Think Again: The Arctic

Everyone wants a piece of the thawing far north. But that doesn't mean anarchy will reign at the top of the world.

BY LAWSON W. BRIGHAM | SEPT. / OCT. 2010

View a slide show about the Arctic

"The Arctic Is Experiencing a 21st-Century Gold Rush."

Wrong. In August 2007, a minisubmarine carrying Artur Chilingarov, a Russian parliamentarian and veteran explorer, descended into the ice-covered sea at the North Pole, extended its robotic arm, and planted a Russian flag on the seafloor. The world's reaction was swift, and in some cases furious. "This isn't the 15th century," fumed Peter MacKay, then Canada's minister of foreign affairs. "You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say, 'We're claiming this territory.'"

Maybe not, but many countries are looking at the Arctic today with fresh eyes. Because of climate change, the Arctic Ocean's summer ice cover is now half of what it was 50 years ago. In recent years, Russian and Canadian armed forces have staged Cold War-style exercises in the far north, and in the summer of 2009 a pair of German merchant ships conducted voyages across the relatively ice-free waters of the Northeast Passage, the long-dreamed-of trade route from Europe to Asia. And maybe the only thing heating up faster than the Arctic Ocean is the hyperbole over what's under it. "Without U.S. leadership to help develop diplomatic solutions to competing claims and potential conflicts," scholar Scott G. Borgerson wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2008, "the region could erupt in an armed mad dash for its resources."

It could -- but it won't. Anarchy does not reign at the top of the world; in fact, it's governed in a manner not unlike the rest of the planet. The region's land borders -- shared by Canada, Denmark (which controls Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States -- are all set and uncontested. Several maritime boundaries do remain under dispute, most notably those between Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea and between Canada and Denmark in Baffin Bay. But progress has been made recently in resolving even the thorniest disagreements: In April, after 40 years of negotiating, Norway and Russia were able to forge an equitable deal for a new boundary in the Barents Sea, a continental-shelf area rich in fisheries and oil and gas reserves.

What about the part of the Arctic where sovereignty remains unresolved: the seafloor that Chilingarov tried to claim? Despite being covered with ice for much of the year, the Arctic Ocean is governed much like the rest of the world's oceans -- by a maritime treaty that has been ratified by all the Arctic countries except the United States, which generally abides by its terms anyway.

Chilingarov's flag gambit was a clever bid for attention, but not much more than that. Although the resources of the Arctic seabed are likely to be partitioned among the five countries that could plausibly claim them, it won't be on a first-come-first-served basis. The world has learned a lot since the resource and land grabs of earlier centuries; for the most part, the only scuffles over borders and oil fields today are in regions that are badly destabilized already.

Tiffini M. Jones/U.S. Navy /via Getty Images

 

Lawson W. Brigham is distinguished professor of geography and Arctic policy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

JC333

4:26 PM ET

August 19, 2010

Great post

Thank you Mr. Brigham for your great post, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

 

SCHUYLER NULL

2:18 PM ET

August 24, 2010

UNCLOS

Great rundown on some of the emerging issues connected to the Arctic Professor Lawson. We've covered some of the same issues, with slightly more attention to UNCLOS and resource management, on The New Security Beat here and here.

 

NAIUY

6:47 AM ET

September 15, 2010

The New Security Beat, their

The New Security Beat, their share of world GDP was absolutely pitiful. it will take more than prison to keep this tycoon away from the company he founded." Search for m2ts converter ? flv to wmv converter. Hulu Downloader The fact that the government hires militias like the Salwa Judum to spy and intimidate ordinary people is clearly a prescription for disaster. How can any civilized government justify empowering militias to hunt and kill fellow citizens to serve the interests of the privileged few?