You are on page 1of 33

LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 1

LOS
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass………………………………………………………………...3-4
Uniqueness: Will Pass…………………………………………………………………….5
Bush Supports LOS……………………………………………………………………….6
LOS Good: Territory……………………………………………………………………...7
LOS Good: Heg…………………………………………………………………………...8
LOS Good: Energy Sources……………………………………………………………….9
LOS Good: Armed Conflict……………………………………………………………...10
LOS Good: Ecosystem…………………………………………………………………...11
LOS Good: Terrorism……………………………………………………………………12
LOS Good: Oil…………………………………………………………………………...13
LOS Amazing……………………………………………………………………………14
Brink Now………………………………………………………………………………..15
LOS Bad China…………………………………………………………………………..16
LOS Bad Heg…………………………………………………………………………….17
LOS Bad Ineffective……………………………………………………………………..18
LOS Bad Terrorism………………………………………………………………………19
LOS Terrible……………………………………………………………………………..20
LOS Bad: Russia Disad………………………………………………………………21-23
LOS Bad: Russia Disad Extensions………………………………………………….24-25
Tensions………………………………………………………………………………….26
No Tensions…………………………………………………………………………..27-29
US in Arctic……………………………………………………………………………...30
Canada in Arctic…………………………………………………………………………31
Canada……………………………………………………………………………………32
Random…………………………………………………………………………………..33

LARS OF THE SEA


LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 2

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass


LOS won’t pass now and faces opposition from conservatives
Kralev, 08 [Nicholas, May 13 2008, The Washington Times, U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions on research, but has
not OK'd Law of Sea treaty]

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has long divided U.S. conservatives.
About 155 nations have ratified the pact, and the treaty enjoys strong support from the
U.S. military, as well as leading business, legal and environmental lobbies. But intense
opposition from conservative groups who fear the pact infringes on U.S. sovereignty
has defeated a number of ratification drives in the Senate. The Bush administration
has disputes with its fellow Republicans in Congress as well. Its hands are tied when it
comes to making any claims to the U.N. commission until the Senate ratifies the Law of
the Sea accord. Ms. McMurray said the issue has become "very partisan" and,
"looking at the calendar" with a shortened congressional session because of the
presidential election, Senate ratification this year is a very long shot.

Despite Bushes claims, Republicans will block LOS from Passing


Sands, February 18 <Derek, writer for Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Inside Energy with Federal Lands,
“New sea maps could bolster US claim to oil, gas in disputed Arctic region”, February 18, 2008, lexis>
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 3

The Bush administration has called on the Senate to ratify the treaty, which the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed last year. But a handful of
Republican lawmakers have vowed to block it from passing the full Senate,
saying it would undermine US sovereignty.

LOS won’t pass. Encoraches on American Sovereignty.


The Gazette, February 29 <Peter O’Neil, Canwest News Service, The Gazette (Montreal), “Border greed
could result in armed conflict, analyst warns; 'The U.S. should not underestimate Canadian passions on this issue'”,
February 29, 2008, Lexis>
The U.S. has consistently rejected Canada's claim of right of control over the Northwest
Passage. It has also refused to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea because
the Senate views the treaty as an encroachment on American sovereignty.
Borgerson said the American government's status outside the treaty restricts its
ability to assert its own territorial claims off the Alaskan coast. He also asserted that
the U.S. needs, as a first step, to strike an accord with Canada on regulating vessel and tanker
traffic in the north.

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass


LOS faces opposition from conservative groups
The Washington Times, May 13, 2008 Tuesday, U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending
millions on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty, By Nicholas Kralev, THE
WASHINGTON TIMES, WORLD; BRIEFING: THE AMERICAS; A15

To file a claim, however, a country must be a party to the Law of the Sea treaty, and the United
States is not. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1994, and President Bush supports
ratification, but fierce conservative opposition to the U.N. pact has blocked Senate approval,
where a two-thirds majority is needed. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has
long divided U.S. conservatives. About 155 nations have ratified the pact, and the treaty enjoys
strong support from the U.S. military, as well as leading business, legal and environmental
lobbies. But intense opposition from conservative groups who fear the pact
infringes on U.S. sovereignty has defeated a number of ratification drives
in the Senate. One-time Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, a former governor
of Arkansas, made a point of his opposition to the treaty during his campaign. Presumptive
Republican nominee Sen. John McCain supported the pact in the past, but has recently
suggested he would seek changes in the treaty.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 4

Uniqueness: Will Pass


LOS will pass now
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/05/reid_and_biden/
Reid and Biden: Law of the Sea is There for the Taking May 02 2008

The quiet strategy did achieve something over the past few months: I can confirm that
there are more than enough senators in favor of U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea
convention to get it through. Now it's up to Senators Reid and Biden to finish the job.

LOS GOOD and Will Pass


Sands, February 18 <Derek, writer for Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Inside Energy with Federal Lands,
“New sea maps could bolster US claim to oil, gas in disputed Arctic region”, February 18, 2008, lexis>
New sea-floor maps of
New Findings will allow Us to claim more oil and natural resources
the Arctic Ocean could help the US claim more oil and natural gas in the region,
scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced last week.
Although the Senate has not yet ratified the international treaty that would allow
the US to claim the territory, the new maps could lay the groundwork for such a
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 5

bid, the NOAA scientists said. International law allows any country to lay claim to territory up to
200 miles from its coast. But NOAA's new maps, which are based on an expedition that the
agency mounted last summer, show that the continental slope extends 100 miles further than the
US previously believed. Mayer said the new maps could help the US to meet the
criteria of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which governs the ownership of ocean
resources including undersea oil and gas deposits. More than 155 countries have
ratified the treaty to date, and Russia, Denmark and Canada have used it bolster their claims to
oil and gas in the Arctic region. The US has not yet ratified the pact.

Bush Supports LOS


Bush strongly supports passage of LOS
The Washington Times Sea treaty sparks rivalries; Senate fight looms amid race to
North PoleBy David R. Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 12, 2007
Some 155 nations have ratified the treaty since it was signed in 1982. President Reagan refused to sign the
pact, objecting to provisions for the international regulation of deep-sea mining. President Clinton sent an
amended version of the treaty to the Senate in 1994, but it repeatedly has failed to win approval, most
recently in 2004.Opponents of the U.N.- backed accord vow to defeat the treaty yet again
this year, despite strong backing from President Bush, all the U.S. military services,
the American Bar Association and leading business and environmental lobbies.

Bush Strongly supports LOS and it will increase US national security


interests
http://www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_beltway/debating_law_sea April 25 2008

Let me begin with the words of President Bush, a man who I rarely quote, who said last
May that, “Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States,
including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S.
sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 6

resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental
health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights
that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.”

