Law Of The Sea (complete)[1]

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

1

LOS Uniqueness: Won’t Pass………………………………………………………………...3-4 Uniqueness: Will Pass…………………………………………………………………….5 Bush Supports LOS……………………………………………………………………….6 LOS Good: Territory……………………………………………………………………...7 LOS Good: Heg…………………………………………………………………………...8 LOS Good: Energy Sources……………………………………………………………….9 LOS Good: Armed Conflict……………………………………………………………...10 LOS Good: Ecosystem…………………………………………………………………...11 LOS Good: Terrorism……………………………………………………………………12 LOS Good: Oil…………………………………………………………………………...13 LOS Amazing……………………………………………………………………………14 Brink Now………………………………………………………………………………..15 LOS Bad China…………………………………………………………………………..16 LOS Bad Heg…………………………………………………………………………….17 LOS Bad Ineffective……………………………………………………………………..18 LOS Bad Terrorism………………………………………………………………………19 LOS Terrible……………………………………………………………………………..20 LOS Bad: Russia Disad………………………………………………………………21-23 LOS Bad: Russia Disad Extensions………………………………………………….24-25 Tensions………………………………………………………………………………….26 No Tensions…………………………………………………………………………..27-29 US in Arctic……………………………………………………………………………...30 Canada in Arctic…………………………………………………………………………31 Canada……………………………………………………………………………………32 Random…………………………………………………………………………………..33

LARS OF THE SEA

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

2

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass LOS won’t pass now and faces opposition from conservatives Kralev, 08 [Nicholas, May 13 2008, The Washington Times, U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty]

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has long divided U.S. conservatives. About 155 nations have ratified the pact, and the treaty enjoys strong support from the U.S. military, as well as leading business, legal and environmental lobbies. But intense opposition from conservative groups who fear the pact infringes on U.S. sovereignty has defeated a number of ratification drives in the Senate. The Bush administration has disputes with its fellow Republicans in Congress as well. Its hands are tied when it comes to making any claims to the U.N. commission until the Senate ratifies the Law of the Sea accord. Ms. McMurray said the issue has become "very partisan" and, "looking at the calendar" with a shortened congressional session because of the presidential election, Senate ratification this year is a very long shot.

Despite Bushes claims, Republicans will block LOS from Passing Sands, February 18

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

3

The Bush administration has called on the Senate to ratify the treaty, which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed last year. But a handful of Republican lawmakers have vowed to block it from passing the full Senate, saying it would undermine US sovereignty.

LOS won’t pass. Encoraches on American Sovereignty. The Gazette, February 29

The U.S. has consistently rejected Canada's claim of right of control over the Northwest Passage. It has also refused to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea because the Senate views the treaty as an encroachment on American sovereignty. Borgerson said the American government's status outside the treaty restricts its ability to assert its own territorial claims off the Alaskan coast. He also asserted that the U.S. needs, as a first step, to strike an accord with Canada on regulating vessel and tanker traffic in the north.

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass LOS faces opposition from conservative groups The Washington Times, May 13, 2008 Tuesday, U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty, By Nicholas Kralev, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, WORLD; BRIEFING: THE AMERICAS; A15 To file a claim, however, a country must be a party to the Law of the Sea treaty, and the United States is not. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1994, and President Bush supports ratification, but fierce conservative opposition to the U.N. pact has blocked Senate approval, where a two-thirds majority is needed. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has long divided U.S. conservatives. About 155 nations have ratified the pact, and the treaty enjoys strong support from the U.S. military, as well as leading business, legal and environmental lobbies. But intense opposition from conservative groups who fear the pact

infringes on U.S. sovereignty has defeated a number of ratification drives in the Senate. One-time Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, made a point of his opposition to the treaty during his campaign. Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain supported the pact in the past, but has recently suggested he would seek changes in the treaty.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

4

Uniqueness: Will Pass LOS will pass now http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/05/reid_and_biden/ Reid and Biden: Law of the Sea is There for the Taking May 02 2008 The quiet strategy did achieve something over the past few months: I can confirm that there are more than enough senators in favor of U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea convention to get it through. Now it's up to Senators Reid and Biden to finish the job.

LOS GOOD and Will Pass Sands, February 18

New sea-floor maps of the Arctic Ocean could help the US claim more oil and natural gas in the region, New Findings will allow Us to claim more oil and natural resources

scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced last week.

Although the Senate has not yet ratified the international treaty that would allow the US to claim the territory, the new maps could lay the groundwork for such a

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

5

bid, the NOAA scientists said. International law allows any country to lay claim to territory up to 200 miles from its coast. But NOAA's new maps, which are based on an expedition that the agency mounted last summer, show that the continental slope extends 100 miles further than the US previously believed. Mayer said the new maps could help the US to meet the

criteria of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which governs the ownership of ocean resources including undersea oil and gas deposits. More than 155 countries have ratified the treaty to date, and Russia, Denmark and Canada have used it bolster their claims to oil and gas in the Arctic region. The US has not yet ratified the pact.

Bush Supports LOS Bush strongly supports passage of LOS The Washington Times Sea treaty sparks rivalries; Senate fight looms amid race to North PoleBy David R. Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 12, 2007 Some 155 nations have ratified the treaty since it was signed in 1982. President Reagan refused to sign the pact, objecting to provisions for the international regulation of deep-sea mining. President Clinton sent an amended version of the treaty to the Senate in 1994, but it repeatedly has failed to win approval, most recently in 2004.Opponents of the U.N.- backed accord vow to defeat the treaty yet again

this year, despite strong backing from President Bush, all the U.S. military services, the American Bar Association and leading business and environmental lobbies.

Bush Strongly supports LOS and it will increase US national security interests http://www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_beltway/debating_law_sea April 25 2008 Let me begin with the words of President Bush, a man who I rarely quote, who said last May that, “Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

6

resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.”

