The US is out to extend its continental shelf in the Arctic. Although the plan does not directly affect Russia’s interests, Moscow has already proposed that other countries should not recognise the claim the US is staking. Why does the US think it is the right moment to do it? How is Moscow supposed to respond to such moves coming from Washington in the future?
According to Bloomberg, the US Department of State announced the plan to extend the US continental shelf in the Arctic. ‘The continental shelf is the extension of a country’s land territory under the sea. Under the international law, the US is entitled to protect and manage its resources and vital habitats,’ Bloomberg quotes.
The total area of the so-called extended continental shelf is around 1 million sq. km., almost twice the size of California. Most of it is located in the Arctic and in the Bering Sea, an area of increasing strategic importance, which is also eyed by Russia and Canada.
According to Bloomberg, the US plans on expanding its shelf to gain access to minerals used in the production of electric car batteries. It also has oil and gas deposits.
The US claims to extend the continental shelf in the Arctic have no legal foundations, and the world may not recognize the new borders, says Konstantin Kosachev, the Vice-Speaker of Russia’s Federation Council. He adds that the US is yet to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, whereas any claims to the continental shelf are to be reviewed by a UN select committee.
The Russian senator indicates that the just like the other Arctic states, the US can indeed expand its shelf, ‘should the government prove that the underwater extension of its land territory can stretch 200 miles away from the original borders’. ‘The thing is, when it comes to international law, the US has done a “dirty job”,’ he explains.
‘As a result, now the US is not supported by international law, which means other countries are entitled to refuse to recognize the new borders,’ says Kosachev. He believes that ‘this time the Americans have even outperformed their usual selves by ignoring their Arctic allies’ interests’, that is, Canada and Japan.
An emerging territorial dispute involving Washington, Ottawa and Tokyo was even admitted by the Department of State. The agency also assures that ‘the external limits of the ECS do not trespass the agreed-upon border with the Russian Federation westward’.
The ‘agreed-upon border’ is taken to mean the Baker – Shevardnadze line, which came as a result of the 1990 USSR–US agreement signed by the then-minister Eduard Shevardnadze and James Baker, the Secretary of State. Although the treaty hurts Russia’s interests, it is still valid, and Washington has no intention to reconsider it.
However, the US is showing the world the scope of its ambition elsewhere. ‘Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the US will attempt to make it stick in those regions,’ says Stanislav Mitrakhovich, the leading expert at the National Energy Security Foundation and a research fellow with Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.
‘The upcoming developments will be largely shaped both by legal disputes and by the power balance. A diplomatic solution is still on the table, which is facilitated by the fact that the Arctic Council where Russia sits as a member state has recently resumed operations. It is hard to imagine the future of the Arctic exploration without Russia’s involvement,’ the expert believes.
‘That being said, the exploration of natural resources is rather expensive in the Arctic. Even with current technological advancements, we cannot say for a certainty whether the exploration of any resources there can be profitable,’ the analyst notes.
‘So far, I cannot name any economically sound project other than the ones everybody knows, like Russia’s Project Arctic LNG 2. Moreover, all natural resources, such as oil, gas or scarce metals and minerals, can be found elsewhere. Perhaps what we are seeing here is their future ambitions and the desire to reassert their status,’ Stanislav Mitrakhovich believes.
Some experts also admit that as the US–China relations are deteriorating, Washington may lose access to the rare-earth metals that are being increasingly used in technology-intensive industries. So, there is a possibility that the US simply does not just share its future ambitions but create an Arctic cushion for its economy.
‘However, from the economic standpoint, Washington is unlikely to tremendously benefit the shelf extension. Sure enough, it can be home to multiple natural resources, but exploration presupposes discovery. Besides, production in the Arctic conditions requires a lot of effort and money,’ says Viktor Boyarsky, a polar explorer and director of the Arctic and Antarctic Museum.
‘But the military implications are clear. The Americans will probably send their submarines there to step up their military presence. With this in mind, Russia needs to continue its operations in the North. Regardless of whether Washington likes it or not, we need to claim new territories in the region ourselves,’ he is certain.
‘Apart from that, we should bear in mind this military threat and therefore focus on the manufacturing of nuclear-powered icebreakers as well as the upgrades to, and the build-up of, our underwater fleet. Our timely measures can help protect our borders if jeopardised,’ Boyarsky concludes.