AFF

1AC

Plan:
The United States federal government should expand US-Russian cooperative exploration
of the Arctic Ocean.

Adv: Russia
Science cooperation in the arctic is insufficient expanding it is key to overall US-Russian
arctic cooperation
Benton 1-22-14 [David, Presidential appointment to the Arctic Research Commission, International
Cooperation Works, http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=3020#top]
We cooperate very well in the North Pacific and the Bering Sea. And an example of this success is that we have the longest maritime
boundary between any two nations in the world. And we have very little conflict along that boundary. We have very good cooperation between Russian border guards
and the United States coast guards in terms of enforcement and search and rescue operations. And our fishery managers exchange data and information on a regular
basis. That all works fairly well. However,

where we have a gap, in my view, is in the Arctic, in the area of the Northern Bering Sea and
not had a reason until recent times to start thinking about how to
cooperate, because of the ice there was little activity. Now that region is opening up. I believe that the United States and Russia should
look at some bilateral arrangements that would deal with enforcement, with science, and cooperation or at least coordination in terms of our
management activities for things like fisheries. The first step in the relationship that will have to be built over time, in my mind, is science. We
have good projects that we are cooperating on. But theyre very specific. What we dont have , in my view, is
an institutional arrangement that would have long-lasting durability over decades, and we need that. And
we should do that bilaterally in our shared boundary. It should be a Russia and United States -led,
reciprocal scientific cooperation agreement that helps us on a regular basis to plan and coordinate
our research activities, share resources and achieve the joint interests that we have in that region. The second
north into the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean. Weve

thing is the working relationship between the Russian border guards and the United States Coast Guard. Thats a pretty solid good working relationship that should
extend and continue. Its working very well in the Bering Sea and the North Pacific and should continue and work its way up to the Arctic Ocean as well, and we
should look for opportunities to strengthen that relationship as well. And whats your assessment of these opportunities? And do you think that if Russia and the US
start cooperating in the Arctic, the others will follow? I think the opportunities

are there. And I think that we have the chance to make

things happen over the next few years . And yes, I believe that if we start cooperating on science and enforcement, other
kinds of opportunities will present themselves, so the relationship will strengthen. If we dont seize
those opportunities, then well face a situation where one side does one thing, the other side does another
thing, and because one does not talk to the other, we wont know if were helping or hurting.

And, science cooperation is both necessary and sufficient to solve US-Russia conflicts
Berkman 6/23/14
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2014/stability-and-peace-in-arctic-ocean-through-science-diplomacy
Paul Arthur Berkman is a research professor at the Marine Science Institute and Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the
University of California, Santa Barbara.

High north, low tensions has been the mantra of diplomats , as coined by former Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr
Stre. After all, the Cold War is over and cooperation has been evolving in productive directions ever since for the
North Polar region. Lessons of the Arctic, such as those from the Antarctic, reveal science as a tool of diplomacy
that creates bridges among nations and fosters stability in regions. It is well known that science is necessary for Earth
system monitoring and assessment, especially as an essential gauge of change over time and space. Science also is a
frequent determinant of public policy agendas and institutions , often for early warning about future events. However, even
more than an immediate source of insight, invention, and commercial enterprise, science provides continuity in our global
society with its evolving foundation of prior knowledge. These and other features of science diplomacy,1 as a field of human endeavor, are
relevant to our global future in the Arctic. Building on the East-West breakthrough in the 1986 Reykjavik Summit, with his Murmansk speech in
October 1987, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev envisioned a shared path where the community and interrelationship of the interests of our
entire world is felt in the northern part of the globe, in the Arctic, perhaps more than anywhere else. Recognizing that scientific

exploration of the Arctic is of immense importance for the whole of mankind, Gorbachev called for creation of a joint
Arctic Research Council. Emerging from his Murmansk speech, the International Arctic Science Committee was founded in 1990, followed by
the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in 1991, which revealed a common future among Arctic countries and peoples. Also involving the
eight Arctic states,2 the Barents-Euro Arctic Council and Standing Committee of the Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region were
formed in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Eventually established in 1996, the Arctic Council breathed life into a circumpolar

community of the eight states and six indigenous peoples organizations inhabiting the region north of the Arctic Circle. As a high level
forum, the Arctic Council has become central in an institutional arena for the high north that includes the above organizations along with many
others, starting with the 1920 Treaty Concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen. With its forty-two signatories, this treaty still stands as a beacon

of peaceful development in the high north. Together, the

six scientific working groups of the Arctic Council are

facilitating knowledge discovery and contributing to informed decisions about common Arctic issues of
sustainable development and environmental protection. As a direct consequence of the Arctic Council, pan-Arctic agreements
are being signed by all Arctic states, beginning with the 2011 search and rescue agreement and 2013 marine oil pollution response
agreement. Interests of twelve non-Arctic states, including China and India, also are being accommodated as they are brought in as observers to
the Arctic Council. Moreover, the so-called Arctic Five3 coastal states are reaching territorial agreements. As noted in their 2008 Ilulissat
Declaration, sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in large areas of the Arctic Oceanare being addressed cooperatively under the Law of
the Sea, particularly with regard to outer limits of the continental shelf. This commitment includes the United States, even though it has not yet
ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Highlighting the cooperation, Russia and Norway signed an agreement in
2010 about Barents Sea resources, ending a dispute that had escaped their resolution for the previous four decades. Winds Are Changing

The current crisis related to Ukraine has introduced global geopolitics into the Arctic unlike any world event since
the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within weeks of the Crimea annexation, former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton was linking the
Arctic, Russia, and Ukraine, suggesting in a March 2014 speech in Montreal that we need a united front, as reported by the Globe
and Mail. The following month, Canada, the current chair of the Arctic Council, boycotted the Arctic Council meeting in Moscow. Lines are
being redrawn, which the May/June 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs reflected with its articles related to The Return of Geopolitics. Such

political posturing risks fueling the long-dormant burning security issues that Gorbachev warned of in the
Arctic. Perhaps the world was arriving at this security intersection in any case, but for different reasons. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an
environmental state-change, where the boundary conditions of the system are being altered. The Arctic Ocean is undergoing an environmental
state-change, where the boundary conditions of the system are being altered. In factwith the Arctic warming twice as fast as anywhere else on
Earththe Arctic Ocean is undergoing the largest environmental state-change on our planet. The surface of this maritime region surrounding the
North Pole is being transformed from a sea-ice cap that has persisted for millennia (perhaps even hundreds of millennia) to a system with sea ice
retreating and advancing seasonally. Rather than projecting out to the mid-twenty-first century, it is clear that the Arctic Ocean already has
crossed a threshold with open water during the summer and first-year sea ice during the winter covering more than 50 percent of its area. Of
greater significance, the volume of Arctic sea ice has decreased more than 70 percent since the late 1970s. With increasing accessibility in the
Arctic Ocean, countries, along with multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, are preparing to exploit

