The Dark Side of the Arctic Mission

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html


The news that a team of Russian explorers led by Artur Chilingarov have succeeded to place the Russian flag on the sea bed of the Arctic Ocean, under the North Pole, was probably the most resounding political event of the year.


In an abrupt move, “the Russian Bear” apparently losing its patience, woke up from its comatose sleep of two decades, recalling its former World status and reclaiming its Arctic territories lost in 1997 when Russia ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.


THE UN CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA


Under the Convention, the five Arctic Circle countries - the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia - each have a 322-kilometer (200-mile) economic zone in the Arctic Ocean at the moment.


Relying on the provisions of the UN Maritime Law Convention, which stipulates that the five nations are allowed to file claims to a UN commission for greater territory if they can prove that their continental shelves are geographically linked to the Arctic seabed, Russia now claims 1.2 million square kilometers (about 460,000 square miles) - the underwater Lomonosov and Mendeleyev Ridges named after Russian scientists - which the country says is a continuation of its continental shelf.


Russia’s first attempt to claim the Arctic territories was made in 2001, but the UN's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf told it to resubmit the claim.


The US, despite the fact that it forced many changes to the draft before it was finally adopted in 1982, has never ratified the Convention and hence it cannot challenge Russia’s claims under a legal basis. However, after the recent visit of the Russian president in Kennebunkport (US), many US senators, the US president included, have proposed the ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in the US Senate.


“ARCTIC HYDROCARBON DISCOVERIES” ADVERTISEMENT


The international media generously provided the reader with news, opinions and analysis about the Russian hastened expedition to the North Pole, blaming the daring move on the oil and gas discoveries in the Arctic.


Although the issue was made public in 2001 by Russia, which was the first country to file a claim to the UN Commission for greater territory, this topic was pretty much conserved in the dossiers of the specialists in the field until this year, when the rumour “Arctic hydrocarbon discoveries” exploded in the press.


Quite when Russia was planning to plant its flag under the North Pole, the press reacted euphorically, highlighting the positive effects the global warming will have upon the Arctic ice cap, unburying from ice huge amounts of hydrocarbons (up to 25 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, according to the United States Geological Survey).


In the years that followed the US invasion of Iraq, the passionate reader of political press acquired the “oil reflex”. Whether the questions were focused on terrorism or just on the domestic business of his country, the reader found the answers following oil routes. Therefore, the “oil” has become the most credible explanation of any political events.


The “oil reflex” may now be used by professionals in order to manipulate the same reader who in the past refused to be manipulated.


And while it is undeniable that the fuel (especially hydrocarbons) is the key matter of any political game, it is well-known that the means to defend the fuel and respectively to seize it on foreign territories are the weapons.


BUSH-PUTIN MEETING IN KENNEBUNKPORT


Shortly before the Arctic news was splashed in the press, the Bush clan was meeting the Russian president Vladimir Putin on 2 July 2007, in Kennebunkport, where the most important issue debated in the private residence was the defense shield that the US plans to develop in Poland and the Czech Republic.


At that time the media briefly reported that the meeting hadn’t brought notable results and that the US rejected Putin’s proposal to jointly use the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan instead of building a missile defense shield in Central Europe.


THE MYSTERIOUS SWIMMER


On 8-th of July 2007, just days after the top secret meeting of the two heads of state, BBC announces that endurance swimmer Lewis Gordon Pugh attempts “regrettable” record in the Arctic Ocean, quoting him as saying:


"It's deeply regrettable that” (this swim) “is possible now because of the devastating effects of climate change."


The manipulative media assumed well that Pugh’s warnings on climate change would fall on deaf ears and that the reader’s hungry eyes would rather enjoy the optimistic previsions that oil reserves inaccessible in the past are now ready for exploitation.


The staggering news that the ice cap melts because of the reckless way the hydrocarbons are exploited, causing devastating effects on the ecosystem, was perceived just as a timely announcement that more hydrocarbons are now at our disposal.


RUSSIA’S MISSION IN THE ARCTIC - THE US’ DEFENSE SHIELD IN CENTRAL EUROPE - THE CONNECTION

Following step by step the Russian expedition to the North Pole, both the Russian and the Western press sparred with each other, highly praising Arctic’s oil and gas reserves.


Yet if we go to RIA Novosti’s archives, on 02 November 2004 we find the article entitled “American Anti-missiles in Europe threaten Europe”. The article makes the explicit connection between Russia’s mission in the Arctic and the US’ defense shield in Central Europe:


“Russia is too big for the PLV/EKV missiles to hit a Topol-M missile launched from Kartala in the Chelyabinsk region toward the Arctic and the Arctic Ocean. Likewise, the US missiles cannot intercept Russian missiles launched from a nuclear submarine deployed in the Arctic Ocean. Despite problems, the Russian nuclear missile forces can deliver a decapitating reply/retaliation strike, though we hope that it will never be necessary. The Kremlin will certainly "take the appropriate measures to ensure national security," the Foreign Ministry statement says.”


According to the same RIA Novosti: “The Arctic (…) was viewed as a site for nuclear experiments and ballistic missiles - the distance to America is shorter from there.”


Although stating black on white that the demonstration of force made by Russia at the North Pole is in fact about military ends (which involved at least a nuclear icebreaker and military exercises of Russia's strategic aviation), the Russian media, following the Western model, strived to disperse our fears, stating that in fact economic considerations pushed the Russian expedition to the North pole: “At that time, the development of territories beyond the Arctic Circle pursued primarily geopolitical and military ends, whereas now, as recent polar expeditions have shown, economic considerations have moved to the fore.” – RIA Novosti.


ARCTIC - ANTARCTIC PARALLEL


Another observation is that the energies of humankind seem focused exclusively on the North Pole. According to official data, Antarctica (South Pole) is also very rich in hydrocarbons (estimates vary as to the abundance of oil in Antarctica, the Weddell and Ross Sea areas alone are expected to possess 50 billion barrels of oil - an amount roughly equivalent to that of Alaska's estimated reserves), yet no one considered planting its flag there. And while some could argue that the transport of the natural resources from the North Pole to the Northern hemisphere (way more populated then the Southern one) is more facile than from the South Pole to the Northern hemisphere, to others geopolitics makes more sense than even the oil itself.


IRAQ, BTC PIPELINE AND RUSSIA’S EAGERNESS FOR OIL


Four years ago the world witnessed the passive stance that Russia displayed when the US invaded Iraq. Although Lukoil has no intention to cede its rights in Iraq, waiting for the decision of the US-backed Iraqi government on Kurna field, Russia has been relatively mild on the Iraqi issue.


Last year, following a ceremony where the U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell was present, the US-backed Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) oil pipeline was inaugurated with pomp, now playing a pivotal role in the US’ World policy.


Ever since Putin took the presidency of the country, Russia has made countless compromises on the energy matter, which denote that although Russia is keen to have control on the World energy business, it has never made the first step in claiming territories ever since the war in Afghanistan.


Is a Russia deeply marked by the break-up of the USSR willing to risk and start a counteroffensive against the US now when it is not fully recovered from the shock of losing its empire? And what for? For alleged natural resources which will be available at best in a few decades from now on.


This hypothesis is highly unlikely. Russia wouldn’t make such risky move unless it finds itself indeed in serious trouble, seeing its territorial integrity directly threatened. Therefore, in order to have an overview on what happens at the North Pole, we should rather focus on the American geopolitical games which brought the US’ military very close to Russia’s borders (in Poland, the Czech Republic, but also in Romania and Bulgaria).


According to RIA Novosti: “There is not much time left, so Russia is in a hurry.”


OTHER RUSSIAN DEFENSE MEANS


Speaking ahead of a summit of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations, Putin himself threatened the deployment of an anti-missile base in Cuba (its close ally in Soviet times), in response to the U.S. missile plans, hoping that the US would drop the Poland shield idea.


Being aware that the brand new radar in St. Petersburg won’t be able to defend Russia from an eventual American attack, Putin, missing the collaboration with Europe that seems to slip through his fingers, seeks other shoulders to lean on.


After Russia flanked its Northern border in the Arctic, now it concentrates on its South-Eastern one.


These days SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) looks very active. China and Russia seem keen to strengthen their military collaboration now more than anytime in the past. Reality or just threat? Time will tell. However, Russia announced investing around 2 billion dollars in the joint military training for both states.


And although Russia’s plans for the Arctic in particular and the belligerent declarations of its politicians in general might not sound encouraging on the American radio stations, the whole ballyhoo doesn’t sound like much more than rhetoric meant to discourage Bush’s invasive plans. According to the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the next round of consultations on the US’ missile shield issue will take place in September.


PUTIN - ALBERT DE MONACO MEETING


Making ad-hoc alliances with the Asian states, Russia looks like it has withdrawn into its own space, although certain meetings of the Russian president prove that he hasn’t dropped entirely the European plan.


Putin’s invitation of Albert de Monaco to spend 3 days in Siberia proves that Russia hasn’t lost its European reflex. Giving a tonic note to the meeting, the two leaders have discussed the stringent issue of the Arctic, now that France’s new elected pro-American president is reticent to a close collaboration with Russia. Prince Albert is no stranger from the Arctic issue, being the first head of state to ever have made a voyage to the North Pole in 2006, assisted by a Russian team.


CONCLUSION:


And whether or not the US will join the UNCLOS (The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) in order to directly confront Russia on the Arctic issue, the Arctic will remain a territory traditionally explored by Russians, from where Russia will hardly withdraw its military contingent.


Beyond the rhetoric, Russia has just made concrete steps in boosting its military presence in key spots, Arctic included, and whether or not there are any accessible resources under the Arctic ice cap, for both Russia and the US the North Polar area is highly important for geopolitical reasons, being first and foremost a strategic military spot, rather than for the still frozen treasures underneath.


REFERENCES:

Oceans and Law of the Sea

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Russian Arctic mission

http://en.rian.ru/trend/arctic/

A reality Show under the Ice

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070810/70885724.html/

American anti-missiles in Europe threaten Europe

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20041102/39772530.html

Bush, Putin Meet in Kennebunkport

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11650470

Arctic Polarity

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/Arctic_Polarity/articleshow/2283479.cms

Shanghai Cooperation Organization: territory of partnership

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070815/71739789.html

Antarctica: Fact Sheet

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html

Official Meeting between H.S.H. Prince Albert II and Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic

http://www.gouv.mc/304/wwwnew.nsf/1909$/4CB69E0C3D7594CBC125731D00421A64GB?OpenDocument&1Gb

Putin hosts Monaco's Prince Albert II at czarist residence outside St. Petersburg

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/12/europe/EU-GEN-Russia-Monaco.php

President Putin goes fishing

http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20070816/71906959.html

Swimmer to attempt Arctic record

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6282048.stm

US has much to gain by coming on board

http://law.nus.edu.sg/news/archive/2007/ST260507.pdf

Russia hopes to win back the North Pole

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070725/69675752.html

Putin warns of measures against U.S. missile shield in Europe

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070604/66620997.html

Russia restores Soviet-era strategic bomber patrols - Putin -2

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070817/72189719.html

Russia strategic aviation holds exercise over Pacific, Atlantic

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070814/71405929.html

Putin praises new radar station near St. Petersburg

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070811/70981372.html

Will the US sign the Law of the Sea Convention?

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

Here is an interesting article on the topic.
More interesting, however, is the rank of the one who declares all these :

"America Wins With the Law of the Sea Treaty"

"Lawrence S. Eagleburger was secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush. John Norton Moore, director of the Center for Oceans Law & Policy at the University of Virginia, was U.S. ambassador for the Law of the Sea Convention under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and was a Reagan appointee to the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere".

Is the US' ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty what Putin and Bush Sr. mainly negotiated at Kennebunkport a few weeks ago?

And if so, what has Putin offered in return for Bush's potential signature, aside of the somewhat minor Polish and Czech-based American military bases? Another Iran promise?!

~Vera



Taking Exception
Opportunity On the Oceans
America Wins With the Law of the Sea Treaty

By Lawrence S. Eagleburger and John Norton MooreMonday, July 30, 2007; Page A15
Foreign policy concerns, as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute shows, are like the Energizer bunny; they generally go on and on.

When we have an opportunity for a decisive foreign policy win, it should not be missed. One s7uch opportunity has arisen with the Law of the Sea Convention, and in contrast to what Jack Goldsmith and Jeremy Rabkin have argued on this page [" A Treaty the Senate Should Sink," op-ed, July 2], the convention should be approved.

The convention is strongly supported by our military leaders and aids our national security in crucial ways. It provides legal certainty for U.S. naval vessels navigating the world's oceans, the largest maneuver space in the world.

It assists the Coast Guard and facilitates crucial oil and gas development on our offshore continental margin, reducing the need for Middle Eastern oil. Indeed, in its 200-mile economic zone, it extends U.S. resource control into the oceans in an area greater than the land area of the nation, giving the United States the largest economic zone in the world.

The United States would hold the only permanent seat on the Counsel of the Seabed Authority. This new functional entity permits U.S. firms to develop critically needed deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt and manganese from ocean-floor sites. But the delay in U.S. adherence to the convention has already meant the loss of one of four original U.S. mine sites, and the other three are at risk. Meanwhile, China, Russia, India, Japan and others have moved to obtain exploration licenses to their deep-seabed sites.

Not surprisingly, the Navy; the Coast Guard; and our fishing, shipping, undersea cable, mining, and oil and gas industries all support ratification, as do environmentalists. The congressionally established Ocean Policy Commission voted unanimously for U.S. accession to the convention as its first official act. There are also important foreign policy reasons to adhere, as Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England wrote in an op-ed in June.

In sharp contrast to the Kyoto treaty, the United States led the world in negotiating the Law of the Sea Convention and achieved a historic negotiating success -- a success that probably could not be replicated today. Moreover, when President Ronald Reagan subsequently determined that Part XI of the convention, on seabed mining, required major revision, the world expressly met his conditions before the convention went into effect.

Today the convention is in force for 154 nations, including all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council but the United States. Failure to adhere diminishes the voice of the United States in protecting our interests worldwide; it excludes America from the new functional organizations created by the convention, such as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; and it sends a signal of American isolationism.

Why then has the convention, which was successfully renegotiated in 1994, not yet received a vote in the Senate? Sadly, ideologically driven opponents have purveyed a web of distortions. They assert that the convention would give our sovereignty away, but the reality would be enhanced protection of our ships on the seas and the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S. history, greater in area than that of the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska combined.

They assert that the International Seabed Authority, which after a quarter-century of operation has 35 employees and a budget of less than $12 million, is both a U.N. agency (it's not) and a stalking horse for world government.

The agency also has no power to tax Americans.
Opponents assert that Ronald Reagan deep-sixed the convention, when instead he set requirements for renegotiation of Part XI, which were successfully achieved, and he directed that we follow the remainder of the convention, which has been U.S. oceans policy now through four presidencies. They assert that the convention harms President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), when the Joint Chiefs of Staff state flatly that the convention "strengthens the coalition" and "supports" PSI.

Foreign policy issues deserve debate, but not shameful distortions. The Senate must not cede its role to uninformed voices, especially when our president and national security leaders are on record as to what is in our country's interest and when the rest of the world has specifically accommodated America's request for renegotiation. If the Senate misses this opportunity, our allies and adversaries alike will note that U.S. foreign policy has been diminished by an ideological extreme. The Senate should follow the president's leadership on this important issue.

Lawrence S. Eagleburger was secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush. John Norton Moore, director of the Center for Oceans Law & Policy at the University of Virginia, was U.S. ambassador for the Law of the Sea Convention under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and was a Reagan appointee to the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere.