Leaving its Arctic reluctance behind: the re-emergence of U.S. security policy focus towards the European High North and its implications for Norway

ABSTRACT

While both Norway and the United States are Arctic states, their security policy approaches towards the Arctic region vary. For Norway, the High North is a central part of national security policy. For the United States, the U.S Arctic has been more or less distant in both a geographical and political sense, and prioritisation of investments in the U.S. Arctic has remained relatively low. The U.S. has however increased its attention to the European High North recently. This article explores why the U.S. and Norway have so different security policy approaches towards their Arctic areas, and why the European High North is of security interest to both. It makes the case that a combination of contrasting geographical realities and international security concerns found in the North American and European subregions of the Arctic contribute to explain the different security policy approaches, and also why they both share security interests in the European Arctic. The cases of Norway and the U.S. illustrate the need to look at regions within the Arctic when studying security policies and postures there. The European High North, which holds value to several actors, is often central in addressing security issues in the Arctic, and the role that Russia plays here is key. This article adds to the literature on security in the Arctic by shedding light on U.S. military presence in this part of the region and its implications for Norwegian security outlook in the High North.

KEYWORDS:

• Arctic
• security
• USA
• Norway
• Nato
• Russia
• the European Arctic
• the North American Arctic

Acknowledgement

I am very grateful to Andreas Østhagen and Svein Vigeland Rottem for their helpful and insightful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Huebert, “United States Arctic Policy: The Reluctant Arctic Power.”

2. Bye, “National Interests and Security Policies.” (master’s thesis, University of Denver, 2018), 52, 56–60.

3. Jepperson, Ronald L., “Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security.”

4. Hensel, Paul R, “Contentious Issues and World Politics,” 81.

5. Gleditsch and Ward, “Forecasting is Difficult.”

6. Keil, “The Arctic: A new region of conflict? The case of oil and gas,” Cooperation and Conflict 49, no. 2 (2014): 162–90.

7. Bye, “National Interests and Security Policies.” (master’s thesis, University of Denver, 2018).

8. Østhagen, Sharp, and Hilde, “At Opposite Poles,” Polar Journal 8, no. 1 (2018): 163–81.

9. Ibid., 172, 175.

10. Ibid., 175.

11. Tamnes and Offerdal, “Introduction,” 6.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. ACIA, “ACIA Overview report,” 1020.

15. See for example Gautier, Donald L. et al., “Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Arctic,” Science 324 (2009): 1175–79.

16. Hønneland, “Norway and the High North,” Current Politics and Economics of Europe 28 (2017): 45.

17. Borgerson, “Arctic Meltdown,” Foreign Affairs 87 (2008): 63.

18. Claes and Moe, “Arctic Petroleum Resources in a Regional and Global Perspective,” 98, 117–18.

19. Østhagen, “The Different Levels of Geopolitics of the Arctic.”

20. Ibid.

21. Borgerson, “Arctic Meltdown,” 64.

22. Huebert, “United States Arctic Policy,” 2.

23. O”Rourke et al., “Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress,” 44.

24. Kraska, “The New Arctic Geography and U.S. Strategy,” 255.

25. Lundestad and Tunsjø, “The United States and China in the Arctic,” Polar Record 51, no. 4 (2015): 395.

26. U.S. White House, “National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.”

27. Ibid., Section III B.

28. U.S. White House, “National Strategy for the Arctic Region.”; Wegge, Njord, “Stormaktsinteresser og sikkerhetspolitiske utviklingstrekk i Arktis», 2.

29. Rottem, Hva er Arktis Råd? (“What is the Arctic Council?”);

Pedersen, “Debates over the Role of the Arctic Council,” 148–49.

