Changes in the U.S. Arctic are challenging both the national and human security dynamics of the region. Historically, the region’s significance had been defined by national security concerns, but the emerging concept of human security has come to provide a useful framework through which to define and demonstrate the nexus between the two. This paper provides an overview of the relationship between national and human security and the concerns shared by individuals working in both areas, with a more narrowed focus on the interrelated issues of both food and energy security within the U.S. Arctic. Considering the substantial overlap of aspects of food and energy on both national as well as human security, an analysis of the relationships involving each provides meaningful and extended context of the term “security” for the Arctic region.
Since satellite observation began in 1979, the Arctic has experienced ever-diminishing volumes of summer ice, with 2018 being younger and thinner than previous years [
Historically, national-security challenges involving the U.S. Arctic have been framed by the Cold War and the need to provide for the early warning and detection of Soviet bombers and, later, ballistic missiles. Previously, Alaska played a major role during WWII, as the Japanese invasion of a U.S. territory sparked unprecedented national security inertia and ignited a regional military buildup that changed both the demographics and future of Alaska [
Since the ’90s, the concept of human security has continued to become an established approach centered on a distinct differentiation from the traditional military-state context of national security. The United Nations has led the way in developing a purpose for the distinction in “a powerful approach” as a “proven analytical and planning framework that supports more comprehensive and preventive responses” [
Numerous studies and definitions regarding national security exist, with continued strides in human security scholarship, research and analysis being made every day. Less common is scholarship that combines both, possibly due to the relative newness of human security as an accepted security concept and the complexities involved in developing an effective framework that integrates the two concepts. To that end, this article offers an example based upon observable connections between national and human security under the driving influences of both food and energy security within the U.S. Arctic.
National security priorities in the U.S. Arctic have often overshadowed human security as a security concept, challenging access to and the sustainability of food and energy security requirements. History reminds us that insufficient quantities and types of food often lead to food insecurity, malnutrition, civil unrest, or even violence. To date, most studies involving food security have focused on three primary discourses: access to local foods, Native Alaskan issues, and economic factors [
The research goal is to illustrate a nexus between national and human security within the context of a changing U.S. Arctic. In particular, this study examines the roles of energy and food security within the U.S. region of Alaska, with a more narrowed examination of the shared energy and food security complexities which overlap the two central security categories. Consequently, the authors offer a view to understanding how the distinctions, connections, and overlap made between both national and human security provide significant insight concerning the northern-related security composition of the person, the natural world, and the social-civic construct.
Defining “national security” remains somewhat problematic due to the changing nature of the national security interests of the U.S. throughout the nation’s history [
This article subscribes to the classification of the Arctic from the
The concept of human security was developed during the post-Cold War ’90s and has largely been differentiated from national and military security in stressing that individuals as stakeholders are the key focus rather than the state [
Human security as a defined concept has evolved greatly in the 21
According to the U.K. Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, “a country and people are food secure when their food systems operate efficiently in such a way as to remove fear that there will not be enough to eat” [
The International Energy Agency defines energy security as the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price. Energy security has many aspects. On the one hand, long-term energy security mainly deals with timely investments to supply energy in line with economic developments and environmental needs. On the other hand, short-term energy security focuses on the ability of the energy system to react promptly to sudden changes in the supply–demand balance [
Dimensions of energy-security definitions, according to the International Energy Agency, include (a) availability, (b) affordability, and (c) acceptability; Hughes [
Food security in a changing Arctic is complex and based upon multiple influencing factors that impact the availability, access, distribution, and infrastructure of the indigenous communities, urban-area populations, and industries that support it [
Another notable consideration to the issue of food security is the conduct of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing [
Brady observes that food security is key to the Chinese national security strategy and, to that end, related pressures have already adversely impacted local fishing industries globally [
Alaska’s role in national energy security is largely defined by oil production and exportation. The state has in the past been the anchor for U.S. petroleum production and has contributed significantly to the industry since the late 1960s, when oil was discovered in quantities significant enough for large-scale production. While continued development has helped ensure U.S. energy independence and dominance [
