United States Arctic Interests: The 1980s and 1990s PDF
Preview United States Arctic Interests: The 1980s and 1990s
United States Arctic Interests The 1980s and 1990s United States Arctic Interests The 1980s and 1990s Edited by William E. Westermeyer Kurt M. Shusterich With 23 Figures I Springer-Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg Tokyo William E. Westermeyer Marine Policy Center Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, U.S.A. Kurt M. Shusterich Marine Policy Center Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, U.S.A. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: United States Arctic interests. Includes index. 1. Natural resources-Arctic regions-Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Arctic regions-Strategic aspects Addresses, essays, lectures. 3. United States-Foreign relations-1981- -Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Westermeyer, William E. II. Shusterich, Kurt Michael. HC733.5.U55 1984 333.7'09798'7 84-5477 ISBN-13: 978-1-4612-9761-1 e-ISBN-13: 978-1-4612-5262-7 DOl: 10.1007/978-1-4612-5262-7 © 1984 by Springer-Verlag New York Inc. Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition All rights reserved. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from Springer-Verlag, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10010, U.S.A. Copyright is not claimed for Chapter 4 by Thomas P. Miller and Chapter 13 by G. Leonard Johnson, David Bradley, and Robert S. Winokur. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone. Typeset by Bi-Comp, Incorporated, York, Pennsylvania. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Foreword Elliot L. Richardson The United States is finally awakening to the fact that it has a major stake in the future of the Arctic. Recognition of the national importance of the Arctic has been slow in coming despite the resource wealth that Arctic Alaska has thus far yielded. Although the United States has had strategic interests in the Arctic since World War II and active oil and gas interests there since the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968, its interest in the Arctic has been low in comparison with that of its Arctic neighbors, Canada and the Soviet Union. What has been described by some as an attitude of neglect toward the Arctic is now changing. The notion of change has become central in most current discussions about the future of the Arctic. It is apparent that the Arctic region is entering a period of greatly accelerated economic, social, strategic, and political change. The driving force behind the changes taking place is resource development activity, and although the present scale of this activity is not inconsequential, it is small in comparison to its projected growth in the next two decades. In short, the Arctic is about to come alive. However, knowledge of the Arctic and experience in the Arctic is comparatively limited. Moreover, competing interests and differing val ues exist among national groups and between countries in the Arctic, just as they do in the lower latitudes. A concerted and sustained effort will be Mr. Richardson, a candidate for the United States Senate from Massachusetts in 1984, is Chairman of the Board of Citizens for Ocean Law and was formerly a partner in the Washington, DC office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, and McCloy. He has held several positions in government that have included Ambassador-at-Large and Special Representa tive of the President to the Law of the Sea Conference, Secretary of Commerce, Ambassa dor to Great Britain, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Health, Educa tion, and Welfare, and Undersecretary of State. vi Foreword required over the next two decades to understand the Arctic better, to resolve political differences, and to foster rational development. Both global competition for resources and the desire for national en ergy security have spurred interest in the oil and gas potential of the Arctic. Arctic onshore and offshore hydrocarbon deposits may amount to nearly 25 percent of the remaining recoverable crude oil in the United States and about 15 percent of the natural gas. Moreover, mineral explo ration in the American Arctic has uncovered large deposits of coal, zinc, copper, lead, silver, oil shale, and phosphate. The existence of these resources within the jurisdiction ofthe United States is important, but the development of economical and environmentally sound recovery and transportation methods presents formidable practical problems. Remote ness, extreme cold, frequent storms, long periods of darkness, ice-cov ered waters, and frozen ground are physical obstacles to development requiring, in many cases, technological innovation. Offshore production platforms with the ability to withstand the forces of moving ice, icebreak ing tankers that can operate year-round, and submerged pipelines pro tected from ice scour are examples of advanced technology that will be required to exploit hydrocarbons in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Greater industrial activity in the high latitudes will have consequences for the future ofthe Arctic and for United States interests there that go far beyond increasing the availability of resources. Energy and minerals de velopment, for example, will require a much larger infrastructure than is presently in place. The foreseeability of this need raises questions about the type and pace of development to be pursued. For instance, should the "boom and bust" cycle of development so familiar in frontier regions be allowed to occur in the Arctic? What alternatives are there to a repetition ofthis pattern? The situation of the indigenous people of the Arctic also demands consideration. What will their future be? They possess a distinctive cul ture that is already in transition and that will necessarily be affected by further development activities. The Inuit are particularly concerned that non-Natives listen to their views and that they be consulted when devel opment affects their interests. The increasing political sophistication of the Inuit is evident in their improved lobbying efforts and better legal