Polarizing the North Pole and

its Energy Riches

Aaron Gluck

North Pole
Throughout human history, the Arctic has had little
trouble retaining its reputation for austere beauty.
However as the irreversible effects of global climate
change continue to negatively impact ecosystems
worldwide, the once ice blanketed region is rapidly
melting away. This climatic shift has caused unexpected
political tension between several northern nations.
At the same time, according to the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) as much as 90 billion barrels of
oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may be
available for extraction beneath the ice barrier. The
United States, Canada, Norway, and Russia are at odds as
they compete for access to the potential wealth.
When American politicians debate drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, they must realize that the 7.7
billion barrels of oil and the 3.5 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas to be found there pales in comparison to what
the Arctic almost certainly has to offer. In a world where
large energy consumers are scrambling for every last
drop of oil they can find and energy resource exporters
desire to maintain their hegemony on the political-
economic ladder, any source of oil is worth pursuing, no
matter how high the cost of extraction.
Despite the still debated status of the Arctic Circle’s
sovereignty arrangement, it represents a more desirable
area to extract oil in contrast to the complicated
diplomatic and geopolitical dealings with the Middle East,
Africa, and Latin America.
Breaking the Ice, Laying a Groundwork for Today
Dating back as far as the Vikings’ colonization of Iceland,
Greenland, and small coastal settlements in Canada,
humans have tried venturing northward to their limits. It
has not been until the last several hundred years that
efforts were made to explore and discover the extremely
harsh environment of the North Pole. Laying claim to the
Arctic Circle has been a constant theme in international
politics since exploration of the area began. The issue has
reacquired international importance to the world’s
commercial and environmental interests in the wake of
an ever-dwindling supply of fossil fuels.
Russia and the United Kingdom led the initial push to
establish defined sectors of ownership of the Arctic Circle.
The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825 delineated the
territorial boundaries between Britain’s adjacent
territories in Canada and Russia’s Alaskan holdings based
on the 141st meridian. Forty-two years after the signing
of the Anglo-Russian Convention, the United States
bought much of Russia’s position when it purchased
Alaska from the Kremlin in 1867. As more states acquired
grounds to lay title to the Arctic, it became necessary to
create a clearer basis for territorial claims.
At the African Conference of Berlin in 1884, territorial
sovereignty was defined as the “so-called right to
discovery to the principle of effective occupation.” The
treaty set an international standard for territorial
acquisition just as the Treaty of Westphalia defined the
characteristics of a sovereign nation-state at the
conclusion of the Thirty Years War in 1648. Canada’s first
declaration of effective occupation occurred during the
1896 Klondike Gold Rush when Ottawa sent a quarter of
its armed forces to patrol the Yukon.
The “right to discovery” clause within the Berlin
Conference formulations provided a framework
agreement that invoked a period of frenzied Canadian
exploration. The Arctic became highly romanticized in
Canadian culture, which appealed to the country’s spirit
of adventure and its sense of expansionism based on
discovery. Captain-turned-explorer J.E. Bernier
represented Canada’s newly vested sense of mission
when he drew maps to assert Canada’s claim over the
Northwest Passage to facilitate his efforts to reach the
North Pole throughout the early 1900s.
Despite the fact that his efforts to reach the North Pole
were never fully successful, his contributions remained an
integral part of early Canadian manifestations in its
attempts to register its claims to the Arctic. His repeated
gestures of inviting Canadian scientists aboard his vessel,
while at the same time claiming islands in the name of
Canada, represented his desire to legitimize the newly
expansionist country’s claims to the Arctic. At the same
time, in contravention of Canada’s claims to the Arctic,
the U.S. Congress funded expeditions undertaken by
Robert Peary and Frederick Cook whose adventures
lasted from the 1890s to 1909. The American pioneering
spirit meant that this country at least had to try to reach
the North Pole first.
A Cold Race
Despite the heavy investment in the race to claim the
Arctic, it would be almost fifty years before expeditions
began to garner any serious, sustained, international
interest. Between 1900 and 1950, two ravenous world
wars engulfed the globe, diverting international interests
and wresting attention away from any northern
ambitions. At the conclusion of World War II, a newly
polarized world had emerged as the Soviet Union and the
United States became the two dominant superpowers of
the 20th century. The Arctic Circle’s appeal once again
quickly turned from a land of romance and adventure to
the most frigid battlefield of the Cold War. For the United
States and Canada, the Arctic became a new geopolitical
venue upon which to focus.
