In particular, by planning to cut the budgets of departments directly responsible for Arctic issues, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, there is a risk of falling behind Russia and China in terms of human and material resources necessary for Arctic exploration and international cooperation. Amidst this situation, U.S. experts on Arctic affairs are keenly observing how cooperation between Russia and China will unfold in the Arctic region.

From the Main Text

"Above all, Alaska is the key to understanding U.S. Arctic policy, as the way U.S. policymakers and scholars view America is inevitably shaped by referencing historical precedents in the management and strategic, political, and economic utilization of the Alaska region."

"Most importantly, disputes over sovereignty in the Arctic territorial waters are only just beginning. Despite the Council having been established for 20 years, the reason sovereignty issues have remained relatively quiet until now is that discussions have been concentrated on areas where cooperation is essential and feasible, such as disaster management and rescue operations, and negotiations and cooperation have generally proceeded in a manner where scholars from various countries take the lead, with their respective governments endorsing and supporting these efforts."

"What is interesting is that Russia is proceeding with negotiations in strict compliance with international legal norms and procedures, a stark contrast to its actions in the Crimean Peninsula or eastern Ukraine, as pointed out by Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Europe Program. This is evidence that Russia is pursuing an assertive foreign policy while carefully distinguishing between parties and situations. The decisive difference is that the parties involved in Arctic issues are mid-level powers with military and diplomatic capabilities (unlike Ukraine), and crucially, they are NATO member states."

"The most effective and efficient way to protect America's Arctic coastline, continental shelf exceeding 600,000 kilometers, and the vast resources beneath the surface is not through force, but through the power of laws and rules. Experts warn that the situation where the U.S. remains outside the conventions signed by the remaining Arctic coastal states, including Russia, will negatively impact not only the protection of U.S. national interests in the Arctic region but also the maintenance and management of the international order led by the U.S. in the long term."

"This situation cannot be seen as a spillover effect where cooperation in so-called low politics, such as economics, culture, and private exchange, promotes cooperation in high politics like military, security, and territorial issues, nor the reverse where conflicts in high politics overwhelm cooperation in low politics. Instead, it can be viewed as a parallel or division structure on an issue-by-issue basis. And the ability to address issues on a case-by-case basis is possible because realist factors—the existence of a hegemon, the checks and balances of strong alliances—support normative factors—international law. This is the common premise underlying the analysis of Arctic issues by U.S. think tanks. In other words, for the U.S. to secure and strengthen its military, economic, and political dominance in the Arctic region, it must first create a virtuous cycle by investing more physical, military, and human resources than before, while simultaneously gaining legitimacy by adhering to existing norms, and based on this, proactively shaping new norms conducive to economic profit generation."

"If Trump's 'pro-fossil fuel' stance, exemplified by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and issuing executive orders facilitating offshore oil and gas drilling, is equally applied to U.S. Arctic policy, America's Arctic, including Alaska, could emerge as a center for oil and gas production. However, this too remains a possibility. Without public services and infrastructure to support development, and more importantly, without the government taking the lead in establishing safety measures that are increasingly required in harsh climates and environments, there is a significant risk of forfeiting not only political and strategic advantages but even the economic benefits expected from the Arctic."

EAI Issue Briefings provide expert diagnoses and analyses for a correct understanding of major domestic and international issues, and offer recommendations for desirable policy formulation. EAI strives to produce ideas needed by our society by providing a balanced perspective and creating a forum for constructive policy discussions.