Militarisation of the Arctic

Welcome note from the chairperson; Hello delegates, it is a pleasure to welcome all of you to the IIMUN. Similar to the famed aspects such as international extremism and nuclear warfare, the militarization of the arctic has also proven to be a matter of grave concern to the UN in recent times To many, we have bought this catastrophe upon us, inconsiderate use of natural resources and depletion of the ozone due to constantly increasing forms of pollution.The melting of polar ice caps is the primary reason we face this situation today. The race to occupy unidentified natural resources, huge untouched land masses, and for formations of military strong holds etc, brings about a question whether or not should the arctic be militarized?. That’s the basic question every delegate has to take a stand on and every resolution must answer.Militarization of the arctic will open various new doors for the world, it shall prove to boost economies and strengthen the defenses of many countries however every coin has two sides, the militarization is ought to bring about great unrests and clashing interests thus proving to be a threat on global peace and harmony International co operation is key, the council must come up with reasonable solutions, which shall look to better the global economy and maintain international stability.With Canada, the US, Russia and a number of Nordic countries all pressing to stake their claim in the Arctic – which is likely to develop into an area rich in commerce and natural resources – what should the UN do to mediate. Does anyone nation have a right to what lies under the Arctic ice and, if so, how will it be decided? With the Russian Security Council predicting a war within a decade how best should the UN resolve these issues? 1)General presentation and introduction of the issue. The Arctic region is one of the most highly disputed areas in recent times.Global warming has taken a great toll on the Earth, effecting issues in the economy, as well as with the melting of polar ice caps, increased hurricanes, etc. Global warming gradually melts the ice sheets causing a progressive opening of the Northwest Passage; which makes Arctic resources available for extraction, Arctic militarization is becoming an increasingly prominent issue. A major challenge to Arctic and global security is the diversity of uncertainties and changes that will alter and change the future of the Arctic ecosystem in the recent times to come.The militarization of the Arctic began during World War II, causing a major rise during the Cold War period, The economies’ necessity for fuel corresponds with the race to claim the Arctic land. Included in the Arctic States are Russia, Canada, Greenland, Norway, and the United States, each seeking to attain supremacy in the region in order to provide for the increasing demand for new energy and mineral sources. Certain areas of the arctic region may prove to be very resourceful when considering a variety of fuels and unprocessed natural commodities.As study indicates, By 2100an average global temperature rise of five and a half degrees is foreseeable. Increasing precipitation, shorter and warmer winters and significant reductions in reflective ice and snow cover are likely to persist for the next few centuries. These trends will contribute to not only rising sea levels, but the warming of the planet as a whole. Rising Arctic temperatures and shorter winters will affect not only the ecosystem, but also Arctic operations.As warming becomes an increasingly significant trend in the Arctic, natural resource extraction and marine activity is likely to escalate. For instance, both commercial and military maritime activity in the Arctic has steadily increased since the late 20th century. The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA), a 2009 Arctic marine activity study conducted by the Arctic Council, found that approximately six thousand ships operated in or around the Arctic region in 2004. Furthermore, in terms of volume of shipping, 2. 3 million tons were shipped in 2007, with transportation of hydrocarbons within the Barents and White Seas peaking at 8. 5million tons in 2006. This issue not only poses a threat not only to regional and global security, but also to northern indigenous communities, sustainable development, and environmental stewardship. The rapidly transforming Arctic geography is directly impacting an area of over 30 million km2, engendering new issues, including territorial rights, potential trade routes, and environmental protection.Cooperation with the Arctic populations is critical to preserving biodiversity and human health, as well as environmental health and global peace. Also due to the unsustainable environments a lack of technological environments have been seen in most of the populated arctic colonies, thus proposing a serious threat from extremist groups and power houses who may seek to take advantage of the situation at hand. Under present international law, no single country monopolizes the Arctic region.Instead, the international treaty that suggests Arctic territorial claims, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), mandates that each of the five major Arctic countries, the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark, possesses an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical mileseach adjacent to its Arctic coast, as well as military deployment in the Arctic an extended continental shelf.Yet, the United States and seventeen other nations throughout the world have refused to ratify UNCLOS, each looking to expand their military presence in the arctic region and benefit from natural resources without the consent of geopolitical issues and other environmental hazards. Considering the geopolitical issues and the trend of militarization in the arctic the UN must address the debate of growing military presence in the arctic, should militarization of the arctic be allowed? If yes what types of measures should be implemented to monitor and control the military growth in the wider region of the arctic? )History 2. 