LOS GOOD: Territory


LOS Good, allows us to take territory in the arctic
Kralev, 08 [Nicholas, May 13 2008, The Washington Times, U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions on research, but has
not OK'd Law of Sea treaty]

"We have $5.6 million in the 2008 budget to assemble both the hardware and
scientific expertise to do this investigation," Ms. McMurray said. "We started a little bit
later than other countries, but we have a big coastline, and there are some promising
opportunities." Russia's planting of its flag on the Arctic seafloor in August angered other
countries, but experts say the only legal way to make a claim is through the U.N.
Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf. "Planting flags on the seafloor
accomplishes nothing except for feeding the various nationalist beasts that seem to
hunger for a return to the 18th century," said Bernard Coakley, professor at the University
of Alaska's Geophysical Institute. To file a claim, however, a country must be a party
to the Law of the Sea treaty, and the United States is not. President Clinton signed the
treaty in 1994, and President Bush supports ratification, but fierce conservative
opposition to the U.N. pact has blocked Senate approval, where a two-thirds majority is
needed.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 7

LOS GOOD: Heg


The LOS will increase US military influence. Increases HEG
The Washington Times
Sea treaty sparks rivalries; Senate fight looms amid race to North Pole By David R.
Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 12, 2007

Treaty supporters, including such conservative legal experts as University of Virginia law professor John
Norton Moore, argue the U.S. was the big winner in the Law of the Sea negotiations.
The U.S. will have a vast exclusive economic zone because of its extensive coastline.
U.S. firms will readily exploit the oceans' mineral and energy wealth with clear
property rights in place. U.S. military vessels can carry on their global duties while
exempt from the treaty's commercial restrictions.
Treaty opponents counter with one big idea - a deep distrust of the United Nations - and a host of objections
to specific provisions that they say will hamstring the U.S. military and subject U.S. corporations to an
unfriendly, unelected global bureaucracy.
If the treaty drafters had stuck to the original, modest mandate on navigation, "this treaty would have sailed
through," according to Heritage Foundation analyst Baker Spring.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 8

LOS GOOD: Energy Sources


LOS will pass and is good: Energy sources.
Sands, February 18 <Derek, writer for Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Inside Energy with Federal Lands,
“New sea maps could bolster US claim to oil, gas in disputed Arctic region”, February 18, 2008, lexis>
The US oil and gas industry has urged the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea
Treaty. Paul Kelly, the industry's main lobbyist on the the issue, told Platts that oil and
gas companies have long pushed for ratification so the US can move forward with a
submission claiming territory along its extended continental shelf. Kelly, who
represents the American Petroleum Institute and other trade groups, told a
Senate committee in November that not ratifying the treaty could hurt US energy
interests. "The US petroleum industry is concerned that failure by the United
States [to ratify the treaty] could adversely affect US companies' operations
offshore other countries, and negatively affect any opportunity to lay claim to
vitally needed natural resources," Kelly said.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 9

LOS GOOD: Armed Conflict

LOS is key to deter armed conflict


The Gazette, February 29 <Peter O’Neil, Canwest News Service, The Gazette (Montreal), “Border greed
could result in armed conflict, analyst warns; 'The U.S. should not underestimate Canadian passions on this issue'”,
February 29, 2008, Lexis>
"There are currently no clear rules governing this economically and strategically
vital region," stated the magazine's summary of Borgerson's analysis, called Arctic Meltdown:
The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming. "Unless Washington leads the
way toward a multilateral diplomatic solution, the Arctic could descend into armed
conflict." Borgerson noted Russia's increasing assertiveness in claiming
sovereignty of huge swaths of the region off its coast.

LOS key to check other countries


Newsday, March 10 <Newsday (New York), “Sign Law of the Sea; Join and have say in ocean resources”,
OPINION; Pg. A26, March 10, 2008, Lexis>
But this 1982 treaty actually confirms U.S. sovereignty over ocean resources across an area
larger than the Louisiana Purchase or the Alaska Purchase. The roster of those who urge
that
our nation join the convention includes top current military leaders, who see it as
enhancing national security, as well as President George W. Bush. The United
States was a leader in negotiating the treaty to begin with. And when President Ronald Reagan
raised objections to its provisions about deep seabed mining, our nation was able to get that part
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 10

of the treaty amended satisfactorily. In fact, futureexploration of the seabed for


petroleum and other natural resources can only unfold rationally with the help of
an agency the treaty created. Right now, Russia, which is a party to the treaty, wants to
gain access to the minerals in the Arctic seabed. It makes zero sense for the United
States to sit on the sidelines and let other nations divide up the oceans, using
sensible rules that we helped write. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the
treaty last October. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative issued its annual report card on the
oceans last month and cited continuing U.S. absence from this treaty as a black mark.
It's time for the full Senate to act.

LOS GOOD: Ecosystem


LOS solves marine ecosystems. Ratification increases US soft power.
Salter, March 16 <Howard, Director of External Relations, Citizens for Global Solutions Washington, The New
York Times, “Ratify Law of the Sea, Section WK; Column 0; Week in Review Desk; LETTER; Pg. 11, Marcy 16, 2008,
Lexis>
We are in danger of ruining the world's oceans and endangering marine
ecosystems. You are right that what is needed is ''a sustained effort by world
governments and other institutions to do something about it'' and that ''the problems
are global and so, in the end, are the solutions.'' One key solution, as you note, rests with the
United States Senate: the Law of the Sea Convention. But without the political
muscle of President Bush to illustrate the importance of this treaty to holdouts in his
own party, the treaty will languish and our oceans will continue to be degraded. As a
nation, we value responsibility and cooperation. Ratification of the Law of the Sea would
send an important message to the more than 150 countries that have already
joined the treaty, including all of our allies, that we are committed partners in
protecting the planet and its people.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 11

LOS GOOD: Terrorism


LOS GOOD: Terrorism
Kelly, P., World Oil, The Convention on the Law of the Sea: Why the critics are wrong, April 1,
2008

Initially, the United States had been reluctant to join the convention, fearing that its maritime
activities would be restricted. However, President George W. Bush in May requested
the Senate to support ratification of the convention, and the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee approved ratification of the convention in October. One
reason for the policy shift is that the United States has become increasingly
concerned about the spread of terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction
through maritime channels, especially since the so-called war on terrorism became the nation's
top priority in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Clearly, Washington realizes
it cannot ensure maritime security on its own and that it would be more beneficial
to seek other nations' involvement. The United States' shift toward ratifying UNCLOS,
which it had virtually ignored for more than two decades, also stems at least in part from a belief
that adherence would help expand the PSI regime.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 12

