...
For all the historic resonance of Russia's flag-planting foray, the current dash to the Arctic is not—or at any rate, not yet—a simple race to create “facts on the ground” which can then be consolidated, and if necessary defended, by military power. It has more to do with the establishment of legal arguments, which have to be shored up by scientific data.
All the parties with a claim to a slice of the Arctic are intensely conscious of the terms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is supposed to regulate almost all human uses of the high seas, from fishing to mining. Under the convention, governments can lay claim to an economic zone up to 200 nautical miles (370km) from their coast—or further, if they can prove that the area in question is an extension of their own continental shelf. Precisely such a claim is made by Russia with respect to the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches from the Russian coast to Greenland. And this week's Scandinavian expedition may lend support to a claim by Denmark that the ridge is connected to Greenland, which is under Danish sovereignty. “There are things suggesting that Denmark could be given the North Pole,” as the country's science minister, Helge Sander, eagerly puts it. The Canadians, for their part, say the ridge could be an extension of their own Ellesmere Island.
Such a cacophony of arguments could keep lawyers and geographers busy for decades. So why the hurry? Because any country that wants to make a claim under the Law of the Sea must do so within a decade of ratifying it. Russia's deadline is 2009. Canada must set out its case by 2013, and Denmark by 2014.
As for the United States, it respects the convention in practice but has not ratified it, because some senators fear a loss of American sovereignty. The bodies created by the convention—the International Seabed Authority, and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—worry conservative American groups like the Heritage Foundation which fear global bureaucracies.
These objections may soon be overcome: the Bush administration, along with moderate Republican senators like Richard Lugar now want to sign up to the convention and start making America's case.
But between setting out a claim under the Law of the Sea and enjoying the fruits of ownership there is a long route to be trodden. An agency called the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf decides on the merits of the case, but it has no powers of enforcement. A ruling may lead to counter-claims by other countries. In the end, bilateral talks may be needed; they can last for decades. There have been calls, over the years, for a more sensible way of dividing up the Arctic—but as the prizes look more tantalising, setting rules for the game will probably get even harder...
Take the Northwest Passage, to which the newly proclaimed Canadian port of Nanisivik marks the eastern entrance. At the moment, this route through the Canadian archipelago is navigable at best for a brief summer spell. (Sovereignty over the passage is one of the Arctic's many unresolved issues: Canada claims it, but the United States says the waters are international [as does just about everybody else].) In theory, a complete opening of the Northwest Passage can shave 2,500 miles off a journey from Europe to Asia. But Lawson Brigham of the United States Arctic Research Commission, based in Alaska, is not convinced the financial gains will be dramatic. “Has anybody done the economics?” the former coastguard captain asks. In fact, he and fellow researchers from the Arctic Council are doing some sums at the moment; they will complete their assessment of global warming's impact on shipping next year.
Despite the appearance of a free-for-all, governments and scientists still co-operate over the Arctic; often there is no choice. In the Danish expedition that set sail this week, the Swedish ice-breaker is being led northwards by a larger Russian one, the 50 Years of Victory. And, despite a Canadian-Danish tiff over tiny Hans Island, the Canadians will help the Danes by providing some data on the ridge...
)Personally I think if a ship will be used in the law enforcement role or perform any naval mission it should be armed. The CCG should drop any sort of enforcement from their mandate totally.
