By Peter Huessy

The United States relies upon ocean borne shipping to trade with the world. Especially important is the Panama Canal in moving goods from and between the Pacific and the Atlantic. However the fresh water sources that feed the canal are declining due to serious drought, deforestation, and competing urban uses. Eventually the Panama Canal will be less usable. Already shipping this year is down a third and alternate truck or train options across the isthmus are slow and costly.

Another canal but in the Middle East is also having trouble. The Iran and China backed terror group the Houthis interdict traffic through the Suez and in the Red Sea, affecting indirectly some 25% of all ocean borne commerce to and from Europe.

And finally, China has established island military outposts throughout the South China Sea especially near the approach to the Straits of Malacca, a key choke point through which passes $3.5 trillion or 30% of global ocean borne trade.

These three factors make it imperative that the US and its allies work cooperatively to ensure that ocean going trade remains free from unfriendly forces. A key development is that the Alaskan and Arctic glaciers are receding and at a growing pace. The insurance folks that watch ocean borne shipping point out that the Arctic waterway known as the Northwest Passage is becoming increasingly available for shipping.

To get from the Atlantic to the Pacific one can now go through the open Northwest Passage saving on average 7000 kilometers, some $200,000-300,000 in tolls and $500,000 in bunker fuel oil-- per trip.

Passage through the Panama canal costs at least $150,000 with larger ships paying upwards of $450,000. Shippers annually pay $4.3 billion to the Canal authority. But due to congestion, a new auction system increases costs as canal traffic capacity is shrinking. Now daily an average of 22 ships get through regularly compared to a previous high capacity of 36 a day or 13,000 annually. .

Although travel through the Suez Canal with a mega bulk carrier can cost $500,000-$600,000, it reduces travel time to and from Europe by 15 days and 5000 miles, The Houthis terrorist attacks in the Red Sea and on the approach to Suez add $1 million to one ships alternative route going around Africa.

Is there help on the way? Yes. Though as recently as 2019 one needed an icebreaker escort through the Northwest Passage (NWP) that is changing as the ice recedes. And the passage will be very inexpensive. And be available for 5-9 months of the year. Thankfully, the NWP route does not have to be dredged, although rescue, safety and maintenance ports/facilities will need to established. And the three internationally recognized Arctic adjacent nations—Canada, the United States and Denmark/Greenland—can do that job.

There is however a serious possible complication. Although not adjacent to the Arctic, nevertheless China claims status as an “Arctic” nation and is working with Russia to control passing commercial ocean going traffic. The concern is China and Russia will surreptitiously place “military” bases throughout the Arctic. Like the Houthis, China wants to eventually control the area and charge a toll for shipping but only for the “right” kind of ships.

That outcome is what the US and its allies have to deter and prevent.

The good news is that the US administration understands this. Canada, Denmark and Greenland can now also be key actors in protecting the Arctic. All could be part of a NATO initiative to be partners while enhancing international ocean shipping, and acquiring the necessary Arctic deterrence against military bad actors.

There is precedent for defending the Arctic. The US has a key radar base in Tule, Greenland already thanks to Denmark’s previous cooperation on missile defense. NATO nations can now spend some of the pledged 5% defense investment to protect the eastern access to the Arctic and thus the northwest passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific The US can deploy naval assets to Alaska and protect the western access of the Northwest Passage.

There may be concern that the US would be “militarizing” the oceans in this case the Arctic. But in fact, the US Navy protected the oceans over the past many decades to where ocean borne commerce grew from $125 billion in 1960 to close to $10 trillion today. Contrary to the worries of anti-military hand wringers, the USA Navy for over 200 years has made the oceans safe for ocean borne commerce. Think the Barbary Pirates and the “shores of Tripoli.”

Just recently, Iran threatened to close the straits of Hormuz through which must pass 20 million barrels of oil a day, some 20% of world oil consumption. The US Navy kept the straits open so critical supplies of both crude oil and natural gas reached the rest of the world, including China, Japan, Israel and Europe.

Making the Arctic safe for commerce will require a military presence (called deterrence). Also included should be a significant fleet of icebreakers which Canada builds very competently. They can help along with Denmark.

Greenland, the USA and the rest of NATO working cooperatively.

The objective is to keep the militaries of China and Russia out, the free world ocean commerce in, and other bad actors down. That’s a deal worth doing.