Introduction
The United States is nearing completion of a comprehensive review of its arctic policy. A "presidential review directive" was issued by the National Security Council as part of the new Clinton administration' s overview of global environmental issues. A federal interagency working group concluded its analysis last fall and forwarded its recommendations to the Security Council. As we go to print, the national policy review remains an internal document; however, informal discussions with government officials indicate that the review recommends that the United States place greater emphasis on environmental protection, sustainable development, and native peoples while retaining national security as a key objective in the Arctic. Of ficials have not yet determined how to involve the public or the State of Alaska in the review process.
U.S. View of the Arctic
The United States became an arctic nation with the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 and has since viewed its arctic region as strategically important first for economic reasons, later for national security reasons, and, more recently, for global environmental reasons. Periodically, it has reassessed its interests in the Arctic with a view towards expanding co-operation across the region. During World War II, the U.S. proposed an international arctic treaty to promote transportation and communication. In the late 1960s, it promoted a "Northlands Compact" for co-operation in science, economic development, environmental protection, and health. Though both initiatives failed due to lack of interest among the arctic nations, the U.S. government's increased attention to the North and the likelihood of North Slope oil development prompted the first presidential statement on U.S. arctic policy in 1971. Existing U.S. policy, set out in National Security Decision Directive90(NSDD90)in 1983.reaffirmsthe 1971 ststement
The Arctic Policy Framework
The four pillars of U.S. arctic policy outlined in NSDD 90 are the protection of essential security interests; the support of rational development; the promotion of scientific research; and the promotion of international co-operation. The directive gives the responsibility for arctic matters, with the exception of strictly domestic issues, to a federal interagency working group chaired by the State Department. The working group consists of representatives from all interested federal agencies and includes ad hoc participation from the Arctic Research Commission and the Polar Research Board.
The Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 sets out research policy for the U.S. ARPA established the Arctic Research Commission, which provides recommendations on
research priorities to the national arctic research community, and acts as a liaison between federal and state and local authorities. The act stipulates that research concerns be addressed through the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), chaired by the National Science Foundation. IARPC's "Agenda for Action" on environmental contaminants is one recent example of interagency co-operation in arctic research.
Is There a Need for a New Policy?
The general goals expressed in the existing statement on arctic policy, prepared in 1971 and updated in 1983, are still consistent with U.S. interests and could be viewed as flexible enough to meet today's concerns. However, accelerated political, social, environmental, and economic changes have altered the context in which the earlier policies were laid out. A new U.S. administration, the end of the Cold War, and increased interest in the rights of indigenous peoples and protection of the arctic environment prompted the current policy review. The most fundamental shift has been the dissolution of the Soviet Union, changing the Arctic from a region of potential confrontation to one of co-operation. Because security concerns no longer must govern arctic policy, the U.S. may now identify different opportunities in the Arctic. An updated policy should take advantage of these new opportunities: Russian co-operation; public interest in the policy process; circumpolar programs on environmental protection and sustainable development; and greater involvement and participation of native peoples. While earlier reviews were driven by domestic considerations—oil and native land claims issues—the 1993 review recognizes transboundary concerns and notes the vital role of the Arctic in the quality of the global climate and environment.
A New Perspective on the Arctic Emerges
The 1992 conference on "The Changing Role of the U.S. in the Circumpolar World," held in Fairbanks, Alaska, initiated a discussion on U.S. arctic policy in this new political context. It involved a cross-section of groups interested in the Arctic— federal and state policy makers, native peoples, environmentalists, researchers, and industry representatives. These participants recommended a review of current policy to achieve the following goals: to enhance the role of arctic residents—particularly indigenous peoples—in the policy process; to promote collaborative research and open exchange of data; to sustain biological and cultural diversity; to support development activities that protect the environment; and to define security interests in the post-Cold War context.
Coincident with the review and in response to the growth of circumpolar initiatives, the U.S. and the State of Alaska have gradually taken on a more activist role in the Arctic. At the second ministerial meeting of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), held in Nuuk, Greenland, in September 1993, the U.S . supported the concept of broadening the AEPS to deal with sustainable development, including a working group on the sustainable use of natural resources by native peoples. With the enthusiastic support of Alaska, the U.S. agreed to host meetings to discuss marine environmental protection and emergency preparedness and response. It proposed that the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna working group consider protection of boreal forests and review the agreement on the conservation of polar bears. It identified linkages to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and its principles and conventions, and considered how the AEPS should meet these global obligations in the arctic region.
The new U.S. perspective and approach to arctic matters is reflected in the State Department's current funding of several projects related to the AEPS: a National Academy of Sciences study of the Bering Sea ecosystem; an Environmental Defense Fund environmental atlas; the U.S. Arctic Network, a nongovernmental organization linking native and environmental groups on international arctic issues; a part-time position at the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme Secretariat; and a circumpolar database under the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna initiative.
The evolving arctic policy could give policy makers the direction and scope necessary to devote more resources, both financial and human, towards solving the problems of the Arctic. It is likely to have significant impact on the success or failure of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. It also is likely to influence the U.S. position on Canada's proposal for an Arctic Council. The U.S. maintains that the council would duplicate ongoing circumpolar efforts and would dilute funds needed for meetings and programs. Among other circumpolar countries, however, there is growing consensus that a co-ordinating structure for the many initiatives may prove necessary. An expansion of the AEPS, which in some ways has already begun, perhaps could provide a solution to the impasse. The agreement of the AEPS ministers in Nuuk to consider terms of reference for a working group on sustainable development broadens the strategy's mandate to deal with some of the concerns to be addressed by the proposed council.
Conclusion
The policy review is expected to result in some subtle, but meaningful, shifts in the role of the U.S. in the North. The new political situation permits a change in emphasis in, although not a realignment of, arctic policy. National security will remain a key objective, but it will be independent of all other interests. Environmental protection is likely to become a primary goal, rather than in relation only to development. The concerns of native peoples and arctic residents probably will be recognized, and perhaps northerners will be accorded a means to participate in the development of arctic policy.
Financial and human resources are, of course, necessary to achieve new objectives. Given the current budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that additional resources will be dedicated to the implementation of the policy review' s recommendations. Despite renewed interest in arctic research and increased involvement and awareness of indigenous peoples and environmental groups, the Arctic tends to fall behind other major international initiatives and the pressing concerns of the "lower 48." Americans do not generally feel a historical or
cultural attachment to the Arctic, and thus there is little domestic pressure to promote programs in the North.
The National Security Council must then resolve the question: Do the problems in the Arctic rank high against other pressing concerns? Its answer lies in the vital role of the arctic environment in the global climate system, the impacts of human activities on the arctic ecosystem and native cultures, and the development and harvest of vast natural resources of the circumpolar North. The council has the authority to issue a new policy directive, to revise the federal policy co-ordination process, and to act on recommendations of the policy review. But putting the updated policy into action will depend on the skills of policy makers, the determination of politicians, and the will of those interested in arctic matters—the will to press for a new view of the Arctic.
Elizabeth Leighton is the Policy Officer, WWF Scotland (World Wide Fund For Nature); formerly employed with the U.S. State Department as an arctic policy specialist in Washington, D.C. and Alaska.