LOS GOOD: OIL


LOS GOOD: OIL
Kelly, P., World Oil, The Convention on the Law of the Sea: Why the critics are wrong, April 1,
2008
Recognizing the importance of the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention to the
energy sector, the National Petroleum Council, an advisory body to the US Secretary of
Energy, in 1973 published an assessment of industry needs in an effort to influence the
negotiations. Entitled Law of the Sea: Particular aspects affecting the petroleum
industry, itcontained conclusions and recommendations in five key areas
including freedom of navigation, stable investment conditions, protection
of the marine environment, accommodation of multiple uses, and dispute
settlement. The views reflected in this study had a substantial impacton the negotiations, and
most of its recommendations found their way into the Convention in one form or another. Having
been satisfied with the terms of the Convention, all of theUS oil and gas industrys major trade
associations have for many years supported ratification of the Convention by the US. Also, the
Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee, an advisory body to the US Secretary of the Interior on
matters relating to offshore oil and gas leasing program, has adopted resolutions supporting US
accession to the Convention.
The Convention is important to our industrys efforts to develop offshore oil
and gas supply worldwide. It secures each coastal nations exclusive rights to the living
and non-living resources of the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It would bring an
additional 4.1 million square miles of ocean under US jurisdiction. This EEZ is
an area larger than the US land area. The Convention also broadens the definition
of the continental shelf in a way that favors the US, with itsbroad
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 13

continental margins, particularly in the North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, the


Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

LOS good: Oil, natural gas, and navigational freedom


Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 2, 2008 Friday, USCG commandant pushes for U.S.
to sign Law of Sea Treaty, Bettina H. Chavanne, News; Pg. 5 Vol. 226 No. 24
Citing recent Russian claims of Arctic seabed sovereignty, the U.S. Coast Guard
commandant is urging Congress to ratify the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty. Adm. Thad
Allen believes successful management of the waters and resources in the Arctic
would best be achieved by adhering to the international agreement, which was
hammered out around the early 1980s. The treaty also would help manage ship traffic in
the Bering Strait, which the four-star admiral says ?could be the next big choke point.As
waters warm, fish stocks are migrating, and that introduces the need for a conservation
management plan, Allen added. Moreover, the region is rich in natural gas and oil
reserves, which spurs Russian interests as much as it does in the United States and
elsewhere. Test deployment The Bush administration?s fiscal 2009 budget request asks
Congress for nearly $5 million to fund the treaty?s International Seabed Authority, as
well as the international tribunal that the treaty established. The Navy Department,
which includes the Marine Corps, also supports U.S. accession to the treaty and the Navy
secretary, chief of naval operations and the Marine commandant all have testified to that
effect again this year. In particular, the treaty codifies important principles of
customary international law, such as freedom of navigation and rights of passage.

LOS AMAZING!!!!
National Security Network http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/608 Report 31 October
2007
The U.S. has a “compelling national interest” to ratify convention. As Deputy Secretary of State John
Negroponte and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England explain, “The United States has a
compelling national interest in a stable international legal regime for the oceans.”
Retired Admiral and former Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark and Ambassador Thomas Pickering
explain that the convention, “would enable our armed forces to defend us at home and
abroad with legal certainty, and would vastly increase our sovereign rights off the
coasts of the United States.” The U.S. military needs this convention to fight
terrorism and better confront global challenges. The convention strengthens the right of
navigation by sea and by air, meaning that the U.S. Navy will not need to ask each country for a
“permission slip” each time it passes by another country. Importantly the convention allows the U.S. to
board private vessels on the high seas, which would allow the U.S. and its allies to more effectively combat
illicit smuggling. As Negroponte and England explain, “This is a critical time for America and our friends
and allies -- faced with a wider and more complex array of global and transnational security challenges than
ever before. Effectively meeting those challenges requires unimpeded maritime mobility -- the ability of
our forces to respond any time, anywhere, if so required.” The U.S. Coast Guard also wants the convention
ratified, because it would greatly expand U.S. territorial sovereignty from three miles
off the coast to twelve miles. This would empower the Coast Guard to better protect
the homeland and monitor U.S. costal waters. U.S. businesses want the convention
ratified, because it will be the “greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S.
history.” The convention grants sovereign coastal nations the right of an “exclusive economic zone” that
extends sovereign authority out to sea by 200 nautical miles. The United States will gain considerably,
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 14

as our economic zone may extend out to as much as 600 miles because of the Arctic shelf. As
Eagleburger and Moore note this would represent, “the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S.
history, greater in area than that of the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska combined.” This
would be a huge boon to U.S. companies that work in oil, gas, and minerals, such as
nickel, copper, and cobalt. The convention is good for the environment. Apart from the substantial
security and economic benefits, the convention is also a win for the environment. The Law of the Sea
convention enables sovereign states to better regulate fishing stocks and ocean
pollution. Spencer Boyer explains that, “All parties to the treaty must cooperate in marine conservation
efforts through monitoring, technical assistance, and other measures. Furthermore, the treaty promotes and
protects scientific research.”

BRINK NOW
Bush needs to pass now in order to maintain US Heg
Sands, February 18 <Derek, writer for Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Inside Energy with Federal Lands,
“New sea maps could bolster US claim to oil, gas in disputed Arctic region”, February 18, 2008, lexis>
Other countries are already moving to make their claims. Russia made world-wide
headlines in the summer of 2007 when it sent an submarine to plant a Russian flag on
the sea floor at the North Pole. Canada as well as Greenland, through Denmark,
have also expressed interest in Arctic oil and gas. Kelly said NOAA's new maps
could help the US dispute the claims that have been made by Russia and
Canada. But the US would be at a disadvantage at this point, because it has not
yet ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, Kelly said.

Brink is now: Oil reserves


The Washington Times, May 13, 2008 Tuesday, U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending
millions on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty, By Nicholas Kralev, THE
WASHINGTON TIMES, WORLD; BRIEFING: THE AMERICAS; A15
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 15

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican and supporter of the treaty, warned last week
the United States stands to lose billions of barrels of oil in the Arctic if it
remains outside the Law of the Sea accord.
"I can tell you, if we're not willing to claim it, if we don't step up to claim it,
others will," she said in a speech on the Senate floor.
Ms. McMurray said the Bush administration is "working very hard, from the president down," on
supporting research, and there will have to be "a continuous contribution to this effort" in the next
several years. First breakthrough The effects of climate change on the Arctic is the topic of the
annual Arctic Forum, which began yesterday in Washington and is organized by Arctic Research
Consortium of the United States.