LOS GOOD: Territory LOS Good, allows us to take territory in the arctic Kralev, 08 [Nicholas, May 13 2008, The Washington Times, U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty]

"We have $5.6 million in the 2008 budget to assemble both the hardware and scientific expertise to do this investigation," Ms. McMurray said. "We started a little bit later than other countries, but we have a big coastline, and there are some promising opportunities." Russia's planting of its flag on the Arctic seafloor in August angered other countries, but experts say the only legal way to make a claim is through the U.N. Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf. "Planting flags on the seafloor accomplishes nothing except for feeding the various nationalist beasts that seem to hunger for a return to the 18th century," said Bernard Coakley, professor at the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute. To file a claim, however, a country must be a party to the Law of the Sea treaty, and the United States is not. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1994, and President Bush supports ratification, but fierce conservative opposition to the U.N. pact has blocked Senate approval, where a two-thirds majority is needed.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

7

LOS GOOD: Heg The LOS will increase US military influence. Increases HEG The Washington Times Sea treaty sparks rivalries; Senate fight looms amid race to North Pole By David R. Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 12, 2007 Treaty supporters, including such conservative legal experts as University of Virginia law professor John Norton Moore, argue the U.S. was the big winner in the Law of the Sea negotiations.

The U.S. will have a vast exclusive economic zone because of its extensive coastline. U.S. firms will readily exploit the oceans' mineral and energy wealth with clear property rights in place. U.S. military vessels can carry on their global duties while exempt from the treaty's commercial restrictions. Treaty opponents counter with one big idea - a deep distrust of the United Nations - and a host of objections to specific provisions that they say will hamstring the U.S. military and subject U.S. corporations to an unfriendly, unelected global bureaucracy. If the treaty drafters had stuck to the original, modest mandate on navigation, "this treaty would have sailed through," according to Heritage Foundation analyst Baker Spring.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

8

LOS GOOD: Energy Sources LOS will pass and is good: Energy sources. Sands, February 18

The US oil and gas industry has urged the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. Paul Kelly, the industry's main lobbyist on the the issue, told Platts that oil and gas companies have long pushed for ratification so the US can move forward with a submission claiming territory along its extended continental shelf. Kelly, who represents the American Petroleum Institute and other trade groups, told a Senate committee in November that not ratifying the treaty could hurt US energy interests. "The US petroleum industry is concerned that failure by the United States [to ratify the treaty] could adversely affect US companies' operations offshore other countries, and negatively affect any opportunity to lay claim to vitally needed natural resources," Kelly said.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

9

LOS GOOD: Armed Conflict LOS is key to deter armed conflict The Gazette, February 29

"There are currently no clear rules governing this economically and strategically vital region," stated the magazine's summary of Borgerson's analysis, called Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming. "Unless Washington leads the way toward a multilateral diplomatic solution, the Arctic could descend into armed conflict." Borgerson noted Russia's increasing assertiveness in claiming sovereignty of huge swaths of the region off its coast.

LOS key to check other countries Newsday, March 10

But this 1982 treaty actually confirms U.S. sovereignty over ocean resources across an area larger than the Louisiana Purchase or the Alaska Purchase. The roster of those who urge

that our nation join the convention includes top current military leaders, who see it as enhancing national security, as well as President George W. Bush. The United States was a leader in negotiating the treaty to begin with. And when President Ronald Reagan raised objections to its provisions about deep seabed mining, our nation was able to get that part

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

10

of the treaty amended satisfactorily. In fact, future

exploration of the seabed for petroleum and other natural resources can only unfold rationally with the help of an agency the treaty created. Right now, Russia, which is a party to the treaty, wants to gain access to the minerals in the Arctic seabed. It makes zero sense for the United States to sit on the sidelines and let other nations divide up the oceans, using sensible rules that we helped write. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty last October. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative issued its annual report card on the oceans last month and cited continuing U.S. absence from this treaty as a black mark.

It's time for the full Senate to act.

LOS GOOD: Ecosystem LOS solves marine ecosystems. Ratification increases US soft power. Salter, March 16

We are in danger of ruining the world's oceans and endangering marine ecosystems. You are right that what is needed is ''a sustained effort by world governments and other institutions to do something about it'' and that ''the problems are global and so, in the end, are the solutions.'' One key solution, as you note, rests with the United States Senate: the Law of the Sea Convention. But without the political muscle of President Bush to illustrate the importance of this treaty to holdouts in his own party, the treaty will languish and our oceans will continue to be degraded. As a nation, we value responsibility and cooperation. Ratification of the Law of the Sea would send an important message to the more than 150 countries that have already joined the treaty, including all of our allies, that we are committed partners in protecting the planet and its people.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

11

LOS GOOD: Terrorism LOS GOOD: Terrorism Kelly, P., World Oil, The Convention on the Law of the Sea: Why the critics are wrong, April 1, 2008 Initially, the United States had been reluctant to join the convention, fearing that its maritime activities would be restricted. However, President George W. Bush in May requested

the Senate to support ratification of the convention, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved ratification of the convention in October. One reason for the policy shift is that the United States has become increasingly concerned about the spread of terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction through maritime channels, especially since the so-called war on terrorism became the nation's top priority in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Clearly, Washington realizes

it cannot ensure maritime security on its own and that it would be more beneficial to seek other nations' involvement. The United States' shift toward ratifying UNCLOS, which it had virtually ignored for more than two decades, also stems at least in part from a belief that adherence would help expand the PSI regime.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

12

LOS GOOD: OIL LOS GOOD: OIL Kelly, P., World Oil, The Convention on the Law of the Sea: Why the critics are wrong, April 1, 2008

Recognizing the importance of the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention to the energy sector, the National Petroleum Council, an advisory body to the US Secretary of Energy, in 1973 published an assessment of industry needs in an effort to influence the negotiations. Entitled Law of the Sea: Particular aspects affecting the petroleum

industry, itcontained conclusions and recommendations in five key areas including freedom of navigation, stable investment conditions, protection of the marine environment, accommodation of multiple uses, and dispute settlement. The views reflected in this study had a substantial impacton the negotiations, and most of its recommendations found their way into the Convention in one form or another. Having been satisfied with the terms of the Convention, all of theUS oil and gas industrys major trade associations have for many years supported ratification of the Convention by the US. Also, the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee, an advisory body to the US Secretary of the Interior on matters relating to offshore oil and gas leasing program, has adopted resolutions supporting US accession to the Convention.

