Newport Manual on Arctic Security

By Walter Berbrick, Gaélle Piché and Michael Zimmerman

The Arctic’s growing strategic importance in world affairs and the increasing attention it receives from states inside and outside the region warrants greater cooperation and understanding of practical measures for maintaining regional security and stability. Approaches that seek to systematically isolate one of the Arctic states, particularly Russia, will only contribute to mistrust and impede prospects for regional stability. The product of a three-year project by twenty Arctic scholars and practitioners, The Newport Manual on Arctic Security sets out thirty international principles of security applicable to this maritime region. It addresses topics related to awareness, confidence-building measures, and capabilities. An extensive commentary accompanies each principle, which sets forth its basis during peacetime, explains practical barriers and solutions to implementation, and outlines critical disagreements within the group. Transparency, cooperation, and communication provide the basis for the principles and commentary. This book is policy—and politics—neutral and does not represent the official position, plans, or policies of any state or international organization, including the U.S. Naval War College. The project’s leadership was committed to objectivity and has included the views of all participants to reach consensus on future prospects for cooperation and agreement.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Naval Institute Press
• Release date: Nov 15, 2022
• ISBN: 9781682478608

Book preview

Introduction

The Arctic is heating up. Climate change is transforming the region, which raises important issues related to security and defense, access and navigation, energy, infrastructure, cooperation, and governance. As a result, states in and outside the region are turning their attention to the Northern pole, with important implications for the future of security and stability in the Arctic. To reflect on these issues and their implications for Arctic States and their maritime forces,¹ the U.S. Naval War College launched the Newport Arctic Scholars Initiative in April 2018. Over eighteen months, sailors, security practitioners, and scholars from Arctic States gathered to study and discuss these matters.² This Manual presents the results of those conversations.

The Manual is designed to help researchers, practitioners, and policy makers better understand Arctic security challenges, common and diverging interests among Arctic stakeholders, and prospects for regional security dialogue and cooperation. Under the leadership of the main authors, the participants debated ideas, researched issues, and drafted principles pertaining to awareness, confidence-building measures, and capabilities. These principles reflect consensus among participants and each accompanying commentary captures their discussions. The thirty principles enclosed in this Manual cover a broad range of security matters that are becoming increasingly important as the Arctic’s physical environment and regional geopolitics continue to evolve. Each commentary provides important context and concrete examples, discusses points of agreement and contention among Arctic States, and applies measures to foster Arctic security and stability. The principles reflected in this Manual provide a starting point for policy makers to engage and cooperate on Arctic security and defense issues. They do not set forth best practice or policy, nor do they reflect the official positions of governments.

Before diving into the principles and their commentaries, this introduction sets the table by presenting the concepts and assumptions that guided this joint effort. It starts by defining some of the key terms and considerations referred to across the Manual. It then discusses the factors that drive change in the Arctic and the rising geopolitical importance of the region in world politics. Most importantly, it sets the core assumption underlining this work: Like the rest of the international system, the Arctic is entering challenging times that could undermine regional security and stability. To prevent unintended conflict,³ this Manual provides new, innovative ways to foster cooperation, peace, and stability in the region, focusing primarily on Arctic States and the maritime environment. It does not aim merely to reflect the current state of world affairs, which has fluctuated significantly over the course of this project. Instead, it adopts an aspirational and optimistic perspective on the future of Arctic security and stability, perhaps best illustrated by the methodology underpinning this Manual: the development of principles and associated commentary through broad consultation and seeking consensus.

At the time of concluding the editing of this book in early 2022, Russian president Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, setting off the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents a direct attack on international law and established norms that undermines the international system. This, in turn, undermines regional governance fora and mechanisms, including the Arctic Council, which paused activities to ensure Russia could not use its Arctic Council chairmanship as a platform to message that the West is willing to continue business as usual while Russia wages war in Ukraine. At the same time, Arctic and non-Arctic states have increased military activity. With dormant regional dialogue and increased military activity, the likelihood of accidents or miscalculation with Russian forces in the Arctic has never been higher. Taken together, the need for international principles on Arctic security has never been more critical to maintaining peace and stability in the region.

MAIN CONCEPTS

The Arctic and Its Subregions

Several definitions of the Arctic exist. Some scientists define the Arctic as north of the Arctic tree line, while others use temperature as the defining factor (shown on maps at arcticportal.org). For the purpose of this Manual, the Arctic consists of the region above the 66°34’ N parallel (the Arctic Circle), the most commonly used definition (fig. 1, dashed line). Under this definition, eight states claim territory in the Arctic and are therefore recognized as Arctic States: Canada, Denmark (through Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and the United States.⁴ The region, with the Arctic Ocean at its center, is bounded by five littoral states: Canada, Denmark (through Greenland), Norway, Russia, and the United States. The Arctic Ocean connects to the Northern Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean through straits and chokepoints. From a strategic standpoint, the Bering Strait, between Russia and the United States, and the Greenland-Iceland–United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap,⁵ in the Northern Atlantic, are particularly important.

