HTTP://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/37104


Stop NATO
February 2, 2009


NATO's, Pentagon's New Strategic Battleground: The
Arctic
Rick Rozoff


In the waning days of the Bush presidency while the
domestic press corps was preoccupied with the
impending inauguration of his successor, the White
House effectively sneaked through a major,
groundbreaking directive on the Arctic.

What little was reported on the matter at the time and
since - and it has been little, readers can attempt a
Bush + Arctic hunt on any major search engine - was
perfunctory and provided an innocuous gloss to a
deadly serious initiative.

The subject is the National Security Presidential
Directive 66 of January 12, 2009, the contents of
which will be detailed shortly and will be
demonstrated to contrast starkly with what scant
coverage was accorded it, such as items bearing titles
like "White House Directive Guides Policy on Arctic"
from the Washington Post and "Bush issues U.S. policy
on Arctic energy supplies" from Reuters.

National Security Presidential Directive 66 can be
read in its entirety at:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm

It contains as its first two points:

1. 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.

2. The United States also has fundamental homeland
security interests....

And also includes the intent to "Preserve the global
mobility of United States military and civilian
vessels and aircraft throughout the Arctic region" and
mandates in its fourth point that "The Senate should
act favorably on U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention
on the Law of the Sea promptly, to protect and advance
U.S. interests, including with respect to the Arctic.
Joining will serve the national security interests of
the United States, including the maritime mobility of
our Armed Forces worldwide. It will secure U.S.
sovereign rights over extensive marine areas,
including the valuable natural resources they
contain."

The Reuters dispatch alluded to above adds that "The
presidential directive represents U.S. policy on the
Arctic and carries over to the incoming Barack Obama
administration. The policy, which updates a 1994
presidential directive on the Arctic, remains in
effect until it is changed by a future president."

If next to no one Stateside paid any attention to this
development, writers on the other side of the world
understood its import precisely.

Four days later Voice of Russia ran a feature which
said, inter alia:

"In his final days in power, President George W. Bush
asserted U.S. military 'sea power' over the oil-rich
Arctic in a fresh effort to ensure permanent American
presence in the region and the deployment of missile
defense facilities there.
"According to the text of a sweeping new directive on
the Arctic released just eight days before Barack
Obama is to be sworn in, the United States declares
the territories within the Arctic Circle a zone of its
strategic interests and the new Administration is
advised to expand the US foothold in the Arctic."

On January 28-29 the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization held a meeting in the capital of Iceland
on....the Arctic, and endowed it with the
quasi-academic sounding name of Seminar on Security
Prospects in the High North.

The gathering did not include experts on climate
change, geology or energy transportation but instead
the Secretary General of NATO, its two top military
commanders and the Chairman of the Military Committee
"as well as many other
decision-makers and experts from Allied countries."
(NATO International, January 29, 2009)

The main address was by NATO's Secretary General Jaap
de Hoop Scheffer, whose observations and
recommendations include, in addition to NATO humor in
the form of a sophomoric play on words in the first
paragraph, an incontestable claim to the Alliance's
self-designated role as global military policeman in
the service of Western "energy security":

"The Alliance’s agenda recently appears to have been
dominated by events in Afghanistan, the Caucasus and
the Horn of Africa - areas that can rightly be
described as 'hot'. So it is very welcome to shift our
attention to a colder region.
"[T]he High North is going to require even more of the
Alliance’s attention in the coming years.
"As the ice-cap decreases, the possibility increases
of extracting the High North’s mineral wealth and
energy deposits.
"At our Summit in Bucharest last year, we agreed a
number of guiding principles for NATO’s role in energy
security, as well as five specific areas for possible
NATO involvement....
"The third issue is territorial claims. The 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Seas is the legal
framework that applies to the Arctic Ocean – a fact
that was reiterated by the five Arctic coastal states
at their meeting in Greenland last May.
"However, it is already clear that there are certain
differences of opinion between the five states over
the delineation of the 200 nautical mile limits of the
Exclusive Economic Zones, as well as over the
extension of the continental shelves.
"NATO provides a forum where four of the Arctic
coastal states can inform, discuss, and share, any
concerns that they may have. And this leads me
directly onto the next issue, which is military
activity in the region.
"Clearly, the High North is a region that is of
strategic interest to the Alliance. But so are the
Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean."