1)Arctic Exploration The proliferation of military activity in the Arctic region was a fairly recent development, not reaching significant levels until the mid-twentieth century during and following World War II. Prior to the war, the region was a military vacuum, as countries valued it for neither strategic nor economic utility. As the Arctic ice continues to melt and resources slowly begin to be available the West has decided to begin the militarization of the Arctic zone in a bid to gain control over the precious resources.The 16th century marked the beginning of the exploration of the mystifying lands in the northern part of North America and Eurasia. Lasting for over four centuries, the land was initially taken over by Eskimos and those of the Mongolic origin. Explorers such as Christopher Columbus, Jacques Cartier, and many more performed the earliest voyages in order to find the newest trade routes to the Orient. However their expedition happened to be more complex than anticipated and very little was gained out of the entire excursion; curiosity of the new area vanished abruptly.The 19th century brought about new, British explorers interested in the land that was forgotten about centuries back, John Ross, John Franklin, and a few others began their own journey into the Arctic territory. In 1845, Sir John Franklin led the Northern Passage, but sadly disappeared in his attempts to investigate the land; decades after, many searched in hopes of finding Franklin and his crew members. Between 1903- 1906 Ronald Amundsen gained power of the Northwest Passage, which separated Alaska and Russia.The Arctic became a primary focus again during the time of World War II and much after that for the transportation of materials and supplies. In 1947, the US began performing flights over the Arctic Ocean in order to create weather reports and oceanographic work in Beaufort Sea. Presently, there are accurate maps of the Arctic region available due to the current technology available, and the exploration phase of the past has come to an end. There is now much emphasis on the effects of global warming in the region, and efforts that can be made to preserve the land and its value. . 2)Previous Principles & Territorial Claims Exploration of the Arctic Region were performed by many of other countries than those surrounding the region, countries such as the United States, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Russia, and the United Kingdom entered the territory in order to place territorial claims on the vast unclaimed land. During the 20th century, sovereignty rights of the Arctic Region were an element of a legislative vacuum, yet many states in the Arctic border did not recognize it as an imperative matter.All of the countries involved in the doctrine have acknowledged its regulations and use it to base any claims of territory. The doctrine states the northern boundaries of the region as the northern coastlines of all the countries bordering the Arctic Ocean. The rules have stated that in certain parts of the world, any claims of sovereignty would be accepted only if physical occupation comes along with it. The two theories acknowledging national sovereignty in the Arctic region are as follow, ) res nullius, where no nation could have sovereignty over the Arctic; and b) res communes, where every nation in the world shared an undivided sovereignty right in the region. 3 During the 1920s, extensive sea sovereignty sea claims developed. Norway was the first state to make such claim, only after claiming possession of Svalbard Archipelago, in regards to the Spitsbergen Treaty. Because of this, the Soviet Union and Canada declared that their costal border should reach all the way to the North Pole, bringing forth the same disputes used by many states in the Antarctica situation.Canada’s claims refer to the territory with longitudes of 60 degrees west and 141 degrees west, including all islands in between the northern tip of Canada to the North Pole. Shortly after, the Soviet Union made claims from the northern coasts of Europe and Asia (from Murmansk to the Chukchi Peninsula). Subsequently, the United States and Norway also made their own claims of the land; between the latter of 141 degrees west and 170 degrees west and 5 degrees east and 35 degrees east. Denmark made similar claims of land from 60 degrees west and 10 degrees west.During the Cold War, the Arctic area was partitioned into the East-West division and the significance of the strategic benefit of the region increased, as it appeared to be the shortest path from the United States and the Soviet Union. The naval build up was the main advantage the soviets would gain by acquiring the Arctic region, however, other than through Alaska; the United States did not have any access to the Arctic waters, making them rely on other states to help build their defense. Canada also claimed rights over the islands not only in the Arctic Archipelago, but the Northwest Passage as well.The United States had approved of the former claim, however they discarded the latter, as their policy was to deem the Northwest Passage and the Arctic Ocean as international waters, thus declaring the unrestricted right of transportation for all vessels. Conversely, Canada believed that the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago were Canadian territory, through the straight baselines theory. The dispute between the two countries carried on until 1988, when Manhattan (an American Tanker and the world’s biggest commercial ship) voyaged through the Northwest Passage, alarming the Canadians.The Canadians were mainly upset because the ship had not asked for consent for the voyage to take place; the United States did this once more with the Polar Sea, causing the Canadians to be extremely upset. After the second incident, the two countries signed an agreement, “Arctic Cooperation” agreement where no vessels were to engage in research in the Canadians Arctic waters unless consent was given from the Canadian government. 