Arctic Mapping Aff

Inherency
Lack of adequate mapping prevents shipping in the status quo
Kendrick 14 (Lyle, Reporter for the Barents Observer, Map
Shortcomings Could Hinder Northern Sea Route Growth, Barents
Observer, 06/28/14,
http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/06/map-shortcomings-couldhinder-northern-sea-route-growth-28-06#)
Weak satellites in the Northern Sea Route area and poor sea maps are among the bottlenecks
preventing a massive Arctic transit system. Sea ice and depth mapping
deficits still exist near the Northern Sea Route that could temper
international excitement about the prospect of extensive Arctic shipping .

Melting ice allowed the region to open up shipping routes in Arctic waters that are mostly under Russian control and
cut significant transit time between Europe and Asia. Use of the route has steadily grown since ships began using it
in 2010. According to data from the Northern Sea Route Administration, four vessels used the route in 2010, 34
used it in 2011, 46 used it in 2012 and 71 used it last year. China will be releasing a guide to Arctic shipping in July
for ships sailing through the Northern Sea Route to Europe. But the current weak satellites in the area and poor sea
maps are like bottlenecks preventing the kind of massive Arctic transit speculated by some, said Jan-GunnarWinther, director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, to the BarentsObserver. Satellite communication with ships in the

ship operators cannot adequately take real-time

high-resolution images for other vessels to use , Winther said. These kinds of images give
High North is weak which means

information about sea conditions which allow efficient and safe maneuvering in water that is partly covered in ice,

The area is particularly dangerous to navigate without sufficient

mapping data because there is limited infrastructure for search and rescue operations.
he said.

Vessels are safest on the route when following icebreakers which can help navigate frozen Arctic patches and be a
first line of support in a search and rescue operation, said Gunnar Sander, an Arctic sea ice researcher with the
Norwegian Polar Institute, to the BarentsObserver. Icebreakers are expensive but without them, vessels face much
higher risks, he said.

A 138-meter tanker was stranded for several days after it struck

ice during September while sailing in the Matisen Strait of the Northern Sea Route
without an icebreaker escort. The Northern Sea Route Administration had granted the tanker a permit to sail in the
Kara Sea and the Laptev Sea in light ice conditions with an icebreaker escort. As far as I can judge now, the
Russians have quite a good system as long as you follow the icebreakers, Sander said. In addition to ice on the
water, depth data is also lacking in many parts of the Arctic Ocean , according to a
January report on the Arctic by the World Economic Forum nonprofit organization in Switzerland. Bathymetric

depth mapping, is critical for monitoring ocean currents and the

development of shipping lanes in the shallow waters near Russias Arctic coast, according to that
report. The Northern Sea Route passes through some straits which are less
than 10 meters deep, according to a 2013 report for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by a panel of Arctic
mapping, or

researchers. Large ships now mostly follow a route north of the New Siberian Islands which is at least 18 meters
deep. Many of the mapping deficits that could create a bottleneck effect for shipping in the area are being
addressed through both widespread charting and legal measures. Russia is increasing its hydrographic work in the
Arctic and the country has commissioned surveys for the white spots on maps that lack depth data in 2015 and
2016, said Vitaly Klyuev, the deputy director of the Department of State Policy for Maritime and River Transport of
Russia, in a 2012 announcement. Russia is also planning to have ten Arctic search and rescue centers by next year.
The International Maritime Organization is developing a mandatory international safety code for ships in polar
waters called the Polar Code. Mapping and charting issues will be included in the code. The responsibility for how
the Polar Code would be implemented would lie with the states themselves, which would give them broad
discretion, said Tore Henriksen, a professor and director of the sea law center at the University of Troms, to the

Despite ice melting in the Arctic region, it is still a serious

danger for shippers in the area and expensive icebreakers are the best option for safe travel, Sander
BarentsObserver.

said. Its completely misleading to talk about an ice-free Arctic Ocean, Sander said. While the number of ships in
the region and along the route is growing, it still sees nowhere near the number of vessels as routes like the Suez
Canal, which had more than 17,000 vessels last year.

Russia is expanding into the Arctic only US is can prevent

escalating conflict
Mitchell 14(Jon Mitchell, Masters degree in public policy, with a concentration in international affairs
Russias Territorial Ambition and Increased Military Presence in the Arctic April 23, 2014,
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/23/russias-territorial-ambition-and-increased-military-presence-in-thearctic, D.P)

As the U.S. and E.U. keep a very close eye on the situation with Russia and Ukraine,
Russia is also increasing its presence and influence elsewhere: the Arctic
a melting region that is opening up prime shipping lanes and real estate with an
estimated $1 trillion in hydrocarbons.[1] With the opening of two major shipping
routes, the North Sea route and the Northwest Passage, the potential for economic
competition is fierce, especially among the eight members of the Arctic council:
Canada, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Russia, and the United States.
[2] President Putin made statements this week concerning Russias national interests in
the Arctic region: chiefly, militarization and the preparation of support elements for
commercial shipping routes.[3] The Russian President called for full government
funding for socio-economic development from 2017-2020, including a system of
Russian naval bases that would be home to ships and submarines allocated
specifically for the defense of national interests that involve the protection of
Russian oil and gas facilities in the Arctic .[4] Russia is also attempting to
accelerate the construction of more icebreakers to take part in its Arctic
strategy.[5] The Russian Federation recently staked a territorial claim in the Sea of
Okhotsk for 52,000 square kilometers,[6] and is currently preparing an Arctic water
claim for 1.2 million square kilometers.[7] The energy giant owns 43 of the
approximate 60 hydrocarbon deposits in the Arctic Circle. [8] With Russian energy
companies already developing hydrocarbon deposits and expanding border patrols on
its Arctic sea shelf (in place by July 1, 2014),[9] Putin is actively pursuing a strong approach
to the Arctic region. Russian oil fields, which significantly contribute to the countrys revenue, are in
declineforcing Russian oil companies to actively explore the Arctic region.[10] While the
U.S. Defense Secretary called for a peaceful and stable Arctic region with international cooperation, the Arctic
has created increased militarization efforts, particularly by Russia. Already the
Arctic has seen powerful warships of Russias Northern Fleet, strategic bomber
patrols, and airborne troop exercises. [11] In fact, Russian military forces have been
permanently stationed in the Arctic since summer 2013.[12] According to a source in the Russian
General Staff, a new military command titled Northern Fleet Joint Strategic Command, will be
created and tasked to protect Russian interests in its Arctic territories; a strategy
that was approved in 2009.[13] Furthermore, weapons developers are being tasked with
creating products that can face the harsh Arctic environment. According to an RT report,
Putin ordered the head of the Russian arms industry , Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, to
concentrate the efforts on creation of Arctic infrastructure for the soonest
deployment of troops. Rogozin reported that all Russian weapons systems can be
produced with special features needed in the extreme North and the weapons
companies were ready to supply such arms to the Defense Ministry. [14] The Arctic
infrastructure that Rogozin refers to will include Navy and Border Guard Service bases .[15]
These bases are part of Putins aim to strengthen Russian energy companies and military
positions in the Arctic region. In 2013, a formerly closed down base was reopened in the
Novosibirsk Islands and is now home to 10 military ships and four icebreakers a move that
Reuters called a demonstration of force.[16] The Defense Ministry is also planning on bringing seven airstrips in

Russias militarization in the Arctic region is only a part of its

increasing activity throughout the globe. Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said, Its crucially
the Arctic back to life.[17]

important for us to set goals for our national interests in this region. If we dont do that, we will lose the battle for

resources which means well also lose in a big battle for the right to have sovereignty and independence.[18] On
the contrary, Aleksandr Gorban, a representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry is quoted saying that a war for

what was once a more hands-off region of the

world that provided international cooperation and stability is now turning into a race for
sovereignty and resources claimsas evidenced not only by Russias increasing military presence, but
also Canada and the United States. Canada is now allocating part of its defense budget
towards armed ships that will patrol its part of the Arctic Circle ,[20] while the United
States has planned a strategy of its own. In addition to conducting military exercises with other Arctic
resources[19] in the Arctic will never happen. But

nation members, the U.S. Navy has proposed a strategy titled The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to
2030 that was released in February 2014. The 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, cited in the Arctic
Roadmap, provides the Navys two specific objectives for the Arctic: 1) advance United States security interests;
and 2) strengthen international cooperation.[21] According to the strategy, the Navys role will primarily be in
support of search and rescue, law enforcement, and civil support operations.[22] However, this may grow to a more
militarized strategy depending on the U.S. governments view of Russias increased military activity in the Arctic
region over the next few years. In either case, the U.S. is falling behind in Arctic preparation . It has
very few operational icebreakers for the Arctic region where its only primary presence is seen through nuclear
submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles, according to an RT article.[23] Until 2020, the Navy will primarily use its
submarines and limited air assets in the Arctic, while its mid-term and far-term strategy emphasizes personnel,
surface ships, submarines, and air assets that will be prepared for Arctic conditions and operations.[24] Despite its

the U.S. will already be lagging in establishing a military

presence to compete with Russias, who already has strategies in motion
until 2020 and later. Last month, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a united Canadianmid and long-term strategy,

