Author Topic: The Arctic Is No Substitute for Suez. We Should Keep It That Way.  (Read 217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
 
The Arctic Is No Substitute for Suez. We Should Keep It That Way.

One obvious way to reduce tensions in the region is to slow climate change and the use of northern sea routes.
By Joshua Tallis
 
April 6, 2021
 

The recent blockage of the Suez Canal spurred yet more commentary on the viability of the Northern Sea Route as an alternative to the chokepoint-laden lines of global commerce. But there remains good to reason to believe that a diversion of traffic north isn’t happening now and won’t happen anytime soon. Perhaps, as a matter of U.S. policy, it shouldn’t happen at all.

The strategic arguments for increased U.S. investment and presence in the Arctic are usually based on two overlapping phenomena: increased maritime accessibility and the potential for more commercial exploitation. The recent Navy and Marine Corps strategy notes that “melting sea ice is making Arctic waters more accessible and navigable, enabling greater trade in the coming decades.” The Army strategy warns of “possible future highways of maritime commerce,” with shorter Europe-to-Asia routes “avoiding maritime chokepoints.” The DOD strategy points to benefits for China, whose Arctic interests “are primarily focused on access to natural resources and the opportunities offered by the Arctic sea routes for Chinese shipping.” The common logic is that climate change will lead to more Arctic shipping and commerce, which will boost the region’s strategic significance, which will require more defense resources.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/04/arctic-no-substitute-suez-we-should-keep-it-way/173189/