강대국 사이, 새롭게 부상하는 화약고는? [스폐셜 리포트]

World players all vying for control of the Arctic have staked billions in resources and strategic holdings for us and our foes. In this special report, we look at the latest geopolitical flashpoint to arrive on the world stage. Why control of the Arctic is so contested and what it means for Americans if we fail. Welcome to China In Focus. I'm Tiffany Meyer. World powers all eyeing the world's northern pole, and it's not just because of the polar bears. Yeah, it's become, I think, one of the hottest zones of competition there is. With warming waters, the region presents boundless possibilities, but also newfound threats. New polar sea routes are opening up that will allow Russia and China to exploit Russian hydrocarbon reserves that have not yet been tapped. But they are so large and the economics of maritime transport are such that it's become very attractive. That's Rick Fisher, senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. He notes that nations are taking steps to tap into those new resources. Russia already has a large icebreaker fleet, and China is also getting into the business of building nuclear powered icebreakers. So both want to make a lot of money as well as benefit from the much closer and more easily accessible oil and gas reserves of Russia. As for these strategic states, Bruce Jones, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and author of To Rule the Waves, How Control of the World's Oceans Shapes the Fate of the Superpowers, points out. This is where Russia now has the largest concentration of its naval power. The United States has begun to return nuclear submarines to the Arctic for the first time since the end of the Cold War. China is deploying repeated scientific missions, which are frequently dual use. And so this is really becoming a zone of tense military buildup. Now, as for why the Chinese regime would be keen about the Arctic? For China, the Arctic offers a strategic and tactical opportunity. Were it to conduct patrols of its nuclear missile submarines in the Arctic, it would complicate tremendously the American effort to defend against those submarines. And it could also build submarines with shorter range missiles. Fisher adds that those threats are particularly concerning to America. There would be a shorter route over the North Pole to attack targets in the continental United States. And if the Chinese regime could get that strategic stronghold, what does that mean in case of an attack on the U.S.? Would be advantageous to China in terms of surveillance, being able to monitor the atmosphere and the exo-atmosphere over the Arctic, because that would be a major route for its intercontinental ballistic missiles were there to be a nuclear war. It's not clear that Russia has much of an interest in allowing China to set up military bases, but it is very likely that Russia will tolerate an increased Chinese military presence as long as it's directed against the United States. On that last part, what about Russia's interests in the region? If you're Russia and you want to put a nuclear submarine off the coast of the United States, it comes down through the Arctic waters, through what's called the Giuk Pass, which is the Greenland-Iceland-UK pass. It's a channel of water that separates those countries. So for Russia, it's a very important route to the North Atlantic and to threaten the United States. And given both those powers have a similar goal, they are teaming up and setting aside their differences. They'll come back to competing with each other later. But for now, they have this much bigger fish to fry, which is to try to weaken the West, weaken the United States. Looking at history, Fisher says we can see just how close that affront could get to the U.S. Defending those submarines was a key mission for the Soviet Navy during the Cold War and remains a very important mission for the Russian Navy. It is likely that China could contribute to the defense of those submarines by helping to tie down American naval forces based in Alaska or on the American West Coast or, if you will, even Hawaii. Jones notes this is all part of a wider concern. Defending against the combination of naval and long-range strike power that both China and Russia have in substantial measure. Russian capabilities are so far slightly more sophisticated than the Chinese, but the Chinese are more numerous and rapidly catching up and in some places surpassing Russian technology. So these are going to be issues of ballistic missile defense. There are going to be issues of submarine tracking. There are going to be issues of naval warfare. Those are the major areas where we're going to have to be worried about Russian and Chinese capabilities. The U.S. does seem to be noticing what's at stake. The State Department recently announced plans to establish an ambassador-at-large for the Arctic. Jones calls it a step in the right direction. The United States appointing an ambassador is a signal of interest. There's also increasing interest in Northern Command and in the U.S. Department of Defense more generally about the capabilities that are available in the Arctic and what needs to be there in the Arctic. So I think we will see tensions continuing to rise between the United States, its allies on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other. Fisher adds next would be... Organization of a coalition of democracies concerned about the Arctic is a laudable step. It is akin