the regions enormous energy reserves, estimated to contain 30 percent of the worlds undiscovered gas and 13 percent of its
undiscovered oil. Fisheries are opening to commercial harvesting without regulation, especially in areas of the high seas lacking any regional
fisheries management organization. Arctic shipping routes are being established to supplement trade through the Panama and
Suez Canals. It is not a matter of waiting decades or even years for the Arctic Ocean to be completely ice-free during the summer. There

is
now a new Arctic Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Like removing the ceiling to a room, the fundamental shift in the
surface boundary of the Arctic Ocean has created a new natural system with different dynamics than anything previously experienced by humans
in the region. There is now a new Arctic Ocean, one that lacks a permanent sea-ice cap. Separate from the Ukraine situation, the

environmental state-change in the Arctic Ocean is introducing inherent risks of political, economic, and
cultural instabilitieswhich are at the heart of every security dialogue. Exposing security risks in the Arctic may be a
good thing, but only if accompanied by inclusive solutions that both promote cooperation and prevent
conflict. Achieving International Stability Leaving loose the elephant in the room, questions about conflict in the Arctic Ocean remain
unattended. As a consequence, the associated community of states and peoples lacks a shared understanding of expectations, capabilities,
interests, and wills to foster lasting stability in the Arctic Ocean. Matters related to military security are off the table for the Arctic Council. The
council avoids even general considerations of security in the Arctic Ocean, as reflected by elimination of the security chapter from its second
Arctic Human Development Report, which is due in 2014. Matters related to military security are off the table for the Arctic Council. With all
Arctic coastal states except Russia as members, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the only northern Atlantic organization without
a remit in the Arctic Ocean. This position seems reasonable as long as NATO is seen by Russia as the main external threat of war, as stated in
the 2010 Military Doctrine of Russia. These positions made sense immediately after the Cold War, but decades of cooperation have followed and
there now is capacity to project peace into the future for the Arctic Ocean. Not all military capabilities are designed for force,4 as affirmed for
the Arctic Ocean in 2010 by then NATO supreme allied commander, Admiral James Stavridis. Illustrating this point, in association with the Arctic
Council, meetings among the chiefs of defense from all Arctic states began in 2012 with regard to their shared emergency responses in the Arctic
Ocean. An opportunity to think about the Arctic more holistically is further revealed by the NATO Advanced Research Workshop Environmental
Security in the Arctic Ocean, which the author chaired with Russian co-directorship in 2010 at the University of Cambridge. That workshop
became the first formal dialogue between NATO and Russia regarding security issues in the Arctic Ocean. Global recognition of the

need for international stability is a necessary first step toward lasting peace in the maritime region
bounded by North America, Europe, and Asia at the top of the Earth, where the interests of the entire international community are increasingly
focused. The next step will involve implementing an inclusive venue for ongoing dialogue to prevent

conflict as well as promote cooperation in the Arctic Ocean. Cultivating Common Interests International stability is inextricably
linked to sustainable development, which already is acknowledged as a common Arctic issue to balance economic prosperity, environmental
protection and social equity, taking into consideration the needs of present and future generations. Even more basic to stability in the Arctic
Ocean is balancing national interests and common interests. Although peace is the most basic foundation for international stability, the term was
consciously rejected as a common Arctic issue when the Arctic Council was established. The fear then, as now, was that peace implies
demilitarization. It was only in 2009 that this term even began to appear in Arctic Council ministerial declarations. Still, peace is not used
among all Arctic states in their national security policies for the Arctic. In fact, it remains to be seen whether Canada, in contrast to its Arctic
foreign policies, will include peace in the 2015 Arctic Council ministerial declaration. If the Arctic states are too timid or nationalistic to openly
discuss balance, stability, and peace when tensions are low, how will they possibly cooperate when conflicts arise? The path forward is reflected

by the Arctic states commitment to the Law of the Sea, which includes zones within as well as beyond sovereign jurisdictions. Even if
continental shelf extensions were conferred all the way to the North Poleunambiguously in the overlying water columnhigh seas still would
exist beyond sovereign jurisdictions, where more than 160 nations have rights and responsibilities under international law. I mplications of

the high seas surrounding the North Pole are just now entering front stage. At their February 2014 meeting in Nuuk,
Greenland, the Arctic Five took the initiative to prevent unregulated fishing in the central Arctic Ocean. Whatever the international outcomes
from this meeting, lessons will resonate from the high seas of the Arctic Ocean outward across our civilization on a planetary scale.
Statesmanship Is Required At the moment, there is neither a forum nor leadership to foster lasting stability in the

Arctic Ocean. To prepare for the 2016 Arctic heads of state meeting that is being considered in the United States on the twentieth
anniversary of the Arctic Council, President Barack Obama has the option to inspire stability and peace for the
Arctic across the twenty-first century and beyond. Turning back the calendar only a few months to winter 2014 (remember the Sochi
Olympics), Russia was seen in a different light. Since 2010, the Russian Geographical Society had been convening the Arctic Forum for
Dialogue, first in Moscow then in Arkhangelsk in 2011 and in Salekhard in 2013. Each of these international gatherings in Russia involved
scientists and diplomats as well as government administrators, commercial operators, advocates from nongovernmental organizations, and
indigenous peoples. Most prominent in the Arctic forums were the head-of-state presentations, stimulated by participation of Vladimir Putin
initially as prime minister and most recently as president of the Russian Federation. President lafur Ragnar Grmsson of Iceland, as the elder
statesman of the Arctic, participated in all three forums. Prince Albert II of Monaco presented in 2010 and 2011. With invitations extended to all
Arctic heads of state, President Sauli Niinist of Finland also participated in 2013. As a common interest, these heads of state all spoke of
stability and peace in the Arctic, even if only for their national benefit. In each forum, it also was clear that the level of trust and cooperation in
the Arctic had matured since the Cold War, signaling that international relationships in the Arctic are open and strong enough to deal with the
more difficult issues of preventing conflict. To build on the earlier head-of-state engagements for the Arctic, Obama has the opportunity to
convene a meeting with all other Arctic heads of state and act as a statesman who puts out the brushfires of the moment while planting seeds of
hope and inspiration for the future.5 The challenge is to create a process of ongoing and inclusive dialogue about

Arctic issues that have so far eluded shared consideration . With the Arctic, Obama must be brave enough to
share the coin of peace, promoting cooperation on one side and preventing conflict on the other. Historic perspectives and the roles
of science diplomacy will help provide direction. However, to bear fruit in the interests of humankind, the political
will for lasting stability and peace in the Arctic must come from all Arctic heads of state . At the end of the day,
peace must be established explicitly as a common interest among all states and peoples in the Arctic Ocean. As Gorbachev imagined a generation
ago, Let the North Pole be a Pole of Peace.