The Convention is important to our industrys efforts to develop offshore oil and gas supply worldwide. It secures each coastal nations exclusive rights to the living and non-living resources of the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It would bring an additional 4.1 million square miles of ocean under US jurisdiction. This EEZ is an area larger than the US land area. The Convention also broadens the definition of the continental shelf in a way that favors the US, with itsbroad

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

13

continental margins, particularly in the North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, the Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

LOS good: Oil, natural gas, and navigational freedom Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 2, 2008 Friday, USCG commandant pushes for U.S. to sign Law of Sea Treaty, Bettina H. Chavanne, News; Pg. 5 Vol. 226 No. 24

Citing recent Russian claims of Arctic seabed sovereignty, the U.S. Coast Guard commandant is urging Congress to ratify the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty. Adm. Thad Allen believes successful management of the waters and resources in the Arctic would best be achieved by adhering to the international agreement, which was hammered out around the early 1980s. The treaty also would help manage ship traffic in the Bering Strait, which the four-star admiral says ?could be the next big choke point.As waters warm, fish stocks are migrating, and that introduces the need for a conservation management plan, Allen added. Moreover, the region is rich in natural gas and oil reserves, which spurs Russian interests as much as it does in the United States and elsewhere. Test deployment The Bush administration?s fiscal 2009 budget request asks Congress for nearly $5 million to fund the treaty?s International Seabed Authority, as well as the international tribunal that the treaty established. The Navy Department, which includes the Marine Corps, also supports U.S. accession to the treaty and the Navy secretary, chief of naval operations and the Marine commandant all have testified to that effect again this year. In particular, the treaty codifies important principles of customary international law, such as freedom of navigation and rights of passage.

LOS AMAZING!!!! National Security Network http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/608 Report 31 October

2007 The U.S. has a “compelling national interest” to ratify convention. As Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England explain, “The United States has a

compelling national interest in a stable international legal regime for the oceans.” Retired Admiral and former Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark and Ambassador Thomas Pickering explain that the convention, “would enable our armed forces to defend us at home and

abroad with legal certainty, and would vastly increase our sovereign rights off the coasts of the United States.” The U.S. military needs this convention to fight terrorism and better confront global challenges. The convention strengthens the right of navigation by sea and by air, meaning that the U.S. Navy will not need to ask each country for a “permission slip” each time it passes by another country. Importantly the convention allows the U.S. to board private vessels on the high seas, which would allow the U.S. and its allies to more effectively combat illicit smuggling. As Negroponte and England explain, “This is a critical time for America and our friends and allies -- faced with a wider and more complex array of global and transnational security challenges than ever before. Effectively meeting those challenges requires unimpeded maritime mobility -- the ability of our forces to respond any time, anywhere, if so required.” The U.S. Coast Guard also wants the convention ratified, because it would greatly expand U.S. territorial sovereignty from three miles

off the coast to twelve miles. This would empower the Coast Guard to better protect the homeland and monitor U.S. costal waters. U.S. businesses want the convention ratified, because it will be the “greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S. history.” The convention grants sovereign coastal nations the right of an “exclusive economic zone” that extends sovereign authority out to sea by 200 nautical miles. The United States will gain considerably,

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

14

as our economic zone may extend out to as much as 600 miles because of the Arctic shelf. As Eagleburger and Moore note this would represent, “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.” This

would be a huge boon to U.S. companies that work in oil, gas, and minerals, such as nickel, copper, and cobalt. The convention is good for the environment. Apart from the substantial security and economic benefits, the convention is also a win for the environment. The Law of the Sea convention enables sovereign states to better regulate fishing stocks and ocean pollution. Spencer Boyer explains that, “All parties to the treaty must cooperate in marine conservation efforts through monitoring, technical assistance, and other measures. Furthermore, the treaty promotes and protects scientific research.”

BRINK NOW Bush needs to pass now in order to maintain US Heg Sands, February 18

Other countries are already moving to make their claims. Russia made world-wide headlines in the summer of 2007 when it sent an submarine to plant a Russian flag on the sea floor at the North Pole. Canada as well as Greenland, through Denmark, have also expressed interest in Arctic oil and gas. Kelly said NOAA's new maps could help the US dispute the claims that have been made by Russia and Canada. But the US would be at a disadvantage at this point, because it has not yet ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, Kelly said.

Brink is now: Oil reserves The Washington Times, May 13, 2008 Tuesday, U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty, By Nicholas Kralev, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, WORLD; BRIEFING: THE AMERICAS; A15

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

15

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican and supporter of the treaty, warned last week the United States stands to lose billions of barrels of oil in the Arctic if it remains outside the Law of the Sea accord. "I can tell you, if we're not willing to claim it, if we don't step up to claim it, others will," she said in a speech on the Senate floor. Ms. McMurray said the Bush administration is "working very hard, from the president down," on supporting research, and there will have to be "a continuous contribution to this effort" in the next several years. First breakthrough The effects of climate change on the Arctic is the topic of the annual Arctic Forum, which began yesterday in Washington and is organized by Arctic Research Consortium of the United States.

LOS BAD: China Under LOS, China will gain more area and a bigger economic zone Xinhua June 8 China's marine economy had been soaring annually at more than 20 per cent since the 1980s and the total output reached 2.5 trillion yuan (359 billion US dollars) last year, 266 times more than that of 1979. China's mainland coastline is about 18,000 kilometres long. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, China boasts about 350,000 square kilometres of coastal and inland water areas, and the area of China's exclusive economic zone is about 3 million square kilometres.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

16

LOS BAD: Heg LOS limits US authority. Decreases HEG The Washington Times Sea treaty sparks rivalries; Senate fight looms amid race to North PoleBy David R. Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 12, 2007 "The United States can little afford to have its sovereignty directly challenged by this treaty, and we must activate the conservative grass-roots base to rise up in defense of our country and our sovereignty," conservative activist Paul M. Weyrich said. Cliff Kincaid, an anti-U.N. activist and president of America's Survival Inc., said the U.S. does not need the Law of the Sea treaty to press its claims to the Arctic and its mineral and energy riches. "Nobody bothers to point out that [U.S. Admiral Richard] Byrd flew over the North Pole for the United States 80 years ago," he said.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

