北极爆冷，“破冰船竞赛”热起来
（图源：Global Times）
科尔图诺夫授权北京对话编译俄文版原文：
2024年7月11日，临近华盛顿北约峰会的尾声，美国、加拿大和芬兰宣布成立一个新的三边联盟——破冰合作船计划（ICE），明确表示要挑战俄罗斯和中国对下一代破冰船的建造和部署计划。预计到2024 年底，美加芬三国将把 ICE 发展成一个详细的商业计划，包括相应的长期预算、具有约束力的相互承诺，及设定单个项目的具体实施时间表等。 美国政府的一位高级官员告诉记者，该协议旨在建立一支破冰船舰队，向极地地区 “部署力量”，并执行国际规范和条约。
美国从未加入过《联合国海洋法公约》，却提及国际准则，这听起来可能有些讽刺。然而，美国有理由对其在北极的地位感到担忧：美国目前只有两艘老旧的破冰船，其中只有一艘1976年服役的“极地之星（USCGC Polar Star）”号破冰船能完全投入使用。加拿大拥有一支由 17 艘破冰船组成的更大规模的舰队，但在缺乏大型维修工程的情况下，能投入使用的破冰船不超过三至四艘。美国的欧洲盟友，包括芬兰、瑞典、挪威和丹麦，也面临了类似的困境。
与西方相反，俄罗斯正在实施一项长期的雄心勃勃的破冰船建造计划：俄罗斯拥有 40 多艘完全投入使用的破冰船，其中七艘是核动力破冰船。未来还计划建造三艘“领袖”级核动力破冰船，能够在厚度达4至4.5米的冰层中航行。中国具有超大排水量的“雪龙”号和“雪龙2”号已完全投入使用；2024 年 5 月，广船建成了新一代破冰船“极地”号；而早在4 月，一艘更大的极地科考船 “探索三号 ”已经下水。许多专家推测，中国可能很快会像俄罗斯一样，集中力量开发现代强大的核动力破冰船。
7月3日，“雪龙2”号科考破冰船和“极地”号破冰调查船靠泊在青岛奥帆中心码头（无人机照片）（图源：新华社）
华盛顿启动ICE的目的是为了彻底改变北极地区的力量平衡：白宫希望在未来10至15年内建造70至90艘不同用途的现代破冰船。美国海岸警卫队已提交采购8至10艘新的强大破冰船的申请，用于高纬度巡逻。在加拿大，魁北克的戴维造船厂（Davie Shipbuilding）签署了设计和建造七艘大型破冰船和两艘大型北极渡轮的合同。若情况理想，ICE的成立将振兴整个西方造船业，创造出一批新的且具有吸引力的造船厂工作岗位，支持海事设备制造商，并为三国及其他地区的相关服务业做出贡献。
可以说，国际竞争，包括破冰船制造行业的竞争，本身并无不妥——竞争应当对所有人都有利。然而，众所周知，细节决定成败。对俄罗斯来说，建造破冰船不是地缘政治的选择或大国地位的问题，而是绝对的社会和经济需要。目前居住在北极圈以北的四百万居民中，约有一半是俄罗斯公民。最大的北极城市，如摩尔曼斯克、诺里尔斯克和沃尔库塔，都位于俄罗斯，而不是美国的阿拉斯加或加拿大北部。因此，俄罗斯一直需要在极北地区维持全季节的运输通信，而拥有多样且完全运作的破冰船队是保持这些通信畅通的不二法宝；所有的地面或航空运输替代方案都将昂贵得多。无独有偶，2023年通过北海航线的总货运量达3600万吨，是1987年苏联创纪录水平的五倍。
至于北京，它早在2018 年就发布了北极政策文件，将中国定位为“近北极国家”。中国是北极地区的主要利益相关者。但中国的北极利益相当务实和理性——主要局限于研究能源和其他资源的开发可能性，创建备用运输走廊（“北极丝绸之路”），以及保护北极生物多样性和生态平衡的任务。除此之外，中国在北极研究上的投入远超美国，但这个所谓“研究差距”似乎并未引起当前美国政治领导人的忧虑。
当前摆在北极面前的现实是，美国如今没有任何迫切的经济上或社会上的理由急于建造大量新的破冰船队。连接美国东西海岸的主要运输走廊通过巴拿马运河，而非沿着加拿大北极海岸线的西北航道。西北航道不仅对航行来说难度大，而且也是美加之间长期争议的对象——加拿大政府认为该通道是加拿大内水的一部分，而美国则主张这是一个国际海峡，应该有自由和不受限制的航行权。
美国国防部日前发布《2024年北极战略》，对该地区性战略进行了2019年以来的首次更新，图为美国国防部官网截图（图源：光明网）
当然，巴拿马运河从美国利益的角度来看也有其弱点。上世纪末，运河区的控制权最终落入巴拿马人手中，通过国际招标，和记黄埔有限公司开始管理通过运河的集装箱运输。此外，许多人认为运河已经过时，无法服务现代大型船舶。然而，根据美巴双边关于运河完全中立的条约，美国保留在“跨洋运输路线受到威胁时进行军事干预的权利”。至于巴拿马运河的通行能力，目前已有多个现代化改造计划，以及建设替代运河的计划，包括在哥伦比亚、尼加拉瓜甚至墨西哥的领土上建设替代运河。
