President Trump and the North West Passage
The issue of sovereignty over the North West Passage and control of this trade route
Trump’s stated aim to acquire Greenland for the United States would have serious effects on international security and diplomacy in the Arctic Circle and add to environmental concerns already pressing heavily on Greenland and the entire region. It also calls into question the whole issue of sovereignty over the North West Passage and control of this trade route which will be of increasing importance as the Arctic Ice melts. The delicate balance of international relationships in the Arctic is becoming destabilised by competition between the major nations involved over The Northern Sea Route and the North West passage.
The benefits of the Arctic Sea routes seem clear. The regular use of the North West Passage could mean shipping routes to from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean could be 7,000 kilometres shorter and take 14 days less than the route via the Panama Canal. The Northern Sea route from the Barent’s Sea to the Bering strait makes the route from West to East, 4000 nautical miles or 7,400 kilometres shorter than the traditional route through the Suez Canal, and as this route is being enthusiastically developed by Russia and China Trump has concerns that they are increasing their military and economic strength in the arctic regions.
The prize is US dominance over what will be a major shipping route of the future
As Trump seems determined to have an influence over Greenland it is credible that he also has designs on a US control of the North West Passage. As Russia and China are exerting influence over the Northern Sea Route then it is possible Trump would like achieve dominance of the North West Passage. Even though the ice conditions in this area are less favourable to regular use by commercial ships at the moment than the Northern Sea route The North West passage may be fully navigable by 2045. The prize is US dominance over what will be a major shipping route of the future and further opportunities to exploit the natural resources of the Arctic.
The politics of access to the Northwest passage is a problem yet to be solved
This aim however would not easily be achieved. Canada claims sovereignty over the passage as part of her inland waterways. The United States disputes this describing them as international waters, a view supported by the European Union. The Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), claim that the ice and water in the Northwest Passage is their territory. The politics of access to the Northwest passage is a problem yet to be solved. However Trump has not shied away from diplomatic confrontation with Demark over Greenland, even threatening the use of military force, and he has also recently been involved in arguments about tariffs with Canada. His reported remarks about Canada becoming “a cherished 51st state” have been taken as typical of his rhetoric, but we have yet to see where Trump draws the line between rhetoric and reality.
Major Logistical Challenges
There would be major logistical challenges if Trump asserted dominance over the North West Passage by use of his coast guard and navy. The ice and sea conditions in the North West passage are still harsh and unpredictable and there is little infrastructure to support increased security operations. A substantial budget would be required as a new ice breaker costs between 800 million dollars to 1 billion dollars each. However, as Russia, China and now Denmark are investing heavily in the Arctic, the current US administration might consider this outlay sensible.
Trump’s evident desire for a 21st Century ‘Manifest Destiny’
The ambition of Trump’s administration to annex Greenland and to increase the US security in the Arctic, possibly leading to a decision to establish control of the North West passage would result in diplomatic conflict and also an escalation of geopolitical tensions in the Arctic. However, given Trump’s evident desire to increase US dominance and to expand US territory with a 21st Century ‘Manifest Destiny’ agenda, no action in the Greenland or the Arctic should be ruled out.
About The Author - Dr Linda Parker
After teaching History for twenty or so years Linda decided to change course and enjoyed studied for her PhD at Birmingham University. She is now an independent scholar and author. Her main writing focus is on army chaplaincy in both world wars, and her main historical interests lie in 20th century military, social and religious history but she also has a keen interest in the history of polar exploration.
Linda is a co-founder of the British Modern Military History Society and is a member of the Royal Historical Society, the Western Front Association, the American Commission for Military History and the Society for Military History. She is a trustee of the Toc H movement and convenor of Toc H Wessex.