LOS BAD: China


Under LOS, China will gain more area and a bigger economic zone
Xinhua June 8
China's marine economy had been soaring annually at more than 20 per cent since the
1980s and the total output reached 2.5 trillion yuan (359 billion US dollars) last year, 266
times more than that of 1979.
China's mainland coastline is about 18,000 kilometres long. Under the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea, China boasts about 350,000 square kilometres of
coastal and inland water areas, and the area of China's exclusive economic zone is about
3 million square kilometres.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 16

LOS BAD: Heg


LOS limits US authority. Decreases HEG
The Washington Times Sea treaty sparks rivalries; Senate fight looms amid race to
North PoleBy David R. Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 12, 2007

"The United States can little afford to have its sovereignty directly challenged by
this treaty, and we must activate the conservative grass-roots base to rise up in defense
of our country and our sovereignty," conservative activist Paul M. Weyrich said.
Cliff Kincaid, an anti-U.N. activist and president of America's Survival Inc., said the U.S.
does not need the Law of the Sea treaty to press its claims to the Arctic and its
mineral and energy riches. "Nobody bothers to point out that [U.S. Admiral Richard]
Byrd flew over the North Pole for the United States 80 years ago," he said.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 17

LOS BAD: Ineffective


LOS BAD: Won’t define Baselines
BusinessWorld, May 22, 2008 Thursday, Senate asked to OK body on territorial claim.
Bernard U. Allauigan

"The approaches taken in dealing with territorial problems are piecemeal


and crisis-oriented, apparently on the assumption that national territory is
fragmented into separate issues, each to be resolved by disconnected attempts and
thus resulting in halfway and makeshift solutions," she said. Congress is
scrambling to pass a law that seeks to define the country's territorial boundaries as set in the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that all archipelagic
states must submit claims for an extended continental shelf (ECS) on or before
May 13, 2009. But Ms. Santiago said the Philippines is "not obligated to submit a claim," adding
that Article 47 of UNCLOS does not compel archipelagic states to draw
baselines, and that there will be no sanctions for failure to define baselines.
The bicameral body will be composed of 10 members with equal representation from the Senate
and House of Representatives.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 18

LOS BAD: Terrorism


LOS Bad: terrorism
BBC Monitoring South Asia – Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring May 28, 2008
Wednesday Sri Lankan navy chief discusses maritime terrorism in UK conference speech

The Al-Qa'idah network too is believed to have purchased at least 15 ships


in the last few years to be used in the same fashion as the LTTE - to be involved in
gunrunning, act as weapon and explosive warehouses for terrorist groups
and possibly be used for training of bombers and saboteurs. They are also
used as safe houses for terrorists on the run. Further, the law of the sea is also
advantageous to those who do not comply with the rule of law, allowing
them freedom of the sea and manoeuvre until reaching shore. The other
terrorist groups that have and use maritime assets on a smaller scale are as
the following: ESO (External Security Organisation) Hezbollah's military wing,
Lebanon,ASG (Abu Sayyaf Group), Philippines, JI (Jemaah Islamiyah), SE Asia, NPA (New
People's Army), Philippines, Palestinian groups (Al Aqsa Martyrs),
Brigade/HAMAS/Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Indonesian jihadi groups GAM (The Free
Aceh Movement) Indonesia. The Emerging Threat There is no doubt that in recent years
maritime terrorism has appeared as a very real threat and what I have
briefly elaborated on proves the point. There have been some notable attacks but we
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 19

have been fortunate in that a concerted and sustained attack on the lifeblood of the global
economy has not yet materialized.

LOS TERRIBLE
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 2, 2008 Friday, USCG commandant pushes
for U.S. to sign Law of Sea Treaty, Bettina H. Chavanne, News; Pg. 5 Vol. 226 No. 24

But some analysts in Washington typically from conservative and libertarian think tanks have long
disagreed with U.S. accession to the treaty. The administration?s request is both fiscally
irresponsible and opposed to U.S. national interest, the Heritage Foundations Steven Groves said
in early February. If it is not withdrawn, Congress should reject the administrations
proposal and any other request to provide funding for international
organizations of which the United States is not a member.Groves argued that
the treaty creates another unaccountable and opaque international
organization, sets a precedent for international taxation of U.S. companies,
provides an avenue for international environmental regulation, and
threatens U.S. sovereignty by subjecting the United States and U.S.
companies to mandatory dispute resolution in international venues that
have traditionally been stacked against U.S. interests.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 20

LOS BAD: Russia Disad


1.) Uniqueness.
A Mutual agreement has slowed the land race for the Arctic – LOS will
renew tensions
Boswell 08 [ Randy, staff, Canwest news services, May 30, 2008 Edmonton Journal]

ILULISATT, Greenland - Ministers from the five Arctic coast nations -- including
Canada -- declared at a landmark conference here this week that "the race for the North
Pole is cancelled," and that science and international law will now peacefully determine
who owns which parts of the vast, oil-rich polar seabed. But the race, in fact, has only
been transformed into a long, slow, three-way mud-wrestling match -- a five-year
struggle between Canada, Russia and Denmark for the murky ground that lies thousands of metres beneath the pole and which
ultimately will be decided, like any fight, by timing, power and strong-arm tactics -- or retreat. Science and law will
only go so far, say Canada's top polar experts, when it comes to defining the undersea boundaries between three nations
whose claims under a UN treaty are almost certain to overlap near the centre of the Arctic Ocean. That's when politics --
no holds barred -- comes into play.

2.) Russia will defend continental shelf.


Russia & CIS Diplomatic Panorama 08 [June 2, 2008, RUSSIA TO DEFEND CONTINENTAL SHELF
RIGHTS IN LINE WITH INTL LAWS ...]
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 21

Russia confirms its intention to defend its rights to the Arctic continental shelf on
the basis of international laws and scientific data, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
said at a meeting of the Russian government presidium on Monday. "We will stand up for our
continental shelf rights on the basis of international laws and the scientific research we are conducting," he said. Lavrov recalled the
Greenland meeting of the five Arctic nations - Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark. He said that the delegates
adopted a declaration. Lavrov noted that the sides agreed to resolve all the shelf questions on the basis of international laws, among
them the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 that provides sufficient tools for this.