The Arctic is better understood as a set of subregions rather than a monolithic entity.⁶ Geography and climate vary widely across the Arctic, with important implications for access and human activity. In fact, the regional priorities of Arctic States are mainly shaped by the subregional geography and their immediate neighborhood. For instance, strategic considerations in the Barents Sea differ from those in the North American Arctic. The remote, expansive, and bare Canadian Arctic stands in contrast to the reality of Nordic countries. Canada’s northern region represents 40 percent of the country’s landmass and 20 percent of the entire Arctic. Yet, it is inhabited by less than 0.5 percent of the Canadian population (35 million), with 113,000 people living in the Canadian Arctic. In comparison, approximately a third of Finland’s landmass is located above the Arctic Circle, and 180,000 people live in Northern Finland.⁷ The Russian Federation stands well above other Arctic States, claiming 40 percent of the entire region’s real estate. Approximately 2 million Russians live in the Arctic, which accounts for 50 percent of all Arctic inhabitants. Domestically, these dynamics influence the importance of the region in creating national priorities, prioritizing investments, and mobilizing public opinion.

Figure 1. Arctic Circle, https://arcticportal.org/maps/download/arctic-definitions/2418-arctic-circle, last updated April 2016. © Arctic Portal 2006–2022

Subregional geography and climate also affects access to the Arctic. Navigation in the Northwest Passage is treacherous, and activity at sea in the North American Arctic remains limited. Indeed, the mandate of the North American Aerospace Defense Command was only extended to the maritime environment in 2006.⁸ In contrast, the Northern Sea Route is progressively becoming a viable commercial sea route, and both Russia and Nordic countries are developing their Northern infrastructures.

The immediate neighborhood of each Arctic State also influences its regional priorities. Cordial diplomatic relations characterize interstate relations in the North American Arctic. While territorial disputes remain unsolved between the United States and Canada on the one hand, and Canada and Denmark on the other hand, the three states have so far settled on agreeing to disagree. Indeed, good relations and overall lack of tension has led the three members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mostly to ignore their territorial disputes.

In the Barents Sea, higher strategic stakes have forced Russia and Nordic countries to adopt a more pragmatic approach. Over the years, the Norwegian and Russian navies interact consistently at sea, developing well-used communications channels and settling territorial disputes at the national level. The implications of a military incident in the Baltic or Bering Seas have also forced Russia, Norway, Sweden, and Finland to develop diplomatic mechanisms to manage tensions and potential disputes. Overall, distinct strategic and geographical environments make for different priorities, explaining at times discrepancies and tension at the regional level.

Hard and Soft Security

In its traditional sense, the concept of security refers to the physical integrity and the survival of the state, and the use of military force to threats against it. In the Arctic, however, the term security is often used to depict other regional challenges, including environmental degradation, access to food, economic development or lack thereof, and so on. Language such as human security, environmental security, food security, health security, and energy security are also commonplace in the affairs of the Arctic Council, despite that traditional security falls outside its mandate.⁹

To reflect the discussions among participants, the terms hard security and soft security are used throughout the Manual. Hard security refers to traditional security matters managed by military forces. Soft security is loosely defined and bears two meanings. First, it refers to domestic safety and security, including search and rescue, as well as law and regulation enforcement, which usually fall under the mandate of other government organizations: law enforcement agencies, coast guards, border protection services, shipping regulators, environmental agencies, or even agricultural departments. At times in this volume, soft security also refers to nontraditional security issues as described above.

The Manual focuses first and foremost on traditional security issues, reflecting on the role maritime forces can play in maintaining peace and security in the Arctic. However, as the physical environment continues to change due to climate change, maritime forces will likely be called to intervene in ways that go beyond strictly national security and defense. As such, the principles and commentaries address soft security issues when relevant and include considerations for actors beyond states, including multinational forums, transnational networks, and especially Northern communities and Indigenous peoples.

Northern Communities and Indigenous People

In all Arctic States, with perhaps the exception of Iceland, local communities and Indigenous peoples live above the Arctic Circle and often in remote areas where the presence of the central government has traditionally been limited. They are the first to witness change, whether positive or negative, in the region and to be affected by it. Domestically, some Arctic States have started to redress their colonial history, recognizing the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples and putting in place governance structures at the subnational level to recognize their authority and legitimacy. Internationally, Indigenous peoples are becoming increasingly salient politically, as illustrated by their inclusion as permanent participants in the Arctic Council. However, Indigenous peoples and Northern communities are rarely taken into consideration on security and defense matters beyond providing localized situational awareness.