30. Nilsson, “The United States and the making of an Arctic nation,” Polar Record 54, no. 2 (2018): 95, 102–4.

31. U.S. Navy, “U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014–2030.”

32. U.S. Coast Guard, “United States Coast Guard Arctic Strategic Outlook.”

33. U.S. Department of Defense, “2019 DoD Arctic Strategy,” 6–7.

34. Ibid.

35. Wegge, “Stormaktsinteresser og sikkerhetspolitiske utviklingstrekk i Arktis,” 2.

36. U.S. Coast Guard, “United States Coast Guard Arctic Strategic Outlook,” 24, 29.

37. O”Rourke, “Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter,” Summary.

38. Ibid.

39. U.S. Coast Guard, “United States Coast Guard Arctic Strategic Outlook,” 24.

40. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Coast Guard Acquisitions,” 1.

41. Ibid.

42. Gjerde and Fjæstad, “’Det meste er nord’: Støres største satsning.”; and Østhagen, Sharp, and Hilde, “At Opposite Poles,” 170.

43. Wezeman, “Military Capabilities in the Arctic,” 12.

44. Norwegian Ministries, “Norway”s Arctic Strategy,” 02.

45. Norwegian Armed Forces, “Årsrapport 2017.” [Norwegian Armed Forces Annual Report] 20.

46. Norwegian Ministries, “Norway”s Arctic Strategy,” 35–6.

47. Norwegian Ministry of Finance. “Prop. 1S (2018–2019): Proposisjon til Stortinget (forslag til stortingsvedtak) For budsjettåret 2019. Statsbudsjettet.” [Proposition No. 1S to the Storting (2018–2019): The National Budget 2019,] 33; Norwegian Ministry of Finance. “Prop. 1S (2017–2018): Proposisjon til Stortinget (forslag til stortingsvedtak) For budsjettåret 2018. Statsbudsjettet.” [Proposition No. 1 S to the Storting (2017–2018): The National Budget 2018,] 31.

48. Stromquist and Johnston, “Opportunities and Challenges for Arctic Oil and Gas Development,” 18.

49. Bye, “National Interests and Security Policies.” (master’s thesis, University of Denver, 2018,) 65.

50. Ibid.

51. Lindgren and Græger, “The Challenges and Dynamics of Alliance Policies,” 107.

52. Keil, “The Arctic: A New Region of Conflict?” 175; and Harsem, Heen, and Eide, “Factors Influencing Oil and Gas Activity in the High North,” Energy Policy 39, no. 12 (2011): 8043.

53. Saxi, “Norwegian Perspectives on Baltic Sea Security”, 104.

54. Østhagen, Sharp, and Hilde, “At Opposite Poles,” 169.

55. Harsem, Heen and Eide, “Factors Influencing Oil and Gas Actvitiy,” 8038; and Keil, “The Arctic: A New Region of Conflict?” 171.

56. Claes and Moe, “Arctic petroleum resources in a regional and global perspective,” 114.

57. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Alaska: Profile Analysis.”; Conley and Melino, “The Implications of U.S. Policy Stagnation,” 2.

58. Conley and Melino, “The Implications of U.S. Policy Stagnation,” 3.

59. Bergh, “The Arctic Policies of Canada and the United States,” 17.

60. Offerdal, “Interstate relations,” 80.

61. Bye, “National Interests and Security Policies.” (master’s thesis, University of Denver, 2018,) 135.

62. Østhagen, Sharp, and Hilde, “At Opposite Poles,” 175.

63. Østhagen, “The Different Levels of Geopolitics of the Arctic.”

64. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “St. meld. Nr. 36 (2016–2017): Veivalg i norsk utenriks og sikkerhetspolitikk” [No. 36 (2016–2017) to the Storting: Setting the course for Norwegian foreign and security policy,] 14.

65. Conley and Rohloff, “The New Ice Curtain,” 9.

66. Ibid., 9, 11–12; and U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, “New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms.”

67. Østhagen, “The Different Levels of Geopolitics of the Arctic.”

68. Tamnes, “The Significance of the North Atlantic,” 26.

69. Rottem, “The Political Architecture of Security in the Arctic,” Arctic Review on Law and Politics 4, no. 2 (2013): 247.

70. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “St. meld. Nr. 36 (2016–2017): Veivalg i norsk utenriks og sikkerhetspolitikk” [No. 36 (2016–2017) to the Storting: Setting the course for Norwegian foreign and security policy,] 31–3.

71. Lindmark and Græger, “The Challenges and Dynamics of Alliance Policies,” 94.

72. Østhagen, Sharp, Hilde, “At Opposite Poles,” 175.

73. Wegge, “Stormaktsinteresser og sikkerhetspolitiske utviklingstrekk i Arktis,” 2.

74. Navy Office of Information, “CNO Announces Establishment of U.S. 2^nd Fleet.”

75. Wegge, “Stormaktsinteresser og sikkerhetspolitiske utviklingstrekk i Arktis,” 2.

76. Tamnes, “The Significance of the North Atlantic,” 9, 21.

77. U.S. Department of Defense, “2019 DoD Arctic Strategy,” 5.

78. Østhagen, “The Different Levels of Geopolitics of the Arctic.”

79. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Noregs forhold til USA.”

80. Norwegian Ministries, “Norway”s Arctic Strategy,” 18.

81. Hønneland, “Norway and the High North,” 34.

82. Kjølberg, “Norsk sikkerhetspolitikk og nordområdene,” 32; See also Holst, Norsk sikkerhetspolitikk i strategisk perspektiv.

83. Tamnes, Rolf, “Arctic Security and Norway.”

84. Kjølberg, “Norsk sikkerhetspolitikk og nordområdene,” 32; and Hønneland, “Norway and the High North,” 34.

85. Tamnes, “The Significance of the North Atlantic and the Norwegian Contribution,” 15.

86. Saxi, “Norwegian Perspectives on Baltic Sea Security,” 102, 104.

87. Lindgren and Græger, “The Challenges and Dynamics of Alliance Policies,” 96, 98, 103.

88. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “St. meld. Nr. 36 (2016–2017): Veivalg i norsk utenriks og sikkerhetspolitikk” [No. 36 (2016–2017) to the Storting: Setting the course for Norwegian foreign and security policy,] 6.

89. Neumann and Gstöhl, “Introduction,” 6.

90. Ibid.

91. Kjølberg, “Norsk sikkerhetspolitikk og nordområdene,” 29.

92. Bowers, Ian, «Small State Deterrence in the Contemporary World,” 2,5.

93. Ibid., 5.

94. Ibid.

95. Saxi, “Norwegian Perspectives on Baltic Sea Security,” 104.

96. Østhagen, Sharp, and Hilde, “At Opposite Poles,” 174.

97. Lindgren and Græger, “The Challenges and Dynamics of Alliance Policies,” 103.

98. Lindgren and Græger, “The Challenges and Dynamics of Alliance Policies,” 104.

99. Saxi, “Norwegian Perspectives on Baltic Sea Security,” 105–6.

100. Ibid., 106.

101. Hønneland, “Norway and the High North,” 32; Gjerde og Fjæstad, “Det meste er nord.”

102. Hønneland, “Norway and the High North,” 34–5.

103. Østhagen, Sharp, and Hilde, “At Opposite Poles,” 171.

104. Gjerde og Fjæstad, “Det meste er nord.”

105. Ibid.

106. Kjølberg, “Norsk sikkerhetspolitikk og nordområdene,” 27.

107. Ibid., 28.

108. Godzimirski, “The risks of being an ally,” 1,3.

109. Ibid., 3.

110. Lindgren and Græger, “The Challenges and Dynamics of Alliance Policies,” 109.

111. Wilhelmsen and Gjerde, “Norway and Russia in the Arctic: New Cold War Contamination?”.

112. Ibid.

113. Ibid.

114. Tamnes, “The Significance of the North Atlantic,” 15.

115. Kjølberg, “Norsk sikkerhetspolitikk og nordområdene,” 32.

116. Kjølberg, 32; and Tamnes, Integration and Screening: The Two Faces of Norwegian Alliance Policy.