Pillar II of the National Security Strategy embraces dominance in the energy sector through diversification and affordable sources [
The Beaufort and Chukchi Seas represent the two primary, potential offshore production areas. However, in March 2019, a federal judge ruled and revoked the use of 120 million acres in the U.S. Arctic Ocean nullifying an executive order issued by the current administration [
Aside from Arctic oil, Arctic natural gas has had an increasingly important role for U.S. energy security. However, recovering natural gas in the North has proven difficult, as limited transportation resources and associated costs of extraction challenge the drilling companies’ ability to access resources [
Human food security has long been linked to fish as a food source, and U.S. Arctic waters have played an important role in food security for many populations since WWII. A prime example of current impacts to the U.S. Arctic as a result of historical practices is unregulated and unrestricted fishing, which has led to a collapse of the “Donut Hole” located in the Aleutian Basin of the Bering Sea (Figure
The collapse of the Donut Hole was a long time coming considering the historical backdrop provided by Bailey [
The eventual result proved to be one of the most significant global fisheries collapses on record [
Simply put, Alaska is currently food insecure and, unlike most regions of the United States, does not maintain a balance between locally produced, imported, and exported foods [
Although improved home construction has increased energy efficiency, the majority of homes in places like Fairbanks were not suitable for the subarctic climate, largely because builders were from the lower 48 states and were not familiar with the environmental conditions [
To adapt to household and commercial energy difficulties, Alaska’s policy makers routinely consider legislation and sometimes even disaster declarations to supplement and fund the annual funding of the Power Cost Equalization Program [
Combined with volatility in oil prices and a constant political battle over the state’s oil tax regime, energy security for Alaska has been less than nominal, especially since the 2008 global fiscal crisis. Moreover, rural Alaska’s dependence on fuel oil remains vulnerable to problems, some of which involve national and human security. For example, in the fall of 2011, Nome Alaska experienced a severe storm that prevented the annual scheduled delivery of fuel to the community. Estimates of increased fuel prices ranged from $5.40 to $9 per gallon if brought in by plane. In the end, the solution involved a Russian ice-hardened tanker escorted by a USCG ice breaker to deliver vital fuel in January 2012—in mid-Winter—with reserves running low [
From a national security perspective vis-à-vis economics, Alaska’s $3 billion seafood industry supports the nation’s $6 billion seafood industry [
The effects of climate change on food security remain a convergence both at the federal and local levels but for different reasons. Conversely, from a human security perspective, indigenous and rural communities throughout the U.S. Arctic remain affected by several factors, including changing food availability and vulnerability, as well as limited transportation infrastructure. Caulfield [
Conversely, some scholars and policy makers argue that policies that support oil and gas exploitation make a “mockery” of sustainability [
Should, however, crude oil production on the North Slope decline below 300,000 barrels per day, ice and increased wax settlement follow in the pipeline [
The entire LNG value chain, including liquefaction, shipping, and regasification, complicate the global natural gas industry and play a role in economic, environmental, and national security policy [
The nexus of both human and national security interests within the U.S. Arctic is remarkable considering the recognized challenges regarding security in the larger Arctic setting. The relationship and overlap between human and national security interests within the U.S. Arctic increasingly demonstrate a strong connection to changing dynamics of the region and how those changes not only serve as an example to the overlapping nature of the national and human security, but how this region will continue to serve as a benchmark in exposing those concerns. While, globally, it is increasingly recognized that human security concerns are becoming more pronounced as international conflict between nation states declines [
Human security concerns within the U.S. Arctic are likewise both complex and prominent. As a land of extremes, Alaska will remain as long as people continue to live in an environment rife with challenges such as isolation and climate, yet rich in remarkable beauty, resources, and cultural roots and strengths. While external global threats might not loom large for individuals within the region [
A further review of several outliers regarding the overlap of Human and National Security interests in the U.S. Arctic should be further considered. In the greater context of human security and its emphasis beyond both food and energy security, numerous other areas of shared concern are worthy of analysis, including the economic, environmental, and health security challenges of the region. While certain aspects of this paper have touched on each of these areas, the U.S. Arctic as a sub-region is very different from other parts of the Arctic, and especially the contiguous United States. The needs of the individual intersect with those of the region, or the state, on important topics including subsistence hunting, home heating, and the effects of climate change. A similar, broader concern is also observed in addressing the health security needs of the U.S. Arctic during an economic downturn. This concern in itself has the potential to undermine the national as well as human security stability in a region that is on the front lines of climate security concerns while great power competition continues to entrench itself throughout the Circumpolar North.
