MILITARIZATION of the ARCTIC by Randle Steinbeck

MILITARIZATION OF THE ARCTIC By Randle Steinbeck

INTRODUCTION

The United States is an Arctic nation and as such, the region’s security situation has a direct impact on US national security as well as upon American interests. For instance, strategic maritime trade routes important to both the modern global economy as well as naval operations exist in the Arctic region both east of the US within the Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom – Norwegian (GIUK-N) gap A map of disputed and west of the US within the Bering Strait. Arctic territory Territorially, eight nations compose the Arctic, but the United Center for International States does not recognize any other nations’ claims to Arctic status. Maritime Security Four of these nations are NATO allies: Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark (with Arctic territory vis-à-vis Greenland), Iceland, and Norway. Two are NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partners (EOP): Finland and Sweden. The final Arctic nation is the Russian Federation. Enhanced Historically, the nations with claims to the Arctic region have Opportunities cooperated. However, this situation’s instability continues to rise. Partners (EOP) – Although a low near-term conflict threat exists, this growing five nations with volatility could increasingly threaten the United States, her allies, especially close and global security. relations to NATO Ultimately, several key dynamics currently affect this change. that include regular, Primary among them is the Arctic’s changing physical environment. political consultations With declining levels of sea ice coverage, snow cover, and ice sheets on security matters; due to climate change, the human presence has rapidly increased in enhanced access to the region. In fact, temperatures in the region are increasing at more interoperability; than twice the rate of the global average. The Arctic is predicted to information sharing; experience nearly ice-free late summers as early as the 2040s. This closer association in process has profoundly altered access to previously inaccessible times of crisis mineral and biological resources as well as oil and gas reserves and

HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS

has increased commercial shipping on two trans-Atlantic sea routes (most importantly the Northern Sea Route [NSR]). Furthermore, this change adversely affects existing Department of Defense (DoD) infrastructure and complicates new infrastructure development.

EXPLANATION OF THE ISSUE

Historical Development Canada was the first nation to claim large swaths of soverign Arctic territory in 1925, followed by the Soviet Union in 1926. Soon after, the US, Norway, and Denmark followed suit, setting up today’s Arctic Area that the territorial situation. These claims became internationally recognized US holds claim to in 1999 with the adoption of United Nations Convention on the Law via Alaska as of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is important to note that in the absence of Defined by ARPA Senate advice and consent to adherence, the United States is not a (in Green) party to the convention and agreement. Allison Gaylord, NUNA Militarization of the Arctic region began in 1957 when the USS Technologies for the IARPC Nautilus made a completely submerged transit of the North Pole. During the Cold War, the Arctic represented a key strategic location for both the US and USSR, and since the 1950s, the region has hosted key infrastructure for Russian nuclear programs, particuraly on the Kola Peninsula. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1991, the strategic need for a Russian sea passage intensifed due to the loss of several port cities on the Baltic and the Black Sea.

The United States as an Arctic Nation

An important note with regard to any policy concerning the Arctic: as previously mentioned, the United States is indeed an Arctic

nation by virtue of Alaska, and the nation has substantial political, Diagram that economic, energy, security, and other interests in the region. showcases the rules However, Alaska is geographically separated and distant from the of the sea according continental United States. As such, a 2018 research paper on the US to UNCLOS national identity within the Arctic region asked respondents to rate, UNESCO on a scale from 1 to 7 with higher numbers indicating stronger agreement, how much they believed the US is an Arctic nation. Americans’ average rating was 3.51, below the scale midpoint [of 4.0]. A plurality of respondents (27%) answered with a score of one, indicating the strongest disagreement. In a separate comparative survey, Americans indicated a stronger sense of being a Pacific nation than an Arctic one. Thus, despite their importance, policies regarding the Arctic will likely have to be “sold” to constituents, and even fellow members of Congress, as most Americans do not feel strong affinity towards being an Arctic nation.

