Table Of ContentUnited 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: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
