• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • United States Is Poorly Prepared to Defend Interests in Arctic

    When it comes to Arctic policy, the White House is delivering a series of self-inflicted wounds. Though it keeps cranking out more and more policy statements, the U.S. has invested little in addressing the emerging challenges of competition in the region. The Arctic, for example, can potentially be tapped to develop vast oil reserves.

    Sadly, the fact is the United States is poorly prepared to protect its interests. The Administration’s answer to the problem largely amounts to signing the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea—a treaty that has a boatload of problems.

    Even more depressing, the White House has shown no interest in ensuring the U.S. can effectively operate in the Arctic. Rear Admiral Jeffrey M. Garrett (retired) recently wrote:

    The nation’s multi-mission polar icebreaker fleet is being downsized by a third with the imminent decommissioning of USCGC Polar Sea. This will leave only the Polar Star, 35 years old and half-way through an expensive 2 ½-year refit, and the 11-year old Healy. Unanticipated engine problems in Polar Sea forced the cancellation of two Arctic deployments in late 2010 and early 2011, the result of attempting to keep complex 1960s-era technology in use beyond its reasonable service life.

    Garrett laments, however, that “a pair of replacement icebreakers, replacing the unsupportable and expensive to operate Polar Star and Polar Sea would catapult the U.S. from a paper Arctic power to one with real capabilities, across the spectrum of national power. New, efficient, environmentally-compliant icebreakers would give the U.S. positive control of its Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea frontier—as well as the ability to sustain its Antarctic presence credibly.”

    One potential way to address this challenge is to follow the lead of other nations and develop a commercial icebreaker force. A Heritage proposal argues that “[t]he U.S. can jump-start its fleet by privatizing ice-breaker operations and using ships as platforms for national security and federal scientific activities. This initiative would save federal dollars by eliminating old, inadequate, and expensive-to-operate assets while greatly expanding U.S. capacity to operate in the Arctic.”

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to United States Is Poorly Prepared to Defend Interests in Arctic

    1. As far as commercial maritime operations, leaving the icebreakers to civilian companies is a good proposal. The U.S. Navy should have the capability to protect our security interests in the polar region. Their underwater capabilities, aircraft with air refueling capability along with satellites should provide a good footprint of security.

    2. John Gerena says:

      The Arctic in the not to far future, will and can be a Very Valuable Asset. I agree not enogh is being done to protect our assets their. We spend more money on protecting insects than what it would take to secure our interest in the Arctic.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.