Yet, evidence demonstrates that Indigenous governments can engage with foreign governments and private actors to achieve political goals, which in turn can affect the interests of states.¹⁰ Indeed, Indigenous governments are negotiating new relationships with foreign and domestic governments, forming economic development corporations, hiring private firms to raise capital, funding trade missions, and even opening offices in key international locales such as Beijing to engage in trade promotion and push investment opportunities in projects such as resource extraction.¹¹ Activities such as these are not necessarily in sync with state interests and have important implications for national security and defense. Recognizing the importance of self-determination and Indigenous rights, it is important for Arctic States to take stock of the role and influence Indigenous actors and other nontraditional stakeholders can have on security and defense.

As such, while Indigenous peoples and Northern communities are not up front and center in each of the principles, the Manual recognizes them as crucial political actors on Arctic matters, proposing ways to better engage with them and integrate their knowledge on security and defense matters.

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARCTIC

Large and multilayered governance architecture is in place in the Arctic to manage regional affairs. Given the focus of the Manual on maritime issues and international relations in the Arctic, two international documents are particularly important and referenced across the Manual: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Maritime Organization’s International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (the latter known as the Polar Code).

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The Arctic is dominated by its ocean. Hence, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the principal document regulating maritime law and order, is particularly important in the management of regional interstate relations. UNCLOS codifies historic state practice regarding the sea rights of coastal states and prevents abuse of natural resources or territorial overreach so that freedom of navigation can be maintained.¹² It provides a comprehensive set of rules and norms for the maritime domain with more than three hundred provisions detailing the rights and responsibilities of coastal states and the seafaring community.

Some of the more notable provisions of UNCLOS are the establishment of a twelve-nautical-mile territorial sea for coastal states, extending from the baseline measurement, and the creation of a new exclusive economic zone (EEZ), extending two hundred nautical miles from the baseline.¹³ The EEZ gives coastal states sole authority over all resources below the surface of the water within that area, including fishing, mining, and drilling rights. UNCLOS also includes provisions for how states can assert claims of sovereignty in the sea and adjudicate disputes when claims overlap. Thus, as Arctic policy makers and security practitioners consider the best method for maintaining peace and stability in the region, having a working knowledge of the principal body of rules applicable to the world’s oceans is critical to anticipating and shaping state action. All Arctic States but the United States have ratified the treaty.¹⁴

The International Maritime Organization’s Polar Code

The Polar Code sets standards for vessels operating in the harsh and remote Arctic.¹⁵ Effective in 2017, it is designed specifically for polar waters, and it addresses marine safety and environmental challenges for ships operating in remote and sometimes extreme conditions. The Polar Code is a set of amendments to three existing International Maritime Organization safety, environmental protection, and mariner competency documents: (1) the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea; (2) the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; and (3) the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Coast guards, port authorities, and state shipping agencies are instrumental in ensuring that substandard vessels do not threaten Arctic populations and ecosystems. These organizations can enforce regulations and detain noncompliant vessels to ensure trade routes stay open and prevent the ecological devastation wrought by oil spills.

GEOPOLITICS OF THE ARCTIC

The Arctic has long stood at the periphery of world affairs. Its austere, remote, and largely inaccessible environment has traditionally made it irrelevant to most strategic considerations, with the notable exception of its role in strategic deterrence during the Cold War. Over the last decade, however, the region has increasingly attracted the attention of powers inside and outside the Arctic as a result of climate change, technological progress, and a return to great power competition.

Understanding the changes that generate growing state interest is a first essential step to manage peace and stability in the Arctic. Throughout the process leading to this Manual, participants discussed these transformations at length. The discussion centered on two main questions: (1) Is the Arctic experiencing a security dilemma, and (2) is the region at risk of military escalation? In a nutshell, the quick transformation of the Arctic environment and the return to great power politics are raising the geopolitical importance of the Arctic on the world stage. While great distances and an austere environment give defense the advantage in the region, antagonistic rhetoric and deepening mistrust between Arctic States could result in unwarranted military escalation.

This assessment sets the table for the rest of this Manual: Arctic security and stability requires the development of a shared understanding among Arctic States of ongoing regional transformations and their implications, new and innovative measures to boost trust and confidence among the Arctic Eight, and guidelines to develop Arctic capabilities that support peace rather than enable war.

