In the last few years, Arctic and non-Arctic states have demonstrated increased attention towards the Arctic region. Climate change and related prospects for increased human activity, including energy extraction and shipping, have contributed to this interest. While some argue that a northern Cold War is in the making, others see new areas for cooperation. What security interests does the United States currently have in the Arctic, and what policies does it pursue to promote them?

As other actors, in particular Russia, Canada and Norway, started to increase their attention towards the region from roughly 2005, the Bush administration showed relatively little interest in Arctic affairs. US strategic interest in the north had remained limited since the end of the Cold War rivalry. However, by the very end of the Bush presidency, the administration issued a presidential directive on Arctic Region Policy, to update US assessments of the north. In this directive, the administration underlined that the United States has broad and fundamental national security interests as well as fundamental homeland security interests in the Arctic. The directive presents both priorities that the US traditionally has had in the region, such as the freedoms of the seas, deployments of sea and air systems, missile defense and early warning, in addition to policy elements more directly affected by the retreating Arctic ice-cap, such as safe maritime activity, energy security and environmental sustainability.

While the directive remains in effect as the Obama administration’s official policy, two policy dimensions are particularly highlighted by Bush’s successor. First, the Obama administration emphasizes the importance of cooperation with Russia in the Arctic, as part of its broader efforts to reset relations with Moscow. Second, the administration more thoroughly underlines environmental security and sustainable development in the region.

Commentators in the United States and elsewhere have cautioned that state interests in the Arctic are clashing. Assertive Russian statements, symbolic actions such as the planting of the Russian flag on the seabed of the North Pole, as well as the restart of strategic bomber flights close to the territory of other Arctic nations, have contributed to media headlines. Nonetheless, the Arctic states do cooperate in the region, especially as seen in the Arctic Council. Moreover, the region’s coastal states agree that there is no need to develop any new specific comprehensive legal regime to govern the Arctic. This was underlined in Ilulissat in 2008, and the parties are meeting again in Chelsea, Canada in late March this year to discuss future reinforcement of Arctic cooperation.

Rather, soft security challenges seem more imminent than traditional ones. For instance, increased activity in the region, including transportation, tourism and resource extraction, brings with it risks of increased criminal activity and accidents. With the unique Arctic conditions and the limited infrastructure available, increased search and rescue capability, as well as equipment to deal with pollution, are matters that need to be addressed. To deal with this, coordination and cooperation among both Arctic and non-Arctic actors are important. Another challenge more specific to the United States, is the unresolved question of US accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Arctic states have agreed upon the law of the sea as the applicable legal framework of Arctic governance, but the US remains a non-party to the Convention, as Senate ratification lingers.

While on the agenda, the Arctic is still quite peripheral to Washington. Russia, Canada and Norway have at an earlier stage and to a more substantial degree emphasized the northern dimension than has the United States. The Obama administration faces a demanding domestic situation and perceives greater challenges to US security in other parts of the world. Still, the US has stated an intention to become a more active and influential actor in the region. Increased focus on relations with Russia and climate change indicates that US Arctic policy may become more closely interlinked with broader American foreign policy goals. While Arctic affairs will probably remain just one issue among many for American policymakers, UNCLOS ratification, committed engagement to safeguard the Arctic environment, in addition to constructive regional cooperation with Russia, may be three ways to bring about a more active US role.

Ingrid Lundestad is a Research Fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies and a participant in the international research program Geopolitics in the High North. Lundestad is also a PhD Candidate at the University of Oslo and currently a Visiting Scholar at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.

Related Material from the Atlantic Community:

• Klaus Dodds: Sea and State Change
• K. S. Yalowitz & R. A. Virginia: The Arctic Region: Great Game or International Cooperation?
• Paal Sigurd Hilde: Norway and the Arctic: The End of Dreams?