17

LOS BAD: Ineffective LOS BAD: Won’t define Baselines BusinessWorld, May 22, 2008 Thursday, Senate asked to OK body on territorial claim. Bernard U. Allauigan

"The approaches taken in dealing with territorial problems are piecemeal and crisis-oriented, apparently on the assumption that national territory is fragmented into separate issues, each to be resolved by disconnected attempts and thus resulting in halfway and makeshift solutions," she said. Congress is scrambling to pass a law that seeks to define the country's territorial boundaries as set in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that all archipelagic states must submit claims for an extended continental shelf (ECS) on or before May 13, 2009. But Ms. Santiago said the Philippines is "not obligated to submit a claim," adding that Article 47 of UNCLOS does not compel archipelagic states to draw

baselines, and that there will be no sanctions for failure to define baselines. The bicameral body will be composed of 10 members with equal representation from the Senate and House of Representatives.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

18

LOS BAD: Terrorism LOS Bad: terrorism BBC Monitoring South Asia – Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring May 28, 2008 Wednesday Sri Lankan navy chief discusses maritime terrorism in UK conference speech

The Al-Qa'idah network too is believed to have purchased at least 15 ships in the last few years to be used in the same fashion as the LTTE - to be involved in gunrunning, act as weapon and explosive warehouses for terrorist groups and possibly be used for training of bombers and saboteurs. They are also used as safe houses for terrorists on the run. Further, the law of the sea is also advantageous to those who do not comply with the rule of law, allowing them freedom of the sea and manoeuvre until reaching shore. The other terrorist groups that have and use maritime assets on a smaller scale are as the following: ESO (External Security Organisation) Hezbollah's military wing, Lebanon,ASG (Abu Sayyaf Group), Philippines, JI (Jemaah Islamiyah), SE Asia, NPA (New People's Army), Philippines, Palestinian groups (Al Aqsa Martyrs), Brigade/HAMAS/Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Indonesian jihadi groups GAM (The Free Aceh Movement) Indonesia. The Emerging Threat There is no doubt that in recent years

maritime terrorism has appeared as a very real threat and what I have briefly elaborated on proves the point. There have been some notable attacks but we

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

19

have been fortunate in that a concerted and sustained attack on the lifeblood of the global economy has not yet materialized.

LOS TERRIBLE Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 2, 2008 Friday, USCG commandant pushes for U.S. to sign Law of Sea Treaty, Bettina H. Chavanne, News; Pg. 5 Vol. 226 No. 24 But some analysts in Washington typically from conservative and libertarian think tanks have long disagreed with U.S. accession to the treaty. The administration?s request is both fiscally irresponsible and opposed to U.S. national interest, the Heritage Foundations Steven Groves said in early February. If it is not withdrawn, Congress should reject the administrations

proposal and any other request to provide funding for international organizations of which the United States is not a member.Groves argued that the treaty creates another unaccountable and opaque international organization, sets a precedent for international taxation of U.S. companies, provides an avenue for international environmental regulation, and threatens U.S. sovereignty by subjecting the United States and U.S. companies to mandatory dispute resolution in international venues that have traditionally been stacked against U.S. interests.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

20

LOS BAD: Russia Disad 1.) Uniqueness. A Mutual agreement has slowed the land race for the Arctic – LOS will renew tensions Boswell 08 [ Randy, staff, Canwest news services, May 30, 2008 Edmonton Journal] ILULISATT, Greenland - Ministers from the five Arctic coast nations -- including Canada -- declared at a landmark conference here this week that "the race for the North Pole is cancelled," and that science and international law will now peacefully determine who owns which parts of the vast, oil-rich polar seabed. But the race, in fact, has only been transformed into a long, slow, three-way mud-wrestling match -- a five-year struggle between Canada, Russia and Denmark for the murky ground that lies thousands of metres beneath the pole and which ultimately will be decided, like any fight, by timing, power and strong-arm tactics -- or retreat. Science and law will only go so far, say Canada's top polar experts, when it comes to defining the undersea boundaries between three nations whose claims under a UN treaty are almost certain to overlap near the centre of the Arctic Ocean. That's when politics -no holds barred -- comes into play.

2.) Russia will defend continental shelf. Russia & CIS Diplomatic Panorama 08 [June 2, 2008, RUSSIA TO DEFEND CONTINENTAL SHELF RIGHTS IN LINE WITH INTL LAWS ...]

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

21

Russia confirms its intention to defend its rights to the Arctic continental shelf on the basis of international laws and scientific data, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a meeting of the Russian government presidium on Monday. "We will stand up for our continental shelf rights on the basis of international laws and the scientific research we are conducting," he said. Lavrov recalled the Greenland meeting of the five Arctic nations - Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark. He said that the delegates adopted a declaration. Lavrov noted that the sides agreed to resolve all the shelf questions on the basis of international laws, among them the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 that provides sufficient tools for this.

LOS BAD: Russia Disad 3.)The Arctic is a hotspot for tension over sovereignty with Russia. If LOST passes, Russia would act out. Dyer, 08. [Gwynne, London Based Independent Journalist, June 2, 2008, The Daily Gleaner (New Brunswick) pg. C8] Chilingarov is a polar explorer of the old school (he was made a Hero of the Soviet Union in the old days for saving an ice-bound ship in Antarctica), but he is now deputy speaker of the Russian Duma (parliament) and Vladimir Putin's personal "envoy" to the Arctic. Last summer, he took a three-man submarine down to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean precisely at the North Pole, and planted a Russian flag in the seabed. "The Arctic

is Russian. We must prove the North Pole is an extension of the Russian landmass," he said afterwards, and affected surprise at the fact that other countries with an Arctic coastline saw this as a challenge to their sovereignty. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for example, flew to the Arctic the following week, and subsequently announced that Canada would build six to eight new "ice-strengthened" warships for Arctic patrols. The other three countries with Arctic coastlines, the United States (Alaska), Denmark (Greenland) and Norway, are equally [is] suspicious of Russian intentions. The real issue is about who owns the rights to the seabed, and the Russian claim is pretty ambitious. Moscow claims that the Lomonosov Ridge, the subsea mountain range that goes straight across the middle of the Arctic Ocean, is an extension of the Russian territorial shelf, and therefore belongs to Russia all the way to the North Pole. Alternatively, if the Law of the Sea tribunal does not ultimately accept that claim, Moscow may have an even broader claim in reserve. In the early 20th century, seven countries laid claim to parts of Antarctica on the basis of "sectors:" pie-shaped slices running along lines of longitude (which converge at the poles). The width of those slices depended on where the various claimants owned territories near Antarctica, mostly islands in the Southern Ocean. Those claims are dormant