Scope of the Problem A large factor affecting the strategic environment of the Arctic is Unipolar Moment the larger geopolitical shift away from the unipolar moment to the – a term coined by current international security situation, which features renewed political columnist great power competition with China and Russia and challenges to the Charles US-led international order. Krauthammer to Russia in the Arctic describe a brief period Russia is the largest Arctic power in terms of landmass, of American population, and military presence in the region. The nation views hegemony in the late itself as the traditional, dominant power in the region. 80’s to late 90’s Currently, Russia asserts that a large portion of the NSR is hegemony territorial waters, not international, and requires foreign vessels to obtain government permission from the nation, hire Russian ice pilots, and sail under the escort of Russian ice breakers before entering this important trade route. Additionally, Russia has attempted to restrict the movement of foreign warships in the Arctic Ocean. Continuous military investment has matched Russian commercial interests in the Arctic region, particularly with activities to strengthen its territorial defense and bolster control of the NSR. In 2014, updated Russian military documents declared that that one of the main tasks of the Armed Forces is to promote "national interests of the Russian Federation in the Arctic." Consequently, the Northern Fleet Joint Strategic Command formed to coordinate this reemphasis on the Arctic. The organization stands as Russia’s largest naval fleet with most of the missile-carrying strategic submarines. Since then, Russia has constructed 14 new operational airfields and 16 deep-water ports in the Franz Josef Archipelago and across the region. It formed a new Arctic brigade and put into operation early warning radars, air defense and coastal missile systems, and sensors in the region. Map that shows Russian Military China in the Arctic Instillations with While China does not have the same kind of operational presence Proximity to the or capabilities as Russia, its activities in the Arctic have grown Artic steadily in recent years. Currently, China operates two ice breakers, Council on Foreign the Xuelong and the new Xuelong 2. These civilian research pursuits Relations could support a future Chinese military presence in the Arctic, including the potential deployment of submarines. China views itself as a rising superpower with a corresponding influence across the globe. Despite having no territorial claims in the region, China is increasingly seeking a role in Arctic governance and declared itself a near-Arctic state in January 2018, a status which the United States does not recognize. The same document in which China refers to itself as a “near-Artic” nation links Chinese economic activities in the Arctic to broader strategic objectives through the

Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), referring to trans-Arctic shipping routes as the Polar Silk Road. Furthermore, China maintains research stations in Iceland and Norway, pursues energy development projects such as the Yamal natural gas project in Russia Belt and Road and continues to invest in dual-use infrastructure (i.e. infrastructure Initiative – a global with potential for both civilian and military use). In June 2018, development strategy Russia’s Vnesheconombank and the China Development Bank adopted by China agreed to a deal that commits over $9 billion from China for involving Arcticinfrastructure projects. infrastructure development in 152 Chinese-Russian Cooperation countries to China. While in the eyes of the United States Russia and China are both Many view this as a unfriendly nations, their actions should not be taken as a single way for China to exert unified front against the US. Both nations have their own objectives soft power over these and concerns. In Russia, the question of how to respond to Chinese nations and supplant Arctic activities is a complex one, despite their joint infrastructure US influence. venture. Beyond, economic and developmental cooperation, Russia and China have increasingly worked together on security issues, in part as a mean of counterbalancing US influence. However, Russian officials have remained cautious of China’s growing wealth and power and are particularly concerned with China becoming the dominant power in Eurasia. National Defense Congressional Action Authorization Act – the series of United In March 2015, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator States federal laws Angus King (I-ME) announced the formation of a Senate Arctic specifying the annual Caucus “to spotlight this region and open up a wider conversation budget and about the nation’s future in the region as America prepares to accede expenditures of the to the Chair of the Arctic Council.” U.S. Department of As for congressional legislation, the Arctic is defined in Section Defense 112 of the Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984) as follows: As used in this title, the term “Arctic” means all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers [in Alaska]; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain. This definition includes portions of Alaska that the international community does not consider part of the Arctic, including the Aleutian Islands and areas such as the Seward Peninsula and the Yukon Delta. Section 1071 (Report on an Updated Arctic Strategy) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (HR 5515/S 2987), the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, required the submission of a revised national strategy regarding the Arctic to Congress.

