In this March 19, 2011 photo released by the U.S. Navy, crew members look out from the USS Connecticut, a Sea Wolf-class nuclear submarine, after it surfaced through ice in the Arctic Ocean. The U.S. and other countries are building up their military presence in the Arctic to help exploit its riches – and protect shifting borders. (AP Photo/U.S. Navy, Cmdr. Christy Hagen) |
YOKOSUKA,
Japan (AP)—To the world’s military leaders, the debate over climate
change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in
the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a
treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of
potential conflicts.
By
Arctic standards, the region is already buzzing with military activity,
and experts believe that will increase significantly in the years
ahead.
Last
month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers
ever—Exercise Cold Response—with 16,300 troops from 14 countries
training on the ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror
threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were
killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of
Kebnekaise, Sweden’s highest mountain.
The
U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an
unprecedented move, the military chiefs of the eight main Arctic
powers—Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and
Finland—gathered at a Canadian military base last week to specifically
discuss regional security issues.
None
of this means a shooting war is likely at the North Pole any time soon.
But as the number of workers and ships increases in the High North to
exploit oil and gas reserves, so will the need for policing, border
patrols and—if push comes to shove—military muscle to enforce rival
claims.
The
U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13% of the world’s
undiscovered oil and 30% of its untapped natural gas is in the
Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030
as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a
National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last
year.
What
countries should do about climate change remains a heated political
debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving
ahead with strategies that assume current trends will continue.
Russia,
Canada and the United States have the biggest stakes in the Arctic.
With its military budget stretched thin by Iraq, Afghanistan and more
pressing issues elsewhere, the United States has been something of a
reluctant northern power, though its nuclear-powered submarine fleet,
which can navigate for months underwater and below the ice cap, remains
second to none.
Russia—one-third
of which lies within the Arctic Circle—has been the most aggressive in
establishing itself as the emerging region’s superpower.
Rob
Huebert, an associate political science professor at the University of
Calgary in Canada, said Russia has recovered enough from its economic
troubles of the 1990s to significantly rebuild its Arctic military
capabilities, which were a key to the overall Cold War strategy of the
Soviet Union, and has increased its bomber patrols and submarine
activity.
He
said that has in turn led other Arctic countries—Norway, Denmark and
Canada—to resume regional military exercises that they had abandoned or
cut back on after the Soviet collapse. Even non-Arctic nations such as
France have expressed interest in deploying their militaries to the
Arctic.
“We
have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the
world now opening up,” Huebert said. “There are numerous factors now
coming together that are mutually reinforcing themselves, causing a
buildup of military capabilities in the region. This is only going to
increase as time goes on.”
Noting
that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, the
U.S. Navy in 2009 announced a beefed-up Arctic Roadmap by its own task
force on climate change that called for a three-stage strategy to
increase readiness, build cooperative relations with Arctic nations and
identify areas of potential conflict.
“We
want to maintain our edge up there,” said Cmdr. Ian Johnson, the
captain of the USS Connecticut, which is one of the U.S. Navy’s most
Arctic-capable nuclear submarines and was deployed to the North Pole
last year. “Our interest in the Arctic has never really waned. It
remains very important.”
In this Monday, March 12, 2012 photo, a sentry patrols beside the USS Connecticut, a Sea Wolf-class nuclear attack submarine, during a port call at a U.S. naval base at Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, Japan. The submarine took part in exercises at the North Pole in 2011 to improve the U.S. Navy’s operations in the Arctic. To the world’s military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts. (AP Photo/Greg Baker) |
But
the U.S. remains ill-equipped for large-scale Arctic missions,
according to a simulation conducted by the U.S. Naval War College. A
summary released last month found the Navy is “inadequately prepared to
conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic” because it lacks
ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice, support facilities and
adequate communications.
“The
findings indicate the Navy is entering a new realm in the Arctic,” said
Walter Berbrick, a War College professor who participated in the
simulation. “Instead of other nations relying on the U.S. Navy for
capabilities and resources, sustained operations in the Arctic region
will require the Navy to rely on other nations for capabilities and
resources.”
He
added that although the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet is a major asset,
the Navy has severe gaps elsewhere—it doesn’t have any icebreakers, for
example. The only one in operation belongs to the Coast Guard. The U.S.
is currently mulling whether to add more icebreakers.
Acknowledging
the need to keep apace in the Arctic, the United States is pouring
funds into figuring out what climate change will bring, and has been
working closely with the scientific community to calibrate its response.
“The
Navy seems to be very on board regarding the reality of climate change
and the especially large changes we are seeing in the Arctic,” said Mark
C. Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences University
of Colorado. “There is already considerable collaboration between the
Navy and civilian scientists and I see this collaboration growing in the
future.”
The
most immediate challenge may not be war—both military and commercial
assets are sparse enough to give all countries elbow room for a
while—but whether militaries can respond to a disaster.
Heather
Conley, director of the Europe program at the London-based Center for
Strategic and International Studies, said militaries probably will have
to rescue their own citizens in the Arctic before any confrontations
arise there.
“Catastrophic
events, like a cruise ship suddenly sinking or an environmental
accident related to the region’s oil and gas exploration, would have a
profound impact in the Arctic,” she said. “The risk is not
militarization; it is the lack of capabilities while economic
development and human activity dramatically increases that is the real
risk.”
Source: The Associated Press