Continued competition in the Arctic makes war imminent

Goldenberg 14 [Suzanne, US environment correspondent, Climate change poses growing threat of
conflict in the Arctic, report finds, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/14/climatechange-arctic-security-threat-report]
Climate change poses a growing security threat and could cause conflict in the Arctic , a group of retired American
generals and admirals said on Tuesday. In a new report, the former military officers said the Pentagon had been caught out by the rapid changes
under way in the Arctic because of the melting of the sea ice. Things are accelerating in the Arctic faster than we had

looked at," said General Paul Kern, the chairman of the Centre for Naval Analysis Corporation's military
advisory board, which produced the report. The changes there appear to be much more radical than we envisaged. The prospect of
an ice-free Arctic by mid-century had set off a scramble for shipping lanes by Russia and China especially, and
for access to oil and other resources. As the Arctic becomes less of an ice-contaminated area it represents a lot of
opportunites for Russia, he said. Oil companies were also moving into the Arctic. "We think things are accelerating in the Arctic faster
than we had looked at seven years ago," he said, saying the situation had the potential to "spark conflict there". The
CNA report deepens concern about the security risks posed by climate change. In March, the United Nations' IPCC, in a landmark report, also
warned that growing competition for resources in a world under climate change could lead to conflict. The

report from the retired generals goes further, however, upgrading the climate risk from a threat multipler to
a conflict catalyst.

US-Russian Arctic conflict goes nuclear

Cohen 10 Ariel [Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby
Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies] From Russian Competition to Natural Resources Access: Recasting U.S. Arctic Policy The
Heritage Foundation 6/15/10 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/from-russian-competition-to-natural-resources-access-recastingus-arctic-policy ]
To advance its position, Russia has undertaken a three-year mission to map the Arctic.[26] The Kremlin is also moving rapidly to establish a
comprehensive sea, ground, and air presence. Under Putin, Russia focused on the Arctic as a major natural resources base. The Russian
national leadership

insists that the state, not the private sector, must take the lead in developing the vast region. The

Kremlin published its Arctic doctrine in March 2009.[27] The main goal is to transform the Arctic into Russias strategic resource base and make
Russia a leading Arctic power by 2020. Russian Militarization of the Arctic. The military is an important dimension of

Moscows Arctic push. The policy calls for creating general purpose military formations drawn from the Armed Forces of the Russian
Federation as well as other troops and military formations [most importantly, border units] in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, capable
of ensuring security under various military and political circumstances.[28] These formations will be drawn from the armed forces and from the
power ministries (e.g., the Federal Security Service, Border Guard Service, and Internal Ministry). Above all, the policy calls for a coast guard
to patrol Russias Arctic waters and estuaries. Russia views the High North as a major staging area for a potential

nuclear confrontation with the United States and has steadily expanded its military presence in the Arctic
since 2007. This has included resuming air patrols over the Arctic, including strategic bomber flights.[29] During 2007 alone, Russian bombers
penetrated Alaskas 12-mile air defense zone 18 times.[30] The Russian Navy is expanding its presence in the Arctic for

the first time since the end of the Cold War, increasing the operational radius of the Northern Fleets submarines. Russia is
also reorienting its military strategy to meet threats to the countrys interests in the Arctic, particularly
with regard to its continental shelf.[31] Russia is also modernizing its Northern Fleet. During 2008 and 2009,
Russian icebreakers regularly patrolled in the Arctic. Russia has the worlds largest polar-capable icebreaker flotilla, with 24 icebreakers. Seven
are nuclear, including the 50 Years of Victory, the largest icebreaker in the world.[32] Russia plans to build new nuclear-powered icebreakers
starting in 2015.[33] Moscow clearly views a strong icebreaker fleet as a key to the regions economic development. Russia s Commercial
Presence. Russias energy rush to the Arctic continues apace. On May 12, 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev approved Russias security strategy.
[34] This document views Russias natural resources in the Arctic as a base for both economic development and geopolitical influence. Paragraph
11 identifies potential battlegrounds where conflicts over energy may occur: The attention of international politics in the long-term
will be concentrated on controlling the sources of energy resources in the Middle East, on the shelf of the Barents Sea and other parts of the
Arctic, in the Caspian Basin and in Central Asia. The document seriously considers the use of military force to resolve competition for energy
near Russias borders or those of its allies: In case of a competitive struggle for resources it is not impossible to

discount that it might be resolved by a decision to use military might. The existing balance of forces on the borders of
the Russian Federation and its allies can be changed.[35] In August 2008, Medvedev signed a law that allows the government to allocate
strategic oil and gas deposits on the continental shelf without auctions. The law restricts participation to companies with five years experience
in a regions continental shelf and in which the government controls at least a 50 percent stake. This effectively allows only state-controlled
Gazprom and Rosneft to participate.[36] However, when the global financial crisis ensued, Russia backtracked and began to seek foreign
investors for Arctic gas development.

Independently Arctic collaboration spills-over to broader relations and cooperation

The Center for Climate and Security 13 [a nonprofit policy institute with a distinguished Advisory Board of senior
retired military leaders and security professionals, The United States and Russia in a Changing Arctic,
http://climateandsecurity.org/2013/08/16/the-united-states-and-russia-in-a-changing-arctic/]

It is important to pay close attention to the Russian point of view on the Arctic as ice melts , and sea lanes open up.
The United States will assume the presidency of the Arctic Council in 2015, and though that seems far away, serious
preparations for how to deal with the changing Arctic landscape will need to happen now. That includes
being prepared to deal with claims issues, sea lane problems, policing questions, and possible strains on cooperation emerging from both the economic and
climatic landscape. For example, both the United States and Russia face a greater need for ice breakers, as the navigable area of the Arctic increases, leading to an increase in traffic, a greater
need for policing, and a possible increase in search and rescue (or SAR) operations. But in a climate of fiscal austerity, finding the funds for such expensive ships is very difficult. A lack of such
capacities for the U.S and Russia in the Arctic could lead to a largely unregulated Arctic space, and a greater likelihood of human and environmental disasters occurring. Though such issues are

being prepared to keep cooperation between them on track, in the face of rapid changes,
could go a long way, and not just in keeping the Arctic safe. The need for closer cooperation in a melting north
might also lead to improvements in other areas of diplomacy , such as over Syria, Egypt, humanitarian
intervention, international climate negotiations, and many others. U.S. ratification of the the UN Law of the Sea Convention, which is
not at all likely to lead to open conflict between Arctic nations,

supported by a broad consensus of stakeholders including the U.S. military, the Chamber of Commerce and a number of major U.S. oil companies, has still not materialized. If it did, the scope of

The United States and Russia have a rocky

relationship, to say the least. A rapidly-changing Arctic complicates that. However, with adequate
investments of political will and financial resources, the Arctic can continue to be a relatively safe and
cooperative space. Hopefully, that cooperation can help lay the foundation for progress on pressing security, humanitarian and
human rights questions across the globe.
productive cooperation between the U.S. and Russia could expand significantly, in the Arctic and beyond.