2. 3)THE COLD WAR The Cold War provided a platform for greater militarization of the Arctic.As tensions escalated between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its allies, led by the United States, and the Warsaw Pact block, led by the Soviet Union, both sides began to turn to the Arctic as one of many regions to station military development programs and operations. Starting just years after the end of World War II in which the United States and the Soviet Union had ultimately fought alongside each other, the Far North soon saw a drastic increase in military activity from both belligerent sides.In the midst of a nuclear arms race, the relatively secluded Arctic became a central location for the United States and the Soviet to play “cat-and-mouse games” above and beneath the ice, in which each country tried to outmaneuver the other by expanding their own nuclear programs in the Arctic without hindrance from those of the rival country. By the 1950s, international attention paid to the use and defense against nucleararmed strategic bombers using polar routes was reaching unprecedented heights.To maximize the payload of long-range bombers developed with radii of action of several thousand miles, the United States and the Soviet Union established forward bases along the large circular route over the Arctic, to be used for landing and refueling the bombers. The airspace over the Arctic became a chief route for nuclear-armed bombers. Fears that the Soviet Union would occupy an airfield in the Canadian north as a staging base for air operations emerged in North America, though these concerns were later quashed by the trend of increasing ranges of strategic aircraft and consequent lowering risk-return radeoffs. Nevertheless, awareness of the military significance of the Arctic increased for all northern countries, including Canada, where consciousness of the Canadian northlands reached peaks in the early 1960s and later in the mid-1970s. Still, increased international dialogues were pointing the world in the direction of Arctic peace and security. In 1973, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) conveyed after six years of preparation in the Committee for the Sea-Bed, proving essential to changing politico-legal conditions in the arctic.As early as in 1975, broad international consensus had been achieved concerning the right of coastal states to establish 200-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and to administer the living and mineral resources in those zones, providing guidelines for northern marine activity. Article 234 dealt specifically with ice-covered areas, clarifying boundary delimitation and dispute resolution for Arctic nations. What remained to be established was a norm of adhering to these international regulations in a diplomatic manner. 2. 4)POST-COLD WARDespite decreases in Arctic armament, the Arctic continued to be an area of great geopolitical and economic strategic importance for the United States, the Russian Federation, and other nations in the post- Cold War era. Several trends in military technology and strategic doctrine redirected attention to the Arctic. The development of long-range, air-launched cruise missiles and long-range strategic bombers by both the United States and the Soviet Union revitalized the trend of “air-breathing” vehicles, spurred by the introduction of cruise missiles and the evolution of more effective ballistic missile defenses.Furthermore, the culmination of the Cold War helped efforts to develop multilateral institutions and arrangements gain traction. In particular, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) and its successor, the Arctic Council, were created following the Cold War. The Arctic Council, first proposed by the Canadian government on 28 November 1990 and created in 1996, has become particularly central to circumpolar cooperation. However, these efforts have created at best an immature and fractured system, rather than a strong multilateral Arctic organization.Likewise, UNCLOS, while a major institution relevant to Arctic diplomacy, contains relatively little substance specific to Arctic policy, though its general provisions encompass many Arctic issues, being largely maritime in nature. Although little military activity and security concerns transitioned largely from traditional security and confrontation to environmental security and cooperation, military tensions in the Arctic lingered years after the Cold War had ended. 3 Recent Developments – UN’s role in the situation 3. 1)Legal frame works; a)United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)Currently, UNCLOS is the only aspect of global legislation regarding the rights and obligations states have in respect to world seas and oceans. There are five different zones, each containing an official regime. The “territorial sea” is the first zone, including states bordering the sea or ocean (referencing article 3), stretching at approximately 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the shore. In this particular territory, the state can implement full jurisdiction, but the convention allows the right of innocent passage (article 17) for both governmental and non-governmental ships under certain restriction.Ships involving some sort of nuclear background are allowed in this area, but with proper documentation. The passage is defined (according to Article 19) as “navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of: (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of the coastal State; (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal State; (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft; (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device; (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State (h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention; (i) any fishing activities j) the carrying out of research or survey activities (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State; (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage. ”5 The “contiguous zone”, contains a width of approximately 24 nautical miles from baselines. Inside this area, the state can implement control needed to “prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. The “exclusive economic zone” can stretch up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines. It has rights in regard to natural resources; it is free to create the manner in which it will manage the resources, however other states must have consent in order to exploit these resources. The state is also allowed jurisdiction over artificial islands, installations, and structures relating to research. The “continental shelf” is the seabed and submarine part, extending beyond the territorial sea to the edge of the continental margin. The states have the right to explore and exploit natural resources, including mineral and non-living resources.The final area is known as the “high seas,” which are open to all states. The rights under the high seas in Article 87 include: (a) freedom of navigation; (b) freedom of overflight; (c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI; (d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI; (e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2; (f ) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII. 6 (source ; “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (Montego Bay 1982). b). The Ilulissat Declaration The Ilulissat Declaration was the outcome of a meeting of the five Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States of America) with the purpose of discussing the future of the Arctic region. The Declaration presents the common position of the five states in therms of maritime safety, climate change and sovereign rights. By this document, the signatory states reaffirm their commitment towards the existing international law regulations governing the aforementioned issues.The countries involved consider the current legal framework provided by the UNCLOS, the International Maritime Organization and the Arctic Council to be most appropriate for tackling these issues. The countries expressed their opposition towards any regime for the Arctic Ocean that would be contrary to the provisions of UNCLOS; therefore, the only provisions that these countries are willing to negotiate are the ones complementary to the current system. c)The Arctic Council One of the most important players in determining the future of the Arctic area is the Arctic Council.The Council was established in 1996 by the Ottawa Declaration and it is an international intergovernmental forum of 8 members: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States. It was invested with the following mandate: “- provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common arctic issues*, in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. oversee and coordinate the programs established under the AEPS on the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP); conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF); Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME); and Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPPR). – adopt terms of reference for and oversee and coordinate a sustainable development program. – disseminate information, encourage education and promote interest in Arctic-related issues. ” 3. 2) current situations; Militarization in the Arctic has occurred recently in the Russian Federation.In 2007 during an excursion on the Lomonosov Ridge, a Russian flag was placed on the seabed which allowed Moscow to patrol over the Arctic Ocean. American newspapers noted that Russian bombers infiltrated a twelve mile air defense around Alaska. The Russian army has expressed interest in increasing patrols throughout the Arctic Ocean, but official notice of the distribution of warships in 2008. Russian Navy officers have spoken about their new plans on handling any threats presented in the Arctic and are expanding the Northern Fleet’s radius.In 2009, Vladimir Putin and the head of military and intelligence agencies promoted the likelihood of war (in the next decade) in the Arctic in regards to regions wealthy with their natural resources. Members of NATO responded to the Russian Federation’s actions by resupplying the Thule Air Base in Greenland, with approval of Denmark’s government. The United States, along with Canada, have increased their research and strategies in fortifying the North American Aerospace Defense Command; along with the formation of an Arctic Region Command and Arctic Coast Guard Forum.Canada has also publicized the idea of building navy patrols for the Northwest Passage, a deep water port, and military bases. a) RENEWED MILITARY BUILD-UP Despite the emphasis on cooperation in the Arctic in diplomatic dialogues, most Arctic states are actively working on strengthening their northern capabilities through increases in Arctic forces and manufacturing of new combative weapons, after having reduced their circumpolar forces in the 1990s following the Cold War. b) UNDETERMINED ARCTIC MARITIME BORDERS: Despite the creation of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) under UNCLOS, many of the Arctic maritime boundaries remain disputed.Maritime disputes between Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea, Canada and Denmark in the Lincoln Sea, and Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea are just some of the conflicts that continue to persist. While most oil and gas deposits in the Arctic are not located in these disputed areas, future discoveries resulting from further oil and gas exploration could complicate