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

because of a subsequent treaty banning economic development in Antarctica, but the precedent has not been forgotten. By

22 that

precedent, Russia could lay claim to about half the Arctic Ocean on the basis of lines of longitude running from the far eastern and western ends of the country up to the North Pole - and in 1924 the old Soviet Union did precisely

Russia has the big Arctic ports and the nuclear-powered ice- breakers to make its claim stick, and nobody else does. that. Nobody else accepted that claim then, and they wouldn't now if Russia raised it again. But

LOS BAD: Russia Disad 4.) We are on the brink of a new cold war in the arctic Raymen, 08 [ Sean, daily telegraph, May 18, Edmonton Journal, pg A4, Russian fleet boosts risk of Cold War over Arctic] The battle for "ownership" of the polar oil reserves has accelerated with the disclosure that Russia has sent a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers into the Arctic. It has reinforced fears that Moscow intends to annex "unlawfully" a vast portion of the ice-covered Arctic, beneath which scientists believe up to 10 billion tonnes of gas and oil could be buried. Russian ambition for control of the Arctic has provoked Canada to double to $40 million funding for work to map the Arctic sea bed in support its claim over the territory. The Russian icebreakers patrol huge areas of the frozen ocean for months on end, cutting through ice up to 6ft thick. There are thought to be eight in the region, dwarfing the British and U.S. fleets, neither of which include nuclear-powered ships. Canada also plans to open an army training centre for cold-weather fighting at Resolute Bay and a deep-water port on the northern tip of Baffin Island, both of which are close to the disputed region. The country's defence ministry

The crisis has raised the spectre of Russia and the West joining in a new Cold War over the Arctic unless the United Nations can resolve the dispute. The crisis erupted last year when a Russian submarine crew planted a flag on the intends to build a special fleet of patrol boats to guard the Northwest Passage.

Lomonosov Ridge, a 2,000-kilometre area of seabed that Moscow says is Russian. Derided at the time as a stunt, the move focused attention on the race for the Arctic's hidden treasures. No country owns the Arctic Ocean or the North Pole, but under the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention, each country with a coast has sole exploitation rights in a limited "exclusive economic zone." On ratification of the convention -- and the U.S. has yet to ratify it -- each country is given 10 years to make claims extending its zone based on geology.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

23

LOS BAD: Russia Disad Extensions 5.) LOS fuels geopolitical competition between Russia and the US The Washington Times Sea treaty sparks rivalries; Senate fight looms amid race to North PoleBy David R. Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 12, 2007 Moscow had submitted a claim in 2001 to a Law of the Sea panel, asserting ownership of some 463,000 square miles of Arctic seabed based on the extent of its still largely unmapped northern shelf. Russia was told it needed more scientific evidence to support its claim. Pavel Baev, a researcher at the Oslo-based International Peace Research Institute, said Russian President Vladimir Putin was quick

to exploit the North Pole submarine venture in August for his own political purposes, restoring Russian national pride and aggressively asserting Russian interests on the global stage. "The perception in Russia now is that there's a real geopolitical competition going on in [the Arctic]," Mr. Baev said. "You need to move fast to advance your claim because it's every nation for itself."

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

24

LOS BAD: Russia Disad Extensions 6.) Russia is staking their claim in the Arctic, and doesn’t want any challengers. Dyer, May 29

What connects oil at $135 a barrel with last month's discovery of huge cracks in the Ward Hunt ice shelf off Ellesmere Island at the top of Canada's Arctic archipelago? And what might connect those two things with a new, even Colder War? he cracks in the ice, further evidence that the ice cover on the Arctic Ocean is melting fast, were discovered by scientists tagging along with a Canadian army snowmobile expedition that was officially called a "sovereignty patrol." The army was showing the flag because Canada, like the other Arctic countries, suspects that valuable resources will become accessible there once the ice melts. And the most valuable of those resources are oil and gas. he strongest evidence for accelerated melting is the fact that more and more of the Arctic sea ice is thin "first-year" ice. Only about 3 feet thick, it spreads across the ocean each winter, but tends to melt the following summer. Melting has taken big bites out of the edge of the much thicker "permanent" ice in most recent summers, and unless some of the "first-year" ice that replaces it lasts through the following winter, then the melting really is speeding up. So everybody is watching to see what happens this summer, explained Dr. Jim Maslanik of the University of Colorado - Boulder. "If we see all the first-year ice melt out again, then probably we will have another record reduction in ice cover," said Maslanik. "If we see this a couple of years running, that tells us . . .that we are about 20 or 30 years ahead of where we are supposed to be based on the climate models." If we are heading for an Arctic Ocean that is mostly ice-free in the summer, then drilling for gas and oil beneath that ocean can soon begin. Hardly a week goes by without somebody pointing to the U.S. Geological Survey's report that the Arctic basin contains a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. But the event that did most to trigger this new concern about sovereignty was Artur Chilingarov's publicity stunt last summer. Chilingarov is a polar explorer of the old school (he was made a Hero of the Soviet Union in the old days for saving an ice-bound ship in Antarctica), but he is now deputy speaker of the Russian Duma (parliament) and Vladimir Putin's personal "envoy" to the Arctic. Last summer, he took a three-man submarine down to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean precisely at the North Pole, and planted a Russian flag in the seabed. "The Arctic is Russian. We must prove the North Pole is an extension of the Russian landmass," he said afterwards, and affected

