The Foreign Service Journal, November 2015

28 NOVEMBER 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL One significant stumbling block is the U.S. failure—so far—to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (see p. 29). As a result, the United States is deprived of a voice in many of the forums where matters relating to the Arctic are discussed and decided on. (See sidebar, p. 29.) Voices of Dissent In late August 2015, The New York Times made the following claim on its front page: “U.S. Is Playing Catch-Up in Scramble for the Arctic.” While focusing mostly on military assets, and partic- ularly in comparison with Russia’s actions, journalist Steven Lee Meyers makes the case that the United States has not devoted enough resources to the Arctic, and that it is significantly behind the other Arctic nations and even China, Singapore and South Korea in many areas. “We have been for some time clamoring about our nation’s lack of capacity to sustain any meaningful presence in the Arctic. …The United States really isn’t even in this game,” current Coast Guard commandant Admiral Paul Zukunft tells Meyers. There are other voices of dissent. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is a strong advocate for devoting resources and attention to the Arctic, and is the co-founder, with Maine Senator Angus King, of the Senate’s Arctic Caucus. In addition to her disagreements with President Obama’s environmental policies in the Arctic, she is dissatisfied with the lack of specificity and “no real path of action” in the administration’s pronouncements on the Arctic, most recently the 2014 Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. In response to what she sees as a lack of funding for Arctic priorities, Murkowski is said to be preparing to introduce an Arctic infrastructure bill. Heather Conley, the noted Arctic expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has expressed disappoint- ment with the U.S. agenda for its Arctic Council chairmanship and wondered why there is not greater focus on more tradition- ally geopolitical issues in the Arctic. Climate change is all well and good, but in her words from a CSIS Commentary piece: “Tough, national decisions about Arctic readiness should have been made years ago and assessments must be made about the Arctic’s future security environment. There is not a moment to lose.” In fact, it is a challenge to find someone outside of the admin- istration who gives Washington a good grade on the Arctic. Even a 2014 Government Accountability Office report on Arctic issues found significant problems with coordination among the various agencies tasked with disparate parts of the Arctic portfolio and tied this directly to a lack of resources to devote to these issues. The GAO clearly identified the Department of State as the lead agency and provided a recommendation to improve coordina- tion. State agreed; no follow-up report has been issued, so it’s impossible to know how much—or little—has been done to address the problems identified by the GAO. What Next? It will become increasingly important to tie the allocation of resources to the actions of other Arctic nations, specifically Russia. As Moscow becomes more emboldened in the high north, it will become a strategic imperative to have the capacity to respond diplomatically, not just militarily. The Department of State must have the financial and human resources required to respond to any kind of challenge that may arise in the Arctic. Those in Congress who support a stronger U.S. role in the Arctic must back up their words with the budgetary support that is required. Without the ability to enhance infrastructure such as port facilities in the Arctic or build more than the two recently announced new icebreakers, we risk falling behind. More financial resources are one part of the solution, but the Department of State—as the designated lead agency on Arctic issues—can provide another part of the solution, as well. As U.S. interests in the Arctic change, it will become increasingly impera- tive to develop a cadre of Foreign Service officers and specialists who are experts in the diplomacy, politics and even science of the Arctic. The department needs to build up and maintain an in-house expertise on the issue that is not reliant on a succession of political appointees, special envoys and Schedule B scientific and technical advisers. The United States should ensure that the Arctic is a specific portfolio for one Foreign Service member in each of its embassies in the Arctic Council members’ capitals, as well as in Beijing. Such a group of in-house diplomats will be able to work on the inevitable issues arising from the ongoing melting of Antarctic ice and the future race for influence in that region. One significant stumbling block for the United States is the failure—so far—to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.