The United States: Security, Shipping and Commercial Exploitation

As Canada's North American Arctic neighbor and the largest global importer, the United States has a lot at risk in the Arctic debate. However, United States policymakers continue to send the message that the country is unready to convey a significant and coherent message about its role in the Arctic. Despite estimates from the US Geological Survey that 22% of the world's technically recoverable resources are located in the Arctic, the region was not even mentioned by President Obama in the 2010 State of the Union address. The United States' oceangoing capabilities in the region remain minimal in 2010 and will stay so for the foreseeable future, with only two operable icebreakers and one of those two constantly committed to resupplying the Antarctic McMurdo station.

The interests of the United States in the Arctic are threefold. First, national security is a principal concern. The Arctic is the shortest route between the world's strongest economies. Therefore, an open polar sea presents concerns about an increased military presence in the region. Indeed, since the Cold War the Arctic has played host to the most extensive nuclear submarine operations in the world. With a warming Arctic, some nations will step up their military presence—surface, subsurface and airborne—in the region. In addition to the waterborne and airborne threat this poses to the United States, the long and largely unprotected Canadian and Alaskan Arctic borders continue to present a security threat for landing troops. The Canadians have long adopted a policy of not building roads in the Far North as a preventive measure that would significantly hamper the movement of any unwelcome visitors. However, this is not a viable long-term policy given the potential for resource development in the region and that infrastructure that will accompany development. The United States needs to cooperate with Canada and address the threat of an exposed North American Arctic border and ensure that the Canadian and Alaskan borders do not become points of military contention and a threat to the United States' national security.

As the world's leading importer and a significant exporter, the United States also has a significant interest in the potential of the Arctic Ocean for reducing oceangoing transit times and costs. American businesses stand to gain from shorter lead times and reduced expenses if the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route open to cargo vessels. Indeed, because over ninety percent of world trade is conducted by ship the potential impact of these routes is difficult to understate. However, the United States must also ensure that reasonable safety standards are enforced and that the proper environmental protection measures are in place. An oil spill in the Northwest Passage would be difficult to contain and could turn public opinion against use of the Arctic for commercial shipping or natural resource extraction. The United States should also ensure that search and rescue bases across the northern longitudes are appropriately equipped to assist in an Arctic search and rescue mission that may take place far offshore. Doing so would be a signal to industry that the United States expects the northern passages to become and remain commercially viable and that it is committed to protecting those who make use of these passages. If appropriately coordinated multinational search and rescue operations are not put in place, Arctic shipping would be more risky than necessary and shipping would divert from the Arctic as a means of risk aversion. This would in turn hamper the competitiveness of the trade-dependent American economy.

Finally, the United States should be interested in the Arctic because the region can provide much-needed short-term energy security. Both onshore and offshore drilling and mining can help to bolster US oil and mineral reserves while providing fiscal relief in the form of leases to the US federal government, which in recent years has run record budget deficits. In addition, increased drilling within the United States' 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone would create real job growth at a time when the United States economy is in desperate need of a sustainable recovery. In Alaska, oil revenue is expected to account for eighty-seven percent of state revenues over the next decade.  Trickle-down money from the oil industry drives nearly every sector of the Alaskan economy. With developed onshore sites in Alaska drying up, responsible expansion of oil and mineral recovery on US territory will be necessary to maintain stability in the Alaskan economy. It is likewise in the interest of the United States to facilitate the expansion of US oil, gas and mineral companies' Arctic operations on non-US territory.