representation. The Arctic environment, although not as fragile as commonly per ceived, is nevertheless subject to significant alteration. We simply do not know enough yet about Arctic environmental processes to predict the consequences of all of our activities in the north. Some activities could have direct or secondary impacts in areas far removed from the Arctic. Of major importance is understanding the correlation between the dynamics of the Arctic ice system and global weather patterns. What changes will occur if our development activities upset the delicately balanced equilib rium? The Soviets, for instance, have proposed diverting rivers that Foreword vii would otherwise flow into the Arctic Ocean. We may speculate about the consequences of this action for the Arctic heat budget, but at present we are a long way from possessing sufficient knowledge upon which to base responsible actions. The negative consequences of accidents such as major oil spills at sea are more predictable. Although marine ecosystems are characterized by low average productivity, the standing stock of certain species in specific locations in the Arctic can be very high. Thus, an oil spill at one of these locations could have a serious impact. A voiding unnecessary insults to the environment will require explicit consideration of the appropriate balance between development and conservation; it will also require inter national cooperation, research on critical habitats and interactions within ecosystems, and implementation of effective measures for protection. Obviously, a major role exists for science in the Arctic. Some scientists contend that the keys to solving many national and, indeed, global prob lems associated with resource exploitation and environmental protection are to be found in the Arctic. There have been disagreements among both scientists and policymakers about the need for a special science policy for the Arctic. The major disagreements concern the necessary or desirable degree of coordination and the degree to which research activities in the Arctic are unique and therefore deserving of special consideration. All agree, however, as to the importance of continued scientific research in the Arctic and, in particular, as to the need to fill gaps in knowledge prior to accelerated industrial activity. Arctic science is also an area in which there are opportunities for international cooperation. Acquiring a greater understanding of large-scale Arctic processes is especially important, and this type of research ~s best accomplished in concert with other Arctic rim countries. International cooperation is less easily achieved when questions of jurisdiction or ownership arise or when threats to security are perceived. In light of increased activity in the Arctic, dormant boundary disputes and conflicting opinions over the extent ofj urisdiction in some areas have now become issues in need of attention. Canada and the United States, for instance, dispute the location of their marine boundary in a potentially rich hydrocarbon producing area of the Beaufort Sea. Another boundary problem exists between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Bering Sea. The nature of transit rights through the waters of the Canadian archi pelago is also disputed. Do the waters of the Northwest Passage consti tute an international strait subject to the regime of transit passage, as the United States has contended, or are they "historic waters" under Cana da's control? Are they something in between-internal waters enclosed by straight baselines, for instance-and thus open to nonsuspendable innocent passage? Whatever their status, Canada has put forward its own regulations for the prevention of vessel-source pollution in the area. Ar- viii Foreword ticle 234 of the recently concluded Law of the Sea Convention gives coastal states the right to adopt and enforce such regulations, except as to warships, for "ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive eco nomic zone, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the pres ence of ice cover such areas for most of the year." The regulations must, however, "have due regard to navigation," a clause that helps to explain why the United States, in addition to being a major participant in the negotiation of this article, was a supporter of it. It remains to be seen whether or not the United States will seek to apply it as part of customary international law to the ice-covered areas north of Alaska. But this is only one of the many legal and jurisdictional issues left unclear as a conse quence of the fact that we are the only Arctic rim country that has not signed the Convention. Indeed, the Arctic may yet prove to be one of the most important arenas in which United States policy toward the Law of the Sea will be tested. The growing importance of the Arctic as a strategic arena cannot be overemphasized. For example, the ice-covered waters of the Arctic Ocean are an excellent place to hide missile-carrying submarines, a fact of which both superpowers are keenly aware. The United States Navy has recently proposed building a new class of submarine designed to counter act the threat posed by Soviet submarines already deployed in the Arctic Ocean. Furthermore, protection of economic activities in the north, and in particular, maintenance of Arctic energy security, is important to na tional defense. Notwithstanding that all the Arctic's land area is under national sovereignty, is it possible that at least part of the Arctic might become a nuclear-free zone, like Antarctica, as proposed by a resolution adopted at the Inuit Circumpolar Conference? Clearly, the range of public and private sector interests in the Arctic is broad. United States interests in the Arctic include resource develop ment, defense, environmental protection, federal-state relations, science, native rights, transportation, and international relations. And while these interests are also important in other geographic areas of the country, the challenges to policymakers, defense planners, developers, environmen talists, and scientists are nowhere more difficult than in the Arctic. The Arctic is a frontier