to what the United States started doing under the Trump administration, trying to organize a coalition of democracies to promote positive and peaceful behavior on the moon. But he says what the U.S. really needs is to boost defense in a more concrete way. There is a clear requirement for a much larger Navy overall, but especially for the resumption of construction of icebreakers. The United States now has two icebreakers. One of them is 40 years old. The Coast Guard definitely wants two new icebreakers, but the United States will likely need several more. And these icebreakers need to be configured so that they can be rapidly armed to defend themselves or to military assets of Russia and China. Jones notes some are pushing for change in that direction. Chief of Naval Operations recently issued a planning report calling for a 600-fleet Navy that's divided between a manned fleet and a non-manned fleet. That's probably the right architecture, but we have not seen kind of seriousness of purpose in Congress to authorize the funding necessary for that. We haven't seen Congress or the DOD being willing to recognize that that requires moving some money out of some of the other services. And now another risk is the threat of nuclear war. Jones says that threat takes the form of submarines miles beneath the surface of the ocean. And they are once again circling one another and sort of circling the continents keeping a careful watching eye on developments. They play important intelligence roles, but they are also, of course, an important part of in the United States, at least, and Russia still to a large degree. The nuclear triad, China is rapidly developing its nuclear capability and its submarine capability. He adds that for now, the threat is not yet upon us. Those are not yet centrally emerged. That's not yet a central part of China's strategic threat, but it will be very soon. So I think we're rapidly sailing back to a place where nuclear launched, submarine launched nuclear missiles are a central part of war planning and of deterrence. But until that threat presents itself, there's another clear interest. These powers are battling over the Arctic for commercial purposes. Now, if you think about it from a trade perspective, the difference, the distance between Shanghai and New York, if you can sail the Arctic route is about half the distance. If you have to go through the Suez Canal across the Mediterranean and across the Atlantic Ocean. So it has the potential to dramatically cut trade times with dramatic savings. It was similar in nature to what the Suez Canal did to trade between Asia and Europe when it was first established. It has the potential to be a major change in global commercial routes. As for just how much is at stake, billions. Coming up, we continue our coverage of the Arctic. In part two, experts note how on top of strategic stakes, there's also billions worth in resources, the ways the Arctic would change commercial benefits and more. Coming up in just a minute here on China In Focus. According to a deep dive by the foreign policy, the Arctic today already provides over 250 billion dollars in food, minerals and fossil fuels. And that's only expected to grow. And one country in particular is looking to cash in. Since 2018, China has announced plans for a polar silk road, essentially a network of Arctic shipping routes. But we're not there yet. Jones says a polar silk road would. Dramatically shorten trade times and allow China to further consolidate its already overwhelmingly large presence. And looking at just how much China already dominates the sector. You know, the largest port in the United States now is Los Angeles, Long Beach. We've all seen of late sort of pictures of container ships stacked up trying to get in, et cetera. L.A. Long Beach processes about nine million container drops a year. That's moving those large containers on and off those huge container ships. Shanghai does 42 million a year. And the four largest ports in the world after Shanghai are all Chinese. So it just gives you a flavor of how large China looms in global commercial trade and ocean based shipping, which is everything we produce and everything we consume ends up in that system at one point or another. So they display a huge role. Fisher notes if the Chinese regime succeeds, it's not just commercial dominance that's up for grabs. Would be an increase in Chinese flag ships, icebreakers, petroleum transport ships working with the Russian Navy. And that would also justify China sending its naval forces when weather permits into the Arctic region. China already sends occasional missions of its Navy close to Alaska. It did so just about a year ago in a mission that featured one of its largest surface warships, the Type 055 cruiser. But this kind of military display will likely increase by both Russia and China as they both come to further exploit more readily accessible oil and natural gas. But China and Russia aren't the only players in the region. Canada has also been increasing its icebreakers and patrol ships. Out of the world's over 100 icebreakers, nearly 20 belong to Canada. And the Canadian Navy just announced six new patrol ships for the Arctic last year. Canada's growing presence there could spell good news for the U.S. That's as the country looks to its allies to help defer joint threats from China and Russia. We require allied support from Japan especially, from the Arctic countries of NATO, Canada especially. Luckily, we