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

25

surprise at the fact that other

countries with an Arctic coastline saw this as a challenge to their sovereignty. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for example, flew to the Arctic the following week, and subsequently announced that Canada would build six to eight new "ice-strengthened" warships for Arctic patrols. Moscow claims that the Lomonosov Ridge, the subsea mountain range that goes straight across the middle of the Arctic Ocean, is an extension of the Russian territorial shelf, and therefore belongs to Russia all the way to the North Pole. Alternatively, if the Law of the Sea tribunal does not ultimately accept that claim, Moscow may have an even broader claim in reserve. In the early 20th century seven countries laid claim to parts of Antarctica on the basis of "sectors": pie-shaped slices running along lines of longitude (which converge at the poles). The width of those slices depended on where the various claimants owned territories near Antarctica, mostly islands in the Southern Ocean. Those claims are dormant because of a subsequent treaty banning economic development in Antarctica, but the precedent has not been forgotten. By that precedent, Russia could lay claim to about half the Arctic Ocean on the basis of lines of longitude running from the far eastern and western ends of the country up to the North Pole - and in 1924 the old Soviet Union did precisely that. Nobody else accepted that claim then, and they wouldn't now if Russia raised it again. But Russia has the

big Arctic ports and the nuclear-powered ice-breakers to make its claim stick, and nobody else does.

Tensions Even though most arctic nations have agreed to accept LOS, tensions still exist over territorial boundaries. Gorrie, 08. [Peter, Staff at Toronto Star, May 29, UN to play mediator in Arctic disputes;

At stake is an estimated one-quarter

of world's petroleum deposits on northern ocean floor]

The disputes have sparked heated words in recent years, most notably when Denmark planted its flag on a tiny rock outcrop called Hans Island in 2003 and again last year, when a Russian submarine crew put a flag on a disputed part of the ocean floor. But the issues are covered by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by 151 countries. The five ministers agreed to stop bickering and work out their differences under that treaty. "The five nations have now declared that they will follow the rules," said Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller. "We have hopefully quelled all myths about a race for the North Pole once and for all." They

agreed to work co-operatively on environmental and security concerns in the Arctic, where warming temperatures and melting ice are leading to a dramatic increase in human activity and threats to the fragile environment. Environmentalists slammed the deal as a "carving up" of a region that's still relatively pristine but promises great wealth in oil, minerals, trade and tourism. They want a global treaty for the Arctic similar to the one that bans mining and military activity in the Antarctic. They also complained that representatives of the other Arctic nations, as well as Inuit and environment groups, were kept out of the closed-door session. "We would suggest that all the nations up there should agree not to open it up for drilling," said Tarjai Haaland, a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Nordic. The five nations explicitly rejected the call for a replacement treaty. There is no need to develop "a new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean," the declaration stated. A Canadian expert on the Arctic agreed. Better to have a peaceful means of resolving disputes than embark on a lengthy, unpredictable try at a new treaty, said Michael Byers, professor of global law at the University of British Columbia. "The Law of the Sea is not perfect, but we have it," he said. "That the five countries reaffirmed their commitment to it can only be a good thing in a time of incredibly rapid change. We're not dealing with the Wild West here." Critics noted the irony of the conference location. The deal to allocate the huge fossil fuel reserves was held near the Ilulissat glacier - a world heritage site that is melting and flowing toward the sea at an increasing rate as climate change warms Greenland. The

major disputes centre on ocean-floor areas that are beyond the countries' 370-kilometre territorial limit but, under the Law of the Sea, are open to being claimed because they are part of the continental shelf or ridges extending from it. Canada is spending $40 million to map the seabed to support its claim for parts of the seabed, and the other four nations are preparing their own evidence. Canada and the United States also disagree on whether the Northwest Passage is an international waterway, and over how the international boundary between Alaska and Yukon should be extended into the Beaufort Sea.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

26

NO Tensions LOS allows Russia to claim a majority of the Arctic Ocean The New Zealand Herald http://www.thezimbabweindependent.com June 3, 2008 Alternatively, if the Law of the Sea tribunal does not ultimately accept that claim, Moscow may have an even broader claim in reserve. In the early 20th century, seven countries laid claim to parts of Antarctica on the basis of "sectors": pie-shaped slices running along lines of longitude (which converge at the poles). The width of those slices depended on where the various claimants owned territories near Antarctica, mostly islands in the Southern Ocean. Those claims are dormant because of a subsequent treaty banning economic development in Antarctica, but the precedent has not been forgotten. By that precedent, Russia could lay claim to about half the Arctic Ocean on the basis of lines of longitude running from the far eastern and western ends of the country up to the North Pole and, in 1924, the old Soviet Union did precisely that. Nobody else accepted that claim then and they wouldn't now if Russia raised it again. But Russia has the big Arctic ports and the nuclear-powered icebreakers to make its claim stick and nobody else does.

The US is working with Russian and others to find a peaceful way to divide the Arctic. Fedyashin, June 3

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

27

Ilulissat, Greenland, will go down in history as the polar city where the ice moved for the first time _ foreign ministers and other representatives of the five Arctic nations _ Denmark (Greenland is its province), Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States met there on May 27-29 to discuss a legal division of the Arctic. It seems they have agreed on how to divide the Arctic Ocean, and, most important, its mineral-rich continental shelf. The meeting produced the Ilulissat Declaration, which makes it plain that there is no need to draft a separate international agreement _ in settling territorial and other problems the participants will be guided by the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.Speaking at the conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We do not share the alarming

predictions about a clash of interests between Arctic and even non-Arctic countries, about a `battle for the Arctic.'" Other ministers spoke in much the same vein.It is a good sign that talks will precede the cutting of the Arctic pie. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a powerful document of international law, almost a maritime constitution. It regulates what can and cannot be done on and with the ocean. But it is perhaps alarming that the participants in the conference are unanimously optimistic. All of them have grievances with their neighbors, or are displeased about the ocean's demarcation. Moreover, interests invariably clash when it comes to dividing

no-man's-lands or marine basins that abound in mineral riches.