无论如何，很难想象美国、加拿大或任何其他国家会投入数百亿美元的纳税人资金，试图将西北航道变成一条主要的国际运输走廊。美国和加拿大在北极沿岸的人口总和叶比俄罗斯在北极地区的人口少得多。对于北美国家而言，北极地区的相对经济意义也远不如欧亚国家。
综上所述，我们可以得出这样的结论：正在建立的ICE联盟似乎更多地是基于地缘政治和地缘战略考量，而并非经济因素。从表面上看，它最终不是为了开发北极，而是为了在争夺对欧亚北极广阔海洋空间的控制权的斗争中与莫斯科和北京对抗。所以，这一新倡议是在北约峰会上宣布而不是在G20会议或世界经济论坛上，也并不足以为奇。
迫在眉睫的破冰船竞赛远不如已经如火如荼进行的航空母舰竞赛那么引人注目。然而，这种竞赛很可能会对北极的未来造成严重的不利影响。“破冰船对抗”可能会无意中导致紧张局势加剧，甚至引发直接冲突，尤其是在该地区军事活动增加的情况下。例如，在2024年初，北约部队进行了一次名为“北欧响应2024”的大规模演习，来自14个国家的约 50 艘军舰、100 多架飞机和 2 万名士兵参加了演习。随后，加拿大宣布将购买12艘专门用于北极地区行动的现代化潜艇。
3月14日在比利时布鲁塞尔拍摄的北约总部一角（图源：新华社）
然而，过分高估美加芬三边协议的重要性至少目前还为时过早。西方国家可能缺乏与莫斯科和北京进行长期大规模“破冰竞赛”的物质资源和政治意愿。值得注意的是，美国在北极地区危险地落后于俄罗斯和中国的炒作每隔几年就会反复出现，而这种炒作通常在总统竞选年达到高潮。
上一次“破冰热”是在2020 年，当时由美国前总统唐纳德·特朗普执政。共和党和民主党在那时竞相提出影响深远的破冰船计划。然而，在过去的四年里，北极地区的“破冰船平衡”并没有发生巨大变化——北约国家的新“无敌舰队”也并没有出现。在严酷的经济和政治现实的影响下，与ICE相关的宏伟计划很有可能开始迅速消退，就像全球变暖过程中北极冰帽的迅速消融一样。
编者注：挪威高北新闻（High North News）2月2日表示，北约宣布“北欧响应”演习将在3月初进行，涉及来自13个国家的2万余名士兵。3月12日，北约官网显示有来自14个国家的50余艘军舰、110余架飞机、2万余士兵参与此次演习。https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_223083.htm?selectedLocale=en
（翻译：毛琪）
Global Times英文版实录：
Is global ice-breaker race imminent?
On July 11, 2024, on the margins of the NATO Summit in Washington, the US, Canada and Finland announced a new trilateral consortium - the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort, or ICE Pact - with an explicit intention to challenge Russia and China in ice-breaker construction and deployment. It is expected that by the end of 2024 the three nations will turn ICE into a detailed business plan with financial projections, binding commitments and specific deadlines. The pact aims to produce a fleet of ice-breaking ships to "project power" into the polar regions and enforce international norms and treaties, a senior US administration official told reporters.