This report, known as the 2019 DoD Arctic Strategy, updated the strategic objectives for the Arctic region and serves as the fundamental document for the United States’ strategy regarding the Arctic region. Ultimately: DoD’s desired end-state for the Arctic is a secure and stable region in which US national security interests are safeguarded, the US homeland is defended, and nations work cooperatively to address shared challenges. Protecting US national security interests in the Arctic will require the Joint Force to sustain its competitive military advantages in the Indo-Pacific and Europe,

Russian military identified in the NDS as key regions of strategic competition, and vehicles roam areas to maintain a credible deterrent for the Arctic region. of the Arctic DoD must be able to quickly identify threats in the Arctic, Huffington Post respond promptly and effectively to those threats, and shape the security environment to mitigate the prospect of those threats in the future. The 2019 DoD Arctic strategy outlines three strategic ways in support of the desired Arctic end-state: • Building Arctic awareness; • Enhancing Arctic operations; and, • Strengthening the rules-based order in the Arctic.

Furthermore, the strategy lists “three broad, interlocking sets of national security interests related to the Arctic region: the Arctic as the US homeland, the Arctic as a shared region, and the Arctic as a potential corridor for strategic competition.” At 18 pages long, this strategy should be read in its entirety (the link is listed in the Guide to Further Research section). Additionally, in the 115th Congress (2017-2018), Murkowski introduced the Arctic Policy Act of 2018 (S 3739). While this bill did not pass, one of its primary proposals was the creation of an Arctic President Trump Executive Steering Committee to provide interagency guidance and signing the coordination with regards to Arctic policy. This committee would Department of have been chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and Defense included the head of the National Security Council, a deputy Appropriations Act secretary or higher rank from the Office of the Director of National Unian Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and others. Of particular note as well, the Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S Rept 115-290 of June 28, 2018) on S 3159 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019), states the following: Arctic Broadband Infrastructure. —The Committee is concerned that broadband infrastructure in the Arctic, particularly in northern Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, is not capable of supporting current military operations. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an evaluation of broadband infrastructure in the United States Arctic and provide a report to the congressional defense

committees not later than 180 days after enactment of this act. The report shall list an inventory of all existing broadband and communications infrastructure in the Aleutian Island chain and Alaska’s northwest and northern slope communities, as well as present limitations and needs for the future. Other Policy Action As a multifaceted issue regarding multiple nations and international bodies, a large amount of policy action has been taken outside of Congress (and might be useful to consider when crafting

Sen. Lisa solutions). Murkowski (R-AK) On January 12, 2009, the George W. Bush Administration has advocated for released National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland control of the Arctic Security Presidential Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25), establishing region a new US policy for the Arctic region. The directive states that the New York Times United States is an Arctic nation with varied and compelling interests in the region, sets forth a six-element overall U.S. policy for the region, describes U.S. national security and homeland security interests in the Arctic, and discusses a number of issues as they relate to the Arctic including international governance, the extended continental shelf and boundary issues, promotion of international scientific cooperation, maritime transportation, economic issues including energy, and environmental protection and conservation of natural resources. In May 2010, the Obama Administration released a national American strategy security strategy document stating: is said to be “built The United States is an Arctic Nation with broad and on three lines of fundamental interests in the Arctic region, where we seek to meet our national security needs, protect the environment, responsibly effort: Advance manage resources, account for indigenous communities, support United States scientific research, and strengthen international cooperation on Security Interests, a wide range of issues. Pursue Responsible Arctic A more substantial document was released in May 2013 when the Region Obama Administration released the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, which supplemented rather than superseded the January Stewardship, 2009 Arctic policy directive (NSPD 66/HSPD 25). In this document, Strengthen the American strategy is said to be “built on three lines of effort: International Advance United States Security Interests, Pursue Responsible Arctic Cooperation” Region Stewardship, Strengthen International Cooperation” and would be guided by the following principles: “Safeguard Peace and Stability, Make Decisions Using the Best Available Information, Pursue Innovative Arrangements, Consult and Coordinate with Alaska Natives.” Additionally, on January 21, 2015, President Obama issued Executive Order 13689, entitled “Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic.”

