A Frozen Treasure Chest – Cold War in the North Pole?

The global warming rapidly emerges a serious threat to both environmental and global security. Its impact primarily focuses on the Arctic area though intertwined with it high temperatures as well as gradual melting of the ice will consequently affect all of the world – that however will not occur solely in this very dimension, for the slowly disappearing ice is nowadays somewhat resembling a theatre curtain – it turns the attention of regional states and non-state actors towards – what used to remain underneath it for centuries and now slowly  is being revealed.

In 2004, United States Geological Survey indicated a vast amount (around 1/3) of the world’s total resources of oil and gas to be located under the icy waters of the Arctic Ocean. In the era of consequently rising oil prices that affect every single economy in the world, this opens a broad margin of possibilities towards diversifying energy resources, which if successful, will lead to decreasing the dependency on Middle Eastern oil resources and thereby boosting the investment and economic growth of any country to conduct diversification of its energy sources. Recent statistics highlight a potential existence of an estimated 400 billion oil barrels in the seabed, while 233 billion have already been discovered – a number constantly increasing since the first calculation several years ago – a number that signifies tremendous riches, something that can turn a most peacefully acting state into a violent belligerent.

The international law is a system of regulations, which in this case provides a set of measures defining state’s sovereignty over varying sectors of waters that surround its coast. According to the Law of the Sea, each state apart from 12 nautical mines of his territorial waters has a right to undertake expeditions, drilling and generally to acquire benefits from areas as far as 200 nautical miles, which are referred to as Exclusive Economic Zone of a state. This implies several consequences. The most important relates to the variety of contenders, which as of today includes Russia, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the United States.

The race for resource primacy has already begun. There are certain facts that prove tensions are gradually rising to the dangerous tipping point:

· In Norway and Denmark coastal regions experience unprecedented rate of investment and both internal (young population migrating from other parts of the state) and external interest that focuses on that region.

· Last year Russian submarine dived into Arctic seabed to symbolically plant a Russian flag after already claiming 460,000 square miles – an indication that Russia will be a tough player in this competition.

· In response to Russia’s actions, Canada launched a series of maneuvers in the Arctic involving vessels equipped with icebreakers, submarines and 700 soldiers.

· In May 2008, U.S. Army engaged in the series of exercises under a codename “Northern Edge” in Alaska.

· In August, a U.S. ship launched its journey to the Arctic to determine the extent of continental shelf north of Alaska and examine the seabed.

· In September Russian President Dmitri Medvedev delivered a speech at the Security Council stating his willingness to define seabed borders in the Arctic (his alleged unilateral position on this matter was later denied by Russian authorities)

Prudent analysis of the facts may indicate a certain level of disturbance for those facts certainly do not assure peaceful trend of developments in future. The principal threat that could emerge from analyzing the aforementioned is the position of Russia in contrast with the aspirations of the United States. struggling to decrease its dependency on foreign oil. Russian government has profoundly stated its insistence on claiming vast areas that include the North Pole, and previously demonstrated urgency as well as symbolic flag planting does not allow a positive prognosis in terms of a possible reluctance of Russian authorities to resign from some of the postulates. Russia’s new government as well as its predecessors with same respect have delivered many messages reminding the international community that Russia is capable and willing to act assertively in defense of its national interests with little regard to international law and overall reaction of the international community (as Georgian conflict also indicates). How the situation will develop on Russia’s behalf is unknown, however history of recent events and political use of resources by Russian authorities, provides empirical evidence that its position in future negotiations if they will be undertaken – may be firm if not aggressive.