have longstanding strategic defense relationships with those countries, but they need to be improved. They need to have a nuclear dimension as well as a more active Arctic dimension. But overall, the United States needs to move into a more aggressive war footing. How exactly would the U.S. achieve that aggressive footing? We used to have a strategy during the Cold War of being prepared to fight two and a half wars. Today, we don't have the resources to fight one major war. We need to have the resources to fight two to three wars again. And that requires a reordering of our national security and domestic priorities in order to be able to afford that capability. Because if we refuse to go in that direction, then we are committing our young people to generations of wars. Not just one or two, but generations. Because the Chinese and the Russians are going to be allied for that long and they're going to work that hard to ensure that they are victorious over the democracies. Jones adds, If you think about the kind of crisis management mechanisms that we and the Soviets had during the Cold War, we don't have anything remotely like that now with the Chinese. So if there's an accident or a kind of unintended situation, it could escalate very rapidly. And we don't really have the tools to get things back in the box to de-escalate. So that's a crucial area for investment in what I call guardrails, to put some guardrails around the relationship and invest in that. Both sides recognize, or certainly the United States has recognized the need to do so. China has sort of semi-recognized that, but right now that's not happening. Looking at both the commercial and strategic sides, Fisher says it's not just the waters of the Arctic the Chinese regime has its sights set on. The Chinese have been rapidly developing strategic military relationships with most of the states of Africa. They already have a base in Djibouti. They're looking at Tanzania on the east coast, Nigeria on the west coast. And the Chinese overall political military investment in Latin America continues to move along. And it doesn't stop there. China already has a military space tracking facility in Argentina and wants to try to rearm Argentina in order to make another go at Britain's Falklands Islands. Islands that Britain is really always occupied and Argentina never. But if there is a war over the Falklands, China will be the major beneficiary regardless of whether Argentina wins or loses. And China will probably get a major military base out of that conflict. Jones adds it's important to take a moment to reflect on how much of our lives run on systems hidden beneath the ways of the ocean's waters. 85% of global trade, 93% of all data moving by sea. And the oceans are the literal weather vane of our changing climate. They are how a changing climate is turning into changing weather and in some cases very severely. So as a race, as a species, we need to be paying much, much more attention to the oceans. In every national context, we need to be paying a lot more attention to what we gain from ocean-based trade, what's at risk, why it matters to sustain naval power, and how to protect vital resources like fish stocks, undersea cables, etc., which are increasingly threatened. But Fisher highlights that it's important to note the Chinese regime's goals are global, not confined to any one area or any one sea. China is expanding for global power projection, for being able to wage wars globally. But it is starting its march to global hegemony on the Taiwan Strait. It first wants to conquer the 23 million free people of Taiwan. It has to conquer Taiwan in order to establish military hegemony in the Asia Pacific. And from there, from Taiwan especially, it hopes to begin global military projection that will likely include the conduct of military conflicts all around the world. But it's not that the U.S. and allies have to cover all fronts at once. Fisher says it all comes down to one small strategically placed island. But if the United States can halt the Chinese military hegemonistic projection at the Taiwan Strait, if we can deter a war against Taiwan, if we can prevent a Chinese war, a Chinese Communist Party war against Taiwan, then we can set back China's ambitions for global political military hegemony. And that will give us more time to build up our forces on the earth and in space and on the moon and preserve our freedom. For the concerned citizen wanting to get involved... Well, it's very important to listen to your leaders, listen to our leaders. It's important to assess, do they care about these threats that are developing? Do they care about the China-Russia alliance? If the answer is positive, then they deserve support. If they are leaders that simply don't care about these developing existential threats to the United States, then perhaps they need to be helped to find other work. While our attention has been fixed on the warmer waters of the South China Sea, experts note the cold reaches of the Arctic could be a much more pressing threat, one that is much closer to home, that could change the way our lives are run. But as experts note, it's not too late. There are steps that can be taken now to preserve our freedoms. That's all for today's China In Focus. I'm Tiffany Meyer. If you have any feedback on the show or have something you'd like to see us cover, send us an email at chinainfocus at ntd.com. We'd love to hear from you. Thanks for watching and see you tomorrow.