
The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program - wglb
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cia-closing-its-main-climate-research-program
======
themeek
There are a number of ways that climate change threatens the national security
of the United States beyond the mere 'existential threat' of habitat
destruction.

The first of these is that boundaries between nations and regions are in large
part based on natural geography - difficult to pass geographical features like
large bodies of water or rivers, think forests, faultlines, mountain ranges
and deserts form natural buffer zones between populations. As these features
change on a global scale: as rivers are redirected, water levels displace
populations, as deserts expand and forests move these boundaries are shifted
and so conflict can bubble between regions regarding their territory.

On a similar tact changes to the resource supply chain also causes territory
disputes. In some places (e.g. Yemen), water shortages fuel conflict that can
only get worse as water dries up. Resources move and ecological changes shift
country's resource supplies. Large changes and migrations to game or fish
populations force regions to renegotiate rights to territory for hunting and
fishing.

Furthermore climate change makes some previously unavailable resources
accessible. The elephant in the room here is the Arctic, which contains
roughly 20% of the world's oil and huge amounts of minerals and other
resources - as well as it being a natural and valuable geostrategic location
for missile deployment and satellite communication.

Some months ago a new executive order was published for the purposes of
developing a steering committee to unify agencies across the United States
government to implement goals it describes as:

"... critical long-term strategic, ecological, cultural, and economic value,
and it is imperative that we continue to protect our national interests in the
region, which include: national defense; sovereign rights and
responsibilities; maritime safety; energy and economic benefits; environmental
stewardship; promotion of science and research; and preservation of the
rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea as reflected in international law. ..."

The steering committee is responsible for a few things, and first:

"Sec. 3. Responsibilities of the Arctic Executive Steering Committee. The
Steering Committee, in coordination with the heads of relevant agencies and
under the direction of the Chair, shall:

(a) provide guidance and coordinate efforts to implement the priorities,
objectives, activities, and responsibilities identified in National Security
Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25, Arctic
Region Policy, the National Strategy for the Arctic Region and its
Implementation Plan, and related agency plans;

..."

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2015/01/21/execu...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2015/01/21/executive-order-enhancing-coordination-national-efforts-
arctic)

In NSPD-66 the national security interests are enumerated as:

"The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in
the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in
conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests
include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea
and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime
presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation
and overflight.

The United States also has fundamental homeland security interests in
preventing terrorist attacks and mitigating those criminal or hostile acts
that could increase the United States vulnerability to terrorism in the Arctic
region.

The Arctic region is primarily a maritime domain; as such, existing policies
and authorities relating to maritime areas continue to apply, including those
relating to law enforcement.[1] Human activity in the Arctic region is
increasing and is projected to increase further in coming years. This requires
the United States to assert a more active and influential national presence to
protect its Arctic interests and to project sea power throughout the region.

The United States exercises authority in accordance with lawful claims of
United States sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction in the Arctic
region, including sovereignty within the territorial sea, sovereign rights and
jurisdiction within the United States exclusive economic zone and on the
continental shelf, and appropriate control in the United States contiguous
zone.

Freedom of the seas is a top national priority. The Northwest Passage is a
strait used for international navigation, and the Northern Sea Route includes
straits used for international navigation; the regime of transit passage
applies to passage through those straits. Preserving the rights and duties
relating to navigation and overflight in the Arctic region supports our
ability to exercise these rights throughout the world, including through
strategic straits."

[http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm](http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm)

This multinational bid, consisting of over 20 nations claiming parts of the
arctic (Russia claiming about half of it) and 170 members on the international
Arctic Council is bolstered by espionage, claim staking missions and cutthroat
diplomacy:

[http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/11/frozen-assets-arctic-
esp...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/11/frozen-assets-arctic-espionage-
spying-new-cold-war-russia-canada/)

The US and Canada have been increasing defense cooperation in the Arctic in
anticipation of claims and challenges:

[http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118768](http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118768)

But there have also been disputes with Canada about sovereignty:

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/canada-uses-
fra...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/canada-uses-franklin-
expedition-wreck-north-west-passage-claim)

The US just held an emergancy artic council, under the guise of preserving the
Artic for the sake of nature, and have been meeting bi- and multi-laterally
with other artic nations to create as many national stakes to artic territory
as they can (so that there can be political stalemate over the area).

Russia is now claiming approximately half of the arctic and has mobilized
troops, drones and ballistic missile systems:

[http://www.newsweek.com/.../what-russia-
arctic-308941.html](http://www.newsweek.com/.../what-russia-
arctic-308941.html)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/21/russia-
arctic-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/21/russia-arctic-
military-oil-gas-putin)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-is-militarizing-the-
ar...](http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-is-militarizing-the-
arctic-2014-12)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-arctic-pivot-is-a-
mas...](http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-arctic-pivot-is-a-massive-
military-undertaking-2015-3)

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-26/russia-deploys-
tact...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-26/russia-deploys-tactial-
drone-arctic-exposes-rarely-seen-us-spy-satellite-images)

The United State's world order is one where boundaries are not allowed to be
changed. It has kept the Middle East, despite its high volatility, mostly
static for the majority of a century. The current resource and land
distribution of the world benefits the United States - in the sense that it is
uniquely able to feel secure from the imperial ambitions of its neighbors
(like the Britannica that bore it it is surrounded by weak neighbors and by
geographical features that protect it). It is in the US national security
interests that boundaries do not shift - both because it is a garunteur of
static boundaries so that shifting boundaries undermine its legitimacy, and
because it opens the opportunity for nations to become regional hegemons that
can 'grow up' to play global power games against the US (I'm channeling the
leaked DoD Wolfowitz Doctrine here).

The US does not want power projected or ballistic missile systems on its
northern flank. In turn it enumerates 'strategic deterrence' as a national
security issue in the Arctic: the US feels the need to deploy its own missile
systems aimed at other nations as a retaliatory measure to deter possible
future hostility.

Finally, the global ranging security pacts of the US will force it to
intervene if conflict arises nearly anywhere over this changing world. If the
world erupts into territory dispute caused by geographical changes and
resource contention the US is obligated to be a part of that conflict.