His Arctic manifesto, anything but a modest proposal,
was commented upon by a press agency:

"De Hoop Scheffer noted that sea routes through the
Arctic will be significantly shorter than many of
those that currently require passage through the Suez
or Panama canals.
"He said the melting of the Arctic will open up
opportunities for the extraction of the mineral wealth
and energy deposits in this area. In this context,
NATO will have a role to play as the alliance's heads
of state and government have identified energy
security as a new task for NATO."
(Trend News Agency, January 30, 2009)

Note that Scheffer's earlier quotes were structured in
such a manner that, after skirting the main topic for
several paragraphs, emphasis was finally laid on
"military activity in the region" in relation to and,
as will be addressed later, even more important than
"opportunities for the extraction of the mineral
wealth and energy deposits."

Confirming Scheffer's plans was NATO Supreme Allied
Commander General John Craddock, late of ordering
anyone in Afghanistan suspected of involvement in the
drug trade to be shot dead, whose address was reported
on a NATO website as follows:

"General John Craddock, attending a NATO seminar in
Reykjavik, Iceland examining future security issues,
spoke of the need to think strategically when planning
for security in the High North.
"General Craddock opined that NATO could contribute
greatly to facilitating cooperation in areas such as
the development and security of shipping routes,
energy security, surveillance and monitoring, search
and rescue, resource exploration and mining...."
(NATO International, Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe, January 29, 2009)

Having read Craddock's and Scheffer's comments an
uninformed reader, or one unaware of the international
and historical context, would be excused for thinking
that the world's first global military bloc was going
in for some harmless diversion by dabbling in the
extractive industry, as it earlier was in humanitarian
intervention, disaster relief, ridding the coasts of
Africa of poachers and pirates and Afghanistan of
opium.

Again a dose of reality from the Voice of Russia:

"NATO is seriously thinking of [establishing] military
presence in the Arctic. It considers global warming
and consequently an Arctic thaw as an occasion for
this. NATO sees this as a possibility for its Arctic
expansion.
"When taking into account the fact that all Arctic
littoral nations but Russia are NATO member countries,
it is quite clear who the alliance considers its rival
in this region."
(Voice of Russia, January 30, 2009)

But one doesn't have to go as far as Russia to
determine the true purpose of the Reykjavik
conference.

"At least four people were arrested outside the
Reykjavik conference venue Wednesday before the
meeting - two of them for burning a NATO flag. Many
Icelanders oppose the volcanic island's membership in
the military bloc, fearing it compromises the nation's
independence."
(Associated Press, January 29, 2009)

Icelanders themselves realized what was at stake and
the protesters turned out to confront the NATO
conclave in actions that "resulted in a violent
clash with police for the first time in Iceland since
1949."
(Fox News, January 30, 2009)

The US news source doesn't provide background
information to explain what occurred in 1949, as it
might reflect poorly on the NATO and its chief
architect, the US.

Sixty years ago as Iceland was being pulled into the
newly formed Alliance, protests and riots broke out in
the capital and had to be, as with three days ago, put
down by force in the name of 'Euro-Atlantic values'
and the 'Atlantic community.'

The same Fox News dispatch, though, does reveal these
facts:

"The most favored political party right now in Iceland
is the Left-Greens, which will be a principal member
of the interim coalition government here. It doesn't
fully support possible European Union membership for
Iceland, but more significantly for the US, it would
like to pull Iceland out of NATO.
"Iceland was a founding member of North Atlantic
Alliance. Due to its utterly strategic location just
under the Arctic Circle it played a crucial role for
the U.S. during the Cold War. There was a U.S. air
base on the island up until 2006."

NATO's 'military activity in the High North' may then
be put to something other than its main purpose of
confronting Russia.

The Icelandic protesters realized what the Fox writer
did when he finished his report with "The image
Wednesday of a NATO flag being burned by protesters in
front of a meeting held by the Alliance cannot be too
pleasing to the U.S."

One has come to expect of NATO to dutifully and
punctually follow every twist and turn, every
disingenuous casus belli proffered by the US - war to
defend the concept of national sovereignty (Iraq,
1991), war to override national sovereignty
(Yugoslavia, 1999), war on behalf of narco-trafficking
extremists (Kosovo, 1999), war to exterminate anyone
accused of the same (Colombia since 1999, Afghanistan
now) - but why the urgency just now?

