more active” U.S. presence and declares, “The United
States has broad and fundamental national security in-
terests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate
either independently or in conjunction with other states
to safeguard these interests.” Among those interests,
according to the policy: missile defense, early warning,
strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime security,
freedom of navigation, and overfl ight.
[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE] It’s no surprise that Gen. Gene Renuart Jr., USAF,
The importance of being able to lawfully claim commander of NORAD and Northern Command, de-
those expanded maritime zones is the key eco- scribes the Arctic as “a region that offers great opportu-
nomic advantage of ratification, according to nities and great challenges to us in the future.”
several supporters. In a coauthored 2007 article In other words, the Pentagon hasn’t been ignoring
in The Wall Street Journal, former Secretaries of the Arctic. The U.S. military holds routine exercises in
State James Baker and George Schultz pointed the region. Polar Lightning, for instance, rotates B-2
out that America’s potential EEZ is larger than bombers into Alaska for regular exercises. Northern Edge
that of any other country in the world. They ar- 2008 featured some 5,000 troops and 120 aircraft oper-
gued that America’s failure to ratify the conven- ating from three different facilities in Alaska. Northern
tion risks forfeiting globally recognized exclusive Edge 2009 involved 9,000 personnel, only a fraction of
rights to a vast supply of natural resources. the 20,000 active duty forces based in Alaska.
MOAA shares the opinion of this country’s uni- In the past decade, Northern Edge drills have in-
formed leadership and many others — including cluded mass airborne drops, port-security operations,
presidents Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton harbor-defense operations, ground-defense maneuvers,
— that the earliest possible UNCLOS ratification is supply-route protection, and critical infrastructure
unequivocally in America’s national interest. After protection — just the sort of operations that might be
27 years of Senate inaction, it’s clearly time to necessary to keep the Arctic and its waterways open or
bring this important treaty to a vote. dissuade Moscow from crossing the line.
— Brig. Gen. Jim Swanson, USAF-Ret., Yet in some ways the U.S. is not as capable in the high
MOAA general counsel north as it should be. CRS reports the U.S. has only three
polar icebreakers, which could prove crucial to defend-
ing U.S. sovereignty and interests. Two of these $800
million ships have exceeded their projected 30-year
recently, the region has been covered by ice year-round. lifespan. Russia, by contrast, deploys 20 icebreakers.
Moreover, most Canadians live along the U.S. border.
In addition, because they relied on NORAD for early United front
warning and on American help in air defenses during onfl ict in the Arctic with Russia is not inevi-
the Cold War, Canadians did not pursue military ca-
pabilities in the Arctic beyond a tiny number of troops
and limited aerial surveillance. Political declarations C
table, but neither is cooperation. The Russia
that shuts off gas supplies bound for Europe
and uses energy and military assets to intimi-
in the 1980s to build a “super icebreaker” and nuclear- date nations from the Arctic Circle all the way to the
powered submarines that would travel under the ice Black Sea is not interested in promoting the free fl ow
cap never came to fruition. and exploration of energy resources. But the U.S., Cana-
da, Denmark, and Norway — all NATO allies — are.
Cold front Given the high stakes, perhaps it’s time for these al-
t seems Canada isn’t the only nation to be lies to take a page from what worked in the Cold War,
I
bracing for a cold front in the Arctic. Finland, close ranks, and present Moscow with a united front.
Norway, and Sweden are developing what The As the past reminds us, Moscow always takes advan-
Economist calls a “Nordic security partner- tage of divisions within the West. And as the present
ship” as a hedge against Russian adventurism in the confi rms, the prospect of cooperation with Moscow is
energy-rich high north. NATO even is contemplating growing increasingly remote.
involvement in the Arctic. Similarly, the ARP, the fi rst To be sure, Russia should be given an opportunity
reappraisal of U.S. Arctic policy since 1994, calls for “a to participate as a partner, perhaps by upgrading the
104 MILITARY OFFICER SEPTEMBER 2009
ILLUSTRATION: RICHARD TUSCHMAN
SSept_ColdWar.indd
104ept_ColdWar.indd 104 77/31/09 1:14 PM/31/09 1:14 PM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132