West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

UNCLOS Aff Extensions

Arctic Advantage

Arctic Conflict Coming

Arctic conflict coming because no guiding legal framework

John Oliver, Senior Ocean Advisor at the U.S. Coast Guard, Summer, 2013, “The U.N. Convention

on the Law of the Sea: Now is the time to join,” Proceedings, http://www.marcon.com/library/articles/2013/PDF%20Articles/Arctic%20and%20UNCLOS.pdf, accessed 4/29/14

The Arctic region, fundamentally a maritime regime, is one of the world’s last frozen frontiers. Moreover, this icy region is heating up, not just from a warming climate and melting ice, but from changing global priorities and emerging challenges and opportunities. Extending sovereignty, exploration, and exploitation resonate among nations charting new courses in and through the Arctic region. As with any frontier, there must be a common rule of law to guide states in their pursuits. This is critical if we are to successfully exert maritime governance to ensure mariners may safely and securely approach our shores and travel in our waters. The 1982 U.N. Convention on the L aw of the Sea is the best compass and framework for states to determine their positions with respect to each other and the emerging opportunities and challenges in that remote part of the world. Eight nations border the Arctic. Seven of those Arctic nations are party to the convention with the exception of one — the United States.

Territorial and trade disputes ensure conflict in the Arctic

Dylan C. Robertson, Staff Writer for Metro News, 3/24, 2014, “Far North turf war: Who really rules the Arctic?”, http://metronews.ca/news/world/980914/the-far-north-turf-war-who-really-rules-the-arctic/, accessed 4/20/14

Five countries lay claim to territory around the North Pole. Some of those claims conflict, while other countries, like China, want the Arctic to be deemed an international zone. So far, the Arctic has remained peaceful, but as countries scramble for resources, how long will that peace last? As polar ice melts away, rising temperatures are unlocking oil, trade routes and the potential for conflict in the Far North. “It’s the opening chapter of what’s going to amount to be a very long story, and people are playing nice and working together — for now,” says Robert Huebert, a University of Calgary professor and expert in circumpolar relations and defence policy. Five countries claim territory around the North Pole: Canada, Russia, the United States (through Alaska), Norway and Denmark (through Greenland). Some claims conflict, while other countries like China want the Arctic to be deemed an international zone. Polar ice has been steadily decreasing as high temperatures lead to longer summer melts. The U.S. Navy published a study last December suggesting summers in the Arctic could be ice-free as early as 2016, with regular shipping routes expected by 2030. Meanwhile, 13 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil and a third of its untapped natural gas lies in the Arctic, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. That leaves countries scrambling for resources and trade routes. Canada recently asserted a claim over the North Pole, following Russia and Denmark. The Arctic has remained peaceful, with each state respecting United Nations rules on international waters. But co-operation broke down this month. Canada, the U.S. and Norway cancelled joint military operations with Russia following the country’s invasion of Ukraine. “This is going to cause a pushback on the side of the Russians, in the Arctic region specifically,” Huebert says. “It contains two of the most powerful states in the international system that are increasingly having different interests.”

Arctic Conflict Coming

Risk of Arctic conflict high

Fabrizio Tassinari, Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and the Head of Foreign Policy and EU Studies at the Danish Institute for International Studies, September 7, 2012, “Avoiding a Scramble for the High North”, http://blog.gmfus.org/2012/09/07/avoiding-a-scramble-for-the-high-north/, accessed 4/19/14

In recent years, instances of growing securitization of the Arctic have abounded. Back in 2008, a paper by Javier Solana, then the EU’s foreign policy’s chief, and the European Commission warned about “potential conflict over resources in Polar regions” as they become exploitable due to melting ice. In 2010, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, Adm. James Stavridis, argued that “for now, the disputes in the North have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium.” Then there are actions that speak louder than prepared speeches — from the famous August 2007 expedition that planted a Russian flag on the North Pole’s seabed to the annual summer military exercises carried out by Canada to assert its sovereignty in the North. Although the Russian stunt was most likely aimed at nationalist domestic audiences, some observers view these exercises as the expressions of competing national interests. As the scholar Scott Borgerson ominously put it: “The Arctic powers are fast approaching diplomatic gridlock, and that could eventually lead to the sort of armed brinkmanship that plagues other territories.” The geopolitical constellation in and around the region provides a ready justification for such an assessment. While no-one really imagines the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark fighting over the Arctic, some of their politicians have occasionally framed rhetoric in more peppered terms than one might expect. Russia, the fifth Arctic littoral nation, typically treads a fine line between declarations of cooperation and an innate instinct for great-power competition. Add to that the EU, which is seeking to carve its own role, and Asia’s giants, above all China, for which the opening of the Northeast passage may reduce sailing distance with Europe by some 40 percent, and it is not hard to conjure up the prospect of an Arctic race building up.

