There was a time when about all one heard of Alaska history was the "neglect" thesis, the notion that the federal government did nothing with, for or about Alaska after the purchase. Though there were earlier versions, Ernest Gruening elaborated this idea in his 1954 ?"The State of Alaska," a contribution to the statehood campaign. Alaskans needed control of their own affairs, Gruening averred, because the government's failure to nurture Alaska had inhibited its development, especially exploitation of its natural resources.
The neglect thesis has faded since most Alaskans have become aware that the federal contribution to the state -- one-third of Alaska's economic base, according to a UAA Institute for Social and Economic Research study, coming in Native services, conservation unit management, military and basic infrastructure -- is historic and well as contemporary.
But now there's a new nuance to the thesis: the Arctic. Arctic Research Commission Chair Fran Ulmer and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, among many others, have lobbied for a serious, comprehensive and realistic U.S. Arctic policy. The attendance of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry at this week's GLACIER conference in Anchorage may signal their determination to organize the political effort necessary for development of a wide-ranging and long-term Arctic plan.
Among the discussions of the effects of global climate change, commercial and fishing opportunities, policing of shipping lanes, village relocation and other topics at GLACIER, one foundational aspect of the Arctic future did not receive so much attention: national sovereignty. The New York Times observed this editorially while commenting on the president's Alaska visit and his focus on climate change: "it is also imperative that the United States and other Arctic nations reach negotiated agreements on how to handle the challenge of the melting ice before it turns into a new Cold War."
This past July, Russia and the United States, along with Canada, Denmark and Norway, did sign a declaration to prevent unregulated commercial fishing in Arctic waters, having failed to do so for the Sea of Okhotsk, the Barents Sea and the Svalbard Zone off Norway. But sovereignty is a significant challenge as Arctic planning moves ahead. This summer the Russians increased their Arctic presence with a major military parachute training exercise and a more extensive ice-island base camp than they have established previously. That prompted a Wall Street Journal editorial page writer to accuse Vladimir Putin of starting a new kind of "cold war."
Alaska has been on the front lines of proclaiming American sovereignty throughout its history. While it's popular to imagine that William Seward's interest lay in Alaska's resource potential, as historians have noted, his real motivation for the purchase was in Alaska's strategic Pacific position, a likely fueling station for the U.S. Navy (coal) and a midpoint on the commercial shipping route to the Far East.
When the Klondike Gold Rush brought large numbers of newcomers into the territory for the first time, President Theodore Roosevelt threatened Britain with armed intervention if a bilateral boundary commission did not produce the border he wanted with Canada. During World War II, one historian estimates, 300,000 military personnel served in the territory at different times over the four years of the confrontation with Japan.
During the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet air forces routinely tested each other's radar capabilities, sometimes resulting in visual contact of one another's aircraft. Four active sites in Alaska housed nuclear-potential surface-to-air missiles in case of a Soviet invasion of American airspace. From time to time chauvinistic U.S politicians have called for the State Department to assert American claims to Wrangel Island, which lies in the Arctic well west of the international date line, based on a landing by the Revenue Cutter Corwin in 1881. There Russians are now fortifying Wrangel Island, long a highly protected nature reserve. The Russian North east of Norway is already heavily militarized.
It seems likely that eventually an international treaty or protocol will be necessary to sort out the various sovereign claims in the Arctic. Russia asserts its military presence in the Arctic is strictly for protection and aid for present and future scientific and other nonthreatening activities (tourism, for example). But Putin's actions send a poignant message to the other Arctic nations; Arctic development may not be entirely benign.
Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.