Super-Powers massing troops in the Arctic

[Plot Device]

Last week I posted a thread (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107187)where the Russians are shown to be loudly advertising the fact that they are training their army for arctic combat in order to defend their "rights" to the North Pole. To recap: the Russians pretty much declared most of the North Pole --AND the sea floor underneath AND all the oil underneath that (as well as natural gas and even diamonds)-- to be their exclusive property. America responded with sending units to Alaska to train there, and Canada responded by positioning units along their very very northern-most borders.

Well, here's something from the Canadian TV to add to that.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080628/arctic_fight_080628/20080628



Experts warn of 'no-holds-barred' Arctic fight

Sat. Jun. 28 2008 / The Canadian Press

A high-powered group of international experts are warning a "no-holds-barred'' race for Arctic resources could shape up unless countries around the world move faster to reach agreements on development, safety and environmental standards.

A new report by 40 experts from six different countries spells out four scenarios for the future of the top of the world -- including one in which the Arctic becomes increasingly militarized as demand for energy, minerals and even fresh water outpaces and overwhelms diplomacy.



(Shall I also include the link back to last week's post in the old P&CE? You know, as documentaton and research and proof and stuff?)


.

[Dawno]

I think adding the link is a good idea.

[Cranky]

Sounds good to me, too, PD.

[aliajohnson]

I read the article, and it's interesting, but Brigham seems pretty clear--he doesn't expect any of this to lead to actual conflict/combat.

[JJ Cooper]

I think it needs to be pointed out that within the same article you have quoted, the main author of the report believes there is little chance of armed conflict. He's more worried about the environmental impact within the region.

"I don't think it leads to conflict. I think it leads to a dysfunctional system that leads to increased pollution or very limited environmental protection standards, so it's a bit of a Wild West development.''

And:

Still, Brigham sees little chance of armed conflict. He says problems are much more likely to arise from economic activity getting ahead of international efforts to ensure travel and development are conducted under consistent environmental and safety standards.

Diplomats have more than a decade to sort out who owns what. Countries are always re-aligning their Military strategic objectives to current and/or future political objectives. I see flexing ones military might through a show of deliberate training exercises and strategic re-alignment, just part of the norm.

JJ

[Plot Device]

I read the article, and it's interesting, but Brigham seems pretty clear--he doesn't expect any of this to lead to actual conflict/combat.

I think it needs to be pointed out that within the same article you have quoted, the main author of the report believes there is little chance of armed conflict. He's more worried about the environmental impact within the region.

Diplomats have more than a decade to sort out who owns what. Countries are always re-aligning their Military strategic objectives to current and/or future political objectives. I see flexing ones military might through a show of deliberate training exercises and strategic re-alignment, just part of the norm.

JJ

Pheasant posturing. ;)

[MacAllister]

Yeah - upon reading the article I'm renaming the thread to something less tabloidesque and a bit more reflective of the information.

[Mumut]

This is yet another reason to try to contain global warming!

[Plot Device]

Yeah - upon reading the article I'm renaming the thread to something less tabloidesque and a bit more reflective of the information.


Wow! My first arbiting! :D

Or ..... "You've been arbited!"

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/punkd/images/ashton-kutcher-4.jpg



:ETA:

And in case anyone is wondering, the orinigal title was "Super-Powers Bracing for War in the Arctic." [/tabloidesque]

[Sarita]

There was a really interesting article in National Geographic last year, about how geological evidence supports the fact that the arctic regon belongs to Russia... BRB.

ETA: That took all of 30 seconds! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070921-arctic-russia.html

In a statement released yesterday, Russia's Ministry of Natural Resources said that a preliminary analysis "confirms the fact that the structure of the Lomonosov Ridge crust matches world analogs of continental crust."

I'm wondering if there are any updates, or outside research that has been conducted. "RMNR" isn't exactly an unbiased source...

[Plot Device]

There was a really interesting article in National Geographic last year, about how geological evidence supports the fact that the arctic regon belongs to Russia... BRB.

ETA: That took all of 30 seconds! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070921-arctic-russia.html



I'm wondering if there are any updates, or outside research that has been conducted. "RMNR" isn't exactly an unbiased source...

As I said in last week's thread, if Russia is granted the North Pole and also those sizeable chunks of the North Sea that they lay claim to, Norway (and maybe the UK also) might be legally compelled to cough up thirty years worth of the oil they extracted there.

That won't be a pretty scene.

[aliajohnson]

There was a really interesting article in National Geographic last year, about how geological evidence supports the fact that the arctic regon belongs to Russia... BRB.

ETA: That took all of 30 seconds! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070921-arctic-russia.html



I'm wondering if there are any updates, or outside research that has been conducted. "RMNR" isn't exactly an unbiased source...

Yeah, I'm a little hesitant about believing the RMNR on this one.

I wonder about this part--
"The U.S. view is that even if [the ridge] is continental, there's a significant detachment from the mainland,"

Anyone know if the degree of detachment matters from a legal standpoint?

[Jcomp]

The Justice League of America is recruiting at Superman's Fortress of Solitude????!!!