Arctic Conflict Impacts

Russia concedes it will use military force

Janusz Bugajski, Chair and director of the New European Democracies program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Winter 2010, “RUSSIA’S PRAGMATIC REIMPERIALIZATION,” Caucasian Review of International Affairs, Vol 4(1), p.6, accessed 8/24/12

The Foreign Policy Concept claims that Russia is a resurgent great power, exerting substantial influence over international affairs and determined to defend the interests of Russian citizens wherever they reside. According to the Foreign and Security Policy Principles, Moscow follows five key principles: the primacy of international law, multipolarity to replace U.S.-dominated unipolarity, the avoidance of Russian isolationism, the protection of Russians wherever they reside, and Russia’s privileged interests in regions adjacent to Russia. Russia’s National Security Strategy, which replaced the previous National Security Concepts, repeats some of the formulations in the other two documents and depicts NATO expansion and its expanded global role as a major threat to Russia’s national interests and to international security. The document asserts that Russia seeks to overcome its domestic problems and emerge as an economic powerhouse. Much attention was also devoted to the potential risk of future energy wars over regions such as the Arctic, where Russia would obviously defend its access to hydrocarbon resources. The document also envisages mounting competition over energy sources escalating into armed conflicts near Russia’s borders.

So did China

David Curtis Wright, IR Prof at Calgary, August 2011, “The Dragon Eyes the Top of the World,” Naval War College, China Maritime Studies Institute, http://www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/China-Maritime-Studies-Institute/Publications/documents/China-Maritime-Study-8_The-Dragon-Eyes-the-Top-of-.pdf, p.4, accessed 8/20/12

That the Arctic might emerge in the future as the theater for regional and perhaps even global conflict is a possibility entertained with some seriousness in China today. An article published in 2010 in the influential popular magazine Dangdai haijun (Modern Navy) notes that the United States is currently procuring more warm clothing for naval personnel and is, in accordance with the U.S. Navy’s Arctic Roadmap, preparing for the construction and deployment of an Arctic surface fleet, a project slated for the years 2011 through 2015. 11 A senior colonel in the People’s Liberation Army noted in 2008 that use of force in the Arctic over issues of sovereignty could not be ruled out. 12 In an article published in 2009, Li Zhenfu, associate professor in the College of Transportation Management at Dalian Maritime University in Dalian, Liaoning Province, argues that the ultimate resolution of Arctic issues will have direct bearing on world security.

So will the US

Alexander Gabuev, Political Analyst and Staff Writer for Kommersant, August 4, 2008, “Cold War Goes North,”http://www.kommersant.com/p792832/Arctic_ocean_bed_causes_upsurge_of_Russia-West_competiton, accessed 10/2/12

Apparently, judging by the U.S. Department of State’s reaction, Washington took the installation of the Russian flag in the seabed at the North Pole nearly as a declaration of war for the Arctic Region. So, the U.S. wants to take up Moscow’s gauntlet. Therefore, the UN convention’s ratification by the Congress is just a matter of time. Then, Washington will be able to enter the big Arctic race. Consequently, the Arctic front will become another field of the competition between Russia and the West.

Arctic Conflict Solvency

US leadership is necessary to prevent Arctic warfare

Scott Borgerson, International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, April 10, 2008, “Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20032581.pdf?acceptTC=true, accessed 4/15/14

Washington cannot afford to stand idly by. The Arctic region is not currently governed by any comprehensive multilateral norms and regulations because it was never expected to become a navigable water¬way or a site for large-scale commercial development. Decisions made by Arctic powers in the coming years will therefore profoundly shape the future of the region for decades. Without U.S. leadership to help develop diplomatic solutions to competing claims and potential conflicts, the region could erupt in an armed mad dash for its resources.

US ratification key to development of Arctic governance regime

John Oliver, Senior Ocean Advisor at the U.S. Coast Guard, Summer, 2013, “The U.N. Convention

on the Law of the Sea: Now is the time to join,” Proceedings, http://www.marcon.com/library/articles/2013/PDF%20Articles/Arctic%20and%20UNCLOS.pdf, accessed 4/29/14

Senior military and U.S. national security leaders involved in Arctic affairs agree the time has come to join the convention — this move would provide a uniform governance framework to promote American interests and dramatically extend our resource related sovereignty in that region. The convention, which codifies a broad range of international legal principles applicable to the ocean regime, represents a tremendous advance in promoting and protecting a broad range of critical interests and goals. Having such a legal regime in place is vital to the proper management of an increasingly accessible Arctic. While the L aw of the Sea Convention has now been in force for more than 160 states worldwide (plus the European Union), including virtually all of the major maritime powers and our allies and trading partners, the full U.S. Senate has never taken a vote on the convention.