LOS BAD: Russia Disad


3.)The Arctic is a hotspot for tension over sovereignty with Russia. If LOST
passes, Russia would act out.
Dyer, 08. [Gwynne, London Based Independent Journalist, June 2, 2008, The Daily Gleaner (New Brunswick) pg. C8]

Chilingarov is a polar explorer of the old school (he was made a Hero of the Soviet Union in the old days for saving an ice-bound ship
in Antarctica), but he is now deputy speaker of the Russian Duma (parliament) and Vladimir Putin's personal "envoy" to the Arctic.
Last summer, he took a three-man submarine down to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean precisely at the North Pole, and planted a
Russian flag in the seabed. "The Arctic is Russian. We must prove the North Pole is an
extension of the Russian landmass," he said afterwards, and affected surprise at the fact
that other countries with an Arctic coastline saw this as a challenge to their
sovereignty. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for example, flew to the Arctic the following week, and subsequently
announced that Canada would build six to eight new "ice-strengthened" warships for Arctic patrols. The other three
countries with Arctic coastlines, the United States (Alaska), Denmark (Greenland) and
Norway, are equally [is] suspicious of Russian intentions. The real issue is about who
owns the rights to the seabed, and the Russian claim is pretty ambitious. Moscow
claims that the Lomonosov Ridge, the subsea mountain range that goes straight across
the middle of the Arctic Ocean, is an extension of the Russian territorial shelf, and
therefore belongs to Russia all the way to the North Pole. Alternatively, if the Law of the
Sea tribunal does not ultimately accept that claim, Moscow may have an even
broader claim in reserve. In the early 20th century, seven countries laid claim to parts of Antarctica on the basis of
"sectors:" pie-shaped slices running along lines of longitude (which converge at the poles). The width of those slices depended on
where the various claimants owned territories near Antarctica, mostly islands in the Southern Ocean. Those claims are dormant
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 22

because of a subsequent treaty banning economic development in Antarctica, but the precedent has not been forgotten. By that
precedent, Russia could lay claim to about half the Arctic Ocean on the basis of lines of longitude
running from the far eastern and western ends of the country up to the North Pole - and in 1924 the old Soviet Union did precisely
Russia has the big
that. Nobody else accepted that claim then, and they wouldn't now if Russia raised it again. But
Arctic ports and the nuclear-powered ice- breakers to make its claim stick, and
nobody else does.

LOS BAD: Russia Disad


4.) We are on the brink of a new cold war in the arctic
Raymen, 08 [ Sean, daily telegraph, May 18, Edmonton Journal, pg A4, Russian fleet boosts risk of Cold War over Arctic]

The battle for "ownership" of the polar oil reserves has accelerated with the
disclosure that Russia has sent a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers into the
Arctic. It has reinforced fears that Moscow intends to annex "unlawfully" a vast
portion of the ice-covered Arctic, beneath which scientists believe up to 10 billion
tonnes of gas and oil could be buried. Russian ambition for control of the Arctic has
provoked Canada to double to $40 million funding for work to map the Arctic sea bed
in support its claim over the territory. The Russian icebreakers patrol huge areas of the
frozen ocean for months on end, cutting through ice up to 6ft thick. There are thought to
be eight in the region, dwarfing the British and U.S. fleets, neither of which include
nuclear-powered ships. Canada also plans to open an army training centre for cold-weather fighting at Resolute Bay and
a deep-water port on the northern tip of Baffin Island, both of which are close to the disputed region. The country's defence ministry
The crisis has raised the spectre of
intends to build a special fleet of patrol boats to guard the Northwest Passage.
Russia and the West joining in a new Cold War over the Arctic unless the United
Nations can resolve the dispute. The crisis erupted last year when a Russian submarine crew planted a flag on the
Lomonosov Ridge, a 2,000-kilometre area of seabed that Moscow says is Russian. Derided at the time as a stunt, the move focused
attention on the race for the Arctic's hidden treasures. No country owns the Arctic Ocean or the North Pole, but under the 1982 UN
Law of the Sea Convention, each country with a coast has sole exploitation rights in a limited "exclusive economic zone." On
ratification of the convention -- and the U.S. has yet to ratify it -- each country is given 10 years to make claims extending its zone
based on geology.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 23

LOS BAD: Russia Disad Extensions

5.) LOS fuels geopolitical competition between Russia and the US


The Washington Times Sea treaty sparks rivalries; Senate fight looms amid race to
North PoleBy David R. Sands, THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 12, 2007

Moscow had submitted a claim in 2001 to a Law of the Sea panel, asserting ownership of some
463,000 square miles of Arctic seabed based on the extent of its still largely unmapped northern shelf.
Russia was told it needed more scientific evidence to support its claim. Pavel Baev, a researcher at the
Oslo-based International Peace Research Institute, said Russian President Vladimir Putin was quick
to exploit the North Pole submarine venture in August for his own political
purposes, restoring Russian national pride and aggressively asserting Russian
interests on the global stage.
"The perception in Russia now is that there's a real geopolitical competition going
on in [the Arctic]," Mr. Baev said. "You need to move fast to advance your claim because it's every
nation for itself."
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 24

LOS BAD: Russia Disad Extensions


6.) Russia is staking their claim in the Arctic, and doesn’t want any
challengers.
Dyer, May 29 <Gwynne, London-based independent journalist, The Salt Lake Tribune, “Fight brewing over oil rights under
shrinking Arctic icecap”, May 29, 2008, lexis,>
What connects oil at $135 a barrel with last month's discovery of huge cracks in the Ward Hunt ice shelf off
Ellesmere Island at the top of Canada's Arctic archipelago? And what might connect those two things with a
new, even Colder War? he cracks in the ice, further evidence that the ice cover on the Arctic Ocean is
melting fast, were discovered by scientists tagging along with a Canadian army snowmobile expedition that
was officially called a "sovereignty patrol." The army was showing the flag because Canada, like
the other Arctic countries, suspects that valuable resources will become accessible there
once the ice melts. And the most valuable of those resources are oil and gas. he strongest
evidence for accelerated melting is the fact that more and more of the Arctic sea ice is thin "first-year" ice.
Only about 3 feet thick, it spreads across the ocean each winter, but tends to melt the following summer.
Melting has taken big bites out of the edge of the much thicker "permanent" ice in most recent summers,
and unless some of the "first-year" ice that replaces it lasts through the following winter, then the melting
really is speeding up. So everybody is watching to see what happens this summer, explained Dr. Jim
Maslanik of the University of Colorado - Boulder. "If we see all the first-year ice melt out again, then
probably we will have another record reduction in ice cover," said Maslanik. "If we see this a couple of
years running, that tells us . . .that we are about 20 or 30 years ahead of where we are supposed to be based
on the climate models." If we are heading for an Arctic Ocean that is mostly ice-free in the summer, then
drilling for gas and oil beneath that ocean can soon begin. Hardly a week goes by without
somebody pointing to the U.S. Geological Survey's report that the Arctic basin contains a quarter of
the world's undiscovered oil and gas. But the event that did most to trigger this new concern about
sovereignty was Artur Chilingarov's publicity stunt last summer. Chilingarov is a polar explorer of the old
school (he was made a Hero of the Soviet Union in the old days for saving an ice-bound ship in Antarctica),
but he is now deputy speaker of the Russian Duma (parliament) and Vladimir Putin's personal "envoy" to
the Arctic. Last summer, he took a three-man submarine down to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean precisely
at the North Pole, and planted a Russian flag in the seabed. "The Arctic is Russian. We must prove
the North Pole is an extension of the Russian landmass," he said afterwards, and affected
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 25