In July 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry announced the appointment of Admiral Robert J. Papp Jr. (Ret.) as the first US Special Representative for the Arctic. The position was tasked with interacting with all ambassadors to the Arctic region. This role has gone unfilled within the Trump Administration.

IDEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS

Conservative View Rather than boil down to a simple conservative/liberal ideological spectrum, the issue of militarization of the Arctic depends

more on the position of the senator as a hawk or a dove on foreign Admiral Robert J. affairs. Although, generally a conservative viewpoint will more likely Papp Jr. (Ret.), the point towards hawkish foreign policies, this is a rather rough rule. first US Special With regard to auxiliary issues concerning this topic, the Representative to conservative viewpoint is split on whether climate change exists or is the Arctic a major political issue. Furthermore, conservatives are likely to agree Jefferson Hosting that many more liberal policies to protect the region environmentally would stifle economic activity. Additionally, while a slight isolationist streak might be found in some conservative circles, most would likely agree that consulting with NATO allies with regards to this matter is necessary. Finally, both the liberal and conservative viewpoint would likely be wary of engaging an international organization or treaty such as UNCLOS to settle debated borders. Liberal View

Once again, the issue of militarization of the Arctic does not fall neatly down partisan lines. Although generally a liberal viewpoint might point towards a more dovish foreign policy, this does not always hold. With regard to auxiliary issues concerning this topic, the liberal viewpoint would likely include provisions to protect the region, especially in terms of environmental concerns.

China is attempting to assert more AREAS OF DEBATE dominance within the Arctic region Because the militarization of the Arctic is not only a domestic and create a Polar issue, but also an international issue, there are many different ways Silk Road the United States could choose to proceed. Below you will find some The Straits Times different proposed pathways and solutions, but you are encouraged

to do your own research as well. Creative and nuanced solutions will include bits and pieces from many different policy pathways. Tradition of Cooperation

Creative and Some observers argue that Arctic states and stakeholders should attempt to maintain the region’s traditional cooperation and low nuanced solutions tensions, working to prevent the competition and tensions that have will include bits developed throughout the world from creeping into the Arctic. These and pieces from observers postulate that the historical equilibrium has successfully many different promoted the interests of Arctic nations across a broad range of policy pathways issues and that in light of contemporary international competition, such a model is needed now more than ever. Currently, NATO encourages the continuation of the cooperation between all of the Arctic states, especially in the areas of environmental crises and search and rescue missions. However, Arctic and Baltic members have pushed for a more robust response. Part of continuing a tradition of cooperation might include opening up more formal forms of dialogue between the United States, Russia, China, and other interested parties. Proponents of this solution argue that diplomatic dialogue is the most effective way to prevent unnecessary collision in the region and ensure that all parties are on the same page.

Political Perspectives on this Solution Maintaining cooperation is generally a universal goal, so this is not a solution which is strictly partisan in nature. However, Democrats tend to be more likely to favor this solution over all others, whereas Republicans tend to be more willing to engage in conflict when necessary. If Republicans felt that US influence in the region was being infringed upon or that the presence of competitors NATO encourages in the Arctic threatened national security, they would be much more continued likely to take more direct action rather than relying on dialogue. cooperation in the New Order of Competition Arctic region In contrast to a policy of continued cooperation, some suggest that it is unreasonable to expect this historical model to continue in light of contemporary events. They believe that it is unsustainable to isolate the Arctic from the competitions and tensions that have arisen across the world, particularly with the three large powers and a smattering of other international organizations that are already involved in the region. Consequently, this approach argues that the United States and its allies should take steps to prepare for increased competition and more economic, geopolitical, and militaristic tensions in the Arctic. This stance would argue that the United States ought to take steps to ramp up its own presence in the region in order

to monitor current activities of Russia and China, claim a stake in the region, and be prepared in case tensions do start to escalate.