Three years ago the London Times in a report from
Norway wrote about what it called the "Arctic Bridge"
and "The fabled Northwest Passage, from the Atlantic
to the Pacific through the Arctic archipelago of
Canada," remarking that the two could insure that
"Cargo from Europe to the Far East could cut 4,000
miles from the journey by cruising through the
passage, compared with the route through the Panama
Canal...."
(The Times, February 11, 2006)

And a year and a half ago a Russian press source
stated "the Northern Sea Route, running through the
Arctic Ocean along Russia's northern coast, is the
shortest way from Europe to Asia and the Pacific coast
of America, which will make it easy to transport oil
and gas from Arctic deposits."
(Russian Information Agency Novosti, July 25, 2007).

In the same month the US government's Radio Free
Europe revealed yet more:

"The Arctic and Antarctica are the last vast untapped
reservoirs of mineral resources on the planet.
Underneath the Arctic Ocean, there are gigantic
reserves of tin, manganese, nickel, gold, platinum,
and diamonds.
"But the Arctic's most lucrative treasure is the
enormous deposits of oil and gas, which could amount
to 25 percent of the world's resources."
(Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, July 27, 2007)

The following month a major Chinese newspaper wrote
about the Arctic:

"'This will probably be the last big shift in
ownership of territory in the history of the earth,'
said Lars Kullerud, who advises developing states on
submissions at the GRID-Arendal foundation, run by the
UN Environment Program and Norway.
"'Many countries don't realize how serious it is."'
(People's Daily August 16, 2007)

At the same time the Russia daily daily Rossiiskaya
Gazeta [said] the division of the Arctic is the start
of a new redistribution of the world.'
(Agence France-Presse, August 3, 2007)

Confirmatory of the above and serving as a spur to
both the US National Security Presidential Directive
66 and the NATO conference on the Arctic of four days
ago is a U.S. Geological Survey of May of 2008.

The complete report can be read at:
http://geology.com/usgs/arctic-oil-and-gas-report.shtml

The gist of it is:

"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has completed an
assessment of undiscovered conventional oil and gas
resources in all areas north of the Arctic Circle.
Using a geology-based probabilistic methodology, the
USGS estimated the occurrence of undiscovered oil and
gas in 33 geologic provinces thought to be prospective
for petroleum. The sum of the mean estimates for each
province indicates that 90 billion barrels of oil,
1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44
billion barrels of natural gas liquids may remain to
be found in the Arctic, of which approximately 84
percent is expected to occur in offshore areas."

A Reuters report of two months after the release of
the report bore the title "Arctic's oil could meet
world demand for three years" and a synopsis of the
Geological Survey study framed its significance in
these words:

"The unexplored Arctic contains about one-fifth of the
world's undiscovered oil and nearly a third of the
natural gas yet to be found....The untapped reserves
are beneath the seafloor in geopolitically
controversial areas above the Arctic Circle."
(Live Science, July 24, 2008)

However, the geological survey only substantiated in
detail what was known substantially years before and
merely accelerated initiatives long in the planning.

A year before the survey results were released, "U.S.
Senator Richard G. Lugar said Russia is aspiring to
take control over potential energy reserves in the
Arctic Ocean at the expense of U.S. interests.
(Russian Information Agency Novosti, May 16, 2007)

The same Russian features added, "The senator, known
for his anti-Russian statements, urged U.S.
authorities to join the struggle for the polar oil and
gas resources by ratifying the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea."

That is precisely what the Bush report of 21 days ago
recommended, oddly enough drawing plaudits in many
Western quarters because it supposedly signaled a
reversal of general Bush era "unilateralism."

A flawed and seriously mistaken reading.

Washington will now sign onto the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea the better to wage
war for energy and military positioning in the top of
the world and its newly rediscovered reverence for
international norms and for alleged multilateralism is
reducible to a closing of the ranks with its NATO
allies against Russia and, as is of late increasingly
mentioned, China in the Arctic Circle.

Regarding the original recommendation on ratifying the
Convention by US Senator Richard Lugar, it's important
to recall that the same Lugar led the charge to invoke
NATO's Article 5 mutual defense clause - in reality a
war pact - against Russia in June of 2006 in the US
Senate on the same topic of "energy security."