We have no ability to help foment the law of the sea without ratification

John Oliver, Senior Ocean Advisor at the U.S. Coast Guard, Summer, 2013, “The U.N. Convention

on the Law of the Sea: Now is the time to join,” Proceedings, http://www.marcon.com/library/articles/2013/PDF%20Articles/Arctic%20and%20UNCLOS.pdf, accessed 4/29/14

The United States has no “seat at the table” in matters concerning the convention, nor does it have a judge on the L aw of the Sea Tribunal, or a decision maker or staff expert on the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf that convenes to review and approve claims to extended continental shelves. Moreover, despite the fact that the 1994 Part XI Implementation Agreement guarantees the United States a permanent seat on the International Seabed Authority and an effective veto on all key decisions of that body, as a nonparty, we simply cannot play that critical role. Without joining the convention, we have no means to formally represent our significant maritime interests as a global power, and guide the discussion interpreting and developing the law of the sea in the Arctic.

Arctic Environment Impact

Arctic ecosystem collapse leads to extinction

World Wildlife Fund, December 1, 2010, “Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky” http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/arctic/WWFBinaryitem18711.pdf, accessed 5/2/14

Planetary Keystone The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One is their enormous biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes supporting millions of migrating birds and charismatic species such as polar bears, walruses, narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are among the richest in the world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood counters of supermarkets across the nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is not just important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A keystone species is generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of changes affecting other species in that ecosystem. The same can be said of the Arctic in relation to the rest of the world. With feedback mechanisms that affect ocean currents and influence climate patterns, the Arctic functions like a global thermostat. Heat balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are all related to its regulatory and carbon storage functions. Disrupt these functions and we effect far-reaching changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth for thousands of years. In the context of climate change, the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem for the entire planet

Arctic Environment Impact – Food Wars

Arctic environmental decline risks global food shortages

Gary Roughhead, US Navy Four Star Admiral, June 15, 2012, “Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf, accessed 4/30/14

The U.S. Navy’s interests in the Arctic are not new, of course. We have many decades of experience with exploration and, indeed, episodic operations in the waters of the Arctic Circle.... But never has our interest encountered the confluence of trends, as projected by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2008 and the National Research Council this past March, that promises to change the Arctic so pervasively, and in so doing affect the global environment for which we plan and program our future fleet.... In projecting the impact of climate change in the northern latitudes, however, I’m reminded of what Dr. Lubchenco observed just this past March, when she said, “what happens in the Arctic does not stay there.” The trends we discuss here, in a similar timeframe, promise more disruption and disorder in a world whose population is growing rapidly, and moving to megacities on or near the coasts of almost every continent. The prospects of sea level rise, for some megacities, or the coral islands of the Maldives, are similarly daunting. We also have to consider the likely frictions that arise as fishing stocks migrate with changing sea temperatures, and the very real possibility that conflicts in the future will be fought over access to dwindling natural supplies of fresh water. It is because of these projections that our Navy is preparing for increased demand, both in the region - where we will maintain our access and uphold the freedom of navigation as a global good - and beyond, where we expect developments to expose the costs of our national reluctance on the Law of the Sea convention and to test our present understanding of customary legal guarantees to the very freedoms behind our global operations today. We are considering the technical requirements for polar operations to support our strategic objective of a safe, stable, and secure Arctic region where our national interests are safeguarded – namely, how and when to build forces capable and competent for the harsh northern climes.

Food wars escalate

Julian Cribb, Science communicator journalist and editor, 2010, “The coming famine: the global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it,” p. 26

This is the most likely means by which the coming famine will affect all citizens of Earth, both through the direct consequences of refugee floods for receiving countries and through the effect on global food prices and the cost to public revenues of redressing the problem. Coupled with this is the risk of wars breaking out over local disputes about food, land, and water and the dangers that the major military powers may be sucked into these vortices, that smaller nations newly nuclear-armed may become embroiled, and that shock waves propagated by these conflicts will jar the global economy and disrupt trade, sending food prices into a fresh spiral. Indeed, an increasingly credible scenario for World War III is not so much a confrontation of superpowers and their allies as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts driven by the widening gap between food and energy supplies and peoples' need to secure them.