Climate Change

The Arctic is warming at a higher rate than the rest of the planet. Most scientists agree that rising Arctic temperatures and environmental changes are the result of climate change, with substantial consequences for the region’s ecosystems, its population, and the rest of the planet.¹⁶ From a geopolitical standpoint, receding sea ice is the most important consequence of those transformations. A navigable Arctic presents tremendous potential for regional economic and social development, as well as global commerce. New sea routes promise to significantly reduce transit times between Europe, Asia, and North America. For now, trans-Arctic commercial shipping remains sparse in comparison to that on southern sea routes. However, maritime traffic increases year after year along the Northern Sea Route, mostly driven by hydrocarbon exploitation and transport. In the longer term, the Northwest Passage, the Transpolar Sea Route (TSR), and potentially the Arctic Sea Bridge (ASB) could also provide viable alternative routes.

Greater maritime access to littoral towns and cities also bears promises for the social and economic development of the North. Diminishing sea ice will increase access to energy and marine resources that have remained untouched or sparsely exploited until now. In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Arctic contains 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of the planet’s oil, respectively.¹⁷ If logistical challenges remain important, China’s Polar Silk Road truly embodies the potential many states see in the region.

Yet, if untapped natural resources and new shipping routes are sources of excitement for the economic development of the region, a warmer Arctic implies fundamental changes to its ecosystems. Shrinking ice and thawing permafrost are altering the fauna and flora of the region with devastating consequences for dozens of species, including polar bears, walruses, reindeer, and caribou.¹⁸ An ice-free Arctic will also have serious consequences for southern regions through severe weather events, including extreme heat and drought, and rising sea levels.¹⁹ Finally, warming waters across world’s oceans have already triggered fish stock migration toward the Arctic Ocean, with important implications for global food security.

Despite the dire implications, scientific evidence on climate change has often failed to directly shape policy,²⁰ and some governments continue at times to express strong skepticism toward the causal links between severe weather events and climate change.²¹ Nonetheless, even if the cause of such changes continues to be debated, there is consensus on some of the changes witnessed in the Arctic: the polar ice cap is melting, sea ice is receding, and a new ocean is opening to surface navigation.

Technological Progress

New technologies directly contribute to increasing human activity above the Arctic Circle. They reduce barriers related to resources exploration and exploitation, navigation, and communications. For instance, offshore drilling technology now enables the extraction of oil and gas reserves from the Arctic seabed, something deemed impossible twenty years ago. Enhanced icebreaking capabilities are expanding the navigation season for both commercial and military platforms in waters that otherwise remain treacherous.

In the military domain, a wide array of new technologies, including unmanned systems, sensor and imagery systems, and highly elliptical orbit satellites are progressively enhancing the ability of armed forces to operate in polar conditions. As a result, Arctic States are more aware of the changes and activities taking place in the northernmost part of their territories.²² The emergence of new cyber and space warfare will only amplify these changes, which in turn will affect various aspects of operational capabilities, including command and control as well as surveillance, in ways that are difficult to fully predict.

International Politics

Three decades after the end of the Cold War, the international system is returning to the logic of great power rivalry. U.S. hegemony on world affairs is weakening and isolationist discourse is gaining momentum at home.²³ In the meantime, China is becoming increasingly assertive and appears willing to question the current rules-based international order. Russia, on its end, has acted to reassert its place in the international system, opting to use aggressive strategies to advance its interests in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Mounting evidence suggests that both states, still facing U.S. conventional military superiority, are adopting strategies and tactics to advance their interests globally while avoiding direct confrontation.²⁴ The Arctic is not impermeable to these dynamics, which shape regional security and stability.²⁵

Taken together, climate change, technological progress, and a multipolar international system are all contributing to the growing geopolitical importance of the Arctic. The Arctic now attracts the attention of many states and organizations outside the region. China’s Arctic Policy generated a lot of chatter upon its release in 2018, but France, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have also all released strategies and policy documents pertaining to the Arctic.²⁶ Arctic exceptionalism, if there was ever such thing, no longer exists.²⁷ According to the 2019 U.S. intelligence threat assessment, receding sea ice in the Arctic will increase access to sea routes and natural resources, potentially increasing interstate competition.²⁸ In October 2018, for the first time, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu declared that tensions in the Arctic could lead to conflict.²⁹ In all cases, ongoing changes raise concerns about the future of Arctic peace and stability.

The Future of Arctic Security

The growing geopolitical importance of the Arctic raises concern about future peace and security in the region. Militarily, a blue Arctic Ocean represents a new operating environment that is no longer solely limited to underwater and strategic strike capabilities. The shrinking polar ice cap will likely reduce stealth for submarines, increase access for surface combatants, and diminish the need for polar-class vessels year-round. The Arctic Ocean will nonetheless remain critical for strategic stability in the foreseeable future, especially for the conventional balance of power and strategic strikes.

According to these trends, some experts have suggested that a regional security dilemma might be emerging, where a State’s efforts to increase its own security only undermine the security of others.³⁰ All Arctic States, and especially coastal ones, have announced major investments in the security and defense of the Arctic, including military capabilities. So far, most investments serve a defensive and sovereignty-assertion rationale, including the modernization of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), its expansion to the maritime domain by Canada and the United States, and the deployment of new radar systems by Moscow, air defense, and search and rescue capabilities along Russia’s northern coastline.³¹

However, other investments can be perceived as offensive. For instance, with the exception of Sweden, all Nordic countries are part of the F-35 fighter jet program. In 2018, the United States reactivated its Second Fleet, which is responsible for the Northern Atlantic. Russia is investing in its Northern Fleet, including in its strategic strike capability. Moscow has also deployed capabilities to enable the defense of the Kola Peninsula and access to the Northern Atlantic.³² Surface combatants with cruise missiles have been deployed along the Northern Sea Route, and the Russian infantry is trained to operate in the Arctic.

The impact of these investments is magnified by current tension between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which counts five Arctic States as its members. Interactions between Russia and NATO countries have become more adversarial in the Arctic and the North Atlantic, a clear spillover from conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In particular, Russia’s irredentist actions in Eastern Europe in 2014, the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and harsh international sanctions against Russia have severed relations between the Arctic Eight. For now, it has significantly reduced any potential for formal security dialogue and cooperation in the Arctic. In this context, any concerted action among Arctic States to exclude Russia from multilateral forums only further contributes to mistrust and aggravates tension.

For instance, Trident Juncture 2018, a NATO-led exercise based on a collective defense scenario, was the biggest exercise organized by the Alliance since the end of the Cold War in the Northern Atlantic. Russia responded with a large-scale exercise of its own and has become more assertive in its actions against NATO countries. Russian fighters have resumed patrols over the North Pole after a thirty-year lapse. A Norwegian radar station was targeted by a mock air strike in 2018,³³ and Russian strategic bombers periodically approach North American airspace.³⁴ These actions have contributed to intensifying adversarial rhetoric between Russia and NATO. U.S. General Terrence O’Shaughnessy, commander of NORAD, made the following assessment in February 2019: We face a more competitive and dangerous international security environment today than we have in generations.³⁵ Without regular dialogue and trust between Arctic States, defensive and offensive measures are becoming increasingly hard to distinguish, and one’s attempt at increasing its own security ostensibly seems to decrease the security of others.³⁶

Nonetheless, due to the sheer size of the region and its austere environment, defense outweighs offense in the Arctic. In 2009, the then–Canadian chief of defense staff, General Walter Natynczyk, stated, If someone were to invade the Canadian Arctic, my first task would be to rescue them.³⁷ In the North American portion of the Arctic, at least, mounting a large offensive in the Arctic appears to be a costly and risky enterprise. Hence, the defensive advantage in the Arctic will help prevent conventional military escalation among Arctic countries. However, Arctic States may choose to compete through other means as adversarial rhetoric continues to undermine potential for interstate cooperation on security issues. In this context, it is urgent to find ways to facilitate dialogue and build trust among Arctic States before tensions escalate further, the core objective of this Manual.

BOOK OUTLINE

The Arctic is entering uncertain times. Combined, the effects of climate change, rapidly evolving technology, and great-power competition have already started influencing regional security and stability. To prevent unintended conflict and promote regional peace, the three parts at the core of the Manual provide principles to build shared awareness among Arctic stakeholders about the regional challenges, design confidence-building measures reinforcing dialogue and cooperation, and develop maritime capabilities while avoiding unnecessary escalation.

Setting the table for the remainder of the Manual, part I (Awareness) looks at major changes and challenges shaping regional security and stability. Highlighting commonalities and discrepancies in the interests of Arctic States and other regional stakeholders, the part identifies potential areas of conflict and cooperation on regional matters. It first addresses the different definitions of Arctic security and the growing emphasis placed on security and defense issues, the implications of greater access to a region long forgotten by many governments in and outside the Arctic, and the growing role sea power is likely to play in managing regional security and stability. It also explores contentious issues pertaining to sovereignty and jurisdiction, as well as the application of the principle of freedom of the seas to the Arctic Ocean. Finally, principles on cooperation and governance, economic potential and development, and interests of non-Arctic states cover