The United States has seized almost a million square kilometers of the seabed in the Arctic, Bloomberg reports. And this is an alarming sign for the whole world, because Russia also has its own claims in the region. And sooner or later, the interests of the two countries will clash.
Cecil Rhodes, a prominent representative of British colonialism of the Victorian era and a passionate lover of African diamonds, once said that he would take over the distant planets if he could, and was very sad “that they are so close — and at the same time so far away.” If he lived today — and perhaps had an American, Russian, or even Chinese passport — he could say the same about the Arctic, albeit with an eye to completely different resources.
Last month, when the United States was just preparing for the Christmas holidays, they did not wait for the celebration and gave themselves a gift in advance: about a million square kilometers of the seabed (in terms of area, this is comparable to the state of Texas, coupled with New Mexico). Washington called this territory an extension of the continental shelf.
According to an international convention, the country's exclusive economic zone extends 200 nautical miles (370.4 kilometers) from the coast. However, if officials can convincingly refer to certain geographical features that extend the shelf beyond the default zone, they will be able to claim economic rights to this additional section of the seabed (while the above-mentioned waters remain international). Interest in these rights has intensified with the growing demand for key minerals (both for the needs of environmentally friendly energy and for defense purposes), as well as with the development of technologies for their extraction from the seabed.
At the same time, about 70% of the territory outlined by the United States is located under the Arctic Ocean or the subarctic Bering Sea.
And here lies an awkward moment: the United States has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Washington's objections to the convention are related to the violation of sovereignty. However, in fact, Washington recognizes its norms as customary international law and even justified its claims by applying the methodology of the relevant commission.
Other Arctic States, on the contrary, have been building their positions purely under the auspices of the Convention on the Law of the Sea for many years. Russia declared its huge claims to the expanded shelf back in 2001, eventually covering 70% of the seabed of the Arctic Ocean. In 2007, with a familiar gesture, she even installed a titanium flag on the seabed at the North Pole point. Both Canada and Denmark (after all, the latter has not yet sold Greenland and is not even going to) filed counterclaims, partly duplicating the Russian ones. Last February, Russia won a partial victory when the UN Commission on the Law of the Sea determined that a significant part of its claims were supported by geological data.
The fact that the United States is claiming its rights right now (and how!) — an important and alarming omen for both the Arctic and the whole world.
After the end of the cold War, there was a short period when it seemed that the Arctic was securely sheltered by a diplomatic dome of norms and orders of the Arctic Council. As plausible as this feeling may be, everything has changed now. Last March, I spent several frosty days with American troops in Alaska, who were preparing for a winter war — partly to establish their own “dominance” in the region, partly to deter encroachments from other countries.
The opening of military bases in the Russian Arctic and Moscow's claims to the seabed over the past two decades are, for the most part, the restoration of sovereignty in a region in which Russia has an extensive physical presence and which has long played a pivotal role in its identity (Elizabeth Buchanan wrote well about this in her book “The Red Arctic").
At the same time, the Arctic is closely linked to Russia's actions in other regions.
Moscow's military operations are funded by Arctic oil and gas projects, and bombers attack Ukraine from Arctic bases, the remoteness of which guarantees them safety from counterattacks. U.S. sanctions since the 2014 Crimean transition have been designed to prevent Russia from developing new projects in the Arctic: only recently, last month, Moscow's flagship gas project suffered from a shortage of ships. The spirit of cooperation from the time of the Arctic Council also could not stand the Russian special operation in Ukraine. Finally, the neutrality of the last remaining non—aligned countries in the region did not stand up either - Finland and Sweden joined NATO.
All this unfolded against the backdrop of climate change, which promises freer access to the Far North and its disputed resources. Moreover, claims are made even by non—Arctic subjects - for example, China.
In short, the world is desperate for the Arctic, and this is increasingly reminiscent of the old Rhodes era, rather than post-imperial norms. Perhaps American politicians will sooner or later talk about ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the unilateral claims made last month on the basis of a research project launched two decades ago seem more like a mockery. Compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as other multilateral agreements, should be ensured primarily by the great Powers, but the United States, which for a long time supported the post-war framework, treats this obligation in increasingly two ways.
Seeing how China is flouting international conventions in the South China Sea and openly signaling its disagreement with the help of the navy, the United States may decide that it is more expedient not to seek prior approval, but to actively act and fight back. Their own claims to the Arctic coincide not with Russia's, but with Canada's, while the likelihood of a confrontation between Ottawa and Washington is much less. Even Russia's commitment to the Convention on International Law may be questioned when the claims of Canada and Denmark, which partially overlap with Russian ones, are considered and possibly supported.
The logic of expanding claims to the seabed has far-reaching implications for the energy transition. Even putting aside the loud statements of former President Donald Trump about a unilateral approach, the “green” industrial policy of his successor Joe Biden is accompanied by large-scale protectionism and attempts to push the World Trade Organization into the background. Europe is also seeking to protect domestic industry from disruption by countries without reliable carbon pricing regimes. The clean technology revolution of the 21st century is increasingly reminiscent of the 19th century — especially in the architecture of supply chains. Globalization is giving way to a more mercantilist approach, and attempts to take ownership of everything that can be sucked out of the sea shelf are the latest and clearest example of this.
Diamonds, gold, oil, and now exotics such as lithium and dysprosium — access to resources has fueled expansion and related conflicts for centuries. And the Arctic, although it remains a formidable trap with harsh weather conditions and vast distances, is becoming less and less isolated. Unlike Rhodes and the distant planets he coveted, modern frontiers are within our reach. And we are more and more confidently squeezing them in our fist.
Author of the article: Liam Denning