disputes. c)IMPLICATIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENT Military actions among Arctic nations have yet to embrace a cohesive element of sustainable development.A more comprehensive and environmentally responsible security policy, “environmentally oriented security,” should be considered, especially in light of the impact of global warming on the Arctic environment. d)ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT MEASURES, INCLUDING AN ARCTIC NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE-ZONE (ANWZ) The reality is that submarines, ships, and nuclear weapons continue to exist in the Arctic. Only nuclear powered submarines are able to stay submerged long enough to operate in the circumpolar region, which the United States, Russia, Britain, and France continue to use to patrol the Arctic.For instance, Russia claims to maintain a fleet of ten missile submarines, six Delta IV and four Delta III class, equipped with a total of 160 submarine-launched ballistic missiles carrying 576 nuclear warheads. These submarines, and the rest of the Russian Northern Fleet, continue to be tracked by American, and possibly British and French, fast-attack submarines. The United States itself has 14 Ohio class Trident missile submarines carrying 1,152 nuclear warheads, Britain has four Trident nuclear missile submarines, and France has four nuclear missile submarines carrying 240 nuclear warheads.Addressing the use of these submarines would be crucial to establishing potentially an Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. An Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone has been emphasized as a possibility by the Canadian Pugwash Group in 2007, but three principal challenges to its creation are the routine deployment of ballistic missile-firing submarines by Russia (and resulting tracking by the American and other NATO navies), the location of Russia’s largest naval bases being north of the Arctic Circle, and the positions of the United States and Russia as both Arctic States and Nuclear Weapon States (though the United States possesses irtually no nuclear weapons in the Arctic). Should this build-up of arms continue, the prospects of a nuclear-weapon free and demilitarized Arctic could be in jeopardy. 3. 3)RELEVANT UN ACTIONS The United Nations has spearheaded only a few treaties and resolutions relevant to Arctic military operations, relying mainly on individual groups of regions creating separate multilateral organizations.The most notable of the United Nations’ actions has been the production of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The opening of UNCLOS for signature on 10 December 1982 in Montego Bay, Jamaica marked the end of over 14 years of work integrating contributions from over 150 countries. The Convention delineates a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas, instituting regulations on the use of the oceans and seabed resources.Its 320 articles and nine annexes regulate all aspects of ocean space, including delimitation, environmental control, economic and commercial activities, and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters. Since the Arctic is a largely marine region, many of UNCLOS’s general provisions, as well as Article 234, which is specific to the Arctic region, affect directly northern circumpolar activity. Some of the relevant terms Include: “Article 234: Ice-covered areas.Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance.Such laws and regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine environment based on the best available scientific evidence. ” SECURITY COUNCIL “Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed “innocent passage” through those waters. ” “Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed “transit passage” through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage. “Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of archipelagic passage through such designated sea lanes. “Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection. ” “All other States have freedom of navigation and over flight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines. ” Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States have the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ’s of coastal States of the same region or sub-region; highly migratory species of fish and marine mammals are accorded special protection. ” “Coastal States have sovereign rights over the continental shelf (the national area of the seabed) for exploring and exploiting it; the shelf can extend at least 200 nautical miles from the shore, and more under specified circumstances. “Coastal States share with the international community part of the revenue derived from exploiting resources from any part of their shelf beyond 200 miles. ” “The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf shall make recommendations to States on the shelf’s outer boundaries when it extends beyond 200 miles. ” “All States enjoy the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing on the high seas; they are obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other States in adopting, measures to manage and conserve living resources. ” SECURITY COUNCIL 3 “States are bound to prevent and control marine pollution and are liable for damage caused by violation of their international obligations to combat such pollution. ” “States Parties are obliged to settle by peaceful means their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. ” “Disputes can be submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established under the Convention, to the International Court of Justice, or to arbitration. Conciliation is also available and, in certain circumstances, submission to it would be compulsory.The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over deep seabed mining disputes. ” 3. 