Ukraine put US-Russian cooperation over Iran nuclear negotiations at risk it could
scuttle the deal
Kreft 6-30-14 [Elizabeth Kreft is a 12-year Air Force veteran past Defense Legislative Fellow for a member of the House Armed Services
and Judiciary committees; Iran Sells Something in Russia For the First Time In Five Years, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/30/iransells-something-in-russia-for-the-first-time-in-five-years/]

The resumption comes at a time of greater openness to trade with Iran following an interim nuclear deal reached in November that saw some
international sanctions eased in return for Tehran freezing or curbing parts of its nuclear program. Iran hopes to reach a final nuclear deal with
Russia and other world powers by next month. Geographical proximity, shared regional interests and the geopolitics of

energy have connected the two states on strategic, energy-related and regional issues of late ; during a televised
interview in February, President Hassan Rouhani commented on Irans international relations, asserting that there will be a new
dynamic in Iran-Russia relations, and tensions rose even higher when China called for a new Asian
structure for security cooperation based on a regional group that includes Russia and Iran and excludes
the United States. And the conflict over Crimea and Ukraine may make it difficult for the United States to
garner Russian support against Iran in future nuclear negotiations , as it did for the interim agreement in November 2013.
This could weaken the U.S./European position on conditions that are aimed to limit Irans nuclear
program beyond the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since Americans and Europeans both have threatened to apply
diplomatic pressure on Russia, including the imposition of sanctions, logic follows that Russia will play
Irans nuclear card against the United States and Europe, hoping to influence the US and European
position toward Russia in Ukraine, reports Al Monitor. The auto deal announced Sunday reflects another step in the increasing
cooperation between the two Asian countries. Russia built a nuclear power plant for Iran that went online in 2011, and
Tehran and Moscow are in discussions to build more. Irans Ambassador to Russia Mahdi Sanaei said he expects the volume
of trade with Russia to increase this year, after plunging from four billion dollars to $1.5 billion in the four years leading up to 2013. This was
due to the sanctions imposed against the Islamic Republic of Iran, he said. However, with help of God, this downward slope will be reversed in
the year 2014. Andrey Luganskiy, Russias trade representative in Tehran, said the exports would allow Iran to acquire Russian currency, which
it can then use to buy goods that it is unable to import from the West. Irans manufacturing sector has been crippled by international sanctions
imposed over its nuclear program. Western nations have long suspected Iran of covertly seeking a nuclear weapons capability alongside its
civilian program. Tehran denies the allegations and insists its nuclear activities are only aimed at power generation and medical treatments.

That cooperation is critical to prevent Iranian prolif

Hecker et al 5-29-14 [Siegfried Hecker is a senior fellow and affiliated faculty member at Stanford University's Center for
International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He is also a research professor in the
Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford.; Why the US should keep cooperating with Russia on nuclear security,
http://thebulletin.org/why-us-should-keep-cooperating-russia-nuclear-security7207]
A strong US role in nuclear security cooperation remains imperative. In spite of Moscows assertion to the contrary, its vast stockpile of nuclear materials remains
vulnerable to theft or diversion. Whereas the physical security of nuclear facilities has improved greatly, both because of years of American support and the reemergence of Russias overbearing security services, control and accounting of nuclear materials, which are crucial to combat insider threats, still fall far shy of
international best practices. For example, Russia still has no baseline inventory of all nuclear materials the Soviet Union produced and where they are today.
Moreover, it has shown no interest in trying to discover just how much material is unaccounted for. Our Russian colleagues voice concern that progress on nuclear
security in their country will not be sustained once American cooperation is terminated. They believe that Russias nuclear security culture and the governments
commitment to fund continued security upgrades are still very fragile and require continued cooperation . It

is also in Washingtons interest for

Russia to cooperate on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran is a good case in point. Much
progress has been made toward a negotiated settlement of Irans nuclear program since President Hassan Rouhani was
elected in June, 2013. However, little would have been possible without US-Russia cooperation. It is not in Moscows interest to
have nuclear weapons spread to its near abroad. It needs Washingtons continued global leadership in this area.
Washington, in turn, needs Moscow; especially if it is to develop more effective measures to prevent
proliferation as Russia and other nuclear vendors support nuclear power expansion around the globe.
Although cooperation related to the stewardship of Washington and Moscows respective nuclear arsenals would be more difficult in an adversarial governmental
relationship, there are numerous areas that would still benefit from collaboration. Scientific understanding of such problems as the aging of plutonium remains elusive
and beyond the full reach of either country. One of the authors of this column has personally been involved in plutonium science collaboration with his Russian
counterparts for the past 15 years. Continued cooperation in this area, as in some areas of nuclear weapon safety and security, remain in our common interest. As the
United States and the European Union take short-term measures to restrain Russias actions in Ukraine, they

should not sacrifice the hardearned gains made to stabilize the nuclear threats that arose after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Some
forms of nuclear cooperation, especially on arms control and nonproliferation, were supported even during the darkest days of the Cold War, because the alternatives
proved unacceptable to both sides. With the Cold Wars end, nuclear cooperation flourished. Washington

should foster continued

cooperation to meet our shared challenges, rather than allowing it to be held hostage to the
Ukrainian crisis. Over the past 20-plus years, when working with our Russian colleagues, we have all found that at times we must move beyond political
disagreements, such as the political situation in Ukraine, to work together to advance the cause of nuclear security.