region with an unfamiliar set of parameters within which to operate. The rules of the game are correspondingly different. The sense of urgency toward the need to examine United States inter ests in the Arctic has tended to wax and wane, depending in part on the current price of oil. Nevertheless, if the resources of the Arctic are to be available when needed, if the environment is to be adequately protected, and if other important interests are to be satisfied, many unresolved issues must be addressed and gaps in knowledge filled-irrespective of the cur rently perceived degree of urgency. Significantly, the total resource base of the Arctic is not yet known and environmental knowledge is inade quate. Well-informed decisions depend on this knowledge. It is also im- Foreword ix portant to take a long-range view of the appropriate role of the federal government in the Arctic. For example, should the federal government be involved in the funding of large-scale energy development projects? This is a critical question if such projects are considered to be in the national interest but unprofitable for private industry to undertake. Who should be responsible for providing services and programs in support of develop ment activities? Should private industry, as the most direct beneficiary, provide services such as icebreaker support, or should these services, given the public interest in resource development, be provided by govern ment, and, if so, at what level? Questions such as the foregoing lead directly to consideration of a national policy for the Arctic. In the words of Melvin Conant, "Arctic development is an irreversible process with the potential consequence of great good or great harm. . . . A governmental commitment is required that allows the goals of both the private and the public sector to be advanced, but with the oversight which the public interest requires." Sensible policies can only be formulated with a clear notion of what the issues are and how they relate to each other. The distinguished authors in this volume have taken a very important first step in the process by identifying and evaluating United States interests in the Arctic. Preface Our decision to prepare a book about United States Arctic interests was made in the fall of 1982. At the time, both of us were research fellows in the Marine Policy and Ocean Management Center at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. We knew that interest in the Arctic was in creasing within the United States, but in doing background research on Arctic policy issues, we discovered that most sources of information were of Canadian origin. There was a need for a single volume devoted to United States Arctic activities and interests. A detailed examination of United States Arctic interests at this time is important since resource development activities in the Arctic are grow ing. The national interest in resource development in the Arctic both affects and is in turn affected by the many other interests of the United States. This volume is in part a response to the need to examine all of these interests in relation to one another. In May 1983 a two-day Arctic workshop was held at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The authors of this volume were invited to present their work in progress; other Arctic specialists were also invited to ensure a lively exchange and constructive criticism. Workshop partici pants included natural and social scientists from both the United States and Canada, oil industry representatives, United States government offi cials, and native Inuit. The insight gained by authors during the workshop helped them in refining their chapters. We hope the book provides additional awareness and understanding of the numerous Arctic issues that are of direct national importance to the United States. Woods Hole, Massachusetts May 1984 Acknowledgments The editors wish to acknowledge the encouragement and support given by Melvin Conant and David Ross during the preparation of this volume. Mr. Conant's enthusiasm for the idea of writing a book about our nation's Arctic interests was a major stimulus for our decision to undertake the project, and his constructive criticism throughout was extremely helpful. David Ross, Director of the Marine Policy and Ocean Management Cen ter at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, provided the opportu nity and the incentive for us to prepare the book, including the funds to conduct an Arctic Policy Workshop. At the workshop, authors of prospective chapters presented drafts of their work, and other invited Arctic experts shared their expertise. Nu merous ideas were generated during the two-day workshop that were later incorporated into the book. To the authors who gave their time and tal ents in preparing the various chapters go our thanks and appreciation. We also wish to thank additional participants at the workshop: Dr. Joseph Fitzgerald, Professor Richard Goody, Professor Jon Jacobson, Professor Douglas Johnston, Dr. Paul Fye, Dr. Susumu Honjo, Dr. Donald Gry beck, Dr. Edward Todd, Dr. John Milliman, General Hamilton Twitchell, Ms. Kristie Patterson Smythe, Dr. David Ross, and Mr. Melvin Conant. Special thanks are due Kristie Patterson Smythe, Hamilton Twitchell, M.J. Peterson, and William Windom for their extensive comments on several of the chapters. Dr. David Hickok of the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, and Professor John Holmes of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs also provided constructive criticism. The editors are indebted to the support staff provided by the Marine Policy and Ocean Management Center. Without their work the project would not have succeeded. Ms. Ann Goodwin and Ms. Ethel LeFave provided word processing help, and Ms. Judy Fenwick provided invalu able editC'rial assistance. The project was supported by funds from the Pew Memorial Trust, the Johnson Endowment Fund, and the Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Sea Grant College Program (Grant No. NA 80AA-D-00077, E/L l). Without such support this project would not have been possible.
Description:The list of books you might like
