Why is the US so far behind in the Arctic? Clues emerge at congressional hearing.

The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the ice Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2018, about 715 miles north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, in the Arctic.

The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the ice Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2018, about 715 miles north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, in the Arctic. (Public domain photo by NyxoLyno Cangemi/Coast Guard)

The United States is losing control over the Arctic to Russia and China because it failed to build the ships, ports and other infrastructure it needs to be there. That was the message Arctic experts delivered at a hearing Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Retired Adm. Thad Allen, a former Coast Guard commandant, said the country needs to wake up to the strategic importance of the Arctic Ocean and commit more resources to it.

Coast Guard Commandant, Adm. Thad Allen takes question during an interview at the Coast Guard Academy, Sept. 8, 2006.

Retired Adm. Thad Allen in 2006. (Public domain photo by Telfair H. Brown Sr./Coast Guard)

“You don’t have sovereignty unless you can exert it,” Allen said.

The theme seems to be gaining some national traction. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this week the U.S. will conduct more Arctic exercises and expand the Coast Guard to counter Russia and China’s increased activity in the region.

But the House hearing laid bare some of the difficulties the country has in executing a long-range strategic vision.

The United States is finally building a new Coast Guard icebreaker. Still, there’s no port in the U.S. Arctic where it can dock. The discussion at the hearing focused on a possible port expansion at Nome. The Army Corps of Engineers has been studying the idea for years and expects to publish a feasibility report soon.

For those who want to see the country make big Arctic strides, the proposal may not live up to expectations.

Col. Phillip Borders, commander of the Corps’ Alaska District, told the committee the Corps is considering dredging the 22-foot Nome port, but only to a depth to better serve the ships that go there now.

“It’s the assessment of the vessels that use that facility normally, and that’s where we come up with the — between the 30- and the 40-(foot depth),” he said.

“Right, but we’ve got a dynamic situation, don’t we, colonel? You’d agree?” Rep. Sean Maloney, D-N.Y., pressed. He suggested the port needs to be at least 45 feet, the depth needed for larger Coast Guard and Navy ships.

An aerial view of Nome, Alaska, and the surrounding countryside; March 2017. (Photo by Margaret DeMaioribus/KNOM)

“The whole point of what we’re talking about today is the emerging re-examination of the Arctic, of developing a strategic plan, of keeping up with the great power competition,” Maloney said. “It’s not going to be enough to just service the vessels who are using it now. Isn’t that fair to say?”

Borders said his authority is limited: The money Congress gave for the study was from a civilian account, not military construction.

“I understand the 45-foot depth, but that’s for another organization,” Borders said. “If they want, they have that capability there.”

If he meant a branch of the military would step in to pay for the project, that’s unlikely.

Allen said no agency can afford to dedicate a chunk of its budget to improving the port at Nome.

What happened this week?

Make sure you didn’t miss anything with The Signal – an insightful (and entertaining) recap of the biggest news in Alaska, delivered to your inbox weekly

Recent headlines

X