James Bamford's Frozen Assets

On May 11 of 2015 James Bamford published an article entitled “Frozen Assets.” The article detailed the struggle between various states for the right to tap into the vast natural resources of the Arctic. This power struggle is happening primarily between the five states bordering the Arctic Ocean: Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United States of America. This is ongoing struggle has been characterized by what many would call publicity stunts, including the Canadian government declaring Santa Clause a Canadian citizen and the Russian government placing their flag on the seabed of the North Pole.

Most recently in the news, Russia submitted a formal proposal to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Russia’s proposal would give Russia and additional 463,000 square miles of exclusive economic zone in the Arctic.
Any realist would tell you that allowing Russia to seize portions of the Arctic and its resources uncontested is likely to hurt United States interests.
Because of the opportunities for an increase in power, many theorists urge the United States to make her own claims on portions of the Arctic Ocean.

As it stands the United States has some limited rights to fishing and mineral harvesting in the Arctic Ocean. The United States has these rights because of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This treaty is a sort of international constitution establishing the rights and responsibilities for the use of the world’s oceans. . . .

The treaty also regulates a country’s exclusive economic zone—how far from its shoreline a nation can legally fish and tap the minerals under the seabed. Thus, beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit of this zone, none of the five Arctic Ocean countries has the right to touch the enormous body of mineral wealth below the ice. The treaty, however, allows any nation to lobby for up to 350 additional nautical miles, and sometimes more, if it can prove that an underwater formation is an extension of its dry landmass.

Today, nearly 170 countries have ratified or acceded to the treaty, but the United States has yet to do so. In fact, out of the five Arctic Ocean nations, the United States is the only

outlier.

Because it has refused to ratify the treaty, the United States may not submit a proposal to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf for an extended exclusive economic zone. Some people working in the Reagan Administration said ratifying such a treaty would compromise America’s sovereignty. In a more modern political landscape, American officials are still divided on the issue. Some are weary of any international agreement while others feel the ratification of the treaty would benefit the United States more than harm her. I believe most realists would fall into the latter group. If the United States was to ratify the treaty, it would have the potential to result in an increase of power for the US. Because realists see the struggle for power as being universal, either because of human nature or biased out of fear, a realist would most likely suggest acquiring power for oneself and keeping it away from other states. The United States will not be able to seriously challenge Russia’s claim to the Arctic Ocean until the US ratifies the treaty.
The Arctic Ocean represents power yet to be claimed. Whichever countries ultimately claim the Arctic will increase in soft power. The specific soft power in this case is economic power.
According to a 2014 CNN report, the United States of America is the current global leader in oil production. If this were to change due to the discovery of new oil reserves, the US economy could be drastically shaken. In a world with finite resources, Mearsheimer would certainly encourage the United States to lay claim to as many resources as possible, or at least to keep those resources out of the hands of other states. The natural resources underneath the Arctic oceans have an estimated worth of over 17 trillion dollars. This is a lot of power easily converted into hard power.
If Russia gained control of some or all of these resources the wealth of their populace would increase. In that case, Russia would experience in increase in taxes. Russia would most likely devote some of that money to strengthening their military, which would result in an increase of Russia’s hard power.
The United States currently has quite a bit of military power invested in the Arctic.

With the largest submarine fleet in the world and its one hundred and forty satellites orbiting the area, one could argue the United States’ regional hegemony extends into the Arctic Circle. If any other state were to gain rights to that area, the United States position as a Status Quo Power would be upset.

In conclusion, the United States should ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea for three reasons. First, because the US must ratify the convention if the United States would like to have its exclusive economic zone extended by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Second because if another country is able to increase their oil production the surpass that of the United States the economy of the US will suffer. Third because any increase in the power of Russia, or any other foreign state will result in a net decrease in power for the United States.

The longer the United States delays in taking action, the more time other Arctic states have to research the Arctic Ocean and make claims on its resources. Out of self-interest and the need to keep power away from other states, the United States should ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea and make a bid to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as soon as possible, before any part of the Arctic Ocean has been given to another

state.