Political Perspectives on this Solution This solution is not This solution is not strictly Democratic or Republican in nature. strictly As stated, Republicans and conservatives do tend to be a bit more Democratic or hawkish, so they might prefer a strategy that took pre-emptive action Republican in in order to protect American interests. However, there are also many nature Republicans who are primarily concerned with fiscal responsibility, and therefore they may see pre-emptive spending as irresponsible given that tensions in the Arctic have not yet reached a combative level. Democrats would be more likely to favor peaceful solutions that did not ramp up tensions. Democrats also tend to favor spending on social programs over military efforts. However, Democrats are still concerned about national security, and many Democrats are wary of Russia and China as actors given that they tend to have worse Human Rights records. Democrats tend to view the United States as a force for democracy in the world, so if countering these super powers in the Arctic region furthered that goal, some Democrats might agree with this strategy. Increasingly, perhaps in reaction to the rising isolationism in parts of the Republican party, a large swath of the moderate wing of the Democratic party has become increasingly forceful and hawkish in international competition, leading to more of an embrace of the following strategy - deterrence. Deterrence While attempting to keep the Arctic conflict and tension free might be well-intentioned, such an action could actually encourage additional aggressive behavior from Russia and China. Some scholars believe that a non-active strategy would illustrate that a shrinking United States is prepared to cede international leadership to the two nations. In this viewpoint, maintaining low tensions in The Xuelong is one spite of Russian and Chinese Arctic aggression simply legitimizes of the boats which these actions and provides little support to endangered nations China has used to elsewhere in the world standing against aggression. This in turn begin to access the could facilitate a divide-and-conquer strategy from Russia or China Arctic in their relations with other countries, which in the long run could The Straits Times leave Arctic states with fewer allies and partners in other parts of the world for resisting unwanted Russian or Chinese actions in the Arctic. Therefore, this strategy would argue that the United States should take more direct action regarding the Arctic. Unlike the previous strategy which advocates for increased US direct involvement in the region, this strategy would encourage the United States to use external strategies to punish Russia and China for their Arctic encroachment. For example, the United States could threaten both

nations with sanctions for failing to abide by certain codes or standards in the Arctic.

Political Perspectives on this Solution

China has Once again, this solution does not fall neatly down partisan lines. continued to assert Democrats tend to oppose sanctions and tariffs, but they also favor dominance in the solutions which avoid outright conflict. Therefore, this solution Arctic region, even might be an appealing one to Democrats if it is a way to counter though it currently Russian and Chinese aggression without military engagement. Additionally, this strategy could keep troops and resources out of the does not have any Arctic which Democrats generally favor. territorial claims Republicans tend to be proponents of free trade, so they are not in the region typically in favor of sanctions and tariffs, but they are also very concerned with the United States’ influence in the world. Thus, if this was seen as a way to show American strength and to counter Russian and Chinese influence, some Republicans may still favor this option. Given the Republican party’s recent support for the trade war, this ideological position is increasingly unclear, and you should endeavor to understand your specific role’s perspective. Establish Clear Guidelines One of the major issues in the Arctic is that there is not a clear sense of understanding between countries about what the rules of play are in the Arctic. As such, there is a lot of room for tension and suspicion because no one country knows what another is planning. Establishing some clear guidelines between nations is one possible solution that could clarify what is and is not allowed in the Arctic region. As Senators, you are unable to initiate treaty negotiations, as that is the role of the President as outlined by the Constitution of the United States. However, you could urge the President to begin negotiating a treaty with China and Russia surrounding actions in the Arctic. If a treaty were to be written, it would be your job as senators to ratify such an action. Even without the ability to formally start negotiations, it is a big step for the Senate to make such an urging, and it would likely put pressure on the President to at least meet with the two other leaders on this topic.

