The scramble for Arctica
4/6/11 19:22![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsNo, this is not going to be about China. China is silently invading Africa, remember? Now this is about Arctica. Futurists say many things. They say the next big battles in human history will be fought over water. Geopoliticians tend to agree with them in recent years. But, turns out a more immediate battle could be closer in the future than that one - and that is the battle for ice.
It's curious that an inhospitable place such as Arctica is now drawing colonial interest, unseen since the time of the great geographic discoveries. The reason is that global warming is opening access to natural treasures unaccessible before. And some estimates point to a nearly 25% of all untapped oil and gas resources being held under Arctic ice. Which is kinda big.
A few days ago the 8 countries from the so-called Arctic Council, created in 1996 - the US, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland, signed the first agreement about the remote region, during a meeting in the Danish autonomous territory Greenland. The event was aiming at sending the message that Arctica is a region of cooperation, not conflict. The participants agreed to increase cooperation, including in improving precautions against possible oil spills, in joint search and rescue operations of missing people, and a promise for more active efforts in preserving the ecosystems in the region. Although the meeting, where the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was also present, was dubbed "historic", and the representatives of the 8 countries shook hands, this still doesn't mean their territorial claims in Arctica have been put to rest.
The melting of the ice has facilitated the access to natural resources in the region and in the meantime has sharpened the rivalry between the five contenders for a piece of the northern polar pie - US, Russia, Norway, Denmark (through its Greenland colony which it doesn't feel like relinquishing), and Canada. The apple of discord is mostly oil, gas, metals, fishing and the new potential routes for shipping. Among the oil giants who've put Arctica on target are Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Statoil and Rosneft.
Meanwhile Wikileaks came up with a classified US report revealing the attempts of a number of countries to get to the resources of the Arctic. The documents mention the words of the Russian permanent envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, who made a blunt warning: "In the 21st century there will be a battle for resources and Russia cannot afford to be defeated in that battle".
Despite all the beautiful phrases like the "Restart" initiative (in the US-Russia relations), the realities look much gloomier. Last year the Russian Arctic expert Lev Voronkov said "I think cooperation in the Arctic is doomed".
In 2007 Russia spent $ 4 million for an expedition where two Russian deep-water apparatuses plunged to about 4 km depth and planted the Russian flag at the very floor of the Arctic ocean in a direct demonstration of Moscow's claim on all potential natural resources in the area.
According to the UN convention on maritime law from 1982, every country could exercise control over a strictly stipulated economic zone around its shores, amounting to 200 nautical miles, within which it can do whatever it pleases with all natural resources. If the country wants to extend this zone, it should do that within a 10-year period after the ratification of the Convention. This is possible after said country provides proof that the sea or ocean floor is an extension of its continental shelf and has the same geological composition as the shelf.
Russia claims that the submarine Lomonosov ridge is part of its continental shelf and respectively, Russian territory. That's why during the 2007 expedition soil samples were taken with the hope to legitimize the Russian claims over almost half of the territory of the Arctic ocean. They have to prove that the submarine ridge is a geological extension of Siberia (granted, when looking on the maps it really looks that way but I'm no expert).
Another contested Arctic zone is the so-called Northwest Passage in the Arctic ocean, which became accessible for shipping because of the rapid ice melting. It spares thousands of kilometers for the ships passing between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean, which means hundreds of millions of dollars worth of saved expenses. Canada claims the straits are its territory, while US contests that, claiming they're located within international waters (the map tells me otherwise, but again, I'm no expert).
The US, Norway, Denmark and Canada also have a reason to want to prove that the floor of the Arctic ocean is an extension of their shelf. The US is in the most disadvantageous position - in 1982 it refused to ratify the UN convention for the sea floors because it had some reservations about some of the stipulations inside. But now, in the face of a threat to be left behind in the scramble for the Arctic, the US authorities are under immense pressure to do it a.s.a.p.
Until the end of 2014, Canada, Denmark and Russia will be filing all their various territorial claims to the UN, concerning the Arctic. However the committee won't be pronouncing a verdict until the last of the big-five (US in this case) has filed its claims too. This means a possible outcome of the situation could be expected in 10 years. Until then, the colonial ambitions towards the hidden (and alleged) Arctic treasures will continue with an ever increasing intensity.
It's curious that an inhospitable place such as Arctica is now drawing colonial interest, unseen since the time of the great geographic discoveries. The reason is that global warming is opening access to natural treasures unaccessible before. And some estimates point to a nearly 25% of all untapped oil and gas resources being held under Arctic ice. Which is kinda big.