Iran prolif causes global nuclear war

Edelman, 11 Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, former
U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (Eric, The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran: The Limits of
Containment, Foreign Affairs, 2011, proquest)

FROM ISLAMABAD TO RIYADH The reports of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and the Commission on the Prevention ofWeapons of Mass

a nuclear-armed Iran could trigger additional

nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, even if Israel does not declare its own nuclear arsenal.Notably, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia,Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates- all signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (npt)-have recently
announced or initiated nuclear energy programs. Although some of these states have legitimate economic rationales for pursuing nuclear power and although the
low-enriched fuel used for power reactors cannot be used in nuclear weapons, these moves have been widely interpreted as hedges against a
nuclear-armed Iran. The npt does not bar states from developing the sensitive technology required to produce nuclear fuel on their own, that is, the capability to enrich natural
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, as well as other analyses, have highlighted the risk that

uranium and separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.Yet enrichment and reprocessing can also be used to accumulate weapons-grade enriched uranium and plutonium-the very loophole that
Iran has apparently exploited in pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Developing nuclear weapons remains a slow, expensive, and difficult process, even for states with considerable economic
resources, and especially if other nations try to constrain aspiring nuclear states' access to critical materials and technology.Without external support, it is unlikely that any of these aspirants could
develop a nuclear weapons capability within a decade. There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support: Saudi Arabia. And if it did, proliferation could accelerate
throughout the region. Iran and Saudi Arabia have long been geopolitical and ideological rivals. Riyadh would face tremendous pressure to respond in some form to a nuclear-armed Iran, not
only to deter Iranian coercion and subversion but also to preserve its sense that Saudi Arabia is the leading nation in the Muslim world. The Saudi government is already pursuing a nuclear power
capability, which could be the first step along a slow road to nuclear weapons development. And concerns persist that it might be able to accelerate its progress by exploiting its close ties to
Pakistan. During the 1980s, in response to the use of missiles during the Iran-Iraq War and their growing proliferation throughout the region, Saudi Arabia acquired several dozen css-2
intermediate-range ballistic missiles from China. The Pakistani government reportedly brokered the deal, and it may have also offered to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear warheads for the css-2s, which
are not accurate enough to deliver conventional warheads effectively. There are still rumors that Riyadh and Islamabad have had discussions involving nuclear weapons, nuclear technology, or

Pakistan could sell operational nuclear weapons and

delivery systems to Saudi Arabia, or it could provide the Saudis with the infrastructure, material, and technical support they need to produce nuclear weapons
security guarantees. This "Islamabad option" could develop in one of several different ways.

themselves within a matter of years, as opposed to a decade or longer.Not only has Pakistan provided such support in the past, but it is currently building two more heavy-water reactors for
plutonium production and a second chemical reprocessing facility to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. In other words, it might accumulate more fissile material than it needs to maintain
even a substantially expanded arsenal of its own. Alternatively, Pakistan might offer an extended deterrent guarantee to Saudi Arabia and deploy nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and troops on
Saudi territory, a practice that the United States has employed for decades with its allies. This arrangement could be particularly appealing to both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It would allow the
Saudis to argue that they are not violating the npt since they would not be acquiring their own nuclear weapons. And an extended deterrent from Pakistan might be preferable to one from the
United States because stationing foreign Muslim forces on Saudi territory would not trigger the kind of popular opposition that would accompany the deployment of U.S. troops. Pakistan, for its
part, would gain financial benefits and international clout by deploying nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia, as well as strategic depth against its chief rival, India. The Islamabad option raises a host
of difficult issues, perhaps the most worrisome being how India would respond. Would it target Pakistan's weapons in Saudi Arabia with its own conventional or nuclear weapons? How would
this expanded nuclear competition influence stability during a crisis in either the Middle East or South Asia? Regardless of India's reaction, any decision by the Saudi government to seek out
nuclear weapons, by whatever means, would be highly destabilizing. It would increase the incentives of other nations in the Middle East to pursue nuclear weapons of their own. And it could
increase their ability to do so by eroding the remaining barriers to nuclear proliferation: each additional state that acquires nuclear weapons weakens the nonproliferation regime, even if its
particular method of acquisition only circumvents, rather than violates, the npt. N-PLAYER COMPETITION Were Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, the Middle East would count three
nuclear-armed states, and perhaps more before long. It is unclear how such an n-player competition would unfold because most analyses of nuclear deterrence are based on the U.S.- Soviet

the interaction among three or more nuclear-armed powers would be more prone to miscalculation
and escalation than a bipolar competition. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union only needed to concern themselves with an attack from the other.Multipolar
rivalry during the Cold War. It seems likely, however, that

systems are generally considered to be less stable than bipolar systems because coalitions can shift quickly, upsetting the balance of power and creating incentives for an attack. More important,

emerging nuclear powers in the Middle East might not take the costly steps necessary to preserve regional stability and
avoid a nuclear exchange. For nuclear-armed states, the bedrock of deterrence is the knowledge that each side has a secure second-strike capability, so that no state can
launch an attack with the expectation that it can wipe out its opponents' forces and avoid a devastating retaliation. However, emerging nuclear powers might not
invest in expensive but survivable capabilities such as hardened missile silos or submarinebased nuclear forces.
Given this likely vulnerability, the close proximity of states in the Middle East, and the very short flight times of ballistic missiles in the region, any new nuclear powers
might be compelled to "launch on warning" of an attack or even, during a crisis, to use their nuclear forces preemptively. Their governments
might also delegate launch authority to lower-level commanders, heightening the possibility of miscalculation and escalation.
Moreover, if early warning systems were not integrated into robust command-and-control systems, the risk of an unauthorized or accidental launch would increase further still. And without
sophisticated early warning systems, a nuclear attack might be unattributable or attributed incorrectly . That is,
assuming that the leadership of a targeted state survived a first strike, it might not be able to accurately determine which nation was responsible. And this uncertainty, when combined
with the pressure to respond quickly, would create a significant risk that it would retaliate against the wrong party, potentially triggering a
regional nuclear war. Most existing nuclear powers have taken steps to protect their nuclear weapons from unauthorized use: from closely screening key personnel to developing
technical safety measures, such as permissive action links, which require special codes before the weapons can be armed. Yet there is no guarantee that emerging nuclear powers would be willing
or able to implement these measures, creating a significant risk that their governments might lose control over the weapons or nuclear material and that nonstate actors could gain access to these
items. Some states might seek to mitigate threats to their nuclear arsenals; for instance, they might hide their weapons. In that case, however, a single intelligence compromise could leave their
weapons vulnerable to attack or theft.

Adv: Shipping
Lack of mapping and exploration capabilities prevents arctic shipping development
CNAS 14 [Center for a New American Security, The Arctics Changing Landscape, March,
www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_ArcticsChangingLandscape_policybrief.pdf]
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 activities that
impact safety, security, economy and the environment is paramount as Arctic maritime activity increases.14
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.15 (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.16 With
limited communication infrastructure and physical presence in the Arctic, the U.S. government is not
adequately equipped to achieve comprehensive MDA. For safety at sea, modern ships are generally outfitted with digital
satellite communication equipment. In most cases, satellite and marine-based communication systems for the lower Arctic latitudes are
considered sufficient. 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 provide commercial, recreational
and military vessels current information on water depth, aids to navigation and locations of hazards. 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