4)PROPOSED SOLUTIONS As elaborated above, the question of the militarization of the Arctic actually contains many subsidiary issues. Disarmament and security in the Arctic have implications on more than just the military: they impact the environment, indigenous peoples, and commercial activity, for example. Prospective solutions should consist of a comprehensive and feasible framework within the purview of DISEC, addressing the gaps in current international policy pertaining to the militarization of Arctic.Since there are various bilateral and multilateral cooperative institutions relating to the Arctic, but few international bodies under the United Nations, a thorough approach to international cooperation on a number of Arctic issues should be delineated. The regime set forth should extend beyond environmental and scientific issues, unlike its predecessors, focusing instead on military issues. The regime should reconcile the military and political perspectives of Arctic affairs with the environmental, scientific, and cultural approaches.The resolution should attempt to overcome the tendency for countries to decouple Arctic issues in order to promote cooperation regarding issues that are not political sensitive, but not regarding the most sensitive and critical issues, such residual East-West tensions and developments in military technology (including nuclear arms). The resolution should tackle these underlying motivations for Arctic militarization, as well as any others that delegations may discern, to create a more powerful solution.In order for delegations to be able to come together to form such a resolution, it is important to establish a mutual understanding of the Arctic as a distinct domain. The Arctic Eight—Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Soviet Union, Sweden, and the United States—as well as other nations should all have input in establishing this shared understanding of Arctic issues, especially Arctic militarization, so that all member nations in DISEC may have equal opportunity to contribute potential solutions to the Arctic militarization question. 3. )Recent militarization Shortly after the scientific expedition on the Lomonosov Ridge in 2007 that placed the Russian flag on the seabed, Moscow restarted regular air patrols over the Arctic Ocean. American newspapers reported on several occasions that the Russian bombers have penetrated the 12-mile air defense zone around Alaska. Moreover, the Russian army has started to intensify its patrols in the Arctic Ocean for the first time after the Cold War ended. However, the first official announcements regarding the deployment of warships in the Arctic only arrived in 2008.High-ranking officers in the Russian Navy stated that their country is preparing to meet new threats in the Arctic and currently the Northern Fleet is extending its operational radius. Moreover, in a report released in May 2009, the Russian Security Council (composed of prime-minister Vladimir Putin and heads of the military and intelligence agencies) raised the possibility of a war in the Arctic over control of the regions of huge wealth in terms of natural resources, within a decade.As a response, NATO members started resupplying the Thule Air Base in Greenland, operated under agreements with the government of Denmark. Moreover, the United States have intensified their strategic cooperation with Canada in strengthening the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD); there are also voices calling for the establishment of a Joint Task Force-Arctic Region Command and an Arctic Coast Guard Forum.At the same time, Canada announced in 2007 that it would build 6-8 navy patrol ships to guard the Northwest Passage and 2 military bases and a deep-water port inside the Arctic Circle. 4) Major countries/unions involved and their positions 4. 1)USA Former President George W. Bush delivered a presidential directive in regards to the United States’ stance on the Arctic Policy. He placed emphasis on the importance of the preparing strategies regarding missile resistance and early warning systems in the Arctic region. In his directive, President Bush stated that, “The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. ” John Kerry also stated, “The Arctic should be recognized as a strategic priority for our nation… in order to guarantee secure borders, ensure access to natural resources, mediate shipping and transportation routes, and protect our marine resources, we must become full partners with the other Arctic nations and ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. ” The directive mentions that there is a race for control over certain areas of the Arctic. With the current administration in the United States, there is a split of support over the UNCLOS, while President Obama is in full support of the doctrine; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disagrees with it. There have been intentions of endorsing the convention and emphasizing the importance of the role of the Arctic Council. The US does not want to allow the council rights to handle the security issues.Russia and the United States differ in the fact that the Russia does not support the freedom of navigation throughout the Arctic Ocean. 4. 