We are looking north for more than inbound missiles:
The Obama administration on Friday unveiled its National Strategy for the Arctic Region – three broad priorities it plans to pursue, as opportunities open to drill for oil and gas, harvest minerals, and increase other forms of economic activity at the top of the world.
The priorities in the 13-page document include beefing up defense and other national security activities in the region, as well as the infrastructure to support them; working to safeguard the region's environment; and working with other Arctic nations one on one and through multicountry organizations, such as the Arctic Council, to manage activities in the region in ways that reduce the potential for conflict. In addition, the strategy calls for a push for ratification of the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty, which failed to clear the Senate last year.
I'll have to look for the paper and check it out. Administration interest in the north is good. With military aspects noted, why not create a Polar Command to coordinate and command?
So I'm just basing this post on the criticism of the reference to the importance of the Law of the Sea (LOST). The notion that joining the treaty will somehow increase our ability to fight for our share is ludicrous given that all the states that have signed the treaty along with China hasn't meant that China has reined in their claims that conflict with other signatories of LOST. We'd do better to negotiate our difference with other friendly states such as Canada who have different interests. As I wrote, LOST is not a substitute for a Navy second to none:
Trust a strong military and robust alliances to keep freedom of navigation. This treaty will only allow us to pretend--for a while--that a strong military and robust alliances aren't necessary.
Let me repeat, signing LOST does not give us the silver bullet means to block China's expansive claims at sea:
Trying to ensnare China in binding international rules will fail in the face of China's 1,000-year tradition of doing what they want to neighbors. Only we are ensnared by international agreements.
The trust in LOST to reduce tensions over conflicting claims at sea is kind of funny considering that LOST actually promotes conflicts by giving countries great incentive to claim little bits of land in order to draw friendly exclusive economic zones:
Has anyone noticed that the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS, or less charitably, LOST), which we supposedly need to ratify to endorse international law concerning the seas, is the very reason that the South China Sea has become a hot spot that could trigger a major power war from a number of angles?
It's good that we want an Arctic strategy. So we should formulate that strategy rather than just draft an excuse for a rotten treaty that will cause more problems than it hopes to solve.