Developed arctic shipping routes divert LNG shipping from the Suez canal
Zeeshan Raza was writing this as his Masters thesis, 2013 [A Comparative Study of the Northern Sea
Rout (NSR) in Commercial and Environmental Perspective with focus on LNG Shipping, Masters thesis,
Vestfold University College Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Tnsberg, Norway, November
2013, Page 20-25,
http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/192946/Raza_Z_2013_Masteroppgave.pdf]sbhag
6.30.2014
As described earlier in the first chapter that currently the trade between Europe and Asia is carried through the Suez Canal
route . This section intends to provide a comparative overview of the existing Suez Canal route and the emerging alternate the Northern Sea
Route. Suez Canal is a 119 miles long artificial waterway that has served the global trade over the last one and half century. The canal connects
the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez providing navigational access to Far East Asian countries. Today about 50% of the total traffic of the
canal is covered by container vessels whereas the LNG ships count approximately 6% of the entire traffic volume. The Suez Canal can handle up
to 25000 ships per year and the current traffic is on average 20000 vessels per year, which is 15 percent of the entire maritime trade (SCA, 2013;
Rodrigue et al., 2009). As discussed in the previous section that because of ice melt a new route is emerged namely the

Northern Sea Route of NSR. The NSR is the seaway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and follows the northern coast of
Russia. It is necessary to mention here that northern sea route is not a specific or fixed shipping lane rather it is an arrangement of several
different shipping routes. The passage is spread over around 2200 to 2900 nautical miles of icy water and traverse different straits and seas such
as the Kara Sea, the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea, and the Chukchi Sea (streng As compared to Suez Canal the NSR is particularly
characterized with considerable distance saving of nearly 40% between Rotterdam and Yokohama (Liu & Kronbak, 2010). The sailing on the

route demands the mandatory assistance of icebreakers. An

LNG tanker navigating through the NSR curtails substantial

benefits over the traditional route of Suez canal such as fuel saving , increased number of voyages results
in multiple gas deliveries, saving from LNG evaporation and lower amount of CO2 emissions et cetera
(Gazprom, 2012). The following table shows the distance to some of the ports located in Asia and Europe using the NSR in relation to the Suez
Canal. Figures derived from different sources vividly depict that NSR is the most attractive option on the trade route between Europe and Asia.
The researcher of this study had a chance to interview Willy Ostreng about the comparative scope of the NSR and Suez Canal. Willy Ostreng
headed the International Northern Sea Route program (INSROP) and currently is serving as a senior researcher and the president of Norwegian
Scientific Academy for Polar Research. The interview held in down town Oslo in October 2013. During the interview, some interesting points
were unveiled about the Northern Sea Route and Suez Canal. A transcript of this interview with Willy Ostreng related to this section is presented
here to deliver a professional viewpoint to the readers and to form a theoretical base for the research questions of this study. For the details of the
interview questions and the concerning answers (See Appendix). What would you say about the potential of the Northern Sea route as an alternate
to the Suez Canal, for the LNG shipping? Thats is a big question, but in the light of accelerating sea ice melting there is

no doubt that between northern European , northern Asia and northern American countries the northern
sea route or the north east passage has a huge potential because its shortcut between the most
economically developed parts of the world. Thus in that respect, if the sea ice is removed by global warming as it is, and even
this is accelerating, and if the sea ice that is left is weekend then of course the potential of the suit is enormous. If you go London to Yokohama in
Japan, you save 40 % of the trade distance in comparison with going through the Suez Canal that is 6 600
nautical miles through the NSR and 11 400 nm through the Suez Canal. It goes around same, when you have set a saving in distance it can be
transformed in to savings in sailing days and we know that there are multiple examples that 15 up to 18 days can be saved

by using the northern sea route instead of the Suez Canal. So in general the very fact this is the shortcut geographically
speaking and the fact that the ice both retreating throughout the north pole and the marginal seas are getting
ice free and the remaining ice getting weaker, then of course you can use the passage with existing shipping
technology. What you will have to do is all the investments to build up a fleet that can cope with ice-infested waters because even if it is free
there will always be icebergs and drifting in the sailing lanes of the ship. Consequently, you will need to have ice-strengthened hull on the
freighters and there would need to have icebreakers assistance. So thats the general answer to this question and when it comes to LNG of course
there is need for LNG in multiple Asian countries, such as Japan the biggest LNG consumer in the world, China, South Korea their needs are
really important in this respect. Not least, they have all the experience that going through the traditional sea routes in southern waters means that
they are subjective to piracy, political conflicts in the Suez Canal, in the Panama Canal. Consequently, in order to really have secure

deliveries of LNG which then support the idea of going north which is the only place with no piracy and I
would argue that where there are no political risks of deliveries being stoppe d. So as seen from a broader perspective,
mean in political and criminal perspective the northern sea route or the Northeast Passage. Because there is difference between NSR and North
East Passage, the Northern Sea Route extends from Novaya Zemlya to the Bering Strait whereas the North East Passage also includes the Barents
Sea that makes the North East Passage a two state passage. We usually think that North East Passage is Russian route , to a
large extent it is, but little Norway also has to say in this respect. I

would say in general that this route has a huge potential

to compensate for some of the problems such as political problems we face in southern latitud es. In the postworld war periods Suez canal was closed for several months twice and forcing international shipping
to go around Africa which adds extremely to the costs of energy and of course the poor countries,
the developing countries are suffering the most in that respect. So again, going north has a huge potential
if ice melting will continue, so that ice is getting weaker and ice is disappearing. The NSR is a kind of alternative to compensate
for political problems in the Middle East, for political problems outside of Somalia. Political problems in
the South China Sea you will avoid all these problems by using the NSR . There is huge momentum or motto for those
who are in the need of LNG to develop a shipping fleet that can operate in ice-infested waters. When I say ice infested waters its because the
ocean will freeze out in winter but of course then ice is weak and its thinner and it can be combated by the
existing ice breaking technology, so even if you have ice this ocean has a huge potential given the melting
(streng, 2013). Similarly, Henrik Faclk who is maritime professional in a Norway based arctic shipping company, during the personal
interview that held in his office located in the outskirts of Oslo on 1 st October 2013, he commented as following on the question about the
potential scope of NSR; The scope of Northern Sea Route as an alternate to the Suez Canal, in particular for LNG transportation: The

Northern Sea Route can open for new LNG projects in the far North , previously it was like finding a gold mine on the
moon it did not help because the transportation will kill everything but today the transportation can be very competitive with
alternative sources of supply. The distance from Mostar, Bergen to Yokohama is same as the distance from Arabian Gulf to Yokohama.
Of course when you go from Arabian Gulf to Japan you are not crossing any canal, you do not pay any, and you need not to have any ice class
vessel etc. Going through the NSR from Melkya to Tobatta is exactly fifty percent quicker than sailing

through the Suez Canal. It opens up a completely new market but what is particular for the LNG trade is
that the investments are so huge that nobody starts an LNG plant unless they have the long-term contracts
and Melkya was established before the NSR was finished. Therefore, everything is sold out but of course
they have already done two or three trips through this passage and they are saving 8 million dollars on

one trip. In Sabeta, where the Russian company Novatek plans to establish an LNG plant for them the advantage is more better because they
are five days close to the Far East market It will only be of relevance for those who are contemplating to produce LNG up north, for the LNG
coming out from the US in future it has absolutely no relevance. I think it is a game primarily for Russia. I often say that

the freight will no longer kill the deal because of the northern sea route. P reviously if you have LNG up north you
were too far away from the consumption market but now you are very close to the market. So thats why investing a huge amount in LNG plant
of Yamal, with the 20 percent share of Chinese National Oil company (CNOC) at the Sabeta port (Falck, 2013) Summing up from the above,

we can say that the NSR is comparatively more efficient in terms of sailing distance and it compensates
for the problems lie in the Suez Canal today. The NSR has a huge potential for the LNG shipment
primarily from the northern hemisphere.

Terrorists want to attack LNG tankers in the Suez now

Stephen Starr is a journalist and author who has been based in the Middle East for six years. He lived in
Syria from 2007 until 2012 and published the book Revolt in Syria: Eye-Witness to the Uprising (Oxford
University Press), 2014 [Attacks in the Suez: Security of the Canal at Risk?, CTC Sentinel (Combatting
Terrorism Center at West Point), The CTC Sentinel harnesses the Centers global network of scholars and
practitioners to understand and confront contemporary threats posed by terrorism and other forms of
political violence, 2014 Vol 7 Issue 1, p 1-4, https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/attacks-in-the-suez-securityof-the-canal-at-risk]/sbhag 7.2.2014
Egypts suez canal is one of the worlds busiest petroleum shipping channels.1 An estimated 2.2 million barrels of oil and liquefied natural gas
(LNG) from the Persian Gulf pass through the Suez Canal every day bound for markets in Europe and North America.2 In addition, more than 1,500 container ships,
headed to Europe and Asia, traversed the canal in the second quarter of 2013.3 With

Egypt mired in political instability, however, a

terrorist group sharing al-Qa`idas ideologythe Furqan Brigadesattacked vessels traversing the canal in 2013, and have
vowed to conduct similar attacks in the future.4 In the wake of these attacks, there is concern that militants could
successfully disrupt shipments through the Suez Canal, such as by sinking a large vessel and blocking the
canal for a period of time. This article provides background on the Suez Canal, discusses the emerging terrorist threat to vessels using the 120- mile
waterway, warns of growing unrest in the Sinai Peninsula , and identifies some of the challenges faced by shipping companies in the Suez
region. It finds that while security in the bordering Sinai Peninsula remains transient and the Egyptian state appears
unable to stamp out militant activity in the Sinai, terrorist groups would have to employ new tactics to sink vessels if their goal was
to block the canal for any period of time. Yet such tactics are not beyond their reach, and previous incidents of maritime
terrorism could serve as their guide. Background Linking the Red and Mediterranean Seas, 7% of the worlds oil and 12% of global
LNG traffic pass through the Suez Canal, making it vital to the world energy trade.5 It has been closed only five
times in its 144-year history.6 It is maintained and owned by the Suez Canal Authority, which is in turn operated by the Egyptian government.7 The canal generates
around $5 billion per year for Egypt and is an important source of foreign currency due to an ailing tourism trade.8 In 2012, 17,225 vessels passed through the canal
coming from the Mediterranean Sea in the north and the Gulf of Suez in the south, often with just minutes of headway between each ship." Shipping companies using
the Suez waterway include Maersk Line, COSCO, Hapag-Lloyd and the French- owned CMA CGM. For North American markets, the Suez is used by container
vessels departing Houston, Charleston, Norfolk, and Newark bound for, among other countries, the United Arab Emirates, India and Pakistan.' Moreover, in April
2013, the world's biggest shipping company, Maersk Line, replaced the Panama Canal with the Suez route for its Asia-East Coast America shipping as a result of
increasing toll charges at Panama and the deployment of 18,000 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) vessels, further increasing the importance of the Suez route to
international trade." Threat to the Canal: The Furqan Brigades The security of the Suez Canal was threatened on July 29 and August 31, 2013, when militants attacked
two ships in the waterway with rocket-propelled grenades (RPG). In both instances, there was only slight damage to the vessels. The Furqan Brigades, a group based
out of Egypts Sinai Peninsula, claimed credit for the attacks.12 The

Furqan Brigades, which support al-Qa`idas ideology but may not be directly linked

to the terrorist group,13 promised further attacks on maritime traffic, saying that the canal is an important trade route
and has also become the safe way for the Crusader aircraft carriers to cross in to assault Muslims.14 Little is known about the Furqan Brigades leadership, and it
only rose to prominence when the two attacks in the Suez Canal were made public.15 It may number less than a few dozen militants, although it has now claimed
responsibility for a handful of attacks in Egypt. Details about the July 29 attack are limited, but a video purportedly released by the groupshowed a Furqan Brigades
militant launching what appeared to be a rocket at a ship, under the cover of darkness.16 Egyptian

authorities played down the

significance of the July 29 incident,17 but maritime experts said that the speed with which the Suez Canal
Authority apportioned blame to terrorists for the second attack on August 31 suggested they had prior knowledge that the two
incidents were connected.18 In the second attack on August 31, a video released by the Furqan Brigades showed two men moving toward a ship, the
COSCO Asia, before each fired an RPG into the port (left) hull of the vessel in broad daylight .19 Brigades in September said,
After becoming fed up with criminal practices such as sieges of mosques, killing and displacement of Muslims, detentions of Muslim scholars, and the vicious attack
by Egypts Crusaders on Islam and its people and mosques, the Furqan Brigades declare their responsibility for targeting the international waterway of the Suez Canal
which is the artery of the commerce of the nations of disbelief and tyranny. By the graces of God, it was carried out with two RPG rounds [on August 31] amid their
weak guards.20 [lfhe language

employed by the group in its statements is typical of al-Qa'ida- linked, anti-Western extremist
groups. ['We know they aren't suicide martyrs, [we know they are technologically savvy, End we know they
have the capability as they proved it twice," said Kevin Qoherty, president of Nexus Consulting, E security firm that monitors maritime

threats. "They seem to be a more sophisticated group and yet are keeping a very low profile and WWW [internet]
footprint."21 Egyptian authorities said they arrested three people on September 1 who, according to an army source, opened fired on the COSCO Asia vessel with
machine guns, even though video released by the group clearly showed an attack with rockets.22 More recently, the Furqan Brigades claimed
responsibility for an attack on a satellite communications facility in Maadi, Cairo, in October 2013.23 In that attack, video showed several militants, under the cover
of darkness, launching an RPG at the facility.24 The explosion reportedly caused a one meter hole in one of the satellite dishes.25 The group