This map shows all Political Perspectives on this Solution the countries with a Establishing binding treaties has benefits and downfalls which claim to Arctic do not fall neatly into either political camp. Once again, Democrats territory tend to favor actions which do not necessitate violence or the use of Pinterest military force, so this may be an attractive option. Additionally, clarifying the rules of the Arctic could allow environmental research to happen in the region without fear of conflict. Republicans might worry that such a treaty would unnecessarily bind the United

States. Conservatives are more concerned with the US’s ability to act as it sees fit at any moment, and a treaty could prevent us from acting when desired. Additionally, both Democrats and Republicans might worry about China and Russia not holding up their end of the bargain, but both sides would also see the benefit in transparency The Senate Arctic and an ability to hold the other two nations accountable. subcommittee, founded by Sen. Research in the Region Lisa Murkowski There is still much that remains unknown about the Arctic (R-AK) and Sen. including exactly what resources are available there, and what the Angus King (I- region will look like in coming years. Some have argued that we ME), aims to simply do not have enough information to act in the Arctic. For example, if the Arctic is richer in natural resources than we currently tackle issues believe it to be, that might cause different steps to be taken than if related to the scientist realize that more action in the Arctic will be region environmentally detrimental. Advocates for this plan say it is important to have all the facts straight before proceeding. One way to promote this would be increasing funding to the NSF or Coast Guard for the purpose of developing icebreakers, specific ships that can open up the Arctic for commercial, military, or scientific purposes. Related to this issue is the concept of promoting scientific diplomacy – you may wish to use this opportunity to strengthen relations with allies. Another way to promote research would be loosening restrictions on petroleum drilling, which would open the region up to further development by petroleum companies. The Trump administration has authored a number of executive orders influencing the petroleum industry, so when you are preparing in the final weeks before the conference, you should research the latest actions it has taken in this field.

Political Perspectives on this Solution

Both Democrats and Republicans favor having good information and data. However, Republicans are also more likely to worry that failing to take action now (and instead waiting for research to take place) leaves the US vulnerable. Some might argue that while the US A US submarine sits back and waits for data, China and Russia will entrench emerges from ice in themselves even further in the region and throw off power balances. Alaska Fiscal hawks would also be wary of the costs associated with this The Washington Post plan.

BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

As a military consideration, the Department of Defense budget is of particular importance to any legislation concerning this issue. The US Department of Defense budget was $606 billion in fiscal year

2017 and accounted for about 14.8% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures. For FY 2017, Department of Defense spending amounts to 3.1% of total GDP, but some advocates argue this is insufficient. For example, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called four percent an "absolute floor". The budget increased to $639 billion in FY 2018 and $686 billion in FY 2019. Keep in mind, that because of the international nature of this issue, any action you take may also impact the United States’ trade relations with Russia and China. Though this is not a direct cost, it could still impact the country’s budget.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the militarization of the Arctic is one aspect of a multifaceted issue that includes territorial disputes and sovereignty issues: oil, gas, and mineral exploration, commercial sea transportation, environmental protection, as well as issues of national security and challenges to the existing world order. As such, any attempted solution must take into account the multilateral nature of the region as well as international organizations and allies such as NATO, the EU, and the Arctic Council. How can we balance an increase in foreign military presence with the increased economic potential of the region? Is it appropriate to cede influence in the region to Russia and so called “near-Artic” nations such as China? Will an increased role in the Arctic encourage more assertive Russian and Chinese behavior elsewhere in the world? How can the Arctic fit into a larger “grand strategy” towards Russia and China? The Artic, beyond its own intrinsic importance, has the capacity to largely swing the existing international order, and as such is of strategic importance for myriad reasons. There is no correct answer to the questions above, and solutions to the region’s problems might be radically different from anything said in this briefing.

GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH

I highly recommend reading the DoD’s 2019 Arctic strategy, found here. I recommend reading the Congressional Research Service’s Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress. The entire report is of great use and has numerous references to other works that will be useful. If you can only read one section, I especially recommend the US Military Forces and Operations section.

It would likely be useful to do research on NATO responses to this issue as well as Russia-China cooperation and friction. Make sure to spend time on your senator’s webpage and look into their foreign policy opinions. Do they tend to be more hawkish or more doveish? Have they made statements about China and Russia in the past? What is their view on the environment? Are they a fiscal hawk? Even if they do not have a stated platform on the Arctic, this is a good place to start. Finally, keep up with the news in case the situation changes. I recommend well reviewed sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal.

GLOSSARY

Belt and Road Initiative – a global development strategy adopted by China involving infrastructure development in 152 countries to China. Many view this as a way for China to exert soft power over these nations and supplant US influence.