surprise at the fact that other


countries with an Arctic coastline saw this as a challenge to their
sovereignty. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for example, flew to the Arctic the
following week, and subsequently announced that Canada would build six to eight new
"ice-strengthened" warships for Arctic patrols. Moscow claims that the Lomonosov
Ridge, the subsea mountain range that goes straight across the middle of the Arctic Ocean, is an
extension of the Russian territorial shelf, and therefore belongs to Russia all the way to
the North Pole. Alternatively, if the Law of the Sea tribunal does not ultimately accept that
claim, Moscow may have an even broader claim in reserve. In the early 20th century
seven countries laid claim to parts of Antarctica on the basis of "sectors": pie-shaped slices
running along lines of longitude (which converge at the poles). The width of those slices depended on
where the various claimants owned territories near Antarctica, mostly islands in the Southern Ocean. Those
claims are dormant because of a subsequent treaty banning economic development in Antarctica, but the
precedent has not been forgotten. By that precedent, Russia could lay claim to about half the
Arctic Ocean on the basis of lines of longitude running from the far eastern and western ends of the
country up to the North Pole - and in 1924 the old Soviet Union did precisely that. Nobody else
accepted that claim then, and they wouldn't now if Russia raised it again. But Russia has the
big Arctic ports and the nuclear-powered ice-breakers to make its claim stick, and nobody
else does.
Tensions
Even though most arctic nations have agreed to accept LOS, tensions still
exist over territorial boundaries.
Gorrie, 08. [Peter, Staff at Toronto Star, May 29, UN to play mediator in Arctic disputes; At stake is an estimated one-quarter
of world's petroleum deposits on northern ocean floor]

The disputes have sparked heated words in recent years, most notably when Denmark planted its flag on a tiny rock outcrop called
Hans Island in 2003 and again last year, when a Russian submarine crew put a flag on a disputed part of the ocean floor. But the
issues are covered by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by 151
countries. The five ministers agreed to stop bickering and work out their differences under that treaty. "The five nations have
now declared that they will follow the rules," said Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller. "We have hopefully quelled all myths
about a race for the North Pole once and for all." They
agreed to work co-operatively on environmental
and security concerns in the Arctic, where warming temperatures and melting ice are leading to a dramatic increase in
human activity and threats to the fragile environment. Environmentalists slammed the deal as a "carving up" of a region that's still
relatively pristine but promises great wealth in oil, minerals, trade and tourism. They want a global treaty for the Arctic similar to the
one that bans mining and military activity in the Antarctic. They also complained that representatives of the other Arctic nations, as
well as Inuit and environment groups, were kept out of the closed-door session. "We would suggest that all the nations up there should
agree not to open it up for drilling," said Tarjai Haaland, a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Nordic. The five nations
explicitly rejected the call for a replacement treaty. There is no need to develop "a new comprehensive international legal regime to
govern the Arctic Ocean," the declaration stated. A Canadian expert on the Arctic agreed. Better to have a peaceful means of resolving
disputes than embark on a lengthy, unpredictable try at a new treaty, said Michael Byers, professor of global law at the University of
British Columbia. "The Law of the Sea is not perfect, but we have it," he said. "That the five countries reaffirmed their commitment to
it can only be a good thing in a time of incredibly rapid change. We're not dealing with the Wild West here." Critics noted the irony of
the conference location. The deal to allocate the huge fossil fuel reserves was held near the Ilulissat glacier - a world heritage site -
that is melting and flowing toward the sea at an increasing rate as climate change warms Greenland. The major disputes
centre on ocean-floor areas that are beyond the countries' 370-kilometre territorial
limit but, under the Law of the Sea, are open to being claimed because they are part
of the continental shelf or ridges extending from it. Canada is spending $40 million to map the seabed to
support its claim for parts of the seabed, and the other four nations are preparing their own evidence. Canada and the
United States also disagree on whether the Northwest Passage is an international
waterway, and over how the international boundary between Alaska and Yukon
should be extended into the Beaufort Sea.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 26

NO Tensions

LOS allows Russia to claim a majority of the Arctic Ocean


The New Zealand Herald http://www.thezimbabweindependent.com
June 3, 2008

Alternatively, if the Law of the Sea tribunal does not ultimately accept that claim,
Moscow may have an even broader claim in reserve.
In the early 20th century, seven countries laid claim to parts of Antarctica on the basis of
"sectors": pie-shaped slices running along lines of longitude (which converge at the
poles). The width of those slices depended on where the various claimants owned
territories near Antarctica, mostly islands in the Southern Ocean.
Those claims are dormant because of a subsequent treaty banning economic development
in Antarctica, but the precedent has not been forgotten. By that precedent, Russia
could lay claim to about half the Arctic Ocean on the basis of lines of longitude
running from the far eastern and western ends of the country up to the North Pole -
and, in 1924, the old Soviet Union did precisely that.
Nobody else accepted that claim then and they wouldn't now if Russia raised it again. But
Russia has the big Arctic ports and the nuclear-powered icebreakers to make its claim
stick and nobody else does.

The US is working with Russian and others to find a peaceful way to divide
the Arctic.
Fedyashin, June 3 <Andrei, political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti, The Monitor,
“Cutting the Arctic Pie”, June 3, 2008, lexis>
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 27

Ilulissat, Greenland, will go down in history as the polar city where the ice moved for the first time _
foreign ministers and other representatives of the five Arctic nations _ Denmark (Greenland is its province),
Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States met there on May 27-29 to discuss a legal division of the
Arctic. It seems they have agreed on how to divide the Arctic Ocean, and, most important, its mineral-rich
continental shelf. The meeting produced the Ilulissat Declaration, which makes it plain that there is no need
to draft a separate international agreement _ in settling territorial and other problems the
participants will be guided by the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.Speaking at
the conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We do not share the alarming
predictions about a clash of interests between Arctic and even non-Arctic countries, about
a `battle for the Arctic.'" Other ministers spoke in much the same vein.It is a good sign that talks will
precede the cutting of the Arctic pie. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a powerful
document of international law, almost a maritime constitution. It regulates what can and
cannot be done on and with the ocean. But it is perhaps alarming that the participants in the
conference are unanimously optimistic. All of them have grievances with their neighbors, or are displeased
about the ocean's demarcation. Moreover, interests invariably clash when it comes to dividing
no-man's-lands or marine basins that abound in mineral riches.

