The New U.S. Arctic Policy Directive

On Monday the Bush administration released a 3,800 word document serving as both a Homeland Security and a National Security Presidential Directive on U.S. Arctic Policy: Arctic Region Policy.  This is a statement of executive intent, relevant to the extent that the executive has discretion to take action.  One part is simply a recommendation to the Senate: ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Much of the directive is pretty innocuous: the U.S. is an Arctic nation, the U.S. has security interests in the Arctic, it needs to increase infrastructure and security assets in the region, development should take account of environmental concerns, more scientific research is needed, international cooperation is important.  A few points stand out, although none should be surprising:

Freedom of the seas is important to the U.S. and is a top Arctic priority.  This extends to Canada's Northwest Passage - "a strait used for international navigation" - and also to the Russian Federation's Northern Sea Route which "includes straits used for international navigation."  Precedents set in the Arctic are important because they support "our ability to exercise these rights throughout the world..." 

I don't see anything new in this and, as Mark at Canadian weblog The Torch points out, "almost no-one accepts our [the Canadian - Ben] (very shaky in my view) claim that the Northwest Passage is Canadian "internal waters"."  Nevertheless, some Canadians see a threat: Bush asserts U.S. sea power over Arctic straits. I haven't found any Russian commentary yet.

The Arctic is not the Antarctic and a comprehensive Antarctic-style treaty is not necessary for Arctic governance.  A variety of existing treaties, modified, or supplemented as necessary with new special-purpose treaties, will be adequate.  The Arctic Council is fine the way it is, or maybe with some tweaking.  But: "the Arctic Council should remain a high-level forum devoted to issues within its current mandate and not be transformed into a formal international organization, particularly one with assessed contributions."

The declaration's text on governance is consistent with the principles of last May's Ilulissat Declaration: The Ilulissat Declaration.  This approach to governance is controversial: A New Sea: The Need for a Regional Agreement on Management and Conservation of the Arctic Marine Environment.

The directive does recommend that Congress pass the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our Armed Forces worldwide.  It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain.  Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans.  And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.

The Secretary of State is directed to continue to seek the Senate's advice and consent to the Treaty.

The directive recognizes that Arctic resources are valuable, and that economic development will occur in the Arctic.  But the directive doesn't lay out an aggressive program for economic development.  While economic development in the Arctic is seen as contributing to other U.S. policy objectives, energy for example, it's generally raised here as a threat to other U.S. Arctic policy objectives (environmental quality and integrity of indigenous peoples).  I don't see it described as important for U.S. Arctic security.

There is a recognition that the Arctic climate is changing.  The key reference to global warming is the statement that 

...an understanding of the probable consequences of global climate variability and change on Arctic ecosystems is essential to guide the effective long-term management of Arctic natural resources and to address socioeconomic impacts of changing patterns in the use of natural resources. 

Global warming policy is not identified as a component of Arctic policy.

Jan 15 - edits to second and third paragraphs.  Jan 18 - edit to first paragraph to note that the statement is a Homeland Security as well as a National Security Presidential Directive. Jan 19 - described as 3,800 word, rather than 12 page, document (page numbers change by version).

Comments

[Caitlyn]

Russia Today had a short piece on the US policy, and it noted the the Russian Arctic _Development_ Policy (being drafted by the Ministry for Regional Development) would be released later this month. Russia's arctic policy was outlined in a security council statement last september, but it is turning up in strategy documents by the transportation ministry and by the development ministry.

Russia Today:

[ctesar]

Hi, if you'd like to see another analysis of the policy, check the WWF US release below:
WWF: BUSH ARCTIC POLICY SHOULD BE OBAMA’S STARTING POINT, NOT END POINT

WASHINGTON, January 14, 2009 – World Wildlife Fund (WWF) officials today called on the incoming Obama Administration to use the Arctic policy directive issued Friday by President Bush as a starting point to revamp, reorient and strengthen US policy in the Arctic region, particularly in the areas of oil and gas development, governance and climate change.

Bill Eichbaum, vice president of WWF’s marine portfolio, issued the following statement:

“Climate change is altering the Arctic in dramatic and dangerous ways. The rapid rate at which the Arctic is melting is spurring a race to exploit the region’s previously inaccessible resources and poses new challenges for governing territorial claims, ensuring shipping safety and managing fisheries.

“The policy directive issued yesterday by the Bush Administration recognizes this changing reality and the importance, therefore, of rethinking US policy. I am pleased that the directive asserts a willingness to restructure and strengthen governance institutions in the Arctic. I urge the Obama Administration to build on that position and ensure a strong and integrated institutional framework for governing shipping safety, fisheries and the host of issues and challenges created by a melting Arctic. I am also pleased that in the policy is a renewed call for the US to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which serves as the constitution for the world’s oceans and which should be an early priority of the Obama administration.

“Not surprisingly, the language in the policy, issued in the final days of the Bush administration, fails to offer an adequate basis to counter eight years of practices and policies that have taken a decidedly wrong stance on the issue of resource extraction. Those policies have focused on expediting oil and gas development at a time when the science clearly shows that drilling in the Arctic could have devastating consequences. It is vital that the Obama Administration reverse course and slow the rush to drill in the Arctic until the science shows it can be done safely.

“And, once there is proven technology for cleaning an oil spill in the Arctic, it is imperative that drilling operations not take place in areas where there could be harm to wildlife. Indeed, it is critically important that the Obama Administration outline a policy for conserving wildlife and other living natural resources in the Arctic that are being threatened by climate change, an issue on which the Bush policy is unfortunately silent.
“Further, while the Bush directive says that ‘it is the policy of the United States to...[p]rotect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources,’ the Administration has failed to take the most important step required to accomplish that: committing the U.S. to rapidly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. It is vital that the global climate treaty currently being negotiated through the UN framework be strong enough to slow climate change. If emissions are not brought down in the very near-term, we will have failed to protect not just the Arctic but the rest of the planet as well.

“As the Obama Administration considers modifications to the Arctic policy, along the lines we’ve suggested and taking into account other considerations, WWF hopes that the process will be more transparent and allow for an open exchange of ideas.

“And finally, I applaud the remarks of Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton during her confirmation hearing yesterday in which she commented on the impacts of climate change in the region, recognized the work of the Arctic Council, endorsed the Convention on Law of the Sea, and expressed support for the overall need to protect the Arctic in light of profound environmental changes.”

[r4]

I dont understand why the us really wants our land!!! It' s ours and you never know. Somewhere underneath that ice there could be something rare that the world needs. This is why Bush wants our land. He also wants room to travle freely but if the canadians give that land to the U.S then Canada will be sandwiched inbetween the U.S and then whho knows what could happen??

[air jordan shoes]

At one level this is a truism: By definition, people must be selling when prices fall