Such rhetoric reveals, if not another obstacle, then at least the complicating factor of geopolitics as the United States attempts to shape its presence in the region. Another of the experts interviewed by McFadden was retired Coast Guard Adm. Robert Papp, Zukunft’s predecessor as commandant and now the U.S. State Department’s special representative to the Arctic Council – the intergovernmental forum for high-level discussion of issues common to Arctic nations. While Papp unequivocally deplores Russia’s military adventurism, he also points out that – in the Arctic, at least – the Russians are in compliance with international law as defined by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

“If we’re completely objective here,” said Papp, “the Russians have the largest portion of coastline surrounding the Arctic Ocean. So it’s understandable that if you’re going to claim extended continental shelf, it’s going to be a rather large claim. Much was made of the fact that they claimed the North Pole as part of their extended continental shelf claim. Denmark did as well, but nobody made a big deal out of it. Little Denmark has a rather substantial claim, because of Greenland, and it includes the North Pole. And when Canada submits their claim – and they’re going to have a rather large claim – it will also include the North Pole.”

Healy’s mapping efforts have revealed an area about twice the size of California, extended off Alaska’s continental shelf, that could be claimed by the United States – but it’s unable to make such a claim, because it remains the only Arctic nation not to have ratified the UNCLOS treaty, despite support from both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. In his NBC Nightly News interview, Papp spoke bluntly: “It’s embarrassing to me to see that we are not a part of that treaty,” he said, “where every other major maritime country in the world has signed on to it and is using it as a tool, as a venue to peacefully resolve issues that are happening at sea.”

The new law, Zukunft said, “… recognizes that we are the lead federal agency for maritime in the Arctic. Of course, I’ve got to be talking to the other stakeholders up there as well. And the good news is we do – we work very closely with NOAA, Department of Interior, departments of Defense, Transportation, and others. But at end of the day, what I read in the law is that the Coast Guard has a lead federal responsibility in the Arctic.”

It would seem important, then, in measuring U.S. progress in the Arctic, to focus not on the capabilities of other nations, but on what the nation’s services can do to achieve their own objectives. It doesn’t make sense, for example, to try to match the icebreaker fleet of the Russians, who use their icebreakers to enable traffic along an Arctic coastline 15 times longer than Alaska’s. “Really the icebreaker is just like any other Coast Guard cutter,” said Brigham, “to enforce the laws and carry out the full range of the Coast Guard’s federal responsibilities. It’s a floating Coast Guard base designed to operate in polar regions. But what it’s not likely to be – nor should be – is a convoy escort.”

 

Charting an Arctic Course

It isn’t as if Russia’s activities aren’t cause for concern. “As Russia builds out some of its capacity in the Arctic,” said Zukunft, “some of it is contiguous with the Northern Sea Route. And yes, they’re building out an array of search and rescue stations – but co-located with these search and rescue stations are surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missile battery sites.” Russia’s assertive claims and military exercises in the region have ratcheted up tensions among other Arctic Council members. Having assumed the two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council in April 2015, the U.S. delegation signaled its hope to ratchet these tensions back down and work with Russia as a partner on urgent Arctic issues.

The Coast Guard continues to emphasize engagement and cooperation in the Arctic, not only among Alaskan communities but also among its counterparts in Arctic nations. The Arctic Coast Guard Forum (ACGF), established under the recent Arctic Council chairmanship of Canada, recently separated itself into a distinct operationally focused organization, focused on strengthening cooperation. The forum, Zukunft pointed out, offers a venue in which he can speak freely with his counterparts from Russia. In late October, the ACGF was formally established at a meeting of the eight members at the Coast Guard Academy. “We’ll meet in New London, Connecticut,” said Zukunft, “and try to reset and refocus the discussion about the Arctic on things like the safety of life at sea and marine environmental protection – less on the military and more on the stewardship aspects of caring for the Arctic in the 21st century through a Coast Guard-led effort.”

Meanwhile, the proposals released by the White House during Obama’s Alaska visit included the accelerated acquisition of a replacement heavy icebreaker, and planning for the construction of additional icebreakers – though nobody yet seems to have solved the problem of where to find the money to build them. The administration also proposed a joint NOAA/Coast Guard effort to map and chart the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas.

In February 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers launched a draft report on the feasibility of expanding the Port of Nome into the region’s first deepwater port – south of the Bering Strait but still 734 miles closer to Arctic waters than the nearest deepwater port at Dutch Harbor, in the Aleutian Island chain. The Army Corps’ report is still preliminary, and is under debate – critics point out that the proposed 28-foot channel isn’t deep enough for many vessels, such as icebreakers – but is welcomed as a step in the right direction.

The Coast Guard’s annual Arctic Shield exercises continue to grow more robust, involving local, regional, federal, and international partners. However, without additional assets or the development of support infrastructure in the Arctic, there will be a limit to what the service can achieve there. As both Papp and Zukunft have pointed out, the way Congress has passed budgets in recent years – continuing resolutions that fund programs for months at a time – keeps everyone focused on the short term and doesn’t allow for strategic planning.*

Despite the many remaining challenges in the Arctic, it’s a duty Zukunft said the Coast Guard is eager to embrace.

A report by the General Accounting Office, released in May 2015, claimed the service faced a “potentially significant capability gap” in its surface assets unless the Coast Guard changed either the size of its proposed fleet or Congress changed its level of funding. The outlook appeared grim. But 2015 has been a surprising year for the Arctic on many fronts: The Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, passed in December, contained several provisions aimed at helping the Coast Guard develop its presence in the Arctic. The new law, Zukunft said, “… recognizes that we are the lead federal agency for maritime in the Arctic. Of course, I’ve got to be talking to the other stakeholders up there as well. And the good news is we do – we work very closely with NOAA, Department of Interior, departments of Defense, Transportation, and others. But at end of the day, what I read in the law is that the Coast Guard has a lead federal responsibility in the Arctic.”

Despite the many remaining challenges in the Arctic, it’s a duty Zukunft said the Coast Guard is eager to embrace. “It’s a responsibility I feel is incumbent upon us,” he said, “because we’ve been operating in those waters for well over a century now.”

Editor’s note: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District announced Oct. 26 a 12-month pause in the “Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port System” feasibility study. In 12 months, the Army Corps, state of Alaska, and city of Nome will assess whether to proceed with the study as is or change the scope of the study.

This article first appeared in Coast Guard Outlook 2015-2016 Edition.