U.S. counterbalance to Russias Arctic presence, pointing out they have been aggressively reopening military
bases.[25] While the U.S. cannot legitimately criticize Putin for opening military bases and simultaneously avoid
blatant hypocrisy, it is worth noting that Russia is developing a strong military presence in a potentially competitive
region. Russias plans to reopen bases and create an Arctic military command fosters the conclusion that Russia
wants to be the first established dominant force in a new region that will host economic competition and primary
shipping lanes, albeit in a harsh environment that makes it difficult to extract resources. Nicholas Cunningham aptly
stated both Russia and the West fear losing out to the other in the far north, despite what appears to be a small
prize.[26] Although the Arctic holds a mass of the worlds oil and gas deposits, the extreme environment and
remote location makes it difficult to produce energy quickly and efficiently. Despite this, the Russian Federation is
focused on developing disputed hydrocarbon areas that it claims are part of the countrys continental shelf. In
addition, Russia is allocating funds and forces to the Arctic to protect its interests. While
the U.S. is currently lacking in natural resource development and exploitation in the Arctic Circle, it desires to
display a show of strength in the cold region to compete with potential Russian domination and influence. But
because the Defense Department faces constant budget cuts, preparing an Arctic naval force will be slow and
difficult. For now, the United States can only show strength through nuclear submarines and drone technology.

Putin and the Russian Federation are laying disputed claims to territories both inside
and outside the Arctic while creating the foundation for a potential military buildup
in the Arcticprovided that the U.S. and Canada can even allocate sufficient budgets for Arctic military
expansion. One thing is sure: if the Arctic region continues to melt and open up vital shipping lanes, there must be
international cooperation to provide security and rescue elements for commercial shipping. Since Russia has
significant territorial claims and the most coastlines in the Arctic Circle, it would be natural for the Russian
Federation to have a wide security presence in the region, but this must be coupled with international cooperation
in commercial shipping lanes and by providing support elements, such as search and rescue. The United States will
not be able to fully compete with a country that is heavily investing in the Arctic regionparticularly due to budget

If the U.S. desires to limit Russian influence and

territorial claims, it must do so by partnering with other members of the Arctic
councilnot by entering into a military buildup simply to dominate Russia in the Arctic.
constraints and lack of Arctic-prepared vessels.

Shipping

U.S Economy
Arctic mapping increases shipper and navigational confidence
Davison 12(Janet Davison, writer for Alaska Dispatch, Arctic mapping to make navigating Northwest
Passage safer, 10/14/12, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/arctic-mapping-make-navigating-northwestpassage-safer, DP)
Arctic explorers may have come up empty-handed in the search for Sir John Franklin's lost shipwrecked vessels, but
the research they did will help future mariners navigating the treacherous the Northwest Passage. But in a bit of

work done during the search in Nunavut will help future mariners
navigating through the icy and dangerous waters where HMS Erebus and HMS Terror may have
gone down. Hydrographers who were part of the search gathered enough depth and
multi-beam sidescan sonar data to create a preliminary electronic chart that
expands the area for safe navigation in Alexandra Strait, reducing travel time and
saving fuel costs for vessels in the area. Andrew Leyzack, the Canadian Hydrographic Service's
hydrographer-in-charge during the Franklin search, says this past summer's result is significant. Not only will it
help reduce travel time for vessels around King William Island by six or seven hours,
but it could also provide an alternative navigation route in case of ice in the lower
Victoria Strait. "The time savings and the fuel savings are considerable," says Leyzack,
who noted the new route could also be useful if a vessel runs into trouble. "In the event of a
Arctic irony,

search-and-rescue call, it just cuts off that much more time if the responding vessels could transit this route as

The new chart which Leyzack

will guide ships from Victoria Strait to Storis
Passage and comes as the Canadian Hydrographic Service faces increasing
demands for mapping and updating navigational charts for the Arctic. Economic
opposed to going all the way around the Royal Geographic Society Islands."
likens to a multi-lane highway replacing a dirt road

motivation And just as economic dreams fuelled Franklin's ultimately doomed quest to find the Northwest Passage,

a fiscal motivation lies behind the mounting pressure for better charts.
Interests ranging from oil and gas exploration and resource extraction to tourism
want to take vessels to new areas and in greater numbers. Add the impact of changing

climate, and retreating ice patterns, along with the desire to do what it takes to avoid shipping accidents and their
associated potential environmental threats and salvage costs, and the CHS is under no illusion about the demand
for its services. But don't expect charts showing every detail of the Arctic seabed north of 60 degrees latitude an
area of about seven million square kilometres any time soon. "Canada has the longest coastline in the world and
we have three oceans and the Great Lakes," says Savi Narayanan, the CHS's director general. "It is totally
unrealistic to have all the areas fully charted to modern standards where any ship can go anytime." So the service

Ten years ago, the Arctic didn't rank very high. But that's
changed in the past decade, with the increased Arctic oil and gas
exploration, tourism and more traffic in the northern waters. "We realized
we need to have enhanced charting in the Arctic ," says Narayanan. Staying inside the lines Tim
has been setting priorities.

Keane, vice-president of Enfotec Technical Services, a subsidiary of the Montreal-based bulk shipping company
Fednav that specializes in ice analysis and vessel routing, says there are areas within the Northwest Passage where

"It could benefit from more extensive soundings to determine

exactly how much draft a ship can carry through that area." Shippers don't want
to go where they have little guidance about what might lie underneath the
water's surface. "There are vast areas where there are no surveys or
nothing in any chart that would indicate that the area has been well
surveyed, so you are restricted in terms of navigating," says Keane, whose firm works
there are scant soundings.

with mining developments that would require bulk shipping in the North, such as Baffinland's Mary River iron mine.

"Any prudent navigator will never put his[/her] ship into a position where (s)he's
outside of a known charted area." For the CHS, charting priority is focusing on the main existing
navigational channels. "The area where Parks Canada would like to search for the Franklin ships is also an area of
high priority for charting because that is one of the navigational corridors and it's a really high-risk area because of
the weather conditions and the ice conditions," says Narayanan. Only about 10 per cent of the total Arctic has been
charted and surveyed to a modern standard. Twenty-five to 35 per cent of the main Arctic shipping routes are
surveyed and charted to that standard, says Narayanan. (In southern Canada, almost 100 per cent of the most

critical channels are charted to that level.) Changing climate Retreating Arctic ice has also influenced how the
service is determining where to focus its resources. "Of course climate change is a factor in determining where we
need to do charting or where the traffic will go, because we need to make sure that we provide the information ... to
prevent accidents," says Narayanan. In terms of climate change, she says, the ice retreat will happen more on the
Russian side of the Arctic, rather than the Canadian, because of the way the water moves in the Arctic Ocean.
During this summer's Franklin search, hydrographers completed 266 square kilometres of seabed mapping using
multi-beam sonar systems on two survey vessels, meeting the CHS's goal for coverage from those boats. Another
74 square kilometres of mapping was done from the research vessel Martin Bergmann. That was about half the area
expected and largely a result of equipment breakdowns that cost about 80 hours of production time. An
autonomous underwater vehicle provided by the University of Victoria covered about 4 charting. This year's CHS
work was part of a three-year plan. Leyzack expects hydrographers will likely be back surveying next summer.

"With the rising number

of cargo ships transiting the Northwest Passage, I think it's rather relevant
that we're here doing this and gathering all the information possible about the
environment ... not only with a goal to protect the environment, but also to
make marine safety our top priority."
"Each year reveals more clues regarding Canada's Arctic geography," he says.

Arctic will open up business opportunities

Light, 13 (John Light, Moyer and Company reporter. December 9, 2013.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/09/climate-change-opens-the-arctic-to-shipping-drilling-militarization/ . MD)

new, previously inaccessible areas of

the Arctic are opening up for business. Ironically, a notable amount of that business has to
do with extracting and transporting the fossil fuels that drive climate change . In
September, a large freighter made it through the Northwest Passage, traveling from Vancouver, BC, to
Finland. It was the first vessel of its type to ever make the journey and demonstrated the potential
to cut costs and shipping times using the new route. The ship was carrying coal for use by a steel
producer. Elsewhere in the Arctic, the Northern Sea Route (NSR), a passage maintained by Russian
As climate change transforms our planet and the polar ice caps recede,

nuclear-powered ice breakers, saw 71 vessels pass through it. According to the Russian fleet, that figure is up 50 percent from last
year. As recently as 2010, only four vessels made the voyage between the Barents Sea, north of Scandinavia and Western Russia,
and the Bering Strait, between Siberia and Alaska. While the mandatory icebreaker escort costs, on average, $200,000 per voyage,
NSR is becoming an increasingly viable shipping path from Europe to Asia an

alternative route, through the Suez Canal, would have taken two weeks longer.Supertankers
carrying crude oil were among the most common vessels making the crossing .Though summer ice cover in the Arctic
has dropped by more than 40 percent over the past few decades, shipping companies remain
divided over the promise of Arctic shipping. Its early days, Gary Li, a senior maritime analyst with IHS in Beijing,

told the Financial Times. The Northern Sea Route probably needs another 20 or 30 years of climate change to make it fully viable.
And even then, its got so many constraints. But the Arctic is seeing an increase in other new business as well.

It is rich in fossil fuels. Experts guess that 22 percent of the worlds remaining
undiscovered oil and gas reserves lie below ice at the top of the globe. One US Geological Survey
study estimated that 43 of the 61 significant arctic oil and gas fields are in Russian territory, and the

country has been ramping up fossil fuel exploration since 2008. Norway, Greenland, Canada and the US have followed suit. Its an
issue that came into national focus this year when Greenpeace activists and freelance journalists were arrested by Russia and
charged with piracy while attempting to board the first oil platform to drill in the Arctic Circle. The charges were later reduced to
hooliganism and the activists were released. In the US, Shell Oil began exploring for oil up north in 2012. But
after a drilling rig ran aground and the company encountered a slew of other problems including fines for air pollution it
suspended its operations in 2013. They may remain suspended through 2014 as well. In an attempt to control access to

these new shipping routes and natural resources, nations are also moving to gain military
influence in the Arctic. In 2007, a Russian submarine planted a titanium Russian flag at the base of the North Pole. And in

September of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the country was re-opening a Soviet-era military base in
the Arctic, abandoned for two decades, to help support (and secure) the regions sea lanes and natural resources.Canada is also
holding an increasing number of military drills in the Arctic and is looking at stationing a permanent force there. Norway and the US
are watching the region closely. But the jockeying for control of the region to the point of countries establishing military bases
makes shipping executives concerned about routes like the NSR. One thing that makes me nervous is that this route is in

Russias hands, a Norwegian shipping executive told the Financial Times. If they suddenly want to triple rates or impose this
condition or that condition, they can. And theres a further irony: the effects of climate change could present new impediments to
shipping and drilling in the region, like unpredictable weather. Environmental groups are opposed to tapping Arctic fossil fuels that
will in turn contribute to continuing climate change. Advocates point to the disastrous effect that pollution in one worst-case
scenario, an oil spill could have on animal and human populations.Even the best-prepared, best-equipped and most
technologically advanced oil company has no business drilling for oil in the Arctic, Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, wrote in June. It is simply not possible to do it safely here.

Shipping key to US Economy

Council 14 (World Shipping Council, partners in trade government website, 2014, global economic engine,
http://www.worldshipping.org/benefits-of-liner-shipping/global-economic-engine, D.P)

economic contribution of the liner shipping

industry and concluded that it is indeed a global economic engine for two
reasons: the significant amount the industry contributes directly to the
global economy, and the role of the industry as a facilitator of economic growth
for other industries. IHS GLOBAL INSIGHT - ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF LINER SHIPPING INDUSTRY In
Recently, two independent sources looked at the

November 2009, IHS Global Insight, a recognized global leader in economic and financial analysis and forecasting,
completed an evaluation of the economic contribution of the liner shipping industry using 2007 as a base year. Key

Direct gross
output or GDP Contribution -- US$ 183.3 Billion Direct capital expenditure
-- US$ 29.4 Billion Direct jobs -- 4.2 million Compensation to those
employees US$ 27.2 Billion Full annual economic impact, including indirect
and induced effects: US$ 436.6 Billion 13.5 million jobs Cargo transported by
the liner shipping industry represents about two-thirds of the value of total global
trade, equating each year to more than US$ 4 trillion worth of goods. Workers
findings include: The annual economic contribution of the liner shipping industry was:

at ports world-wide loaded and unloaded cargo for more than 10,000 liner vessel-stops per week, with the average
ship making 2.1 port calls per week. Liner shipping companies deployed more than 400 services providing

In mid-2008, there were

more than 17.8 million containers in the world fleet, which cost the industry US$
80.1 billion to purchase. In the United States alone, the industry spends US$ 869
million per year to operate the fleet of chassis used to move containers over land.
The liner shipping industry has spent over US$ 236 billion in more than a dozen
countries on the purchase of new vessels. Read or download a copy of the full
report. THE BOX - HOW THE SHIPPING CONTAINER MADE THE WORLD SMALLER AND THE WORLD ECONOMY
regularly scheduled service, usually weekly, connecting all countries of the world.

BIGGER In 2006, former finance and economics editor for the Economist, Marc Levinson released this book, which
makes the case that the modern global economy would not exist were it not for introduction of the container and
the liner shipping industry that moves them. Some of his notable observations: The container made shipping
cheap and changed the shape of the world economy. Consumers enjoy infinitely more choices thanks to the global
trade the container has stimulated. The U.S. imported four times as any varieties of goods in 2002 as in 1972,
generating a consumer benefit - not counted in official statistics - equal to nearly 3 percent of the entire economy.
The ready availability of inexpensive imported consumer goods has boosted living standards around the world. The
emergence of the logistics industry ... has led to the creation of new and often better-paying jobs in warehousing
and transportation. The container not only lowered freight bills but saved time. Marc Levinson summarized the
content of "The Box" in an article published by the Transportation Research Board entitled: Container Shipping and
the Economy - Stimulating Trade and Transformations Worldwide.

U.S Key to World Economy

James and Lambardi 13 (Harold James and Domenico Lambardi, Professor of History and
International Affairs at Princeton University, Professor of History at the European University Institute, Florence, and
a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation. A specialist on German economic history and
on globalization, he is the author of The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle, Krupp: A History
of the Legendary German Firm, and Making the European Monetary Union and Director of the Global Economy
Program at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Canada, 12/3/13, Who Should Lead The
Global Economy, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/harold-james-and-domenico-lombardiconsiderwhether-china-or-the-eurozone-has-what-it-takes-to-replace-the-us-as-the-world-s-economic-leader, D.P)
PRINCETON In terms of global economic leadership, the twentieth century was American, just as the nineteenth
century was British and the sixteenth century was Spanish. Some Chinese and Europeans think that they are next.
Are they? And should they even want to be? The most important prerequisite for global economic leadership is
size. The bigger an economy, the greater its systemic importance, and the more leverage its political

The United States is the worlds

largest economy, with a GDP of roughly $16.7 trillion. The eurozones
$12.6 trillion output puts it in second place, and China, with a GDP of around $9
trillion, comes in third. In other words, all three economies are conceivably large
enough to serve as global economic leaders. But an economys future prospects
are also crucial to its leadership prospects and serious challenges lie ahead. No
representatives have in international decision-making.

one thinks that the eurozone will grow more quickly than the US in the coming years
or decades. While China is expected to overtake the US in terms of output by 2020,
decades of rigid population-control measures will weaken growth in the longer run,
leaving the US economy as the most dynamic of the three. Another key requirement for
global economic leadership is systemic importance in commercial, monetary, and financial terms. Unlike China, a
large trade power with underdeveloped monetary and financial capabilities, the eurozone meets the requirement of

