Tatarbieva A. D.

Saint-Petersburg State University

WHO OWNS THE ARCTIC?

Annotation: Legally uncertain status of national borders of Arctic courtiers leads to maritime disputes and questions of ownership the Arctic region. The article considers Arctic race and active militarization in the Arctic region last years.

Key words: Arctic, Arctic states, Arctic Council, militarization, Arctic race.

In 2014 Russia submitted a request to the UN to expand the limits of the continental shelf in the Arctic, in the spring one of the largest in the Far North military exercises were carried. Canada’s Northern Strategy, published in 2009, promises to put “…more boots on the Arctic Tundra, more ships in the water, and a better eye in the sky.”[4] Denmark proclaimed to establish a new Arctic military command headquartered in Nuuk, Greenland [1], at the same time Norway transferred main military headquartered from the south to the north. Chinese ships appeared off the coast of Alaska. General situation in Arctic region can be characterized by militarization. Russian scientist and writer M.V. Lomonosov said: “Who owns the Arctic, owns the world”. This is a topical issue because the world's Arctic ambitions are becoming wider and suddenly everyone wants a piece. The main reason for the exacerbation of the current political struggle in the Arctic is the fact that there is now legally uncertain status of national borders. A separate item disputes are riches, which are hidden in the depths of the Arctic. And, of course, focusing on the transport links in the region. On the one hand, almost a hundred years ago, there was a system in which the leading role in the development of Arctic resources belongs to the so-called "Arctic powers". The renewed interest directed towards the Arctic region from various countries is characterized by its simultaneously conflictual and cooperative aspects. I will remind you, Arctic includes the Arctic Ocean (which overlies the North Pole), parts of Canada, Greenland, Russia, the United States (Alaska), Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. [2] A new political paradigm which is more military oriented emerged in the Arctic after the Cold War. This is most evident by the augmenting presence, capability development, and employment of military forces by all Arctic-Five states. The Arctic Ocean is where experts anticipate the most conflict. [3]. The growing military focus upon the region by some A-5 states has more to do with the geographic positioning of the country. For example, Norway and Russia have large parts of their states, including natural resources and thus it makes sense in part why they place military emphasis therein. The dispute is place to be. But the 2010 agreement between them over the Barents Sea demonstrates that positive political and legal compromise is possible.

In August Russia filed at the UN for an extension of the continental shelf in the Arctic due to the addition of the Lomonosov Ridge and other sections of the Arctic Ocean according to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is noteworthy that in December 2014, Denmark and Greenland, which has autonomous status within the Kingdom, announced its claims to the North Pole, and 895 sq. m. km of the Arctic seabed, spending on data collection of $ 50 million, and insisting that the Lomonosov Ridge running along the bottom of the Ocean is an extension of Greenland shelf. Now Russia is building 10 new search and rescue stations in the region, “increases the military presence”, opens the database, abandoned since the collapse of the Soviet Union. A new conflict is brewing. The problems of limits of the shelf of the Arctic Ocean, the 22% of undiscovered oil in the world and the control over the Northern Sea Route could become the second Crimea for Russia, accompanied by sanctions, and brinkmanship. A senior commander of US and NATO C. J. Ferguson argues that Russia has increased its military capacity compared to the era of the "cold war." A new militarization of Russian policy in the sphere of security is evidenced by the creation of steel arc from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. Russia’s interest in Arctic is obvious. Many politics claim that it is firstly characterized by neo-imperial ambitions of the President Putin in that region. Norway in 2009 released a report with the project of the Nordic Covenant implies the formation of some kind of "mini-NATO" in Scandinavia and the Arctic - the block, which will include joint military and border forces, intelligence agencies, the Center of protection against cyber-attacks, as well as the system of coordination in the Arctic. The report was expressly stated that the Nordic Covenant must be a response to Russia's efforts to develop the natural resources of the Arctic shelf. Since 2007, Canada has conducted annually Operation Nanook, a multi-service training exercise designed to protect and to exercise capabilities within its Arctic national borders. Such position demonstrates Ottawa’s determination to increase its monitoring of Arctic movements in its waters. It is noteworthy also that a day after Canada submitted its official United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) exclusion zone claim (including the North Pole) President Putin ordered the Russian military to redouble its efforts in the Arctic, making the region a military priority.

China attained permanent observer status in the Arctic Council and shows a growing interest in Arctic resources. China users the Northern sea route for cargo transports between Asia and the West through the Arctic, as the melting of the ice has simplified the navigation. Remind you that in 2012 the Northern sea route proceeded Chinese icebreaker and from then on it was held merchant vessels of the PRC. Seven ships of the Chinese Navy in August took part in the second phase of joint Russian-Chinese exercises "Sea interaction-2015" in Peter the Great Bay near Vladivostok. Successful economical and political cooperation of China with one of the Arctic Powers - Russia can be considered as an impediment for expansion of the USA in the Arctic region. World’s ambitions in Arctic are growing. While members of the Arctic Council assert their established rights under new circumstances, an increasing number of non-Arctic states seek an active role in the region.

References:

1. Libby Leyden-Sussler, “Canada’s Arctic Council Protest: Ripple Effect?” in World Policy Journal, 07 May 2014.

2. Mark Nuttall & Terry V. Callaghan, The arctic: environment, people, policy.

3. Marta Kolczryan. An arctic race: how the United States’ failure to ratify the law of the sea convention could adversely affect its interests in the Arctic.

4. Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future: Canada’s Northern Strategy, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2009, p. 13.