*Get it? "Super-Powers," the Justice League... The Fortress of Solitude is... is located in the Arc...tic... oh forget it...

[JJ Cooper]

This is from The Vancouver Sun a little over a month ago.

A year after Russia's controversial flag-planting dive to the North Pole seabed to assert ownership of a sprawling underwater mountain chain, Canada is launching a less brazen but potentially more effective counterclaim for control over parts of the disputed Arctic ridge - perhaps even the pole itself - by publishing a scientific paper in a scholarly journal.

The federal geologist heading Canada's bid to extend its continental shelf in the high Arctic says the early findings from a joint Canadian-Danish study of the Lomonosov Ridge suggest the massive undersea rock formation - which extends about 2,000 kilometres from the Ellesmere Island-Greenland boundary waters, past the North Pole and then towards Siberia - are "very positive" for Canada's case, and that the sea floor at the pole could eventually be ruled part of this country's territory.

and:

"The Russians have done similar experiments on their side of the Lomonosov Ridge," Verhoef noted. "They have not shown us the final details, but I wouldn't be surprised if they make the case - based on science, rather than what they did last year - that it is also attached to the Eurasian or Siberian margin, which is not impossible. Because it's possible that it is attached to both of them. And if that's the case, then they can use the ridge from their side to define their outer limits."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=6e0d4e4a-67bd-4cfd-bb0a-b3ca2a06fbdf

JJ

[aliajohnson]

So this bit--


"The Russians have done similar experiments on their side of the Lomonosov Ridge," Verhoef noted. "They have not shown us the final details, but I wouldn't be surprised if they make the case - based on science, rather than what they did last year - that it is also attached to the Eurasian or Siberian margin, which is not impossible. Because it's possible that it is attached to both of them. And if that's the case, then they can use the ridge from their side to define their outer limits."


How would that work? Does it make both Canada and Russia right? It seems like this would just bring things back to square one. Could be I'm just not getting how the outer limits are defined.

[Sarita]

As I said in last week's thread, if Russia is granted the North Pole and also those sizeable chunks of the North Sea that they lay claim to, Norway (and maybe the UK also) might be legally compelled to cough up thirty years worth of the oil they extracted there.

That won't be a pretty scene.Isn't this where Norway has its Troll? That massive oil platform? I'm wondering, in terms of production, what they'd have to give back if it is...


How would that work? Does it make both Canada and Russia right? It seems like this would just bring things back to square one. Could be I'm just not getting how the outer limits are defined.Denmark, Norway and the US are all in the running, as well.

UNCLOS article of interest: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/documents/no3_npi2.pdf

Key environmental challenges

The international management challenges facing the Arctic countries include on-the-spot human interaction with the ecosystem such as commercial fisheries, petroleum exploration and exploitation, oil transport and dumping of radioactive waste as well as more indirect aspects such
as long-distance transport of contaminants and the potential impacts of climate change. I use examples from the Barents Sea as this is in most respects the most dynamic marine region of the Arctic, and therefore illustrates well these challenges.

[aliajohnson]

Seems like it's a mad dash to prove whose country is connected to the Lomonosov ridge.

And if everyone turns up with proof, sort of a pointless race.

It scares me, though, to see countries battle over who has the right to exploit the artic. :(

[dgiharris]

HOly shit. Imagine Canada going to war. LOL. That is like seeing a bunny rabbit that then growls at you.

But if Canada where to go to war, i'm sure we'd back em up.

Anyways, gotta love politics. Surprised we aren't fighting over Antartica. Or maybe that is next.

Mel...

[Joe270]

I think it needs to be pointed out that within the same article you have quoted, the main author of the report believes there is little chance of armed conflict. He's more worried about the environmental impact within the region.

I was in the oil drilling industry for a couple decades, and I was a military brat, too. Spent some time as an officer with the Navy, in an independent sorta way. No elaboration forthcoming.

I can say, without putting in the IMHO bit, that military training and exercises will do a hundred fold more damage to the environment than exploratory drilling for oil would do.

Blacbird is our resident expert on this topic, so I'll defer to his expertise if he disputes this, but I don't expect that'll happen.

Just because the Russians place their military somewhere doesn't mean they are positioning for war. We learned this in the Cold War. It still holds true today. The Russians use their military for 'public works' programs, like building infrastructure. (The US does, too, reference 'Army Corps of Engineers', but not anything close to what the Russian military does.) This 'build-up', in my small mind, is more an indication that the Russians are serious about looking for oil up there, not starting the next thermonuclear war.

[dmytryp]

Maybe I don't understand something, so, feel free to explain to me. How is the fact that underwater ridge is/isn't connected to the mainland is important in determining the territorial waters (because this is what those claims boil down to)?

[Plot Device]

Maybe I don't understand something, so, feel free to explain to me. How is the fact that underwater ridge is/isn't connected to the mainland is important in determining the territorial waters (because this is what those claims boil down to)?

Evidently the UN came to some determination decades ago about how all nations which have an oceanic coastline are allowed to claim all "rights" within 200 miles of "the continental shelf" (found down on the sea floor).