Being a true
global leader means shaping and connecting the global economic structures within
which states and markets operate something the US has been doing for almost 70
years. At the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, the US crafted the post-World War II
international monetary and financial order. The basic framework, centered around
the US dollar, has survived financial crises, the Soviet Unions dissolution, and
several developing countries integration into the world economy. Today,
American leadership in global trade and financial and monetary
governance rests on inter-related strengths. The US provides the worlds
key international currency, serves as the linchpin of global demand,
establishes trends in financial regulation, and has a central bank that acts
as the worlds de facto lender of last resort. Beyond delivering a global public
good, supplying the worlds central currency carries substantial domestic benefits.
Because the US can borrow and pay for imports in its own currency, it does not face
a hard balance-of-payments constraint. This has allowed it to run large and sustained current-account
systemic significance in all three areas. There is also a less concrete aspect to leadership.

deficits fairly consistently since the early 1980s. These deficits raise persistent concerns about the systems

the system
survives, because it is based on a functional trade-off, in which the US uses other
countries money to act as the main engine of global demand. In fact, exportoriented economies like Germany, Japan, and China owe much of their success to
Americas capacity to absorb a massive share of global exports and they need to
keep paying America to play this role. Given this, the big exporters have lately come under intense
viability, with observers (mostly outside the US) having long predicted its imminent demise. But

pressure to correct their external surpluses as part of responsible global citizenship. While this has contributed to
a sharp contraction of the Chinese and Japanese surpluses, the eurozones current-account surplus is growing, with
the International Monetary Fund expecting it to reach 2.3% of GDP this year (slightly less than the Chinese
surplus). A global economy led by a surplus country seems more logical, given that creditors usually dictate terms.
At the time of the Bretton Woods conference, the US accounted for more than half of the worlds manufactured

The rest of the world needed dollars that only the US could supply .
Chinese or European leadership would probably look more like the pre-World War I
Pax Britannica (during which the United Kingdom supplied capital to the rest of the
world in anticipation of its own relative economic decline), with the hegemon
supplying funds on a long-term basis. But this scenario presupposes a deep and well-functioning
output.

financial system to intermediate the funds something that China and the eurozone have been unable to achieve.

the US remains the undisputed leader in global

finance. Indeed, American financial markets boast unparalleled depth,
liquidity, and safety, making them magnets for global capital, especially in
times of financial distress. This pulling power, central to US financial dominance, underpins the
Despite the 2008 financial crisis,

dollars global role, as investors in search of safe, liquid assets pour money into US Treasury securities. The belief
that a common currency and a common capital market would buttress financial institutions and deepen markets
was a driving principle behind the eurozones formation. But, given the lack of a single debt instrument equivalent
to a US Treasury bill, the crisis caused eurozone member states public-debt yields to diverge. Bank lending
subsequently withdrew to national borders, and the idea of a European capital market disintegrated. Likewise, in
China, the absence of currency convertibility together with a weak financial supervisory framework, which reflects
a broader problem related to poor implementation of the rule of law is impairing the economys prospects for
leadership. Europeans and Chinese should question whether they really want to assume the risks associated with a
position at the center of a large and complex global financial system. Control of the system is the chalice of global
leadership; but, for economies that are not adequately prepared for it, what should be an elixir may turn out to be
poison.

Economic collapse causes escalating global wars

Kemp 10 (Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at
The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan,
special assistant to the president for national security affairs and
senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National
Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control
Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The
East Moves West: India, China, and Asias Growing Presence in the
Middle East, p. 233-4)
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong
does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens ,
and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As

energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading
to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to
cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn
leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not
limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stabilityof some countries is challenged, and
there are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in
a result,

Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons.
The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist
Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle
East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances,

the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a

nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing
states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic
market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major
disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the
planets population.

Trade
Lack of updated maps makes Arctic Dangerous to ships.
CNAS 14 [Center for a New American Security, The Arctics Changing Landscape,
March, www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/CNAS_ArcticsChangingLandscape_policybrief.pdf]
For safety at sea, modern ships are generally outfitted with digital satellite communication equipment. In most

In
the higher Arctic latitudes and in remote areas, voice and data transmissions at sea for
military and commercial vessels are nonexistent.17 The unreliability or lack of satellite signal
across much of the region hinders the ability of the U.S. Coast Guard to detect and
deter illicit activities, prevent accidents, coordinate response operations, ensure
safety at sea and ultimately communicate. This unavailability of satellite signals also
impedes electronic charting and navigation safety systems that identify hazards to
ships traveling throughout the region. Navigation charts paper or electronic depict accurate shorelines and
cases, satellite and marine-based communication systems for the lower Arctic latitudes are considered sufficient.

provide commercial, recreational and military vessels current information on water depth, aids to navigation and

Without reliable, updated charts and timely navigation safety

bulletins, vessels face a greater risk of grounding or incurring hull damage from contact
with fixed or underwater obstructions. In addition, there are almost no visual aids to navigation in
the Arctic Ocean, such as buoys or fixed structures, which mark shipping channels and underwater
obstructions. Mariners must rely solely on charts and local knowledge to navigate the
region safely. Although National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) underwater surveys and
charting are being conducted and planned at least through 2018, the absence of reliable satellite
communications to obtain the most updated nautical charts and navigation safety
bulletins leads to a higher probability of maritime accidents , which could cause a
catastrophic oil spill or hazardous material release .18
locations of hazards.

Shipping key to stable food prices, trade, and world economic

stability
Mitropolous 5

(Efthimios, Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization of the United

Nations, World Maritime Day Parallel Event, 11/15, International Maritime Organization,
http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1028&doc_id=5415)

a healthy and successful

shipping industry has ramifications that reach far beyond the industry itself. Global
economic prosperity is dependent on trade and trade, in turn, is
dependent on a safe and secure transport network. Shipping is the most
important part of that global network , although it is rarely acknowledged as such, and seldom given
We hoped to kick-start moves towards creating a far broader awareness that

the credit it deserves. Indeed, I have long come to the sad conclusion that the contribution made by the shipping
industry - and, in particular, by those who work hard, both on board ships and ashore, to make it safer and more
environmentally friendly - is greatly undervalued by the public at large. You may have noticed that I used the word
"sad" to brand my conclusion. I am sorry to say that there is another word I might suggest as more fitting to
characterize the situation and that is the word "unfair" - in capital letters! I think it is worth pausing for a moment to

More than 90 per cent of

global trade is reportedly carried by sea; over the last four decades, total seaborne trade estimates
consider just how vital the contribution of ships and shipping actually is.

have nearly quadrupled, from less than 6 thousand billion tonne-miles in 1965 to 25 thousand billion tonne-miles in
2003; and, according to UN figures, the operation of merchant ships in the same year contributed about US$380
billion in freight rates within the global economy, equivalent to about 5 per cent of total world trade. This year, the
shipping industry is expected to transport 6.6 billion tonnes of cargo. If you consider this figure vis--vis the 6.4
billion population of the world, you will realize that this works out at more than one tonne of cargo for every man,
woman and child on the face of the planet - even more for the richer nations. As seaborne trade continues to
expand, it also brings benefits for consumers throughout the world. The transport cost element in the price of
consumer goods varies from product to product and is estimated to account for around 2 per cent of the shelf price
of a television set and only around 1.2 per cent of a kilo of coffee. Thanks to the growing efficiency of shipping as a

mode of transport and to increased economic liberalization, the prospects for the industry's further growth continue

Shipping is truly the lynchpin of the global economy. Without shipping,

intercontinental trade, the bulk transport of raw materials and the import and
export of affordable food and manufactured goods would simply not be possible.
Shipping makes the world go round and, so, let us be in no doubt about its broader significance. To
put it in simple terms, as I have done before on a number of occasions during the campaign initiated at IMO
to encourage all those involved in shipping to pay more attention to its public perception, without
international shipping half the world would starve and the other half
would freeze
to be strong.

Trade is key to peace

Jackson 14(Matthew, the William D. Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford University, an external
faculty member of the Santa Fe Institute, and a fellow of CIFAR. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford University in
1988, Can Trade Prevent War?, Stanford graduate school of business, May 28, 2014,
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/matthew-o-jackson-can-trade-prevent-war)

A new network model suggests that international trade alliances are considerably
more effective than military ones at keeping the peace. How can humans stop war? Obviously
theres no simple answer, but a new network model analysis of international alliances suggests that trade may be

The model, developed by Stanford economist Matthew O.

Jacksonand economics Ph.D. candidate Stephen Nei, suggeststhat military alliances alone arent enough to
stop nations from attacking one other, and also that the addition of multilateral economic trade
creates a more stable, peaceful world. While there is considerable existing research on the effects of
at least part of the answer.

trade and war, much of it has looked at bilateral relationships. This model focuses on multilateral interactions and
considers various incentives for countries to attack, form alliances with, and trade with one another. In an attempt
to understand whats necessary to achieve a stable network with no incentive for war, Jackson and Nei first
explored an alliance scenario based solely on military defense considerations, excluding trade. The fundamental
difficulty we find is that alliances are costly to maintain if theres no economic incentive, says Jackson. So networks
remain relatively sparse, a condition in which even a few shifting allegiances leaves some countries vulnerable to
attack. Stability is not just a little bit elusive; its very elusive. Economic

trade, however, makes a

significant difference. Once you bring in trade, you see network structures
densify, he says. Nations form a web of trading alliances, which creates financial incentive not only to keep

peace with trading partners, but also to protect them from being attacked so as not to disrupt trade. In the context
of the alliances we have analyzed, trade motives are essential to avoiding wars and sustaining stable networks,
the authors wrote in their paper, Networks of Military Alliances, Wars, and International Trade. Still, Jackson and
Neis theoretical model suggests that trade alliances play a critical role. And in fact economic allies may be the
most worth striving for in developing areas. Maybe wars like the Second Congo War wont be occurring in the
future if theres more trade with African nations, says Jackson. Economic

interests can really help us

have a more peaceful world than we already have.

Multilateral trade prevents war

Mooney, 14 (Lauren, Matthew O. Jackson: Can Trade Prevent War?,
05/28/14, http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/matthew-ojackson-can-trade-prevent-war, N.H.)

A new network model suggests that international trade alliances are

considerably more effective than military ones at keeping the peace. How
can humans stop war? Obviously theres no simple answer, but a new network
model analysis of international alliances suggests that trade may be at least part of
the answer. The model, developed by Stanford economist Matthew O.
Jackson and economics Ph.D. candidate Stephen Nei, suggests that
military alliances alone arent enough to stop nations from attacking one
other, and also that the addition of multilateral economic trade creates a
more stable, peaceful world. While there is considerable existing research on the
effects of trade and war, much of it has looked at bilateral relationships. This
model focuses on multilateral interactions and considers various

incentives for countries to attack, form alliances with, and trade with one
another. In an attempt to understand whats necessary to achieve a stable network
with no incentive for war, Jackson and Nei first explored an alliance scenario based
solely on military defense considerations, excluding trade. The fundamental
difficulty we find is that alliances are costly to maintain if theres no economic
incentive, says Jackson. So networks remain relatively sparse, a condition in which
even a few shifting allegiances leaves some countries vulnerable to attack.
Stability is not just a little bit elusive; its very elusive. Economic trade, however,
makes a significant difference. Once you bring in trade, you see network
structures densify, he says. Nations form a web of trading alliances, which
creates financial incentive not only to keep peace with trading partners, but also to
protect them from being attacked so as not to disrupt trade. In the context of
the alliances we have analyzed, trade motives are essential to avoiding
wars and sustaining stable networks, the authors wrote in their paper,
Networks of Military Alliances, Wars, and International Trade. Their findings coincide
with two major global trends since World War II: From 1950 to 2000, the incidence of
interstate war has decreased nearly tenfold compared with the period from 1850 to
1949. At the same time, since 1950 international trade networks have increased
nearly fourfold, becoming significantly more dense. In the period before World War
II, it was hard to find a stable set of alliances, says Jackson. The probability of a
lasting alliance was about 60%. You have almost a coin-flip chance that the alliance
wont still be there in five years, he says. In Europe in the 1870s, for example,
German chancellor Otto von Bismarck sought peace with "balance of power"
diplomacy, which crumbled leading up to World War I. Then in the past 50 years or
so, theres been a surprising global stability. The impact of economic
interdependence is especially apparent in Europe, Jackson says, where the Eurozone
has promoted not only peace and increased trade among nations, but also labor
mobility. Very costly wars still occur, of course, but Jackson notes that the most
war-torn places in recent history have tended to be those with fewer
global trade alliances. For example, the Second Congo War from 1998 to
2003 and beyond, which killed more than four million people and is the
deadliest war since World War II, involved eight African nations with
relatively few trade ties. Then look at the Kuwait situation, says Jackson,
referring to U.S. intervention in the first Gulf War to protect oil supplies. Economic
interest drives a lot of what goes on in terms of where nations are willing to exercise
military strength. There are other real-world factors that have no doubt influenced
war and trade trends since World War II, among them the proliferation of nuclear
weapons Changing military technology can help maintain stable arrangements,
says Jackson the Cold War, an increase in worldwide wealth levels, and the
introduction of container shipping in the 1960s, which has helped facilitate low-cost,
long-range trade. Still, Jackson and Neis theoretical model suggests that
trade alliances play a critical role. And in fact economic allies may be the
most worth striving for in developing areas. Maybe wars like the Second
Congo War wont be occurring in the future if theres more trade with African
nations, says Jackson. Economic interests can really help us have a more
peaceful world than we already have.

Russia
Russian influence over the arctic threatens the U.S
Slayton and Rosen, 14

(David M. Slayton and Mark E. Rosen, CNN reporters. March 14, 2014.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/opinion/slayton-rosen-russia-u-s-arctic/.
MD)
While much of the world is focused on the Russian incursion into the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine, another long-term move

may allow the former Soviet navy to dominate U.S. interests to the north: the Arctic.

The rapid melting

of the Arctic Ocean is quickly creating a new variety of challenges that have the potential to cause significant global damage if they
remain unaddressed. The Obama administration's policy correctly recognizes that the United States has profoundly important
economic and cultural interests in the Arctic but regrettably reveals very little about what the federal government will be doing
outside of the science field. While recent U.S. policies either dance around the core issues, or

worse, do not acknowledge that they exist, the Russians are taking the lead on Arctic
policy. After all, the Arctic is in their backyard, too. Moreover, Russia -- as if to highlight the value they place on their navy and

renaissance as a maritime nation -- took control of the strategic Crimean Peninsula, assuring and securing warm water Russian Navy
access to the global commons. In light of these recent events, it would be wise for Washington to

seriously consider the economic potential and security vulnerabilities that exist on or near the
U.S. Arctic coastline. Overwhelmingly, the U.S. Arctic policy debate echoes past concerns of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. Consequently, many in the policy community are pushing a heavy science and no-development agenda to preserve the
pristine character of the region. The recently issued Department of Defense Arctic Strategy is a case in point: It talks extensively about the
DOD scientific mission and uses the terms "sustainable development" and preservation of the unspoiled area as important national
goals. But just saying "no" ignores the fact that the precious Arctic mineral and oil and gas resources will help

assure the United States is able, over time, to achieve and then maintain its energy
independence.Science is incredibly important, as is safe and responsible development of the Arctic, but our agencies and

scientists need to approach these issues with a greater sense of urgency. Arguably, the science needs to be a component of a
detailed national action, but that's only a fraction of good U.S. policy. U.S. Arctic policy should prioritize four things: One:
Demonstrate leadership in the Arctic and develop a strategy and policy to match. The U.S. has no leadership in the

high north and Russia does, which is a great concern for our allies.

Two: Invest in infrastructure,

Navy and Coast Guard to support U.S. security and commercial interests in the Arctic. The key here is to develop the policy that
drives those requirements so we are not "late to need." Three: Demonstrate leadership in the maritime domain worldwide -- and not
retreat as we are doing by default in the Arctic. Four: Facilitate and further develop offshore natural resources in the high
north/Alaska and the national, international, maritime and geopolitical governance structures that will underpin those enterprises.
Washington, in less than two years, will assume a leadership role when it becomes Chair for the Arctic Council. Unfortunately, the DOD
policy and U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014 do not articulate what the U.S. Arctic leadership agenda will entail. The reality is ignoring the
issues and choosing not to participate in the Arctic will not make the issues go away. Yes, budgets are challenging, but the Arctic is
no different from any other international frontier or global common where the U.S. has interests. We need to protect it

and demonstrate leadership in the maritime domain -- not retreat.

So, too, our policy makers

need to be looking beyond our shores to Moscow, Ottawa, Oslo, Copenhagen, the Arctic Council, international oil companies and
Lloyds of London for help in solving this governance challenge. The last thing that any of the Arctic states can

afford is to back into a Russian-generated crisis with no resources or a plan. The time is now for
more U.S. leadership to ensure the Arctic becomes a safe, secure and prosperous region in which
to live and work.

Now is key for Russian cooperation in the arctic, the Ukrainian

Crisis has destabilized cooperative efforts
CEIP 3-27-14 [The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a unique global network of policy
research centers in Russia, China, Europe, the Middle East, and the United States.; Despite Crimea, Western-Russian
Cooperation in the Arctic Should Continue, http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/27/despite-crimea-westernrussian-cooperation-in-arctic-should-continue/h5xd?reloadFlag=1]

Russian policy toward Crimea has affected military cooperation most of all in the
Arctic.The Norwegian government, which has a relatively successful history of Arctic
cooperation with Russia and was originally in favor of preserving bilateral
cooperation, announced on March 26 itssuspension of bilateral military activities.
Norway and the United States will not be participating in the planned Northern Eagle military exercise. Canada
and the United States also have explicitly suspended bilateral military activities with
Russia. The Wall Street Journal reports that the United States has shelved cooperation with Russia on an Arctic
submarine rescue partnership and a bilateral meeting on Coast Guard operations in the Arctic. The mid-March

military exercise Cold Response was conducted as planned, for the most part, despite the Crimean crisis. Sixteen
nationsplus Russian guestsconducted combat operations in an Arctic environment in Northern Norway. If Cold
Response were held after Norways March 26 announcement, Norways amended position could have precluded
Russian participation.While

bilateral military cooperation is on hold, work in non-military

related fora should be intensified.Formats like Arctic Council and the Barents Euro-Atlantic Council
are specifically non-military. It seems that, for now, cooperation and information sharing in matters of the
environment, shipping, and economic activities will continue. On March 19, Foreign Minister of Iceland Gunnar

Ukraine has yet to affect cooperation

among Arctic nations, but that the behavior of individual states has the potential to
corrupt the work. Norway, the Wall Street Journal reports, intends to continue search-and-rescue cooperation
BragiSveinsson said in a Facebook post that the situation in

with Russia in the Arctic. Canada, chair of Arctic Council until 2015, is hosting a Council meeting this week. All
members, including Russia and the United States, will attend. Arctic engagement should focus on resource
exploration along the Northern Sea Route, energy extraction, environmental research and response, and search and
rescue missions. An example of future engagement is the June 2014 Arctic Exercise of the Arctic Councils
Emergency Prevention and Preparedness Response working group. The exercise, planned to be held in in Murmansk,
Russia, will simulate a radiological emergency that occurs on a nuclear icebreaker. The cessation of bilateral
military relations with Russia should not spoil bilateral negotiations to settle border disputes, namely with Canada,
Denmark, and the United States. Early resolution of border issues, the status of the Arctic, and the role of non-Arctic
players will help states avoid potential clashes as resources become more available in the future. To enable highlevel and continued dialogue on developments in the Arctic, governments should appoint Arctic ambassadors.
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Russia, Sweden, all have Arctic ambassadors or a similar post. U.S. Secretary of State
John Kerry announced in February of this year the intention to appoint an Arctic ambassador for the United States.
Even Japan followed with an Arctic ambassador appointment in mid-March.As the High Norths importance rises in

Arctic states have been cautious not to disturb the fragile

mechanics of cooperation with grievances from the Crimea crisis . However, the crisis
and anxieties about Russian territorial ambitions could inspire governments to take
a more hard-liner approach to defense in the Arctic . Even as Western nations levy sanctions on
and suspend bilateral military cooperation and exercises with Russia, engagement with Russia in the
Arctic is inevitable and should be sustained. It would be unwise to create conditions
that encourage militarization and put stability at risk in the Arctic.
the international political agenda,

US Key - Prevents violence and holds back Russia

Daley, 14

(Janet Daley, The Telegraph reporter. September 6, 2014.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/11078109/Without-American-leadership-freedom-is-in-peril.html. MD)
In an interview at the Nato summit, Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, assured us that Russia would not be a threat to Eastern
European countries which were members of Nato. Vladimir Putin, he said, knows where the red lines are. It was, to put it mildly, an
infelicitous choice of words. Standing back while aggressor countries galloped over red lines is what got us into this mess. Once
Barack Obama on whom the credibility of Nato depends allowed the Assad regime to cross his portentous red line on chemical
weapons, no pronouncement from a Western power was going to count for much among the lunatic gangs and tin pot autocrats of
the new world order. Now, Nato confronts not a cohesive ideological Soviet power bloc but a free-for-all.

This isnt a new Cold War, its chaos. Everybody and his wife said that this summit was going to be a test for Nato.

Could it demonstrate that it was fit for purpose or even agree on a clear definition of what that purpose now was? Well, the second
half of the challenge was easier to fudge than the first. There was a positive flood of diplomatic words from national leaders
attempting to obscure the real differences of opinion over, say, the reality of the threat to Eastern Europe from the New Russia. The
former Warsaw Pact nations, who can feel Putins breath on their necks, were a lot less sanguine than Mr

They know that the ceasefire with Russia which Petro

Poroshenko had little choice but to negotiate will be an acceptance of the invasion (sorry, incursion)
into his sovereign country by an imperial power (a nuclear power, as Putin has brazenly boasted). Putin will
hold and keep his ground in eastern Ukraine. Having permanently camped within its borders and
undermined its sovereignty, he will effectively put paid to any thought of Ukrainian membership
of either Nato or the EU. There are some Western commentators who will applaud this who claim bizarrely that this entire
Hammond about the imminent danger he represents.

crisis is the Wests fault because its representative organisations, Nato and the EU, have cunningly seduced Ukraine and the Baltic
states into their camp. It is this foolish European overreach which has caused offence to Russia by threatening its historical sphere of
influence, whereupon it had no option but to seize back with all necessary force those territories to which its national pride lays
claim. This club of Russia apologists is a motley collection of old Marxist lags who seem not to have noticed that the Russian
Federation is now a cowboy capitalist state not a Communist one, and diehard critics of the EU who see Brussels as an aggressive
neo-Soviet empire. Please, could the people who argue this way explain why, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they believe
that present-day Russia should have any legitimate claim on the states that were held in bondage by that defunct empire? Why

does Russia have a moral right to a permanent claim on Ukraine, which is now acknowledged by
all global authorities to be a free and independent country? No former Western imperial power would be

All that Nato and the EU have to offer

are economic sanctions which cause hardship to ordinary Russian people (that is, those who arent Kremlin
indulged in this way. Not that any of this cockeyed debate will matter in the end.

cronies) but do not touch Putins hold on power. He is on a roll. He knows that for the moment at least this romantic imperial vision
of New Russia will override any national discomforts and maintain his delirious popularity at home. So on the Ukraine the greatest
threat to European stability in a generation Nato is a busted flush. Now what about that other threat which is truly global in scale?
There was some quite bellicose rhetoric coming out of Wales on the danger that stretches from Africa through the Middle East and
beyond, from Isil and its contagious recklessness. There was, apparently, quieter talk too of actual planning for

US air strikes to be joined by British ones.

Unfortunately, the discussion has been muddied by confusion over whether

such action which could only be effective if it involved strikes in Syria would involve cooperation with the Assad regime. This
seems quite absurd. Why should we concern ourselves with the strict legality of entering the airspace of a country which is known to
have committed war crimes? Would this outlaw regime, which must count itself lucky to have escaped Western attack a year ago,
actually be inclined to shoot US or British planes out of the sky? Meanwhile, David Cameron who seems to have the will if not the
military wherewithal to take on the Isil terror, has become a star on American media. His robust statements and calls to arms are
contrasted with Mr Obamas equivocating, contradictory responses to straight questions. In a recent public outing on the subject,
the President managed to shift, in the space of a few minutes, from a commitment to degrade and destroy Isil, to rendering it
simply a manageable problem within the region. This is really not satisfactory. Even Obamas own party has begun to

worry that America is being made to look shifty and weak.But as Mr Cameron and his spokesmen make clear, in
the most tactful terms they can muster, the actual military capability to deal with (that is, either to degrade and destroy, or to
reduce to manageable proportions) the Isil menace, lies with the US. Without the leadership of the American

president, all the fine talk from Britain and Nato, about standing up for our values and defeating
this evil force, will count for nothing. So maybe Mr Cameron knows what he is about here: his eloquence and verbal

resolve are becoming an embarrassment to the we-dont-have-a-strategy-yet Obama White House, which has looked terrifyingly
out of its depth. Maybe he will succeed in shaming Obama out of his paralysis. Then what? Mr Cameron and Mr Obama are making it
clear that they want to mentor and support those in the region who seek a political solution, and that this must involve an
inclusive Iraqi government. Yes indeed. But had there been more mentoring and supervision from the West in the aftermath of the
Iraq war, the disastrously sectarian government of Nouri al-Maliki might not have created such ideal conditions for the rise of Isil.
Contrary to Leftist caricature, America is a very reluctant colonialist. It does not like to superintend the situations its military leaves
behind. And this president is particularly averse to accepting global responsibilities. So we find ourselves in a world so many people
said they wanted: without American leadership or Western moral boundaries. What are the odds on

the survival of freedom and the protection of innocent civilians?

Maritime Domain Awareness is key for a changing Arctic

Sturgis et al. 14(Linda, Senior Coast guard, Joel Smith, research assistant, Isaiah Reed, Environment
and Security Intern Isaiah Reed, The Arctics Changing Landscape Addressing New Maritime Challenges, Centers for
New American Security, March 2014, http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_Arctic
%E2%80%99sChangingLandscape_policybrief.pdf)

Many scientific models predict that within 10 years the Arctic will be virtually icefree for at least several weeks in the early fall. These changes in the weather patterns are of
direct significance to U.S. security: more ice-free months will lead to greater activity
in the region. In particular, the United States will face specific threats that emanate from increased human
presence, including greater potential for illicit activity and dangerous environmental conditions, which will have an
adverse impact on the social and food security of local communities. In addition,there

could also be
excessive maritime claims that is, competing claims for maritime territory or
exclusive navigation rights that would threaten U.S. sovereignty . To exacerbate these
issues, maritime domain awareness in the region is very limited. There is minimal U.S.
government waterborne presence in the Arctic, and the region lacks an adequate
communications infrastructure for response operations and to protect national
security. Despite all of this, operators and government agencies are challenged with inadequate physical
infrastructure in the Arctic, which greatly limits the full and comprehensive knowledge of activities throughout the
region.

Effective Maritime Domain

Awareness (MDA) - the understanding and awareness of waterborne

is paramount as Arctic
maritime activities increases. Arctic shipping lanes greatly reduce the time and
distance between certain seaports particularly between Europe, Asia and North America and will
become more frequently transited as sea ice diminishes. (See Figure 2.) As oil and offshore
gas extraction grows in areas adjacent to shipping lanes, MDA will become increasingly important to
reduce the risk of vessel accidents,oil and chemical spills, illegal fishing and other adverse effects on
the environment.With limited communication infrastructure and physical presence in the
Arctic, the U.S. government is not adequately equipped to achieve comprehensive
MDA.
activities and the impact safety, security, economy and the environment

The U.S. and Russia can cooperate in the Arctic

Gudev 14 (Pavel, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations
(IMEMO) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia International Affairs Council, March 19, 2014,
http://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/arctic-cooperation/?id_4=1053)
In the last years,

we have witnessed a deep evolution in the understanding of the Arctic

issues among both American and Russian experts. We have understood that we are
allies rather than enemies and that we have shared interests in the Arctic. At the time
being,all countries are willing to cooperate in the Arctic. This willingness remains in
spite of the crisis in Ukraineor in any other sphere. The Arctic has been and will be a very fruitful field of
cooperation between Russia and the U.S., Norway, and Canada. I dont think there will be any problems. I believe
that what we need is to more openly discuss all the issues. In 2013, the U.S. signed the new Arctic Strategy. It refers
to the American national interest all the time, but the American experts did not tell us what this national interest is.
We need clarity and openness in discussing our goals.

A U.S-Russia war scenario would guarantee destruction

Weber, 14 (Peter, senior editor at TheWeek.com and a graduate of Northwestern
University, Peter has worked at Facts on File, What would a U.S.-Russia war look
like?, 03/05/14, http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russiawar-look-like, N.H.)

The chances that the U.S. and Russia will clash militarily over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine are very, very slim. Ukraine isn't a
member of NATO, and President Obama isn't likely to volunteer for another war. But many of Ukraine's neighbors are NATO
members, including Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary. And so are the the Baltic states Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia
further north and right on Russia's border. If any of those countries come to Ukraine's aid and find themselves in a war with Russia,
NATO is obliged to intervene. That's also true if Russia comes up with some pretext to invade any of those countries, unlikely as that
seems.

If we learned anything from World War I, it's that huge, bloody

conflicts can start with tiny skirmishes, especially in Eastern Europe. Again, the U.S. and Russia almost
certainly won't come to blows over Ukraine. But what if they did? If you asked that question during the Cold War it would be like
those fanciful Godzilla vs. King Kong, or Batman vs. Superman match-ups: Which superpower would prevail in all-out battle? But
Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and military technology didn't stop in 1991. Here, for example, is a look at U.S. versus Russian/USSR

The U.S. is much wealthier than

Russia and spends a lot more on its military. That doesn't mean a war
would be easy for the U.S. to win, though, or even guarantee a victory : As
Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way, Russia will sacrifice a lot to win its wars , especially on its
home turf. So, what would a war between the U.S. and Russia look like? Here are a few
scenarios, from awful to merely bad: Nuclear Armageddon Even with the slow mutual nuclear disarmament
defense spending since the end of the Cold War, from Mother Jones.

since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia each have thousands of nuclear warheads at the ready. As Eugene Chow noted

U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) 448 active is

essentially aimed squarely at Russia. Russia's hundreds of ICBMs are
probably returning the favor.In all, the U.S. has about 7,700 nuclear warheads,
earlier this year, the entire stockpile of

including 1,950 warheads ready to deploy via ICBM, submarine, and airplane, plus thousands more in mothballs or waiting to be

Russia has slightly more

warheads overall about 8,500 but a slightly fewer 1,800 of them operational. China, in comparison, has
about 250 nuclear warheads, a bit less that France (300) and a bit more than Britain (225). Nuclear war with
Russia is still mutually assured destruction . Hopefully, that's still deterrent enough. A conventional
dismantled, according to the latest tally by the Federation of American Scientists.

war in Eastern Europe This is the other scenario that never happened in the Cold War. Now, the possibility of scenario one (nuclear
Armageddon) makes this one almost equally unlikely. But for the sake of argument, let's assume this hypothetical U.S.-Russia war

NATO forces are supplementing U.S. troops, ships,

and aircraft. Unlike in the Asia-Pacific, where the U.S. keeps China in check (and vice versa, as Eugene Chow explained),
NATO provides the United States with a robust military alliance set up
specifically to take on Soviet Russia. The first dynamic is that Russia would have home field advantage:
breaks out in Ukraine, and that other

The Russian navy has long called Crimea its home, and whatever troops Russia doesn't already have in Ukraine are right next door,
one border-crossing away. The other big starting point is that the U.S. and its NATO allies have Russia effectively surrounded. By its
own public count, the U.S. has 598 military facilities in 40 countries, along with the 4,461 bases in the U.S. and U.S. territories. Along
with its large number of bases in Germany, the U.S. has major military installations in Qatar and the Diego Garcia atoll to Russia's
south and Japan and South Korea to its east. NATO allies France and Britain are even closer, as this map from Britain's The Telegraph
shows: On top of that, NATO has bases around Russia's western perimeter and in Turkey, right across the Black Sea from Ukraine.
What about Russia? "They have a presence in Cuba," more a way station than a base, NYU professor Mark Galeotti tells The
Washington Post. And Russia has a naval base in Tartus, Syria. But otherwise "they have no bases outside the former Soviet Union."
Russia has an estimated 845,000 active-duty troops, with as many as 2.5 million more in reserve. NYU's Galeotti isn't very

impressed. Russia's military is "moderately competent," he tells The Washington Post. "It's not at the level of the American or British
or German military, but it's better than in the 1990s." The Russian troops, especially the Spetsnaz special forces, are "good at
bullying small neighbors, but it would not be effective against NATO. It would not be able to defeat China." Galeotti is even more
brutal about Russia's Crimea-based Black Sea Fleet: As a war-fighting force, it's not particularly impressive. Its main vessel was
basically built to fight other ships and so is only useful in fighting a naval war. It's got the Moskva, an aging guided-missile cruiser; a
large anti-submarine warfare cruiser very dated; a destroyer and two frigates, which are more versatile; landing ships; and a
diesel attack submarine. It's not a particularly powerful force. The Italian navy alone could easily destroy it. [Washington Post] The
U.S. military's 1.4 million active duty troops and 850,000 reservists, but it can't just throw all of them at Russia somebody has to
maintain those 598 bases around the world, as well as defend the U.S. NATO's Response Force (NRF), which would probably be the
first armed unit to engage the Russians, has 13,000 troops at the ready and thousands more in reserve. Here's NATO describing its
first-response team, right before NRF war games last fall: If Russia would have the advantage at sea Sevastopol is its home port,
and the U.S./NATO would have to dislodge its navy the U.S. would have an edge in the skies, mostly. "The U.S. planes have better
radar, missiles, and electronic warfare equipment, while the Russian planes are judged to have superior handling and thrust-toweight ratio, which would give them an edge in a classic dogfight," says Charles Clover at the Financial Times. But classic dogfights
are at least as dated as Top Gun, Russian defense analyst Ruslan Pukhov tells FT. "Ever since Soviet days we have been lagging
behind the U.S. in military aviation." Because of that gap, he adds, Soviet and Russian military planners have invested heavily in air
defense systems, and the S-300 and S-400 systems are the best in the world. "It's like boxing," Pukhov says. "If you have a weak
right arm, you need to compensate by a strong left arm. Soviet strategists made up for a weakness in aviation by investing heavily

Global
Firepower ranks the U.S. the most powerful conventional military in the
world, and that's without NATO, but Russia is a pretty close second (here it
in air defense systems."A U.S.-Russia war probably wouldn't end up a draw, but it would be a bloody mess. The site

differs with Galeotti). If you look down the list of military assets, the U.S. beats Russia in almost every category Russia has more
tanks, ground artillery, and mine warfare craft. There's a wild card, though: Since 2010, the U.S. and Russian militaries have been
increasingly cooperating, including engaging in joint military exercises. Unlike in Soviet times, or even the 1990s, U.S. and Russian
military commanders know one another and are familiar with each other's armaments and strategies. Until the U.S. put all U.S.Russian military engagements on hold Monday, the relationship was good and improving. There's "a very robust, cooperative effort
between our militaries," Rear Admiral Mark C. Montgomery, deputy director for plans, policy, and strategy at U.S. European
Command (EUCOM), told Foreign Policy in 2012, as Russian officers were in NORAD headquarters in Colorado, practicing
counterinsurgency tactics. The naval exercises "tend to be fairly deep in their level of technical engagement," Montgomery said,
"where say, the ground ones and [special operations forces] ones are still fairly young exercises that do a lot more walk-thru than
detailed exercising. But as they go year to year, they get more complicated."A

proxy war Short of a negotiated peace with

U.S. and Russia have already fought a string
of proxy wars, the big ones being Vietnam to Afghanistan. In this scenario, the U.S.
no casualties, this is the best of the bad options. The

might finance Ukrainian forces to fight Russian soldiers, with the probable goal of driving them out of Ukrainian territory. Or, should
the U.S. or NATO back the Ukrainian army, Russia might fund pro-Moscow separatist movements in Ukraine against it. Russia helped
the North Vietnamese beat the U.S. in Southeast Asia, and the U.S. helped the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. If that
pattern holds, and Ukraine is the battleground, then it's bad news for the occupying army. Advantage: America.

Solvency
U.S has effective ability to maintain peace in the Arctic with
Russia
Virignia et al, 14 (Ross A. Virginia is director of the Institute of Arctic Studies at Dartmouth University;
James F. Collins is a senior associate in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and a former U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation; Michael Sfraga is vice chancellor of the University
of Alaska Fairbanks; and Kenneth S. Yalowitz is a global fellow at the Wilson Center and a former U.S. ambassador to
Belarus and Georgia, The US and a peaceful Arctic Future, 08/08/14, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/energy-environment/214597-the-us-and-a-peaceful-arctic-future, N.H.)
The indigenous peoples organization of the Arctic, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), recently met in Inuvik
Canada under the theme of One Arctic-One Future. The question is whether U.S. leadership of the council can
advance that vision. We believe there is substantial reason for optimism on this score. Cooperation among the
councils major participants is vital, and there are plenty of reasons to ask whether the current tensions between
Russia and other state members of the council will disrupt cooperation. This need not be the case. There are few

The
primary issues facing the Arctic Council in the coming years are those where all the
councils members have more in common than not: safe navigation of the Arctic
Ocean; environmental protection measures to limit pollution and prevent
oil spills; the application of business models for economic development that empower and meet the needs of
areas where Russian interests in this region are at variance with those of the U.S. or other Arctic states.

Arctic communities establishing new programs for improved healthcare and education; and prudent management of
fishery stocks. In addition, the councils Arctic nations face governance questions like the exact role and
involvement in decision making of the new observer states, whether classic security issues should be added to its
list of subjects for council discussion, and the nature of further binding agreements. In all these matters the major
Arctic Council players have strong interests in finding common cause to preserve the constructive, consensual
nature of council operations. These will be the principal challenges facing the U.S. chairmanship as it leads the
council. Much of this work will focus on efforts to build consensus around the rules and legal regime that govern
international action in the Arctic. The U.S. will bring strong leadership to this effort but will carry one major burden
that inevitably complicates its effectiveness. U.S. failure to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty
continues to weaken U.S. capacity to lead in building support for the legal regime most central to orderly Arctic
governance. On a practical level it also undercuts U.S. ability to make extended territorial shelf claims in the Arctic
Ocean beyond the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone. For both these reasons ratification of the UN

the United States has immense

resources and influence that it can bring to bear in leading the council. It
can bring great authority to the councils efforts to maintain the Arctic as
a zone of cooperation and to build the consensus that permits all parties
to work together effectively. We welcome the appointment of Admiral
Papp as a promising down payment toward achieving that goal.
Convention is long overdue. As it takes up the Arctic Council chair,

Trade promotes peace (Germany and France are an example)

Adorney, 13 (Julian, Want Peace? Promote Free Trade, 10/15/13,
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/want-peace-promote-free-trade,
N.H.)
First, trade creates international goodwill. If Chinese and American
businessmen trade on a regular basis, both sides benefit. And mutual benefit
disposes people to look for the good in each other. Exchange of goods also
promotes an exchange of cultures. For decades, Americans saw China as a
mysterious country with strange, even hostile values. But in the 21st century, trade
between our nations has increased markedly, and both countries know each other a
little better now. iPod-wielding Chinese teenagers are like American teenagers, for
example. Theyre not terribly mysterious. Likewise, the Chinese understand
democracy and American consumerism more than they once did. The countries may

not find overlap in all of each others values, but trade has helped us to at least
understand each other. Trade helps to humanize the people that you trade
with. And its tougher to want to go to war with your human trading
partners than with a country you see only as lines on a map. Second, trade
gives nations an economic incentive to avoid war. If Nation X sells its best
steel to Nation Y, and its businessmen reap plenty of profits in exchange,
then businessmen on both sides are going to oppose war. This was
actually the case with Germany and France right before World War I.
Germany sold steel to France, and German businessmen were firmly
opposed to war. They only grudgingly came to support it when German ministers
told them that the war would only last a few short months. German steel had a
strong incentive to oppose war, and if the situation had progressed a little
differentlyor if the German government had been a little more realistic about the
timeline of the warthat incentive might have kept Germany out of World War I.
Third, protectionism promotes hostility. This is why free trade, not just
aggregate trade (which could be accompanied by high tariffs and quotas),
leads to peace. If the United States imposes a tariff on Japanese automobiles, that
tariff hurts Japanese businesses. It creates hostility in Japan toward the United
States. Japan might even retaliate with a tariff on U.S. steel, hurting U.S. steel
makers and angering our government, which would retaliate with another tariff.
Both countries now have an excuse to leverage nationalist feelings to gain support
at home; that makes outright war with the other country an easier sell, should it
come to that. In socioeconomic academic circles, this is called the Richardson
process of reciprocal and increasing hostilities; the United States harms Japan,
which retaliates, causing the United States to retaliate again. History shows that the
Richardson process can easily be applied to protectionism. For instance, in the
1930s, industrialized nations raised tariffs and trade barriers; countries eschewed
multilateralism and turned inward. These decisions led to rising hostilities, which
helped set World War II in motion. These factors help explain why free trade
leads to peace, and protectionism leads to more conflict.