National and human security should not be regarded as mutually exclusive—in either policy or behavior. Although the two can contrast or complement each other, the integration of the two becomes increasingly more important as a consideration, especially as human security continues to evolve in understanding, acceptance, and application. This article provided a means by which to examine energy and food security, in the context of the broader concept of human and national security, to illustrate the overlapping concerns within the U.S. Arctic. Any number of other human security–related categories could be studied in the same manner, within the researcher’s spatial (and/or longitudinal) framework. Human security has a way of “humanizing” national security. It helps reveal how the relationship between the two contributes to a greater understanding of security in general while offering a more interrelated appreciation toward defining and describing both national and human security.
A further review of several outliers regarding the overlap of Human and National Security interests in the U.S. Arctic should be further considered. In the greater context of human security and its emphasis beyond both food and energy security, numerous other areas of shared concern are worthy of analysis, including the economic, environmental, and health security challenges of the region. While certain aspects of this paper have touched on each of these areas, the U.S. Arctic as a sub-region is very different from other parts of the Arctic, and especially the contiguous United States. The needs of the individual intersect with those of the region, or the state, on important topics including subsistence hunting, home heating, and the effects of climate change. A similar, broader concern is also observed in addressing the health security needs of the U.S. Arctic during an economic downturn. This concern in itself has the potential to undermine the national as well as human security stability in a region that is on the front lines of climate security concerns while great power competition continues to entrench itself throughout the Circumpolar North.
National and human security should not be regarded as mutually exclusive—in either policy or behavior. Although the two can contrast or complement each other, the integration of the two becomes increasingly more important as a consideration, especially as human security continues to evolve in understanding, acceptance, and application. This article provided a means by which to examine energy and food security, in the context of the broader concept of human and national security, to illustrate the overlapping concerns within the U.S. Arctic. Any number of other human security–related categories could be studied in the same manner, within the researcher’s spatial (and/or longitudinal) framework. Human security has a way of “humanizing” national security. It helps reveal how the relationship between the two contributes to a greater understanding of security in general while offering a more interrelated appreciation toward defining and describing both national and human security.
A further review of several outliers regarding the overlap of Human and National Security interests in the U.S. Arctic should be further considered. In the greater context of human security and its emphasis beyond both food and energy security, numerous other areas of shared concern are worthy of analysis, including the economic, environmental, and health security challenges of the region. While certain aspects of this paper have touched on each of these areas, the U.S. Arctic as a sub-region is very different from other parts of the Arctic, and especially the contiguous United States. The needs of the individual intersect with those of the region, or the state, on important topics including subsistence hunting, home heating, and the effects of climate change. A similar, broader concern is also observed in addressing the health security needs of the U.S. Arctic during an economic downturn. This concern in itself has the potential to undermine the national as well as human security stability in a region that is on the front lines of climate security concerns while great power competition continues to entrench itself throughout the Circumpolar North.
National and human security should not be regarded as mutually exclusive—in either policy or behavior. Although the two can contrast or complement each other, the integration of the two becomes increasingly more important as a consideration, especially as human security continues to evolve in understanding, acceptance, and application. This article provided a means by which to examine energy and food security, in the context of the broader concept of human and national security, to illustrate the overlapping concerns within the U.S. Arctic. Any number of other human security–related categories could be studied in the same manner, within the researcher’s spatial (and/or longitudinal) framework. Human security has a way of “humanizing” national security. It helps reveal how the relationship between the two contributes to a greater understanding of security in general while offering a more interrelated appreciation toward defining and describing both national and human security.
The views expressed within the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations (U.N.) or the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). This article is partially based upon previous research and analysis conducted as part of DoD contract # FA2517-16-D-6003. We wish to thank the members of the partnering academic institutions, both in the U.S. and abroad who have worked to further Human Security as field of study.
DOE/EIA-0383(2016)
Wild food as provided by the reference is composed of salmon, other fish, shellfish, land mammals, marine mammals, birds and eggs, and wild plants