The reference to international norms might sound ironic, when it comes from a country that has never joined the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Nonetheless, the US has reason to be concerned about its position in the High North: It currently has only two ageing ice-breakers with only one of them - the USCGC Polar Star, commissioned in 1976 - being fully operational. Canada can boast a more sizeable fleet of 17 ice-breakers, but no more than three or four of them can be called to active duty without any major repair works needed. US European allies - including Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark - experience similar problems.
In contrast to the West, Russia is implementing an ambitious long-term ice-breaker building program: It has at its disposal more than 40 fully operational vessels, seven of which are nuclear-powered. China has fully operational Xuelong 1 and Xuelong 2; in May of 2024 the Guangzhou Shipyard International completed a new generation ice-breaker Ji Di, and Tan Suo San Hao - a bigger polar research vessel - was launched in April.
By launching ICE, Washington intends to dramatically change the balance of power in the North: It hopes to deploy up to 70-90 ice-breakers within the next 10 to 15 years. The US Coast Guard has already stated its urgent need for eight to 10 new ice-breakers. In Canada, Quebec's Davie Shipbuilding has been contracted to design and build seven massive ice-breakers and two big Arctic ferries.
One can argue that there is nothing wrong with international competition, including in the ice-breaker building industry. However, the devil is in the details. For Russia, building ice-breakers is not a matter of geopolitical choice or of great power hype, but an absolute social and economic necessity. Out of the overall 4 million people who currently reside north of the Arctic Circle, approximately half live in Russia. The largest Arctic cities also happen to be Russian - Murmansk, Norilsk, Vorkuta, to mention a few. The country desperately needs to keep all-season communication lines in operation, and a diverse and fully operational fleet of ice-breakers is a natural way to keep these lines open; all available alternatives offered by ground or air transportation would be much more expensive.
As for Beijing, it released its Arctic Policy paper in 2018, in which China was positioned as a "Near-Arctic State." It is a major stakeholder in the North, but its interests are confined mostly to potential energy and other resource exploration as well as transportation and wild-life preservation.
For the US, communication lines between the East and the West are served by the Panama Canal, rather than by the Northwest Passage along the Canadian Arctic coastline. Not only is the Passage very complicated for navigation, it is also a matter of a long-term dispute between Washington and Ottawa - the Canadian government considers the Passage as a part of Canadian internal waters, while the US claims that this is an international strait allowing free and unencumbered navigation. In any case, it is hard to imagine that either the US, or Canada, or any other nation, will invest dozens of billions of taxpayers' dollars in trying to turn the Passage into a major international transportation route. The US and Canadian populations along the Arctic coastline combined are much smaller than the Russian one. The relative economic importance of the Arctic region for North American nations is much more limited than for Eurasian powers.
In conclusion, the ICE alliance has more geopolitical and geostrategic rationale than economic. The idea, apparently, is to confront Moscow in controlling the vast Eurasian Arctic maritime space. Not surprisingly, the new initiative was announced on the margins of the NATO Summit upon its 75th anniversary rather than at a G20 meeting or at the World Economic Forum.
The looming ice-breaker race is not as spectacular as the aircraft-carrier race, which is in full swing already. And yet, such a race is likely to have significant detrimental implications for the future of the Arctic. It might inadvertently lead to more tensions and even to direct conflicts, particularly if it overlaps with enhanced military activities in the region. One can mention, for instance, that in early 2024, NATO conducted its Nordic Response exercises involving about 50 military vessels, more than 110 aircraft, 20,000 servicemen from 14 countries. Later, Canada announced that it was going to purchase 12 modern submarines specifically designed to operate in the Arctic region.
The good news, however, is that the West might have a deficit of material resources and political will to wage a large-scale ice-breaker race with Moscow and Beijing. One can recall that the fuss about the US lagging behind Russia and China in the Arctic region repeats itself every couple of years. The last ice-breaker fever took place under former US president Donald Trump. There was much speculation about how Washington could bring its presence in the High North to a new level. However, nothing much has really happened since then - the new Invincible Armada has never materialized. It cannot fully be ruled out that exposed to harsh economic and political realities, ICE may soon start melting like the North Polar ice cap is now melting, just one of the severe effects of global warming.
英文版链接：https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202407/1316818.shtml