Lugar's own senatorial website reported at the time:

"On Thursday, June 8, 2006, the U.S. Senate
unanimously passed Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Dick Lugar’s resolution that calls upon the
United States to lead the discussion at NATO
headquarters about the role the alliance could play in
energy security and the President to submit to
Congress a report that details “a strategy for NATO to
develop secure, sustainable, and reliable sources of
energy, including contingency plans if current energy
resources are put at risk.”
“NATO is now facing new challenges and new priorities.
To be fully relevant to the security and well being of
the people of its member nations, NATO must think and
act globally,” said Lugar.
“International developments are calling attention to
the growing importance of energy security for NATO
member countries and other non-member partners....On a
global scale, increased competition for finite
supplies of oil and gas could lead to conflict that
would directly or indirectly involve NATO member
states....Earlier this year, Lugar introduced the
Energy Diplomacy and Security Act (S. 2435), which
'recognizes energy security to be a foremost concern
for United States national security and would realign
of our diplomatic priorities to meet energy security
challenges.'"
(Senator Richard G. Lugar, June 12, 2006)

Lugar has not been alone in agitating for invoking
energy issues as a pretext for military expansion,
including expansion of a strategic character, as what
he and others like him are demanding is, even when not
overtly mentioned, direct confrontation between the
world's two major nuclear powers.

In 2007 a US commission released a study called
'Strategy of cooperation on the navies of the 21st
century,' in which "The future situation in the Arctic
was included by the document's authors into the list
of the 'new era's challenges', which the USA is to be
ready for."
("US Warns on Possible Military Conflict Around Arctic
Resources," Financial Information Service [Russia],
October 19, 2007)

The same year this version of the new Bush Arctic
doctrine was adumbrated:

"As much as a quarter of the world's oil and gas
supplies could be in the region, Rear-Admiral Brian
Salerno of the U.S. Coast Guard said today, citing
statistics from the U.S. Geological Survey. Global
warming in the Arctic has 'implications for national
energy security.'
"'Will we have a constant aircraft carrier presence?
I don't know, but we might.'
"The U.S. Navy pledged to increase its fleet of ships
and other craft in the Arctic, a day after Canada
promised to build as many as eight new vessels to
patrol the region."
(Bloomberg News, July 10, 2007)

The same month this development surfaced:

"For the first time this week, top US Naval and Coast
Guard commanders are meeting with Arctic scientists
and climate experts to assess the situation....[T]he
US "absolutely" must boost its presence in the Arctic
region as part of an international coalition.
The US would establish forward bases, increase its
fleet patrols of Arctic waters, review its Arctic
policies."
(Deutsche Press-Agentur, July 11, 2007)

Which 'international coalition' was intended was
evident last week in Iceland.

Aware not only of NATO states' plans for the Arctic -
for energy, transit and military purposes - Russia
sent two mini-subs to the Arctic Circle in August of
2007, renewing 80-year-old Russian claims to a large
swathe of the region and planting a flag at the sea
bed of the North Pole, later pressing its claim at the
United Nations.

At roughly the same time Russia resumed strategic
bomber patrols in the world's oceans for the first
time since the end of the Soviet Union, including in
the Arctic Circle, off the coast of Alaska and over
the North and Norwegian Seas.

After the August 2007 Russian polar expedition, in a
feature entitled "Arctic expedition backs up Russia's
claim for larger economic zone," it was reported:

"Experts believe the Arctic Ocean contains about 100
billion tonnes of various hydrocarbons, mostly oil and
gas, which is much more than the reserves of Saudi
Arabia and twice more than Russia's land
reserves....'If we manage to prove at the United
Nations that the Lomonosov Ridge is a continuation of
the Siberian platform - the Russian continental shelf
- we will control about two-thirds of the entire
hydrocarbon reserves of the Arctic Ocean.."
(Interfax, October 25, 2007)

An Indian daily had warned beforehand that:

"Experts doubt western nations will let Russia win its
claim of the Arctic shelf in the U.N. no matter how
solid its scientific evidence may be. Moreover, the
U.S., acting through the Arctic Council, has been
pushing to internationalise the Arctic Ocean — that
is, secure free access to its seabed resources and
trade routes even within Russia’s exclusive economic
zone."
(The Hindu, July 16, 2007)

Washington was not slow to respond.