2)Russia With one-fifth of its territory and waters located in the Arctic, Russia has worked hard to maintain a strong presence, military and otherwise, in the region. The country’s Security Council has developed an Arctic strategy involving transferring responsibility of the region under the Federal Security Service and striving to make it Russia’s leading resource base by 2016.Militarization in the Arctic has become a higher priority in recent years for Russia, and has shown little sign of slowing down. In the spring of 2011, Russia’s Minister of Defense announced the creation of an Arctic motorized infantry unit on the Kola Peninsula, especially equipped for operating in the region. Ice breaking warships capable of escorting vessels and carrying out military missions would serve as support for ground troops.Infantry brigades reinforcing the aircraft and coast defense ships patrolling the Northern Sea Route have also been established. With the Commander-In- Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, having voiced concerns over NATO’s treatment of the Arctic as part of its zone of interest, when Russia is the only country of the Arctic Five that does not belong to NATO, Russia is adamant in its goal of protecting its Arctic claims. Russia has much at stake.It possesses an estimated US $8 trillion worth of energy resources in its Arctic territory alone, at 45 billion barrels of oil and 23 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. In September 2009, Russia adopted a new Arctic strategy, emphasizing the importance of the Arctic to Russia’s economy in terms of energy production and maritime transport and its intent to develop the Northern Sea Route as a main transportation link between Europe and Asia and to turn the region into Russia’s most economically important region by 2020. . 3)Canada The prime minister of Canada stated, on the occasion of announcing the creation of 2 military bases in the Canadian Arctic, that his country has only two choices regarding its position in the Arctic: “either we use it or we lose it”; he then continued: “and make no mistake this government intends to use it. Because Canada’s Arctic is central to our identity as a northern nation. It is part of our history and it represents the tremendous potential of our future”.To underline the determination of Canada to maintain its sovereignty in the Arctic, Harper also announced that eight patrol vessels would be built and deployed in this region. Canada sees the calls made by the US and the European Union for freedom of navigation in the Arctic as an attempt to question the Canadian jurisdiction regarding navigation and safety in the Northwest Passage. Canada sees the Passage as part of its internal waters and claims that it should be regulated by Canadian national law.Another problematic issue between Canada and the United States is the question of delimiting the border in the Beaufort Sea. 4. 4) Denmark Denmark’s policy of their documentation of the Arctic was published in 2008; Denmark has conflicting issues with the Lomonosov Ridge being part of Greenland; as well as issues with Canada over Hans Island. As Denmark is a member of the EU and NATO, it could serve as a mediator of the two groups, also The government of Denmark made their policy public through a detailed document published in May 2008.Denmark argues that Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of Greenland. Moreover, Denmark in engaged in a territorial dispute with Canada over the statute of the Hans Island in the Kennedy Channel. At the same time, Denmark is generally very supportive of arctic cooperation and it tis the only Nordic country that is a member of both EU and NATO, so it could play the role of a bridge between certain groups of states. 4. 5) Norway Norway is the only Scandinavian country with direct access to the Arctic Ocean.Norwegian territories in the high Arctic include the Svalbard archipelago and the island of Jan Mayen in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea. Norway focuses its attention on the issues of resource management, environment and maritime transport. With regards to the militarization process, Norway is aware of the increased military presence of Russia and regards it with concern. Norway differs from its Nordic neighbors, Finland and Sweden, because it is the only Scandinavian country to have direct access to the Arctic region.Norwegian territories in the high Arctic include the Svalbard archipelago and the island of Jan Mayen in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea. In consequence, Norway’s Arctic focus is devoted mainly to issues such as resource management, the environment and maritime transport, uncommon for other European countries. Norway considers the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea an important set of rights and obligations concerning issues related to the Arctic Ocean, such as the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf, protection of the marine environment, and freedom of navigation.Norway is also committed to developing the Arctic cooperation further, within the framework of the mandate of the Arctic Council, and welcomes the EU’s involvement in Arctic governance. On the issue of militarization, Norway is aware of Russia’s increased military presence in the Arctic region, and observes with concern Russian bombers flying near the Norwegian coast. Its air space monitoring, 4. 6) EU In March 2008, the European Commission published a document that detailed on the interests of Europe with regards to the energy resources, fisheries, new shipping routes, security concerns and environmental issues with regards to the Arctic.The Commission stated that “exploitation of Arctic hydrocarbon resources and the opening of new navigation routes can be of benefit” and that the target was to “keep the right balance between the priority goal of preserving the environment and the need for sustainable use of natural resources including hydrocarbons”. The European Union opposes the idea of an Arctic treaty, stating that “The full implementation of already existing obligations, rather than proposing new instruments should be advocated”. While having three member states bordering the Arctic (Finland, Sweden andDenmark), the EU also claims for a permanent observer status within the Arctic Council.Reference links for further research:The European dialogue –http://www. eurodialogue. org/energy-security/The-Militarization-of-the-ArcticUN official website – http://www. un. org/en/Others:1)http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/world-113762072)http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/world-europe-113319043)http://en. rian. ru/world/20100916/160611736. html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *