THE COLD WAR. PART TWO

The last big carve-up of the map of the world has begun with the passing of the deadline for the submission to the UN of claims to the seabed and oceans within a 350 mile radius of the coast. The dispute over the Arctic, whose immense natural wealth is of concern to five states - Russia, the USA, Canada, Denmark and Norway - may prove to have especially serious consequences. 

This process was unavoidable - the development of the technology to extract oil and gas at great depths and a long way offshore, and the melting of the ice cap as a result of ever faster global warming have only fed the frenzy. 

Russia has leapt into the "battle" for the Arctic's resources. As a result, much of the world's media has started to talk about a new cold war, this time a literal one. The Daily Mail quotes the authoritative British research centre, Jane's Review, as warning that a polar war could become reality in 12 years time. Russia's readiness for a possible armed conflict is considered to be "fatal", no less. 

Western politicians are justified in their suspicions about Russia's recently published National Secu-rity Strategy to 2020, which says: "International politics will be focused over the long term on acquiring sources of energy, including in the Near East, on the Barents Sea shelf and elsewhere in the Arctic, in the Caspian basin and in Central Asia."

The Russian ambassador to Great Britain, Yuriy Fedotov, gave assurances in an open letter to The Times that the provisions of the Russian Federation's National Security Strategy do not mean at all that Moscow intends to use arms in the Arctic.

But it looks as though Western politicians prefer to prepare for the worst and are, therefore, painstakingly analysing Russia's capabilities. It is noted that Russia has the Mir bathyscaphes or mini-submarines (not so long ago Russia planted its flag on the seabed at the geographic North Pole), atomic icebreakers, submarines carrying nuclear missiles… Moscow is spending large sums on modernizing its Northern Fleet, more than on any other fleet. The Russian Federation has also begun construction of floating nuclear power stations to supply energy to Arctic drilling platforms. 

This prompted The Times to call for a new international treaty to be concluded as soon as possible to curb Russia's ambitions. This is very revealing, it has to be said. Again Western experts say that to develop the North Pole's oil and gas reserves Moscow will still need foreign investment - the Russian extracting sector is not in the best of states and the global financial crisis has only made things worse. 

On the other hand, Russian publications write that NATO is also increasing its military presence in the Arctic, claiming this is because of the need to avert an ecological catastrophe and to curb the efforts of "some Arctic powers".

While the Western media recall Russia's recent actions in Georgia, Russia talks about America reinforcing its influence in South and Central America. 

Meanwhile, Canada is also forming plans to build a deep-sea port, a new icebreaker and military training centre. Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said earlier that Russia would not be able to force Ottawa to give up its rights to the Arctic. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was just as tough after two Russian air force planes made an incursion into Canadian air space, allegedly by accident.

Denmark has also begun an extensive research programme. Norway and the USA too are promoting themselves as Arctic powers.

The greatest tension is expected over the Lomonosov ridge, the straits separating the Canadian islands (Ottawa considers these their territorial waters while the USA is convinced that the straits are neutral waters) and the interpretation of the treaty on Spitzbergen and other points.

The other countries cannot be described as united against Russia's ambitions. For example, Canada, as well as the disagreement with the USA over the straits, has many points of contention with the European countries, while Norway is calling on all the Scandinavian countries to show solidarity on the issue.

Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev said during a recent meeting with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg that Russia and Norway should coordinate their positions on claiming the Arctic. Norway may accept Moscow's proposal, since Oslo cannot rely on substantial help from NATO or the EU in the event of a conflict with Russia, experts suppose. 

It is to be hoped that the arguments over the Arctic will be solved by lawyers and not the military. There is a Convention on the Law of the Sea that brings together the principles and legal norms that govern the use of the sea and regulate relations between states on the use of the world's oceans.

According to international rules, confirmed by the UN, a country's territory can be extended if it can prove that the underwater area to which it lays claim is geologically speaking part of its continental shelf. The economic interest zone covers 200 miles (370 km), but if the continental shelf goes further than those 200 miles, then the zone can be extended to the border of the continental shelf, but not more than 350 miles from the border of the territorial waters.

On paper the calculations all look very simple, while in practice there is even talk of nuclear war… The USA has not yet ratified the convention - Washington fears that it might have a negative influence on the country's economic interests.

Six countries in all directly adjoin the Arctic: Russia, Canada, the USA, Norway, Iceland and Denmark (the island of Greenland). Sweden and Finland also consider themselves part of the "Arctic community". This means that the circle of contenders for the riches of the North Pole could increase, as the countries involved in the dispute might acquire allies. On the other hand, the USA, which does not have very great access to the Arctic via Alaska, has not yet put all its cards on the table, it would seem.

Ecologists, meanwhile, are extremely concerned at the prospects of a battle for the Arctic. Possible military action, including the use of nuclear weapons, is not the only risk factor; risks are posed by any activity that calls for the strict observance of nuclear safety and the rules for the burial of radioactive waste from nuclear power stations.

Russia especially is under great suspicion. Although it says that the floating nuclear power stations will take into account the latest technology, previous experience advocates great caution over Moscow's experiments, experts say. Radiation leaks and any industrial activity could raise the temperature of the water in the Arctic Ocean and speed up the melting of the ice cap. No-one can yet say with any certainty what the ecological consequences of this will be. 

Perhaps it would be better not to touch the treasure at the bottom of the icy ocean at all.