The Bering Sea offered the shortest passage between the
United States and the former Soviet Union, and traversing
it represented a serious geopolitical threat for both
states. To curb the threat of a potential strike from Soviet
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), the United
States and Canada have cooperated on the construction
of a series of radar based detection systems.
Under the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD), the United States and Canada built the Pine
tree Line, the Mid-Canada Line, and the North Warning
System (still active), and the Ballistic Missile Early
Warning System, which the United States Air Force
continues to operate in order to monitor the Arctic. These
facilities have maintained a defensive network that
complemented the constant presence of nuclear
submarines and bombers in the Arctic maintained by the
United States and NATO to counter Soviet forces.5,
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early
1990‘s, the military presence in the Arctic dissipated;
however, the Arctic remains an integral part of the
national defense grid for the United States, Canada, and
Russia.
Current Complexities of Arctic Sovereignty
To help alleviate territorial water issues, the United
Nations (UN) created the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS). According to the UNCLOS guidelines,
territorial waters can extend 12 nautical miles from the
shoreline, while exclusive economic zones (EEZ) can
extend 200 nautical miles along the continental shelf. If a
nation can prove its continental shelf extends further,
then it can extend its respective EEZ an additional 150
nautical miles.9 The EEZ allows the nation exclusive
privileges to exploit the region’s resources. To establish
these extended sovereignty rights, a nation must collect
scientific data to prove the extension of the continental
shelf and submit it to the UN to be voted on by states
that have ratified the treaty as per UNCLOS terms.9 Even
though these procedures and definitions seem
democratic and fair, a number of inherent problems
persist that have emerged from their application.
The primary issue with territorial acquisition in the Arctic
Circle is that UNCLOS does not provide explicit definitions
of how to address EEZ overlaps in circular-based terrain.
Moreover, the establishment of a claim over the Arctic by
other states has been further complicated due to the fact
that the United States has yet to ratify the Law of the Sea
Treaty. The opposition in Congress believes that ratifying
the treaty would result in ceding American sovereignty to
international authorities and environmental groups. The
opposition further argues that ratification would also
prove redundant because the United States already
adheres to many of the UNCLOS provisions.
However, without the United States ratification, this
creates cognitive problems for both the international
community and for Washington, as the United States, in
effect, voids its voting privileges. Without voting, the
United States mutes its right for others to acknowledge
oversight concerning economically viable territories with
international recognition being affected. In order for
international comity to be advanced as well as the
Arctic’s long-term status to be resolved, it is imperative
for the United States to act accordingly by becoming a
full signatory (which Secretary of State Hilary Clinton
stated was a priority in her January 13, 2009 confirmation
hearing).
Gas and Geopolitics: An Ottawa and Washington
Affair
Arctic sovereignty arguably encompasses larger
implications for Canadian and American projections of
their interests. In terms of claiming territory where there
is a high probability of finding natural gas and oil, the
Beaufort Sea falls within the two countries’ EEZs.
According to the USGS, the Beaufort Sea area alone is
estimated to contain approximately 8.22 billion barrels of
oil and 27.64 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. For the
United States to continue to satisfy its domestic
requirements, it becomes imperative to guarantee the
most territory possible by having its maritime border run
perpendicular to the coast. As for Canada, splitting the
Beaufort Sea along the 141st meridian would provide it
with a major economic advantage by allowing it to
maintain its energy exporting status. This would be
especially important since the United States plans to cut
back on oil imports produced from Canada’s oil sands in
the wake of Canada’s new environmental policies. By
securing more oil and natural gas from the Beaufort Sea,
new American refineries would replace exports that will
not be available from Alberta’s oil sands.
Another major theater of Canadian-American
engagement revolves around control of the Northwest
Passage. For the first time in recorded history, the
Northwest Passage was ice free in 2007. This trend will
most likely continue for longer stretches of time, as the
Arctic is expected to have ice free summers by 2013,
which will afford the single biggest breakthrough in
potential maritime expansion of trade since the
development of the Suez and Panama Canals.