NO Tensions
Countries, including the US, are peacefully dividing the Arctic.
The New York Times, May 29 <Andrew C. Revkin, ”5 Countries Agree to Talk, Not Compete, Over the Arctic”,
Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 10, May 29, 2008, lexis>
Diplomats from the five countries bordering the Arctic Ocean adopted a declaration on Wednesday aimed at
defusing tensions over the likelihood that global warming will open northern waters to shipping, energy
extraction and other activities. The agreement, reached after a daylong meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland,
said the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark saw no need for new
accords on Arctic matters and would use existing international laws like the Law of the
Sea Treaty to resolve disputes. Greenland belongs to Denmark. The countries also agreed to work
more cooperatively to limit environmental risks attending more Arctic shipping and commerce and to
coordinate potential rescue operations given the rising number of tourists heading north as sea ice
increasingly retreats in the summer. The meeting capped a frenetic year of Arctic activity as
countries vied to demonstrate their polar hegemony with a mix of rhetoric, military
maneuvers and, in the case of Russia, a submarine voyage to the seabed at the North
Pole. One of the two participating minisubmarines left a titanium national flag on the bottom, 14,000 feet
beneath the shifting sea ice. In a statement, Per Stig Moller, Denmark's foreign minister, alluded to that
voyage and the media blitz that followed. ''We have politically committed ourselves to resolve
all differences through negotiations,'' he said. ''And thus we have hopefully, once and for all, killed
all the myths of a 'race to the North Pole.' The rules are in place. And the five states have now
declared that they will abide by them.''

Countries, including the US, are peacefully dividing the Arctic.


The New York Times, May 29 <Andrew C. Revkin, ”5 Countries Agree to Talk, Not Compete, Over the Arctic”,
Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 10, May 29, 2008, lexis>
Diplomats from the five countries bordering the Arctic Ocean adopted a declaration on Wednesday aimed at
defusing tensions over the likelihood that global warming will open northern waters to shipping, energy
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 28

extraction and other activities. The agreement, reached after a daylong meeting in Ilulissat, Greenland,
said the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark saw no need for new
accords on Arctic matters and would use existing international laws like the Law of the
Sea Treaty to resolve disputes. Greenland belongs to Denmark. The countries also agreed to work
more cooperatively to limit environmental risks attending more Arctic shipping and commerce and to
coordinate potential rescue operations given the rising number of tourists heading north as sea ice
increasingly retreats in the summer. The meeting capped a frenetic year of Arctic activity as
countries vied to demonstrate their polar hegemony with a mix of rhetoric, military
maneuvers and, in the case of Russia, a submarine voyage to the seabed at the North
Pole. One of the two participating minisubmarines left a titanium national flag on the bottom, 14,000 feet
beneath the shifting sea ice. In a statement, Per Stig Moller, Denmark's foreign minister, alluded to that
voyage and the media blitz that followed. ''We have politically committed ourselves to resolve
all differences through negotiations,'' he said. ''And thus we have hopefully, once and for all, killed
all the myths of a 'race to the North Pole.' The rules are in place. And the five states have now
declared that they will abide by them.''

NO Tensions
The US is working with Russian and others to find a peaceful way to divide
the Arctic.
Fedyashin, June 3 <Andrei, political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti, The Monitor,
“Cutting the Arctic Pie”, June 3, 2008, lexis>
Ilulissat, Greenland, will go down in history as the polar city where the ice moved for the first time _
foreign ministers and other representatives of the five Arctic nations _ Denmark (Greenland is its province),
Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States met there on May 27-29 to discuss a legal division of the
Arctic. It seems they have agreed on how to divide the Arctic Ocean, and, most important, its mineral-rich
continental shelf. The meeting produced the Ilulissat Declaration, which makes it plain that there is no need
to draft a separate international agreement _ in settling territorial and other problems the
participants will be guided by the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.Speaking at
the conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "We do not share the alarming
predictions about a clash of interests between Arctic and even non-Arctic countries, about
a `battle for the Arctic.'" Other ministers spoke in much the same vein.It is a good sign that talks will
precede the cutting of the Arctic pie. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a powerful
document of international law, almost a maritime constitution. It regulates what can and
cannot be done on and with the ocean. But it is perhaps alarming that the participants in the
conference are unanimously optimistic. All of them have grievances with their neighbors, or are displeased
about the ocean's demarcation. Moreover, interests invariably clash when it comes to dividing
no-man's-lands or marine basins that abound in mineral riches.

Russia won’t pursue its claims in the Arctic by force. There are no resources
for them to find.
Dyer, May 29 <Gwynne, London-based independent journalist, The Salt Lake Tribune, “Fight brewing over oil rights under
shrinking Arctic icecap”, May 29, 2008, lexis,>
That is where the current panic comes from. It probably won't end up in a new Cold War, but it
has certainly got the hens in the chicken coop all stirred up. As is often the case with hens, they are
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 29

overreacting. Russia is in a more assertive mood than it was a decade ago, but there are no signs that it
intends to pursue its claims by force. Moreover, there is no serious basis for the claim that a
quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas reserves lie under the Arctic Ocean. It
always seemed implausible, given that the Arctic Ocean only accounts for slightly less than 3 percent of the
Earth's surface, but in fact the U.S. Geological Survey never said anything of the sort. Neither has any other
authoritative source, yet this factoid has gained such currency that it even influences government policy.
Isn't it interesting how readily people will believe something when they really want to?

US in the Arctic
The US is staking claims in the Arctic.
Washington Times, May 13 <Nicholas Kralev, The Washington Times, “U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions
on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty”, WORLD; BRIEFING: THE AMERICAS; A15, May 13, 2008, lexis>
The United States is spending $5.6 million this year on scientific research in support of a
claim to large amounts of oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean that it does not have the legal
right to make. The money is being spent to prove that the foot of the U.S. continental
slope off Alaska's coast extends beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit that any country can
claim as part of its territory under the U.N. Law of the Sea treaty - which the U.S. Senate has
never ratified. "Because of [climate] changes, everyone wants to understand what the implications are,"
said Claudia A. McMurray, assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and
scientific affairs. The recent ice-melting in the Arctic has made the region's natural riches more accessible,
and the race to lay claim to those resources is in full speed. But the politically charged U.S.
debate over ratifying the agreement raises questions about the U.S. ability to keep up in
the race. Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway also are spending tens of millions of
dollars to prove that large parts of the Arctic's seabed are a "natural prolongation" of their
territory. "We have $5.6 million in the 2008 budget to assemble both the hardware and scientific expertise
to do this investigation," Ms. McMurray said. "We started a little bit later than other countries, but we
have a big coastline, and there are some promising opportunities." Russia's planting of its flag
on the Arctic seafloor in August angered other countries, but experts say the only legal way to make a
claim is through the U.N. Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf. "Planting flags on
the seafloor accomplishes nothing except for feeding the various nationalist beasts that seem to hunger for a
return to the 18th century," said Bernard Coakley, professor at the University of Alaska's Geophysical
Institute.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 30