Arctic Environment Solvency

Codification is key to prevent Arctic ecosystem collapse

Rob Huebert, Poli Sci Professor at Calgary, May, 2009, “THE RELUCTANT ARCTIC POWER,” http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/?q=content/united-states-arctic-policy-reluctant-arctic-power, accessed 5/3/14

The problem the United States has to contend with is that, by not being party to the Convention, it is unable to submit a claim to the appropriate UN body (the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf) for verification. The other Arctic states appear willing to engage the Americans on this issue, as evidenced by their inclusion in a meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland in May 2008 with the other Arctic continental shelf claimants. How long the Americans will be included in these discussions is unknown, but the United States cannot submit its claim to the UN until it accedes to the Convention.35 The effect of the Americans as a non-party on any overlap with Canadian and Russian Arctic continental shelf claims is also unknown. This is one of those cases where most senior US leaders know they must act but have not figured out how to get beyond the Senate. It remains to be seen whether this will change under the Obama administration. Boundary disputes regarding the continental shelf are not the only such issues the Americans face in the Arctic. They also have an ongoing maritime boundary issue with Canada over the Beaufort Sea, and they disagree with both Canada and Russia over the status of the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route. Another issue, which had been thought resolved, may be arising over the maritime boundary between the Bering Strait and the Beaufort Sea. The Bering Sea maritime border case between the United States and the USSR/Russia was supposed to have been resolved in 1990, when the two countries agreed on a boundary. However, while the US Senate has given its approval, the Russian Duma refuses to do so because of the impact of the boundary agreement on control of the region’s resources. 36 Some US senators and Alaska state officials have expressed concern over the status of several islands on the Russian side of the boundary, although the State Department has publicly stated the issue is closed. 37 The issue of the so-called donut hole is more problematic for the United States and Russia. As a result of the geography of the US and Russian coastlines, within their 200-mile EEZs, a section of the Bering Sea is outside their control — that is, considered to be the high seas. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Poland all send large trawlers into this area, seriously depleting the fishing industry in the entire region. 38 Efforts to reach agreement among all these states have been limited, and there is ongoing fear that the entire eco-system could soon collapse. It is unclear how to resolve the situation.

Being an outsider prevents our ability to preserve the Arctic environment

John Oliver, Senior Ocean Advisor at the U.S. Coast Guard, Summer, 2013, “The U.N. Convention

on the Law of the Sea: Now is the time to join,” Proceedings, http://www security.marcon.com/library/articles/2013/PDF%20Articles/Arctic%20and%20UNCLOS.pdf, accessed 4/29/14

Our non-party status is an obstacle that we must overcome in developing virtually any new multilateral maritime instrument. For example, the United States has long played a key role in the IMO to promote maritime safety and efficiency and to protect the marine environment in the Arctic, but our leadership position is undermined by our current “outsider” status.

Arctic Hegemony Impact

Arctic leadership is key to global leadership

Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy at the Heritage Foundation, August 16, 2011, “Russia’s Arctic Claims: Neither LOST nor Forgotten”, http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/16/russias-arctic-claims-neither-lost-nor-forgotten/, accessed 4/30/14

Moscow has an unquestionable head start on the rest of the world, and it is not shy about investing in its ambitions. At least six new icebreakers and Sabetta, a new year-round port on the arctic shores—costing $33 billion—are on the agenda, but Prime Minister Putin has said the Kremlin is “open for a dialogue with our foreign partners and with all our neighbors in the Arctic region, but of course we will defend our own geopolitical interests firmly and consistently.” Or as they said in Soviet times, “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is negotiable.” The Arctic is of vital geopolitical importance not just to Russia, but to the entire world. It has enormous quantities of hydrocarbon energy and other natural resources, and as the Arctic is no longer completely icebound, in summertime it may become an important transportation route vital to U.S. national security. Despite this, at present the U.S. has made virtually no effort to strengthen its position in the frozen final frontier. The chief concern is America’s lack of icebreakers—even Canada and Finland have more than the United States. Icebreakers are vital to exploring the Arctic and enforcing one’s sovereignty there. As of 2010, Russia had 29 icebreakers in total and was building more. The United States had two (including one that is obsolete), with no plans to expand. The Heritage Foundation has exposed this problem extensively: The United States has significant geopolitical and geo-economic interests in the High North, but the lack of policy attention and insufficient funding have placed the U.S. on track to abdicate its national interests in this critical region. The United States must strengthen its position in the Arctic and make its interests clear to friend and foe alike. Washington should reach out to the Arctic Council members to block Russia’s expansion plans at the U.N. Meanwhile, the U.S. should fund and build its icebreaking squadron and deploy it in Alaska. Russia’s Arctic aspirations are a serious geopolitical challenge for U.S. and allied interests. America’s security and economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on U.S. ability to access polar waters and the Arctic Ocean bed.

US primacy impossible without Arctic leadership

Margaret Hobson, Energy and Environmental Correspondent for the National Journal,

August 27, 2012, www.eenews.net; and, http://www.arcticimperative.com/?page_id=2078, accessed 4/29/14

Iceland President Grimsson said that as the world increasingly looks to the Arctic for resource extraction and international shipping, America must take a larger role in Arctic policy issues or risk losing its primacy on the world political scene. “Quite seriously,” he said, “I cannot see how the United States of America is going to conduct a comprehensive, responsible foreign policy in the coming decades without being the leader of the Arctic.”