The Foreign Service Journal, May 2021

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MAY 2021 43 Senator Lisa Murkowski in Svalbard, Norway, during a May 2019 international Arctic congressional delegation that she led. The focus of the trip was to develop a better understanding of the region, further the U.S. relationship with the other Arctic nations, and visit with American troops in the Far North. KARINABORGER to many of the world’s geopolitical problems. Arctic states, stake- holders and citizens exist and operate in the region and with each other largely without conflict. Arctic exceptionalism has held firm since the end of the Cold War, but in the face of today’s environmental changes, it is being challenged. With the opening of new sea routes and easier access to oil, gas and critical minerals, a “new Arctic” is forming. Many countries, including the United States, are turning to their militaries and antagonistic rhetoric to safeguard their interests in the region and make their intentions known—and this is leading many people to now question if the Arctic can, in fact, remain exceptional. An Exceptional Challenge The Arctic can and must remain exceptional, but ensuring that it does will be a challenge. It will require the U.S. Congress to pay greater attention to the region. It will require our execu- tive branch, along with businesses and corporations, to invest in infrastructure and expand connectivity. It will require us to maintain our energy independence and reverse growing mineral dependence from countries such as China. And it will require us to exercise serious and dedicated Arctic diplomacy—a capacity we will have to create. The U.S. Foreign Service is the first line of America’s national security apparatus. Despite a budget that is no more than 3 to 5 percent the size of our defense budget, it is the State Depart- ment that is expected to set the course for our national interests abroad, to have the tough conversations, to try to find common ground. Yet in recent years it’s been the military, sometimes out of necessity and sometimes by mistake, that has assumed that role. As the late George Shultz recently wrote in this very journal, “Reliance on military threats, with little or no effort at diplo- macy, is the most prominent feature of our relations with nations that we associate with anti-American sentiments and actions.” We cannot let this trend continue in the Arctic. Every one of our military service branches has published a new Arctic strategy in the last 18 months. U.S. military operations in the High North have increased in size, scale and frequency. In Congress, I have sponsored and supported legislation to aid these strategies and operations. And I have commended the Defense Department for its renewed focus on the Arctic. Make no mistake, we need an Arctic-capable military, just as we need and expect our military to effectively operate in all regions—des- erts, jungles, mountains and cities. Diplomacy works best with the backing of a strong military. The military, however, cannot be the first tool of diplomacy, especially in the Arctic, where peace has been and still is the