CANADA in the Arctic(a)


Canada is claiming territories in the Arctic.
The Seattle Post, May 29 <Shawn McCarthy, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Canada ready to claim Arctic seabed
resources, five nations jostle for jurisdiction of undersea shelf,” News pg A5, May 29, 2008, lexis>
Canada is preparing to claim an area of the Arctic Ocean seabed equivalent in size to the
nation's massive "Prairie Provinces" - Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba - as part of
Ottawa's aggressive effort to defend Canadian interests, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn
said Wednesday. Lunn is attending an Arctic Council meeting Wednesday in Greenland with four other
countries that have significant - and in some cases, competing - claims to territorial jurisdiction beyond the
traditional 200-nautical-mile limit. "We will be reaffirming our commitment about defending
and protecting our sovereignty in the Arctic," Lunn said before the meeting. "It's a priority for
our government. The prime minister has said: `Use it or lose it.' And we're not going to lose it."
Denmark is host of the two-day Greenland meeting, which will also have representatives from Russia,
Norway and the United States. All five countries are preparing claims to the subsea continental
shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Americans have yet to
ratify the treaty. The participants will discuss how to proceed with economic and social development in the
north, and how to give northerners more control, Lunn said. In doing so, they are attempting to
prevent an unbridled resource rush in which countries stake competing claims and ignore
social and environmental problems in their haste to exploit what some believe is the
planet's last great, untapped source of energy and mineral resources. The U.S. Geological
Survey has estimated that as much as 25 per cent of the world's remaining oil and gas
reserves lies under the Arctic Ocean, and access to those waters is improving as a result of
melting sea ice. Russia sparked a furor last summer when a submarine planted a flag on a contested area
of the seabed, sparking fears of a 19th-century-style competition for territory among great powers. The
United States has sent icebreakers into waters that Canada believes should fall under its
control. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to beef up Canada's military presence in
the Arctic. He also recently vetoed a company's planned sale of its space robotics and satellite technology
business to a U.S. company on the grounds that Canada has a strategic interest in maintaining
domestic ownership over the firm's satellite, which provides surveillance of the Far North. Lunn
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 31

said that Canadian scientists are amassing evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge, which extends under the
Arctic Ocean, originates in the North American continent. The United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea was fashioned to prevent territorial claims based on raw force, and has a process for establishing
jurisdiction. Under the treaty, countries have jurisdiction for 111 kilometers beyond the base of a
continental shelf, but that claim can be extended for under-sea ridges extending from the shelf. Ottawa
will spend $40 million over the next several years mapping the Arctic Ocean and
providing evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge is, in fact, part of the North American
continental shelf. If the U.N. validates that claim, Canada can assert sovereignty over the
seabed all along the ridge, although experts expect Canada to claim the area west of the ridge and
Denmark will assert sovereignty over the area east of the ridge and closer to Greenland. Lunn said that, in
total, Canada's claim would be about 1.8 million square kilometers. He said the U.N. body
should easily validate Canada's claim, which will be submitted in 2013. He said Canada needs to
extend sovereignty over the region to ensure that any resource development is socially and
environmentally responsible.

CANADA
LOS takes Arctic waters from Canada which kills their sovereignty and
arctic ecosystem
Weber, 08. [Bob, The Canadian Press, May 27, North Bay Nugget, pg A6, Control of High Arctic waters 'critically important']

Control of High Arctic waters is "critically important" for both Canadian


sovereignty and the protection of a fragile ecosystem, says federal Natural Resources
Minister Gary Lunn. "It's critically important that it's under our sovereign control so
that we set the parameters for the environment and that we make the decisions
whether or not even to allow exploration," Lunn said Monday on the eve of an
international conference on the Arctic Ocean. Lunn is expected to travel to Ilulissat, Greenland, today for three
days of meetings with officials from the four other nations with continental shelves on the Arctic Ocean: Norway, Russia, the United
States and Denmark. The conference is expected to discuss United-Nations-sponsored rules on dividing up jurisdiction over those
waters, whose resources are becoming increasingly accessible as climate change reduces sea ice. The conference will also discuss
how the five countries can co-operate on maritime safety, environmental protection and search and rescue. "We're going up to reaffirm
The countries ringing the
our commitment on defending and protecting our sovereignty in the Arctic," Lunn said.
Arctic Ocean are now filing their claims to the seabed under the UN Law of the Sea
Convention. Canada is gathering data in support of a claim that includes a slice of the seabed stretching to the North Pole that
would be the equivalent in size of the three Prairie provinces combined.
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 32

Random
No risk of oil shock, most oil exists in the Arctic.
Dyer, 08. [Gwynne, London Based Independent Journalist, June 2, 2008, The Daily Gleaner (New Brunswick) pg. C8]

If we are heading for an Arctic Ocean that is mostly ice-free in the summer, then
drilling for gas and oil beneath that ocean can soon begin.
Hardly a week goes by without somebody pointing to the U.S. Geological Survey's report
that the Arctic basin contains a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.

Brink is now – we are on the brink of discovering who is entitled to the


arctic based on science, LOS would disrupt that.
Boswell 08 [ Randy, staff, Canwest news services, May 30, 2008 Edmonton Journal]

Under current rules, the rights of coastal countries over sea floor resources are limited
to a fairly narrow strip of offshore territory -- no more than 350 nautical miles (648.2 kilometres), and only
in places where the continental shelf extends that far out from the coast. But coastal states can claim much
more territory if they able to show that undersea mountain ridges or other offshore
geological features -- such as the buildup of sediment from river discharges into the
sea -- constitute a natural underwater extension of the national land mass. If so, they can
claim the ridge -- until the point where it drops 2,500 metres below the ocean surface -- plus 100 nautical miles (185.2 kilometres) of
seabed from that point. Under that key provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, all five polar countries are
compiling sea floor research to claim "Article 76" rights over potentially huge, Saskatchewan-sized swaths of Arctic Ocean bottom.
And one of the most contentious parts of the underwater Arctic is proving to be the Lomonosov Ridge, a submerged mountain that is
an excellent bet to qualify as a continental extension. It stretches thousands of kilometres from the Danish-Canadian boundary waters
north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island, directly past the North Pole and across the Arctic Ocean toward the Siberian coast.
Russian, Canadian and Danish researchers all have gathered sea floor survey data
suggesting the ridge is an extension of their respective countries. Last summer, Russia launched
the "race" for the North Pole -- and prompted outrage in Canada, Denmark and elsewhere -- by sending a mini-submarine to the four-
kilometre-deep sea floor at the pole and depositing a Russian flag made of titanium. More detailed scientific
LMDIT 2008 LOS Updates 33

analysis should ultimately determine which parts of the ridge belong to the Eurasian
continent, which belong to North America.