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.

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

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