In June of last year the Pentagon held a 12-day
exercise, Northern Edge 2008, in Alaska, in which
5,000 soldiers, 120 aircraft and several warships
participated.

In anticipation of the the war games, whose target was
the Arctic, this warning was sounded from Moscow:

"Russia’s military leadership will react to
the large-scale US exercises in the northern latitudes
by the adjustment of the plans of combat training of
its army for the reliable protection of the country’s
national interests in the Arctic, the head of the main
combat training and service department of Russian
troops, Lieutenant-General Vladimir Shamanov told
Itar-Tass on Monday."
(Itar-Tass, May 5, 2008)

The New York Times reported on a meeting in May of
leaders of the Pentagon’s Pacific Command, Northern
Command and Transportation Command which strongly
recommended in a letter that the Joint Chiefs of Staff
endorsed a push by the Coast Guard to increase the
ability to gain access to and control its
Arctic waters.

In July, US Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen
testified before a committee of the US Congress and
informed his audience "that Russia is getting ahead of
the United States in the 'Arctic race' and the current
U.S. administration must urgently revise its approach
to Arctic exploration."

A contention supported by Mead Treadwell, chairman
of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, who added:

"'In the 20th century, the advent of aircraft,
missiles, and missile defense made the Arctic region a
major venue for projection of power and a frontier for
protecting the security of North America, Asia and
Europe."
-"'[A]n accessible Arctic Ocean also means new or
expanded routes for the U.S. military sealift to move
assets from one part of the world to another. The
Commission believes polar icebreakers are an essential
maritime component to guarantee that this U.S. polar
mobility exists.'"
(Russian Information Agency Novosti, July 17, 2008)

The same month, just days before being indicted by a
federal grand jury, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens invoked
alleged national security concerns over the Arctic:

"Domestic resources — and in particular those in the
Arctic and the Outer Continental Shelf — must be
developed in the interest of national security,
Stevens said."
(Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, July 4, 2008)

The next month, August of 2008, the homeland security
secretary, Michael Chertoff. toured Alaska’s Arctic
shores with the same US Coast Guard Commandant Adm.
Thad Allen cited above.

And in September another senior US Coast Guard
commander "warned of the risk of conflict in the
Arctic, unless disputes over international borders are
resolved.
"Speaking to the BBC during an Arctic patrol flight,
Rear Adm Gene Brooks, in charge of the Coast Guard's
vast Alaska region, appealed for a diplomatic deal.
"'The potential is there with undetermined boundaries
and great wealth for conflict, or competition.
"'There's always a risk of conflict,. Adm Brookes
said."
(BBC News, September 10, 2008)

In October the the US 4th Marine Division's
Antiterrorism Battalion conducted training at "The
northernmost point in North America, Barrow, Alaska."
(Marine Corps News, October 29, 2008)

The US is not alone in the new scramble for the
Arctic, nor is the collective NATO plan simply related
to energy.

In a 2007 dispatch with the title "NATO Besieges
Russia in the Arctic" the most dangerous aspect of the
Alliance's drive into the Arctic was revealed:

"Amid great secrecy, NATO naval forces are trying to
control the Arctic Ocean to continue the military
bloc's expansion to Russia...the newspaper Military
Industry Herald reported here.
"Like in the tensest times of the Cold War, troops
from
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are trying to
take control of the Arctic route, said the
newspaper....[T]he US Navy, in conjunction with its
British allies, is meeting the challenge of displacing
Russian submarines from the Arctic region."
(Prensa Latina, March 29, 2007)

In March of 2007 the US and Britain held a joint
submarine exercise under the polar ice cap, one that
drew some attention because of the death of two
British sailors.

The drill, code named Ice Exercise 2007, was the
occasion for this observation on a US Navy website:

"The submarine force continues to use the Arctic Ocean
as an alternate route for shifting submarines between
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ...submarines can
reach the western Pacific
directly by transiting through international waters of
the Arctic rather than through the Panama Canal."
(Navy NewsStand, March 20, 2007)

A few days later the same source published these
comments from Barry L. Campbell, head of operations at
the U.S. Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory:

-“'We’re a worldwide Navy and the Navy’s position is
we should be able to operate in any ocean in the
world....When you go through the Arctic, no one knows
you’re there....We expect all our subs to be able to
operate in the Arctic....Our strategic position is to
be able to operate anywhere in the world, and we see
the Arctic as part of that....[I]f we ever did have to
fight a battle under there it would be a joint
operation.'”
(Navy NewsStand, March 29, 2007)

The key to understanding US and NATO military
expansion into the Arctic is provided by this brief,
matter of fact excerpt from a Russian news agency
relating the firing of a submarine-launched ballistic
missile in the Arctic:

"[A] Sineva intercontinental ballistic missile...was
fired in the summer of 2006 from the North Pole by the
submarine Yekaterinburg....[U]nder a thick icecap the
submarine remains invisible to hostile observation
satellites till the last moment. As a result, a
retaliatory nuclear strike would be sudden and
unavoidable."
(Russian Information Agency Novosti, July 7, 2007)

That is, with US and NATO missile and satellite radar
and interceptor missile facilities around the world
and in space, the only place where Russia could retain
a deterrence and/or retaliatory capacity against a
crushing nuclear first strike is under the polar ice
cap.

An earlier Russian reports confirms this perspective
and the fear that without this capability Russia would
be rendered completely defenseless in the event of a
nuclear war.

Commenting on the need for Russian strategic
submarines to operate under the Arctic ice, Navy
Commander Admiral Vladimir Masorin said:

"This training is needed to help strategic submarines
of the Russian Fleet head for the Arctic ice region,
which is the least vulnerable to an adversary's
monitoring, and prepare for a response to a ballistic
missile strike in the event of a nuclear conflict.
"In order to be able to fulfill this task - I mean the
task of preserving strategic submarines - it is
necessary to train Russian submariners to maneuver
under the Arctic ice."
(Interfax-Military, September 26, 2006)

To drive Russia out of the Arctic is the ultimate
objective of NATO's new 'High North' strategy.

And to that end the US, Britain, Canada, Denmark (and
its Greenland and Faroe Islands possessions), Norway,
Iceland and increasing Germany, Finland and Sweden
(the latter two historical neutrals rapidly moving
toward NATO membership) have been recruited for what
might well be deemed an Arctic Operation Barbarossa.

Recently, for example:

-Britain is claiming a right part of the Arctic
because of Rockall, "an 30-yard wide uninhabited rock
in the North Atlantic.
Britain annexed Rockall in 1955 – more than 50 years
ago – and claims rights to its continental shelf."
(Daily Mail, September 24, 2008)

"Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, told the
Telegraph: 'Four of the five Arctic powers are Nato
members, yet Nato seems ill-configured to be able to
respond to the sort of activities we have seen from
the Russians. We need to ensure Nato has the will and
the capability to deter Russian activity that
contravenes international laws or treaties.'"
(Sunday Telegraph, May 18, 2008)

-"In a bid to showcase new military and social
investments in the North, and assert Canadian
sovereignty along the Northwest Passage, [Prime
Minister Stephen] Harper and his top ministers visited
several Arctic communities...and -
significantly - singled out Russia's increased
military presence in the Arctic as a 'serious concern'
for Canada.
-"'When we see a Russian Bear approaching Canadian air
space, we meet them with an F-18', said [Defence
Minister Peter] MacKay."
[Canwest News Service, September 12, 2008]

"Canada is stepping up its military alertness
along its northern frontier in response to Russia's
'testing' of its boundaries and recent Arctic grab,
the prime minister said Friday."
('Canada boosts frontier troops as Russia eyes
Arctic,' Agence France-Presse, September 19, 2008)

"Canada and the US say a past land dispute over 12,000
sq km of seabed elsewhere in the Beaufort Sea is being
put aside in the name of defending against Russia's
Arctic claims, which clash with those of the US,
Canada, Denmark and Norway."
(Financial Times, August 18, 2008)

"Harper has announced plans to build a new army
training centre in the Far North at Resolute Bay and
to outfit a deep-water port for both military and
civilian use at the northern tip of Baffin Island.
His trip to the Arctic earlier this month was
accompanied by the biggest military exercise in the
region in years, with 600 soldiers, sailors and air
crew participating."
(Canadian Press, August 19, 2007)

