The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) icebreaker, Xuelong 2, in Antarctica in December 2024. The CCP has sought to challenge the U.S. and its allies in the Arctic with dual-use scientific voyages, often accompanied by icebreakers. AFP/GETTY IMAGES
DR. CAMERON CARLSON/UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS
The Arctic has become a key theater of global competition with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) pursuing extensive economic, scientific and military initiatives to expand its influence. For the United States, countering the CCP’s Arctic ambitions is essential to meeting its northern border’s homeland defense needs while maintaining stability in this strategically significant area.
In its 2018 Arctic Policy, China declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” a term that lacks legal standing but signals its aspirations to play a major role in the region’s governance. By leveraging partnerships and research initiatives, the CCPaims to challenge the leadership of Arctic nations such as Canada, Norway and the U.S. while shaping governance structures to align with its strategic goals.
With the CCP having secured observer status on the Arctic Council, it has taken significant strides toward positioning itself as a partner in scientific research and resource development. These have subsequently given Beijing a seat at the table to influence key decisions on resource allocation, environmental policies and shipping regulations — areas with substantial geopolitical and economic implications. The CCP’s Polar Silk Road initiative, part of its expansive One Belt, One Road framework, aims to make Arctic shipping lanes a central element of global trade. The gradual melting of sea ice has opened previously inaccessible routes, such as the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which can significantly reduce shipping times between Asia and Europe.
Beijing has made substantial investments in Arctic infrastructure, including the development of ports and shipping facilities along the NSR in collaboration with Russia. These projects strengthen the CCP’s economic foothold in the region and ensure its access to emerging trade routes. While these developments present economic opportunities, they also raise concerns about maritime security. An expanded CCP presence in the Arctic could undermine freedom of navigation and lead to disputes over control of key waterways.
The CCP has used Arctic research as a seemingly benign means to expand its regional presence, presenting its efforts as contributions to global science and environmental preservation. Its initiatives span climate studies, marine biology and geological exploration. Projects such as the Yellow River Station in Norway’s Svalbard archipelago and the deployment of advanced icebreakers like the Xuelong 1 and 2 allow the CCP to collaborate with Arctic nations under the guise of research. These activities also provide critical data on navigation routes, resource potential and Arctic conditions. While framed as cooperative, these research initiatives often support broader strategic objectives, such as energy exploration and infrastructure development. U.S. defense planners must monitor carefully the dual-use potential of the CCP’s Arctic research activities because they may also serve military or strategic purposes. Maintaining situational awareness of developing partnerships and activities will secure the homeland and mitigate associated risks.
The CCP and Russia have deepened their military collaboration in the Arctic, presenting a new layer of security challenges for the United States and its NATO allies. Both nations share mutual interests in exploiting Arctic resources and controlling critical navigation routes. Their partnership has expanded to include joint military exercises and technology sharing, which enhance their ability to operate in the Arctic’s challenging environment. Russia’s established Arctic military infrastructure — such as advanced missile systems and nuclear-powered icebreakers — complements the CCP’s growing capabilities, including its fleet of icebreakers and naval presence. This alignment enables both countries to exert greater influence over Arctic waterways and resources, creating a dual-front challenge for U.S. defense and strategic planning. To address this growing partnership, the U.S. must prioritize intelligence-sharing with Arctic allies, conduct joint military exercises in the region and invest in Arctic-capable platforms. Maintaining freedom of navigation and deterring aggressive behavior will be critical to ensure the Arctic remains a region of peaceful cooperation.
The CCP’s ambitions in the Arctic present a multifaceted challenge that blends economic, scientific and military dimensions. A coordinated U.S. response is necessary to safeguard the region’s strategic importance.
Key recommendations for U.S. homeland defense include:
- Strengthen Arctic alliances: Expand partnerships with Arctic nations to foster shared governance, counterbalance CCP influence and reinforce multilateral agreements.
- Enhance military readiness: Ensure readiness for Arctic operations, develop Arctic-capable military platforms, including icebreakers, cold-weather operational equipment and advanced surveillance systems.
- Promote rule-based order: Uphold international law and maritime norms to prevent unilateral actions by non-Arctic states and maintain regional stability.
The CCP’s Arctic ambitions — spanning governance, economic initiatives and military partnerships — underscore the region’s growing importance to global security. For the U.S. Department of Defense, meeting this challenge requires proactive engagement, enhanced military readiness and strengthened alliances with Arctic and global partners.
As competition in the Arctic intensifies, the U.S. must remain vigilant to protect its national interests and ensure the region remains a zone of cooperation rather than confrontation. By addressing these challenges with a comprehensive strategy, the U.S. can maintain its leadership role and safeguard the Arctic’s future.
Dr. Cameron Carlson is dean of the College of Business and Security Management at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the policies or points of view of USNORTHCOM or the United States government.