The situation seems to be even more alerting, when we examine capabilities of Russia and the U.S. – the two nations to most probably divide spoils of the North Pole. At first glance, Russia seems to be in a better position. Russia’s military potential is definitely in decline, United States spends a half of the worlds military spending, therefore in terms of military capability, it cannot be equivalent to America’s power. However, what we are experiencing right now is prologue to a race for potential resources, which does not imply ordinary military rivalry, and therefore provides Russia with relative advantage. How? This can be asserted from simple estimation and comparison of the number of icebreaker vessels, which currently are essential to undertake expeditions to investigate the seabed. Russia as of now is in possession of 19 of such vessels, 8 with nuclear engines, while the U.S. Navy can operate only on 4 such vessels with conventional power supply – to be more specific Finland and Canada own 6 and 7 icebreakers respectively. The U.S. government identified this issue as disturbing, a couple of years ago, pressing for more funds to reform its capability to conduct research in the Arctic, though the developments of 9/11 and further President Bush’s war against terror, not to mention Iraq, financially undermined any possibility to gradually to match Russia’s potential in this field. This implies the advantage Russian navy has over the U.S. in investigating currently melting ‘frozen treasure chest’. Other important factor that affects current U.S. position is the problem with ratification by the U.S. Senate of the Convention of the Law of the Sea. The international law provides time to countries interested in claims in the Arctic Ocean who ratified the treaty until 2009 to estimate their claims; the U.S. without ratifying the treaty is a worse position. Question with respect to probability of this conflict being unwinded cannot be answered directly. States involved in the region do not demonstrate any aggresive behavior or do not threaten each other. As of today, it is hard to imagine Russian military to conduct any acts of aggression towards the most prominent military in the world nor against European countries that aspire to take part in the division of the North Pole area. Norway and Denmark are both members of NATO – an arguement strong enough to a expect strong consideration of any hostile decision aimed at these states from Russia. Nevertheless, it is probable that the eventual conflict will not include states with coastal lines but others, also interested in new oil resources, such as rising China or India. Everything is yet to be determined, however it is safe to admit this area of the globe is a constantly ticking bomb, that could errupt into explosion if not properly managed by regulations.

Luckily, as tensions gradually rise among the states with Arctic coastlines, the U.N. tries to control slowly rising ‘oil rush’ within the area. Countries with vital interest in this field held a summit at Greenland in May this year and agreed that it should be the United Nations and above all, the international law to determine who governs what. The U.N. conference covering that issue however is scheduled to be held in 2020, which provided recent developments as well as emerging interest of oil-hungry nations (China and India particularly) might be too late before the contenders lose their temper and turn into hostile conduct towards eacg other.

What could be done? Analysts point out the obvious – diplomacy. United States as the principal world leader and foremost due to its disadvantage in the region should engage in diplomatic talks with contending states to find a common ground, which will not be an easy feat, especially with respect to assertive Russia.  It is in the vital interest of the United States to avoid any unequal share of spoils within the region. Resource prevailence will not change the status quo in terms of America’s standing, though certainly will decrease the gap between the powers, and thus make the global situation more tense. As a matter of fact,the conflict in the region does not seem to be a lucrative option for any of the sides, due to emerging trade outposts along the coastlines, which pump development into areas that were scarcely inhabited a decade ago – primarily in Norway and Canada. American diplomats to promote establishing new rules could turn to their European counterparts, especially those with Arctic coastlines but also to other European oil-importing nations for support to incline Russia and other states into creating an organization that would resemble current-day OPEC – of course with different external policy aspects. Collective response either at a group or a UN level is the only safe resolution to this security challenge. Any unilateral action, as Russia’s conduct has recently proved only increases concern among other nations, and could lead to easily volatile competition. However, this as of now is pure futurology. The situation and its symptoms are not yet severe, though require prudent actions – Current events indicate that the emergence of any serious confrontation is unlikely, especially after reconsideration of Medvedev’s statements and the Greenland conference resulting in shifting decisions towards the United Nations. Nevertheless, this particular détente without precarious diplomacy and engaging all contenders collectively to find a solution may be easily dissolved and turn into new dangerous conflict that could possess the capacity to affect the entire northern hemisphere.

That one

It has been proved before in this campaign that at some point, where the other side becomes rather desperate, vulnerable  or insecure, the elements of a ‘negative’ campaign have to rise up from under the carpet. To careful observes this is a sad news, for it is the insults and unpleasant language taking the stage, and merits fading away. However, those ascendancies and downfalls in terms of a debate level are inherent in politics, saddening, but always present.

This was also the pre-debate atmosphere last week before another showdown between presidential candidates in Nashville, Tennessee. Both camps exchanged rather ‘unfair’ in terms of courtesy remarks about respective candidates.  Polls indicated increasing, but still not decisive lead of Senator Barack Obama over John McCain, therefore both participants had relative benefits that could be gained from the debate. What thrilled many commentators was McCain’s well-known ability to debate in a town hall fashion, not to mention his insistence and encouragement posed on Obama to participate in such a debate earlier – unfortunately that did not meet Obama’s consent.

The debate especially due to its setting and configuration was in my view the most interesting of ALL to date. Questions posed to the candidates focused on new issues and helped a great deal to draw a more visible line separating both parties and their strategies. The issues under discussion were the same as previously, with heavy emphasis on the economy, which no doubt will play a decisive role until November 4th. Polls show that Americans in general are cautious in their assessments of governmental conduct towards resolving the crisis – and somewhat fear what the future would bring. What post-debate polls also indicate is that Obama in terms of economy won by a two-digit margin over McCain. Indeed, his insight in a situation of Americans throughout the United States was quite impressive. His strategy again, was linking McCain with the Bush administration, and profoundly contrasting it against his vision of America. Obama throughout two debates is extremely consistent on elaborating on his wide range of propositions and neglecting McCain’s remarks regarding his alleged incompetence, or what the Arizona senator recently referred to as ‘risk’. Silence these comments met, which to rock-solid democratic electorate could be deeply disturbing, disappointed his voters in the previous debate – this time, however standard Mccainian – ‘He doesn’t know’ was answered very craftily in a prudent, tame tone.

Senator McCain had a lot at stake in this debate. Polls were consistently in favor of his adversary, it is only the extent to which the lead is estimated , which makes his situation better or worse respectively. His famous capability to impress the crowd during the town hall debates ignited even further the expectations that were addressed to his performance. Indeed, the first few questions posed, he answered in a great fashion, his body language being more firm, straightforward, having a close verbal and physical contact with the audience. Obama did not obviously have his level of experience, which he demonstrated while answering first questions in the middle of the stage and gradually adjusting manner of responding to the audience afterwards. McCain however had to win this debate, to gain more points in the polls, and despite his strong overall image there have been visible signs of either condescension or a bit of uneasiness. It was easy to notice, he would never address Obama directly, focusing either on the audience or Tom Brokaw, never looking him in the eyes. It is hard to distinguish whether it was his desperation or a sense of superiority over his younger adversary when he addressed him using ‘that one’ – which to some observers was clearly impolite and should not have been used in the debate on the national level. In parallel to this – those words raised a rage of discussion in the media, and reached even Michelle Obama in her interview with Larry King – turning a long story to short – undoubtedly did not help him score the points that would make a difference his strategists sought.

If there would be a one thing to say about that debate that brought something new to the political knowledge of the electorate, it is foreign policy. The candidates, thanks to the audience had a chance to elaborate on their future foreign policy doctrines as presidents as well as approaches towards most challenging aspects of America’s current leadership in the world. John McCain referred to Theodore Roosevelt, while describing his view on America’s role and attitude towards the world. ‘Talking softly and carrying a big stick’ is a well known doctrine in terms of American foreign policy tradition. Question here is whether the history and Roosevelt’s views on America will be intertwined with McCain’s and whether they will play an essential part in his foreign policy. The big stick policy derived directly from the Roosevelt Corollary allowed the states as an actor in the international system to act solely in defense of its national interest, furthermore to intervene in domestic affairs [military invasion included] of other nations if proved incapable of maintaining their economic and political stability. Moreover, McCain’s comments (expressed in the debate) are not always soft – ‘seeing KGB in the eyes’ of Russia’s prime minister Vladimir Putin supports this point – for the same sort of imprudent comments were exchanged over the Atlantic during the Cold War – a war, which  Senator McCain does not wish to see revive. That approach may also mean further alienation of the United Nations, (for only the Security Council provides consent for the military intervention) therefore further reducing its importance in global relations, which was one of the calamities of the Bush administration.

Obama on the other hand spoke in a tone specifically clintonian or that of Woodrow Wilson – appealing to American values and to moral responsibility of the United States to  ensure and maintain peace in the world. McCain focused on that as well, though what was different between the two, was the concept of practical approach. Obama while discussing America’s position towards Russia and situation in Afghanistan pointed out the importance of including regional U.S. allies to pursue goals fulfilling both national interests –[‘Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians’ and the European Union] and American values – thereby being inclined to rather collective response to challenges facing the United States. Both candidates however made it clear, that they will act unilaterally, if necessary with force in case of major crisis related to  principal national interests (Israel’s position being one of them).
Who won? Again, it is very difficult to distinguish – however it is safe to admit – if this debate was to be McCain’s breakthrough– it certainly was not. Both candidates maintained their statue from previous debates, with campaign rapidly reaching its end, if that trend persists – factors other than debate performance – including negative campaign and mutual insults will play a larger role – sweeping away the most important – the merits .