NO Tensions Countries, including the US, are peacefully dividing the Arctic. The New York Times, May 29

Diplomats from the five countries bordering the Arctic Ocean adopted a declaration on Wednesday aimed at defusing tensions over the likelihood that global warming will open northern waters to shipping, energy extraction and other activities. The agreement, reached after a daylong meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland,

said the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark saw no need for new accords on Arctic matters and would use existing international laws like the Law of the Sea Treaty to resolve disputes. Greenland belongs to Denmark. The countries also agreed to work more cooperatively to limit environmental risks attending more Arctic shipping and commerce and to coordinate potential rescue operations given the rising number of tourists heading north as sea ice increasingly retreats in the summer. The meeting capped a frenetic year of Arctic activity as

countries vied to demonstrate their polar hegemony with a mix of rhetoric, military maneuvers and, in the case of Russia, a submarine voyage to the seabed at the North Pole. One of the two participating minisubmarines left a titanium national flag on the bottom, 14,000 feet beneath the shifting sea ice. In a statement, Per Stig Moller, Denmark's foreign minister, alluded to that voyage and the media blitz that followed. ''We have politically committed ourselves to resolve all differences through negotiations,'' he said. ''And thus we have hopefully, once and for all, killed all the myths of a 'race to the North Pole.' The rules are in place. And the five states have now

declared that they will abide by them.''

Countries, including the US, are peacefully dividing the Arctic. The New York Times, May 29

Diplomats from the five countries bordering the Arctic Ocean adopted a declaration on Wednesday aimed at defusing tensions over the likelihood that global warming will open northern waters to shipping, energy

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

28

extraction and other activities. The agreement, reached after a daylong meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland,

said the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark saw no need for new accords on Arctic matters and would use existing international laws like the Law of the Sea Treaty to resolve disputes. Greenland belongs to Denmark. The countries also agreed to work more cooperatively to limit environmental risks attending more Arctic shipping and commerce and to coordinate potential rescue operations given the rising number of tourists heading north as sea ice increasingly retreats in the summer. The meeting capped a frenetic year of Arctic activity as

countries vied to demonstrate their polar hegemony with a mix of rhetoric, military maneuvers and, in the case of Russia, a submarine voyage to the seabed at the North Pole. One of the two participating minisubmarines left a titanium national flag on the bottom, 14,000 feet beneath the shifting sea ice. In a statement, Per Stig Moller, Denmark's foreign minister, alluded to that voyage and the media blitz that followed. ''We have politically committed ourselves to resolve all differences through negotiations,'' he said. ''And thus we have hopefully, once and for all, killed all the myths of a 'race to the North Pole.' The rules are in place. And the five states have now

declared that they will abide by them.''

NO Tensions The US is working with Russian and others to find a peaceful way to divide the Arctic. Fedyashin, June 3

Ilulissat, Greenland, will go down in history as the polar city where the ice moved for the first time _ foreign ministers and other representatives of the five Arctic nations _ Denmark (Greenland is its province), Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States met there on May 27-29 to discuss a legal division of the Arctic. It seems they have agreed on how to divide the Arctic Ocean, and, most important, its mineral-rich continental shelf. The meeting produced the Ilulissat Declaration, which makes it plain that there is no need to draft a separate international agreement _ in settling territorial and other problems the participants will be guided by the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.Speaking at the conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We do not share the alarming

predictions about a clash of interests between Arctic and even non-Arctic countries, about a `battle for the Arctic.'" Other ministers spoke in much the same vein.It is a good sign that talks will precede the cutting of the Arctic pie. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a powerful document of international law, almost a maritime constitution. It regulates what can and cannot be done on and with the ocean. But it is perhaps alarming that the participants in the conference are unanimously optimistic. All of them have grievances with their neighbors, or are displeased about the ocean's demarcation. Moreover, interests invariably clash when it comes to dividing

no-man's-lands or marine basins that abound in mineral riches.

Russia won’t pursue its claims in the Arctic by force. There are no resources for them to find. Dyer, May 29

That is where the current panic comes from. It probably won't end up in a new Cold War, but it has certainly got the hens in the chicken coop all stirred up. As is often the case with hens, they are

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

29

overreacting. Russia is in a more assertive mood than it was a decade ago, but there are no signs that it intends to pursue its claims by force. Moreover, there is no serious basis for the claim that a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas reserves lie under the Arctic Ocean. It always seemed implausible, given that the Arctic Ocean only accounts for slightly less than 3 percent of the Earth's surface, but in fact the U.S. Geological Survey never said anything of the sort. Neither has any other authoritative source, yet this factoid has gained such currency that it even influences government policy. Isn't it interesting how readily people will believe something when they really want to?

US in the Arctic The US is staking claims in the Arctic. Washington Times, May 13

The United States is spending $5.6 million this year on scientific research in support of a claim to large amounts of oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean that it does not have the legal right to make. The money is being spent to prove that the foot of the U.S. continental slope off Alaska's coast extends beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit that any country can claim as part of its territory under the U.N. Law of the Sea treaty - which the U.S. Senate has never ratified. "Because of [climate] changes, everyone wants to understand what the implications are," said Claudia A. McMurray, assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. The recent ice-melting in the Arctic has made the region's natural riches more accessible, and the race to lay claim to those resources is in full speed. But the politically charged U.S.

debate over ratifying the agreement raises questions about the U.S. ability to keep up in the race. Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway also are spending tens of millions of dollars to prove that large parts of the Arctic's seabed are a "natural prolongation" of their territory. "We have $5.6 million in the 2008 budget to assemble both the hardware and scientific expertise to do this investigation," Ms. McMurray said. "We started a little bit later than other countries, but we have a big coastline, and there are some promising opportunities." Russia's planting of its flag on the Arctic seafloor in August angered other countries, but experts say the only legal way to make a claim is through the U.N. Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf. "Planting flags on the seafloor accomplishes nothing except for feeding the various nationalist beasts that seem to hunger for a return to the 18th century," said Bernard Coakley, professor at the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

30

CANADA in the Arctic(a) Canada is claiming territories in the Arctic. The Seattle Post, May 29 <Shawn McCarthy, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Canada ready to claim Arctic seabed resources, five nations jostle for jurisdiction of undersea shelf,” News pg A5, May 29, 2008, lexis>