Such "rights" include:

fishing rights
mineral rights
drillling rights
the right to position military vessels for regular patrolling
and the right say "Scat! Go away!" to other vesselsSo if the precise boundary of a "conitnental shelf" can be scientifically demonstrated to be much further out than originally thought ...

[dmytryp]

Evidently the UN came to some determination decades ago about how all nations which have an oceanic coastline are allowed to claim all "rights" within 200 miles of "the continental shelf" (found down on the sea floor).

Such "rights" include:

fishing rights
mineral rights
drillling rights
the right to position military vessels for regular patrolling
and the right say "Scat! Go away!" to other vesselsSo if the precise boundary of a "conitnental shelf" can be scientifically demonstrated to be much further out than originally thought ...
Oh, ok. So, if it is out of territorial water, but withing 200 miles of continental shelf it is still yours. Great way to create problems where there shouldn't be any.

[Plot Device]

Oh, ok. So, if it is out of territorial water, but withing 200 miles of continental shelf it is still yours. Great way to create problems where there shouldn't be any.


I kinda disagree. I think all nations should be able to protect their ocean borders, and also be given exclusive fishing rights in the deep sea immediately off their own coasts.

While I don't know enough about maritime anything, I believe that 200 miles is WELL beyond the very important military thing called "line of sight" in regards to any coastline. Even if the coastline is all just towering mountians, I believe it's impossible for line of sight to be achieved beyond 200 miles. Again, the sailors here, or the atsrophysicists who have a greater grasp of the visual limitations that befall us due to the curvature of the Earth could probably correct me on that one.

[Plot Device]

Also, get a look at this image:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-154/htmldocs/images/figure1.jpg

When viewed from space (wish I could find a for-real satelite image but I can't) you can LITERALLY see the extremely obvious line that separates the bright cheery aqua blue of the shelf from the super-dark blue where the shelf falls off and plunges downward into the ocean basin.

All that cheery aqua colored stuff if ours ours ours --along with an extra 200 miles into the deep.




.

[Robert Toy]

IWhile I don't know enough about maritime anything, I believe that 200 miles is WELL beyond the very important military thing called "line of sight" in regards to any coastline. Even if the coastline is all just towering mountians, I believe it's impossible for line of sight to be achieved beyond 200 miles. Again, the sailors here, or the atsrophysicists who have a greater grasp of the visual limitations that befall us due to the curvature of the Earth could probably correct me on that one.
Here is a link computing LOS:

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/people/sque/physics/horizon/

[Plot Device]

Isn't this where Norway has its Troll? That massive oil platform? I'm wondering, in terms of production, what they'd have to give back if it is...

I don't know. Maybe the UN will allow the UK and especially Norway to be grandfathered for all that oil they exploited in what may turn out to be Russian territory. But I kinda doubt Russia would be so generous as to not fight that kind of a UN resolution.

Meanwhile, just as a point of comparison, here in America a few Native American tribes are going to court to make aboriginal claims on their ancestral lands. Some tribes are saying they will settle for 150 years worth of back-rent, compounded by interest. Other tribes often settle for being allowed to build a casino.

Long Island is one such aboriginal claim.

http://www.narf.org/cases/shinnecock.html

Case Update -- The Shinnecock Indian Nation, located on the Shinnecock Indian Reservation, adjacent to Southampton, New York, with NARF's assistance, filed a petition for Federal acknowledgment on September 25, 1998. The BIA eventually placed the Nation's petition on the "Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration" list on September 15, 2003. The placement on the list is a milestone for the Nation after years of hard work to fully document the petition. The Nation is well on its way to federal recognition. NARF continues to represent the Nation in its efforts to gain federal recognition.


http://www.workforcenewyork.org/LI/lmbr%5Clmbr0505.htm

(UPDATE) 06-16-2005 SUFFOLK COUNTY -- The Shinnecock Indian Nation board of trustees filed a land-claim lawsuit in Central Islip Federal courthouse against Town of Southampton laying claim to 3,600 acres of prime land in The Hamptons, as well as billion of dollars in back rent and interest. The lawsuit claims the land was "stolen" by the state in 1859 when a group of private investors tricked members of the tribe into signing over their ownership rights. (Newsday - June 16, 2005)

I don't have anything more recent on the Long Island case, but I think they have settled for a casino (which seems to be what usually happens now adays with any tribal claims).

[dmytryp]

I kinda disagree. I think all nations should be able to protect their ocean borders, and also be given exclusive fishing rights in the deep sea immediately off their own coasts.

While I don't know enough about maritime anything, I believe that 200 miles is WELL beyond the very important military thing called "line of sight" in regards to any coastline. Even if the coastline is all just towering mountians, I believe it's impossible for line of sight to be achieved beyond 200 miles. Again, the sailors here, or the atsrophysicists who have a greater grasp of the visual limitations that befall us due to the curvature of the Earth could probably correct me on that one.

My point was that this kind of vague definitions cause problems similar to the one in op. Why not leave those rights in territorial waters (or any other clearly defined distance) and the rest decide according to international treaties.