Antarctica is a frozen continent, but in a world riven by warfare and strife it may be the only truly peaceable kingdom. It is, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this week, "one of the few places on Earth where there has never been war."
Of course, Antarctica is inhabited by sea birds and marine mammals and has no permanent human habitation, just visitors bent on scientific research.
Clinton credited the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, calling it "the first arms control treaty of the Cold War." She said it is a "blueprint" for international cooperation. The treaty suspended all territorial claims, and subsequent international agreements covered environmental protection and governance and management of the continent.
But at the Earth's opposite pole the countries bordering the Arctic Ocean, while warily watching each other's claims to potentially vast subsea oil and gas resources, have jointly proclaimed supremacy over the Arctic region and rejected the Antarctica model
Key difference: Anarctica is surrounded by ocean; the Arctic Ocean by five countries.Those countries - Russia, Canada, the US, Denmark (through Greenland) and Norway - have unequivocally stated that they don't want the rest of the world meddling in Arctic affairs through any vehicle analogous to the Antarctic treaty
"The Arctic Ocean stands on the threshold of significant change," the nations said in a declaration issued in Ilulissat, Greenland, in 2008. "Climate change and the melting of ice have a potential impact on vulnerable ecosystems, the livelihood of local inhabitants and indigenous communities, and the potential exploitation of natural resources. By virtue of their sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large areas of the Arctic Ocean, the five coastal states are in a unique position to address these possibilities and challenges."
The Law of the Sea Convention - which, incidentally, the US has yet to ratify - provides a solid foundation for responsible management through "national implementation and application of relevant provisions," the declaration stated. "We, therefore, see no need to develop a new comprehensive international regime to govern the Arctic Ocean."
Three countries with territory inside the Arctic Circle --Finland, Sweden and Iceland (Iceland actually lies just below the Polar Circle) -- are not mentioned in the declaration. Presumably they are "among the other users" of the ocean and the "interested parties" that the Big Five pledged to cooperate with to "protect and preserve the fragile marine environment of the Arctic Ocean."
An analysis of the Ilulissat Declaration from the German Institute for International Affairs points out that international regulations would constrain the way the five nations handle the Arctic, " in particular the resources." The declaration talks only in general terms about measures for preserving the environment, the analysis said. The countries also merely state their "intent" to cooperate with the International Maritime Organization on issues concerning navigation, and refer "only in rather vague terms" to an "orderly settlement" of overlapping resource claims.
Europeans are concerned about the risk to international stability as the Arctic nations vie for resources and have suggested adoption of a treaty akin to the Antarctic Treaty. But in a speech in Washington April 6, Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said areas of dispute in the Arctic "are certainly well managed" through the existing legal framework. "These five states see no need to develop a new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean," he said.
Meanwhile, Canada is expanding and enhancing its military capabilities in the Arctic, Cannon said, in order to responsibly "exercise [its] sovereignty." Russia also recently announced that it is increasing its military presence in the Arctic to protect its interests. And in one of its final acts before leaving office, the Bush administration issued a presidential directive calling for the development of greater capability and capacity to protect US air, land and sea borders in the Arctic, among other measures. None of this yet represents serious saber rattling. Of course, the Arctic was a Cold War theater when the US and former Soviet Union regarded the other with hostility across the North Pole.
Secretary Clinton said that the "genius of the Antarctic treaty lies in its relevance today." But it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the Arctic countries, including the US, as they assert their sovereign rights and make competing territorial and resource claims.
Leave a comment