Arctic research should advance more than U.S. national security interests: Commentary
The U.S. Government does not have a good grasp on the federally-funded research needs for advancing U.S. national interests in the Arctic. That became clear to me when the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) recently published a new report that was intended to articulate those needs. In seeking alignment with the America First Agenda of the Trump Administration, USARC chose the wrong concept for our national interests. Perhaps inadvertently, USARC reduced our national interests to nothing more than our national safety and security interests. That is clear when one considers the terminology used throughout the report. Every priority area that USARC selected for Arctic research ends with the word “security” (e.g., military security). The Congressional committees of jurisdiction should resolutely reject the USARC findings in the months ahead. Otherwise, the U.S. Government will run the risk of prioritizing a set of research needs that do not fully advance the national interests of the Arctic, Alaskans and the American people.
Missing interests
One of the problems is that the USARC report frames the needs for Arctic research along a single dimensional plane. There is no doubt that national safety and national security are two of the national interests at play in the Arctic affairs of the United States. However, they are not the only national interests. There is also national survival, as well as national identity. It is therefore remarkable that the USARC report not only overlooks the need for Arctic research on the preservation of the cultures, languages, history, and values of the Alaskans, especially Alaska Native peoples. It overlooks the need for Arctic research on the ability of the environment to meet the basic needs that ensure the enduring physical survival of Arctic communities.
Missing sectors
Another of the problems is that the USARC report frames the needs for Arctic research around only three of the five sectors of security. It is clear that there are economic issues, military issues, and societal issues that have become securitized in the Arctic affairs of the United States. However, they are not the only securitized issues. There are political issues that have become securitized, like immigration. That is evident in the framing of unlawful migration as an “invasion” by the Trump Administration. There are also environmental issues that some Americans argue should be securitized. Examples include climate change, environmental degradation, and cross-border pollution. That is evident in the framing of climate change as an “existential threat” by the Biden Administration. It is therefore remarkable that the USARC report did not explicitly address what, if any, needs there are for research on political and environmental security. That includes the need for research on Ukrainian refugees residing in the State of Alaska. Or the need for research on the environmental threats to certain Alaska Native villages that are now forced to relocate. The former is a particularly glaring omission given that U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is on-the-record calling for the Trump Administration to do more to protect Ukrainian refugees.
National plan
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), in cooperation with USARC, is in the process of developing a new multi-year national plan for Arctic research. That document will provide the guidelines that various federal agencies will use to determine where to invest their portion of federal funds to area studies, engineering, science, and technology research related to the Arctic. In order to advance U.S. national interests in Arctic affairs, the National Plan for Arctic Research (2027-2031) should avoid making the same mistakes as the USARC report. That will require doing a couple of things differently. First, it will need to account for each and every critical security issue that has an impact on U.S. national interests in the Arctic. That includes politically uncomfortable ones (e.g., environmental security issues). Second, it will need to articulate a set of priority areas that advance U.S. national interests – not simply U.S. national security interests. Otherwise, there will be major gaps in federally-funded research that will undermine U.S. national interests in the Arctic and beyond.
Alaska nexus
A large number of Arctic research institutions are based in the State of Alaska. This becomes immediately clear when one considers the member institutions of the soon to be shuttered Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (ARCUS). They include the Alaska Ocean Observing System, Kawerak, Inc., Sitka Sound Science Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and University of Alaska Southeast. These member institutions have been conducting Arctic research that not only improves our general understanding of Alaska and its communities. They have been producing research that has a tangible impact on the everyday lives of the people of Alaska.
If the U.S. government decides to deprioritize federal funding of research on the stewardship of the Alaskan environment or community health for Alaskans, it could not only have a significant impact on livelihoods of Arctic researchers across the State of Alaska. That decision could have a significant impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Alaskan residents. That is why Alaskans should be questioning the Congressional delegation of Alaska and where they stand on oversight actions and the needs for Arctic research in the months ahead. Otherwise, they could miss the policy window that is now open to advance the interests of Alaska through Arctic research.
Michael Walsh is an academic researcher who is conducting a case study on the quality of U.S. national plans in the Arctic and Antarctic. As a researcher, he is currently affiliated with Georgetown University, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa.
Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew Kitchenman for questions: [email protected]. Follow Alaska Beacon on Facebook and X.