-"Norway and Germany yesterday unveiled plans to
exploit some of the Arctic's vast energy reserves.....
The nations' foreign ministers travelled to the
Norwegian island of Spitsbergen to sign an agreement
to explore and develop energy fields and to study the
effects of global warming on the North Pole."
(The Telegraph, August 31, 2007)

"One of Norway’s new frigates is on its way to
Svalbard in the Arctic for the first time. It’s being
sent in order to show Norway's presence and wave the
flag.
-"'In future the frigates will form part of NATO’s
standing forces and will operate along the Norwegian
coast, in areas with oil and gas production and not
least in the Arctic where Norway has strategic
interests,' said Navy Chief Jan Eirik Finseth in May
this year."
(Aftenposten, October 9, 2008)

"Norway expects NATO to help defend its Arctic
borders given its involvement in the western military
alliance's operations in Afghanistan, Defence Minister
Anne-Grete Strom-Erichsen said."
('Norway links Afghan role to NATO support in Arctic,'
Reuters, October 3, 2007)

"The goal [of military exercise Cold Response] is to
train Norwegian troops, NATO Response Forces (NRF) and
cooperating nations (Partnership for
Peace/PfP) to operate in conflict regions during
winter conditions.
"Norway organized its winter-climate Cold
Response exercise — a March 6-22 event that brings
together troops, aircraft and naval ships from 11 NATO
and Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries — in an
effort to combine air, sea and land forces and
equipment into a front-line, efficient fighting group.
"Cold Response is being staged in the Nordland and
Troms counties of northern Norway, located inside the
Arctic Circle."
(Aftenposten, March 17, 2006)

-"The Defence Minister Sten Tolgfors says that Sweden
is ready to defend its Nordic neighbours and fellow EU
members against any attack.
"Last week the Nordic and Scandinavian countries -
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland - signed
a treaty on increased defence cooperation.
"Pointing to Russian patrols in the North the minister
says that the Arctic region has a new strategic
significance....The minister says that Sweden is now
effectively linked to Nato, through military
cooperation with Norway, as well as participating in
the European Union’s military."
(Radio Sweden, November 20, 2008)

"Finland and Sweden started approaching NATO before
the beginning of the conflict between Russia and
Georgia.
"Back in 2006 the decision of Finnish and Swedish
politicians was made on joining NATO’s flying squad
[response force]."
(Baltische Rundschau [Lithuania], December 14, 2008)

-"'We're six nations [United States, Britain, Canada,
Denmark, Norway and Iceland], plus NATO, all coming
together to exercise.'
'This [Operation Northern Viking in Iceland] is about
showing the Icelandic people that NATO is committed to
assisting with their defense'"
(U.S. Air Forces in Europe, September 4, 2008)

-"The Nordic battlegroup consists of 2,700 personnel
with Sweden as the lead nation supplying about 2,200
and the rest provided by Finland, Norway, Ireland and
Estonia.
"Irish peacekeeping troops have been ordered to
survive within the Arctic Circle in temperatures
reaching -30c.
"The Nordic battlegroup consists of 2,700 personnel
with Sweden as the lead nation supplying about 2,200
and the rest provided by Finland, Norway, Ireland and
Estonia."
('Troops take to the Arctic to test their survival
skills,' Irish Independent, November 8, 2007)


-"[T]he Faeroes are worth a serious look because of
their geostratigic position.
"Their significance is clearly seen through their
complex relationship with Denmark and, through them,
NATO (there is a NATO base in the country).
"[W]hen George W. Bush came to power [he and] his
administration expressed interest in the Faeroes' NATO
base for the missile defense plan. Suddenly, the
Islands were valuable again.
"'It is important to NATO to have full control of the
whole North Atlantic region,' explained Samal Trondur
Finnsson Johansen, a Cold War and military specialist
with the Faroese National Archives. 'Greenland and the
Faeroes are unique areas in the sense that there is no
alternative land area nearby to either place ground
forces/bases or from where to keep an eye on the
area.'
"The Danish government wants to influence NATO policy
and keep its position as a strong U.S. ally, but
without the Faeroes and Greenland, Denmark will lose
bargaining power and have little to offer."
(United Press International, March 2, 2006)





===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.

Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
==============================