By using the Northwest Passage, 5,000 nautical miles
would instantaneously disappear from Asia-European
shipping routes. Because this passage is within the 200
nautical mile zone, the Northwest Passage falls directly
under Canadian jurisdiction, drastically increasing
shipping traffic off of Canada’s northern coast. The United
States, on the other hand, disagrees with Canada’s
assessment of its territorial rights and insists that the
Northwest Passage should be considered international
waters to facilitate international trade and to allow the
U.S. military to freely navigate and conduct operations in
the area without meddling in Canadian territorial waters.
In response to Washington’s demands to make the
passage an international waterway, Senior Administrative
Officer of Canada’s northernmost settled community,
Resolute, Josh Hunter said, “If the Americans try to come
through unwanted, we’ll be out there on our snowmobiles
blocking their passage.” To show Canadian commitment
to the cause under an “use it or lose it” attitude, Prime
Minister Harper ordered the construction of six to eight
new patrol ships dedicated to policing the Arctic, and
requires that every ship entering into the Northwest
Passage register with the Canadian Coast Guard. As the
race to claim the resources in the Arctic gains
momentum, Canadian versus American competition
appears to be heating up.
A Continuation of Friendship
Despite incidents of non-cooperation, there is still plenty
of room for Canada and the United States to perpetuate
their bonds as allies when it comes to a unified response
to bold diplomatic steps taken by Russia. In a similar
space-age symbol of power, a Russian expedition to the
North planted a Russian flag on the Arctic seabed where,
according to GPS coordinates, the geographic North Pole
lies. In a practice that harkens back to the Cold War era,
long-range bomber patrols on 20 hour flights as well as
the redeployment of naval fleets to the Arctic
demonstrate how the Russian government intends to
retain its possessions. A resolution of Arctic jurisdiction
will improve bonds not only between Canada, the United
States, and its NATO allies, but also with Moscow, as well.
Just as the Cold War augmented prompt Canadian-
American cooperation with the creation of NORAD, these
provocations by Russia can serve to create another set of
cooperative arrangements between Washington and
Ottawa. Furthermore, according to Dr. Valur
Ingimundarson, an Associate Professor of History and
Chairman of the History Department at the University of
Iceland, Russia’s particular behavior would be a great
opportunity for other Atlantic states, like Iceland, to
improve their relations with NATO and provide further
fronts for inter-NATO cooperation. With the Russians
acting in an allegedly suspicious manner, NATO
members, especially Canada and the United States have
even more incentive to mutually strengthen their ties
through collaboration.
One of Canada’s biggest concerns regarding Arctic
sovereignty deals with ownership over the Northwest
Passage. Although Canada and the United States have
already expressed political discontent, there is still hope
to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. The Rush-
Bagot Treaty of 1818 and the Arctic Cooperation
Agreement are perhaps the best examples of such an
arrangement. The Rush-Bagot Treaty demilitarized and
established clear regulations concerning the presence of
weapons in the Great Lakes region, facilitating friendly
border relations between the two neighboring countries.
Furthermore, the treaty grew to promote interagency
cooperation by utilizing border patrols to prevent
smuggling through the Great Lakes. The Arctic
Cooperation Agreement, signed by President Ronald
Reagan and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in
1988, allowed for the United States Coast Guard to patrol
the Northwest Passage as long as it notifies Canada.
Canada can provide for the Coast Guard bases along its
long stretch of border while the United States can provide
the manpower, equipment, and supplies to maintain
continuous patrols. By sharing the burden, Canada will be
able to maintain a significant amount of control over
Ottawa’s long stretch of wilderness, while the United
States would have its security concerns adequately
addressed.
Going to the Cleaners
The largest oil deposits are often located in extreme
environments, ranging from the tropics of South America
to the deserts of the Middle East. With the diminution of
the Arctic ice cap, the world will begin to look to the
Arctic for potential energy reserves and, as such, must
find a way to peacefully divide the natural resources in
the newly available territory. This is absolutely crucial to
avoid potential large scale security dilemmas. In light of
the inadequate territorial definitions laid down by
UNCLOS regarding EEZs in circular-based terrain as well
as the United States’ failure to ratify UNCLOS, it is
apparent that changes to the treaty are not only prudent
but critical. These international jurisdictional issues would
seem to provide another opportunity for cooperation
between Canadian, Russian, and American officials for
economic, military, and political reasons. Whether
concerning oil, natural gas, or rites of passage, the United
States has to compromise in order to improve relations
with its faithful neighbor to the north and its former
enemy to the west.
Aaron Gluck is a researcher for the Council on
Hemispheric Affairs, from where this article is adapted.