Canada is preparing to claim an area of the Arctic Ocean seabed equivalent in size to the nation's massive "Prairie Provinces" - Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba - as part of Ottawa's aggressive effort to defend Canadian interests, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said Wednesday. Lunn is attending an Arctic Council meeting Wednesday in Greenland with four other countries that have significant - and in some cases, competing - claims to territorial jurisdiction beyond the traditional 200-nautical-mile limit. "We will be reaffirming our commitment about defending and protecting our sovereignty in the Arctic," Lunn said before the meeting. "It's a priority for our government. The prime minister has said: `Use it or lose it.' And we're not going to lose it." Denmark is host of the two-day Greenland meeting, which will also have representatives from Russia, Norway and the United States. All five countries are preparing claims to the subsea continental shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Americans have yet to ratify the treaty. The participants will discuss how to proceed with economic and social development in the north, and how to give northerners more control, Lunn said. In doing so, they are attempting to

prevent an unbridled resource rush in which countries stake competing claims and ignore social and environmental problems in their haste to exploit what some believe is the planet's last great, untapped source of energy and mineral resources. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that as much as 25 per cent of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves lies under the Arctic Ocean, and access to those waters is improving as a result of melting sea ice. Russia sparked a furor last summer when a submarine planted a flag on a contested area of the seabed, sparking fears of a 19th-century-style competition for territory among great powers. The United States has sent icebreakers into waters that Canada believes should fall under its control. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to beef up Canada's military presence in the Arctic. He also recently vetoed a company's planned sale of its space robotics and satellite technology business to a U.S. company on the grounds that Canada has a strategic interest in maintaining domestic ownership over the firm's satellite, which provides surveillance of the Far North. Lunn

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

31

said that Canadian scientists are amassing evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge, which extends under the Arctic Ocean, originates in the North American continent. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was fashioned to prevent territorial claims based on raw force, and has a process for establishing jurisdiction. Under the treaty, countries have jurisdiction for 111 kilometers beyond the base of a continental shelf, but that claim can be extended for under-sea ridges extending from the shelf. Ottawa

will spend $40 million over the next several years mapping the Arctic Ocean and providing evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge is, in fact, part of the North American continental shelf. If the U.N. validates that claim, Canada can assert sovereignty over the seabed all along the ridge, although experts expect Canada to claim the area west of the ridge and Denmark will assert sovereignty over the area east of the ridge and closer to Greenland. Lunn said that, in total, Canada's claim would be about 1.8 million square kilometers. He said the U.N. body should easily validate Canada's claim, which will be submitted in 2013. He said Canada needs to extend sovereignty over the region to ensure that any resource development is socially and environmentally responsible.

CANADA LOS takes Arctic waters from Canada which kills their sovereignty and arctic ecosystem Weber, 08. [Bob, The Canadian Press, May 27, North Bay Nugget, pg A6, Control of High Arctic waters 'critically important'] Control of High Arctic waters is "critically important" for both Canadian sovereignty and the protection of a fragile ecosystem, says federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn. "It's critically important that it's under our sovereign control so that we set the parameters for the environment and that we make the decisions whether or not even to allow exploration," Lunn said Monday on the eve of an international conference on the Arctic Ocean. Lunn is expected to travel to Ilulissat, Greenland, today for three days of meetings with officials from the four other nations with continental shelves on the Arctic Ocean: Norway, Russia, the United States and Denmark. The conference is expected to discuss United-Nations-sponsored rules on dividing up jurisdiction over those waters, whose resources are becoming increasingly accessible as climate change reduces sea ice. The conference will also discuss how the five countries can co-operate on maritime safety, environmental protection and search and rescue. "We're going up to reaffirm

The countries ringing the Arctic Ocean are now filing their claims to the seabed under the UN Law of the Sea Convention. Canada is gathering data in support of a claim that includes a slice of the seabed stretching to the North Pole that our commitment on defending and protecting our sovereignty in the Arctic," Lunn said.

would be the equivalent in size of the three Prairie provinces combined.

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

32

Random No risk of oil shock, most oil exists in the Arctic. Dyer, 08. [Gwynne, London Based Independent Journalist, June 2, 2008, The Daily Gleaner (New Brunswick) pg. C8] If we are heading for an Arctic Ocean that is mostly ice-free in the summer, then drilling for gas and oil beneath that ocean can soon begin. Hardly a week goes by without somebody pointing to the U.S. Geological Survey's report that the Arctic basin contains a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.

Brink is now – we are on the brink of discovering who is entitled to the arctic based on science, LOS would disrupt that. Boswell 08 [ Randy, staff, Canwest news services, May 30, 2008 Edmonton Journal] Under current rules, the rights of coastal countries over sea floor resources are limited to a fairly narrow strip of offshore territory -- no more than 350 nautical miles (648.2 kilometres), and only in places where the continental shelf extends that far out from the coast. But coastal states can claim much more territory if they able to show that undersea mountain ridges or other offshore geological features -- such as the buildup of sediment from river discharges into the sea -- constitute a natural underwater extension of the national land mass. If so, they can claim the ridge -- until the point where it drops 2,500 metres below the ocean surface -- plus 100 nautical miles (185.2 kilometres) of seabed from that point. Under that key provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, all five polar countries are compiling sea floor research to claim "Article 76" rights over potentially huge, Saskatchewan-sized swaths of Arctic Ocean bottom. And one of the most contentious parts of the underwater Arctic is proving to be the Lomonosov Ridge, a submerged mountain that is an excellent bet to qualify as a continental extension. It stretches thousands of kilometres from the Danish-Canadian boundary waters north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island, directly past the North Pole and across the Arctic Ocean toward the Siberian coast.

Russian, Canadian and Danish researchers all have gathered sea floor survey data suggesting the ridge is an extension of their respective countries. Last summer, Russia launched the "race" for the North Pole -- and prompted outrage in Canada, Denmark and elsewhere -- by sending a mini-submarine to the fourkilometre-deep sea floor at the pole and depositing a Russian flag made of titanium.

More detailed scientific

LMDIT 2008

LOS Updates

33

analysis should ultimately determine which parts of the ridge belong to the Eurasian continent, which belong to North America.