Enhanced Opportunities Partners (EOP) – five nations with especially close relations to NATO that include regular, political consultations on security matters; enhanced access to interoperability; information sharing; closer association in times of crisis.

National Defense Authorization Act – the series of United States federal laws specifying the annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense

Unipolar Moment – a term coined by political columnist Charles Krauthammer to describe a brief period of American hegemony in the late 80’s to late 90’s hegemony

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boulègue, Mathieu. “NATO Needs a Strategy for Countering Russia in the Arctic and the Black Sea.” Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2 July 2018.

Breum, Martin. “Spurred by Chinese and Russian Activity, EU President Juncker Is Making the Arctic More Central to EU Policy.” Arctic Today, 20 Feb. 2019.

Congressional Research Service. Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress (R41153), Prepared by

Name Redacted, Washington: Library of Congress, Mar. 4, 2019

A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress (R43838), Prepared by Ronald O'Rourke, Washington: Library of Congress, Oct. 24, 2018.

Department of Defense,

Report to Congress: Department of Defense Arctic Strategy, June 2019.

Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2019, May 2019.

Report to Congress on Resourcing the Arctic Strategy, June 2016.

Report to Congress on Strategy to Protect United States National Security Interests in the Arctic Region, OUSD (Policy), December 2016, Executive Summary.

Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, January 2018

“DoD Topline: FY 2001 - FY 2019.” Department of Defense, dod.defense.gov/News/SpecialReports/Budget2019.aspx.

European Parliamentary Research Service. China's Arctic policy: How China aligns rights and interests (PE 620.231), Prepared by Gisela Grieger. Strasbourg, May 2018.

Lamothe, Dan. “The New Arctic Frontier.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 21 Nov. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/arctic- climate-change-military-russia- china/?utm_term=.a82ce9441805.

Memorandum for Distribution dated November 10, 2009, from Admiral J. W. Greenert, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, on the subject of the Navy Arctic Roadmap, http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ documents/USN_artic_roadmap.pdf.

Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. Russia's Arctic Militarization: A Reality Check. Huffington Post, HuffPost

News, 28 Mar. 2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/russias-arctic- militarization-a-reality- check_n_58da6233e4b0f805b323b5c0. Accessed 30 June 2019.

“Murkowski Unveils Arctic Legislation to Reinvigorate America’s Arctic Role.” Office of Senator Murkowski, 12 Dec. 2018, www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/release/murkowski- unveils-arctic-legislation-to-reinvigorate-americas-arctic-role.

Office of the President, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December 2017

Pezard, Stephanie, Abbie Tingstad, and Alexandra Hall, The Future of Arctic Cooperation in a Changing Strategic Environment: Insights from a Scenario-Based Exercise Organised by RAND and Hosted by NUPI. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2018. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE268.html.

Roberts, Joshua. Lisa Murkowski. The New York Times, New York Times Company, 1 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/climate/murkowski-alaska- anwr.html. Accessed 30 June 2019.

Sofrep. Arctic Security: Changing Paradigms for the 21st Century. Pinterest, 30 Nov. 2001, www.pinterest.com/pin/176203404148013058/?autologin=tr ue. Accessed 30 June 2019.

Straits Times Graphics. China's Polar Extension of the Silk Road. Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings, 20 Feb. 2018, www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-polar-ambitions- cause-anxiety. Accessed 30 June 2019.

USGCRP. Hayhoe, K., D.J. Wuebbles, D.R. Easterling, D.W. Fahey, S. Doherty, J. Kossin, W. Sweet, R. Vose and M. Wehner, 2018: Our Changing Climate. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Steward (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA.

US Navy. Submarine. The Washington Post, 15 Mar. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/national- security/2019/03/15/trump-administrations-new-arctic-

defense-strategy-expected-zero-concerns-about- china/?utm_term=.d205e4041b19. Accessed 30 June 2019.

Xinhua, Agence France-Presse. Icebreaker Xuelong. The Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings, 20 Feb. 2018, www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-polar-ambitions- cause-anxiety. Accessed 30 June 2019.