EU and Atlantic Council unveil plan on Arctic Region

In a joint press conference by the European Union and the Arctic Council, EU commission president Jose Manuel Barroso announced that he has asked Jens Stoltenburg, Prime Minister of Norway and current president of the Atlantic Council, to invite all members of the council to address the recently accelerated hunt for territorial claims below the arctic ice. Although denying any urgency Barroso made clear that only cooperation and a multilateral agreement can create a sustainable solution for the arctic region. Although not directly bordering the region, the European Union is recognizing that the Arctic is important for a number of member states including Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland, which are also part of the Atlantic Council. During the conference, Barroso and Stoltenburg named three issues that Atlantic Council members need to address:

-          Determine the status of water ways—whether they are national or international territory—and provide security especially for international waterways

-           Secure energy resources

-          Apply the highest environmental standards—to petroleum and gas production as well as to ship traffic—to mitigate further damages to the climate zone of the Arctic

Both indicated that all neighboring states and Arctic Council members will be invited, together with the EU. In response to the question whether Russia’s aggressiveness in declaring the arctic its own would require NATO to participate, Barroso made clear that at this point he does not see any issues that would require the involvement of NATO.

Manuel Pauser

Negotiating the use of the Arctic is a complex political, economic, demographic, historical and psycho-social issue involving multiple stakeholders. The arctic conflict stems from unclear borders and varying interests by its neighboring countries. The stakeholders and factors that influence the conflict will be presented.

I. Stakeholders

The key primary stakeholders include:

• Canada
• Norway
• Denmark (via Greenland)
• Russia
• United States
• The Indigenous populations living in the disputed regions of the arctic.

The above stakeholders have a direct interest in the arctic land, waters and resources.

The secondary stakeholders include:

·         International oil companies

·         Eco-tourism organizations

The secondary stakeholders encompass indirect interests that will be affected by the decisions of the primary stakeholders.

II. Factors Influencing the Conflict

I have organized the contributing issues/factors of the conflict into the social cubism framework. The social cubism framework is a method of analysis in order to understand and frame international conflicts. The framework also creates a clear outline of the conflict and illustrates clear entry-points for interventions.[1] I have chosen to replace the Religious component of the framework with Geographical in order to better explain this particular conflict.

Economic: The economic factors contributing to the Arctic security/sovereignty conflict include:

• One quarter of the world’s undiscovered reserves of oil and natural gas lay beneath the seabed in the Arctic Ocean.
• Melting ice caps will allow all-season oil drilling and easier shipping through a clear NW Passage.
• Exxon-Mobil and Imperial Oil made a US$600 million bid that allows them an oil exploration portion in Canada’s Beaufort Sea.
• International law details that all nations can claim 350 miles off their continental shelf as their territory. International law also states that every country has a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone off their continental shelf.
• Norway and Russia have a strategic relationship in hydrocarbon development in the Arctic.

Important Questions to Consider:

• Ice breakers: what country will be responsible for the icebreaking of passageways?
• Oil drilling: Which countries will be allowed to drill oil and where? Will international oil drilling companies be allowed to drill in international waters?
• Resource exploration: which countries will be allowed to explore for resources of any kind (minerals, energy, flora, and fauna)?
• Diamond Mining: Will international corporations be allowed to mine for diamonds and where?

Political: The political factors influencing the Arctic security/sovereignty conflict include:

• The United States has not signed the UN Laws of the Seas Treaty. John Bellinger, the State Department’s senior legal advisor stated that if the U.S. ratified the treaty, it would claim sovereignty over a 600 mile extension of seabed off of Alaska.
• There is a dispute between Canada, the United States and the European Union on the status of the NW Passage.
• There is a dispute between Canada and the United States on the boundary between Alaska and the Yukon in the area of the Beaufort Sea.
• On August 1, 2007 Russia planted a titanium capsule containing the Russian flag on the North Pole to attempt a claim of the Arctic and its resources.
• Canada is improving its military capabilities in the Arctic regions with satellite monitoring systems, a deep-water port, and military training facility, increased number of rangers and development of arctic patrol ships.
• The United States shipped military supplies to the Soviet Union during WWII through the arctic to counter Nazi Germany. Many bombs were ‘lost’ during the shipping. These bombs lie in Canada’s arctic islands and over time have been covered with snow and ice. They now act as landmines and threaten the native Canadian Inuit and northern Aboriginals.
• In 1988 Canada and the United States signed an Arctic Co-operation Agreement stating that U.S. icebreakers required permission from the Canadian government before navigating the NW Passage.
• In 1970, the Canadian government enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act which asserted Canada’s regulatory control over pollution within a 100-mile zone.

Important Questions to Consider:

• The passage of ships, planes and submarines: who will be allowed to pass and through whose waters?
• Search & Rescue: which country will have the responsibility to conduct this?
• Clean-up & Maintenance: due to the unclear borders, which country will be responsible for clean-up in case of passageway damage or environmental damage?
• Legal jurisdiction: which country has legal jurisdiction over contested arctic waters and land?
• Defense Issues: will there be nuclear free, de-militarized zones? Will countries be allowed to establish arctic military bases or store arms? And where? What will the regulations be?

Geographic: The geographic factors that influence the arctic conflict include:

• There is a dispute between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island. The island would extend either countries exclusive economic zone.
• There is a dispute between Canada, Denmark, Russia and Norway. All believe the Lomonosov Ridge is part of their sovereign territory. The Lomonosov Ridge is the underwater shelf that runs through the arctic and near the North Pole.
• There is a dispute between Russia and Norway over waters between Svalbard Island (Norway) and Russia’s Shtokman’s oil and gas field.
• The United States has been sending ships into Canadian arctic waters without permission.
• Canada has committed $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the arctic.
• According to international law, each bordering country has 16 territorial miles off-shore.

Important Questions to Consider:

• Borders and Waterways: Which countries will the arctic islands and waterways belong to?
• What are the boundaries for each country in terms of the continental extensions?
• Map: How will the borders be represented on the map? Who will chart it?

Demographic: The demographic factors that influence the conflict are:

• Indigenous Peoples are concerned over their rights to land, water and natural resources in the arctic. They depend upon the land, water and natural resources for material and cultural survival.

Important Questions to Consider:

• Indigenous Peoples: Where do they live (nomadic)? Which countries do they belong to?

Psycho-Socia/Historical: The psych-social and historical dimensions of the conflict include:

• The NW Passage is considered ‘historic internal waters’ of Canada.
• The Canadian arctic (including Hans Island) is considered historical Canadian territory and a sense of Canadian identity and pride.

Building on the objective to ensure environmental, social and economic sustainable development in the Arctic region, the Arctic Council invites member states and other relevant organizations and entities on talks to establish procedures for negotiating issues of interests and/or concerns that are mutually beneficial to all interested parties.  Areas of focus will include energy utilization, licensing agreements (e.g. natural resources and fishing), territorial claim and indigenous population protection, environmental responsibility, ecosystem-based marine management, military and nuclear security, and chemicals and radioactive substance management.  Recognizing the impact of the various programs, projects and licensing conditions undertaken by various parties in the Arctic, both on the national and international levels, and the importance of information-sharing, the Council urges closer cooperation by participants in coming up with effective strategies for proper resource management and a safer socioeconomic environment.

Kerry Hyre

The International Red Cross Federation proposes to invite representatives of the Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, US, The Inuit Circumpolar Conference, WWF, the UNEP, and the UNDP, as well as those wishing to observe, to an Arctic Circle Summit. The summit will center around three main topics: Arctic navigation rights, mineral exploration and drilling, and the environmental sustention of the region. The goal of the summit will be to discuss these topics and create shared understanding of the goals for the region’s success and future for the betterment of all those involved.

The issue before us is how to properly allocate access to the Arctic region of the Earth among a handful of nations who each claim to possess an economic, cultural and geographic connection to the area.  The primary actors of this international negotiation would be the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland.  Representatives from environmentalist groups and Northern indigenous peoples would be given plentiful opportunities to voice their concerns.  The key topics that the negotiation would focus on would be that of access to natural resources (i.e. oil, natural gas, minerals), ethical preservation of the Arctic’s animal and plant life, right of passage via land, air and sea for purposes of commercial activity and tourism, right of passage for strategic military purposes, and finally, assurance that the lives of indigenous peoples would not be significantly disrupted.  Ideally, the mediators of this negotiation would be a random selection of neutral nations who could provide as unbiased of an analysis as conceivably possible.

Eric Oddo    

            I propose an Arctic council be formed through the United Nations of all countries bordering the Artic and relevant organizations with significant interest in the area, namely: Canada, Greenland (Denmark), the United States (Alaska), Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Norway, representative of the Inuit peoples, International Arctic Science Committee, and any other organization that can provide proof of activity in the artic.  

            They will discuss the artic navigational rights and ownership of territory, current and future possibilities in seabed drilling, and the reduction of global warming to conserve and protect the artic ecosystem.  

Austin Cusak

Speaking from the Russian side, we believe that the littoral States,

those being Canada, Greenland (represented by Denmark?), Iceland,

Norway, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America

should gather to begin negotiations on the future of the lands,

waterways, and other resources of the Arctic Region.  At this time,

we consider the Arctic Region to be those areas that fall within the

10C July isotherm.  The course of negotiations will further define

the areas covered by any treaty.  We will also discuss the

possibility of admitting others to the discussions, based on

unanimous agreement on their individual participation.

Jeremy Busch

I propose the following for the discussion table:
Parties: the exact membership of the Arctic Council (all Arctic states), including any Council participants on Permanent Participant status (indigenous representatives), but not those on observer status (non-Arctic states, inter-governmental organization, NGOs).
3 Topics of Focus: Energy exploitation, environmental concerns relating to oil exploitation, passageway/freight control
Governing body: the Arctic Council (but with a neutral mediator).

Kathy Avgerinos