A few days ago the 8 countries from the so-called Arctic Council, created in 1996 - the US, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland, signed the first agreement about the remote region, during a meeting in the Danish autonomous territory Greenland. The event was aiming at sending the message that Arctica is a region of cooperation, not conflict. The participants agreed to increase cooperation, including in improving precautions against possible oil spills, in joint search and rescue operations of missing people, and a promise for more active efforts in preserving the ecosystems in the region. Although the meeting, where the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was also present, was dubbed "historic", and the representatives of the 8 countries shook hands, this still doesn't mean their territorial claims in Arctica have been put to rest.
The melting of the ice has facilitated the access to natural resources in the region and in the meantime has sharpened the rivalry between the five contenders for a piece of the northern polar pie - US, Russia, Norway, Denmark (through its Greenland colony which it doesn't feel like relinquishing), and Canada. The apple of discord is mostly oil, gas, metals, fishing and the new potential routes for shipping. Among the oil giants who've put Arctica on target are Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Statoil and Rosneft.
Meanwhile Wikileaks came up with a classified US report revealing the attempts of a number of countries to get to the resources of the Arctic. The documents mention the words of the Russian permanent envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, who made a blunt warning: "In the 21st century there will be a battle for resources and Russia cannot afford to be defeated in that battle".
Despite all the beautiful phrases like the "Restart" initiative (in the US-Russia relations), the realities look much gloomier. Last year the Russian Arctic expert Lev Voronkov said "I think cooperation in the Arctic is doomed".
In 2007 Russia spent $ 4 million for an expedition where two Russian deep-water apparatuses plunged to about 4 km depth and planted the Russian flag at the very floor of the Arctic ocean in a direct demonstration of Moscow's claim on all potential natural resources in the area.
According to the UN convention on maritime law from 1982, every country could exercise control over a strictly stipulated economic zone around its shores, amounting to 200 nautical miles, within which it can do whatever it pleases with all natural resources. If the country wants to extend this zone, it should do that within a 10-year period after the ratification of the Convention. This is possible after said country provides proof that the sea or ocean floor is an extension of its continental shelf and has the same geological composition as the shelf.
Russia claims that the submarine Lomonosov ridge is part of its continental shelf and respectively, Russian territory. That's why during the 2007 expedition soil samples were taken with the hope to legitimize the Russian claims over almost half of the territory of the Arctic ocean. They have to prove that the submarine ridge is a geological extension of Siberia (granted, when looking on the maps it really looks that way but I'm no expert).
Another contested Arctic zone is the so-called Northwest Passage in the Arctic ocean, which became accessible for shipping because of the rapid ice melting. It spares thousands of kilometers for the ships passing between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean, which means hundreds of millions of dollars worth of saved expenses. Canada claims the straits are its territory, while US contests that, claiming they're located within international waters (the map tells me otherwise, but again, I'm no expert).
The US, Norway, Denmark and Canada also have a reason to want to prove that the floor of the Arctic ocean is an extension of their shelf. The US is in the most disadvantageous position - in 1982 it refused to ratify the UN convention for the sea floors because it had some reservations about some of the stipulations inside. But now, in the face of a threat to be left behind in the scramble for the Arctic, the US authorities are under immense pressure to do it a.s.a.p.
Until the end of 2014, Canada, Denmark and Russia will be filing all their various territorial claims to the UN, concerning the Arctic. However the committee won't be pronouncing a verdict until the last of the big-five (US in this case) has filed its claims too. This means a possible outcome of the situation could be expected in 10 years. Until then, the colonial ambitions towards the hidden (and alleged) Arctic treasures will continue with an ever increasing intensity.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:25 (UTC)"There are no penguins at the north pole"
Date: 4/6/11 18:41 (UTC)I love those classic John Carpenter films - at least up until he started making shite like Vampires he paid a lot of attention to setting the mood and having really creepy music.
Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
Date: 4/6/11 19:01 (UTC)Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
From:Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
From:Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
Date: 4/6/11 19:14 (UTC)Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
From:Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
From:Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
From:Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
From:Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
From:Re: "There are no penguins at the north pole"
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:57 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 18:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 19:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 19:03 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 19:35 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 19:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 19:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 19:16 (UTC)That is our national shame.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 19:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 19:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 21:30 (UTC)I need a hockey icon to use at times like these.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/6/11 04:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/11 04:05 (UTC)