has also

claimed responsibility for a number of assassinations targeting Egyptian military personnel .26 Growing Unrest in the Sinai
Peninsula and Suez Region The Furqan Brigades are not the only threat to the stability of shipping in the Suez Canal.
The canal divides Egypt proper from the 23,000-square-mile Sinai Peninsula. Bordering the Gaza Strip, the peninsula's northern areas have for
years been home to militant activity, chiey involving Palestinian smugglers and militants attempting to move goods and weapons into the Gaza
Strip. Since this activity primarily targets Israel and not Egypt, and because of the wider political turmoil in Egypt, the state's security
forces have concentrated resources elsewhere , which has allowed militant groups such as the Furqan
Brigades to grow and prosper. In August 2012, the Egyptian military launched a massive operation in the Sinai following the killing of 15 Egyptian
border guards on the Sinai- Israeli border." Egyptian forces deployed troops, tanks and warplanes, the latter for the first time in the Sinai since the 1973 Arab-Israeli
war. The following summer, in 2013, Egypt moved two infantry battalions to the Sinai to battle militants.28 Throughout September and the following months,
Egyptian authorities conducted more operations.29 The aggressive operations left homes and villages in rubble,30 and the Egyptian military said it captured hundreds
of militants, including Palestinians.31 Despite

the Egyptian security operations, militants have since carried out several
attacks in the Sinai. On October 7, 2013, unidentified militants attacked a government army convoy close to the Suez Canal, killing six soldiers." The same
day, a suicide bomber drove a Vehicle into a security building in the Sinai Peninsula." In addition to the Furqan Brigades, other terrorist groups are
operating in the area, including Ansar Bayt al- Maqdis . This group, which has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks on
Egyptian security forces in the Sinai, is thought to comprise local Bedouins as well as some foreign fighters." The civil and political unrest that has
rocked Egypt since the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 has affected every major population center. In Suez,
a port city of 500,000 people situated at the southern mouth of the canal in Egypt proper, civil unrest has erupted sporadically
over the past three years. In July, street fighting between pro- and anti-Muslim Brotherhood groups resulted in injuries to more than 100 people.35 Elsewhere in
the Suez region, police found explosives planted on a railway line in September 2013,36 while fighting following the fallout of
the Port Said stadium killings in 2012,37 in which more than 70 died, has added to a sense of instability and drawn the army to the area.38 Problems for Shipping
Companies The

threat of terrorist attacks and the growing unrest in the Sinai Peninsula have raised obvious
concerns about the stability of shipments through the Suez Canal. According to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, closure of the Suez Canal would add an estimated 2,700 miles of transit from Saudi Arabia to the United States around the Cape of Good Hope via
tanker.39 Nevertheless, major shipping companies do not, at least publicly, appear overly worried about the threat of further attacks. Mikkel Elbek Linnet of Maersk
Line, for example, said the company was not planning to alter future plans because of emanating threats.40 experts argue that RPG attacks are unlikely to sink a major
Vessel and thus close the canal," and that only an attack launched by an explosives- laden smaller boat could achieve that outcome." The fact that the Furqan Brigades
have not yet succeeded in carrying out bombings on board ships, nor have resorted to suicide attacks on Vessels, suggests that, at least as a new organization, such
capabilities may not yet exist.43 Analysts, however, believe

that the Furqan Brigades could gain the skills necessary to

launch waterborne attacks on cargo Vessels if they should choose to do so .44 There are a number of groups
operating in the Sinai with proven bomb-making experience that share the same ideological outlook as the
Furqan Brigades, and cross training between groups is a possibility.45 The Furqan Brigades are not the first group to plot attacks
on ships transiting the Suez Canal. In July 2009, Egyptian authorities said that they arrested 25 militants with suspected links to al- Qa'ida for
plotting to use explosives fitted with mobile phone-activated detonators against ships in the canal." Other plots have been foiled as well."
Securing the Suez Canal is problematic. Locals keep small fishing boats along the Waterway and its lakes, while numerous towns, Villages and
farms dot its western shoreline.48 In March 2008, a ship contracted to the U.S. Navy fired at a group of boats in the canal, killing one man, after the latter failed to
heed warnings from the Navy vessel to keep the required distance.49 According to one expert, there

are numerous points along the canal

where security is absent or lacking: There are ferries that go east to west, locations where people sit along and watch the ships go by, there are
bridges that overpass the canal of which things can be dropped from or people can gain access from, even fishermen and sales folks selling DVDs and such inside the
canal waterways.50 In the case of the Furqan Brigades attack on the COSCO Asia container ship on August 31, the militants reportedly fired at the ship in an area
where dense shrubs divided the road from the canal, obscuring the jihadists from view of the authorities or other observers.51 An

attack on any large

transport vessel that resulted in its sinking would effectively shut the entire canal for days, even
weeks.52 Even if militants failed to sink a major vessel, a waterborne suicide bomb attack on an LNG or
oil tanker, or cruise or container ship transiting the Suez Canala tactic used against the USS Cole in 2000 and the M/V M. Star in
2010would have immediate effects on the use of the Suez as a major shipping route . Conclusion Egypts
military recognizes the threat it faces over securing the Suez Canal, although it has not done enough to mitigate the risk of attacks,
instead favoring reactive military campaigns against militant groups and individu als operating from the Sinai Peninsula.
Yet the threat of serious attacks by militantsoperations that could sink a major vessel and thus block the canal is a real one.53 The
military, a cornerstone of the Egyptian state, has been on the wane in recent years as popular protests
increasingly dominate the political sphere.54 Furthermore, the loyalty of the security forces and police was
called into question in Port Said early in 2013 when police took part in strikes and protests after being blamed for crackdowns on
demonstrators.55 The military appears increasingly incapable of preventing the sporadic attacks such as

those being launched by the

and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis. As a result, the Sinai Peninsula remains a hotbed of militant activity,
and ships in the Suez Canal risk future attacks .

LNG is uniquely attractive as a terrorist target

Hurst 8 [Cindy, political-military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office. She is also a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy
Reserve, Terrorist Threats to Liquefied Natural Gas: Fact or Fiction?, http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=529]

There reportedly have been indications of terrorists planning to hit LNG tankers. In November 2002, the capture of Abd al-Rahim alNashiri, al-Qaedas operational commander in the Gulf region, brought to light the idea that terrorists were already planning to go after such targets. Nashiri, allegedly a specialist in maritime

According to a Western counterterrorism official during an

al-Qaeda had information on the vulnerability of supertankers to suicide attacks and
the economic impacts they would have. The official informed The Daily Star that al-Qaeda had a naval manual describing the best places on the vessels to hit,
operations, had already played a key role in the attack on the USS Cole and the Limburg.
interrogation, Nashiri indicated that

how to employ limpet mines, fire rockets or rocket-propelled grenades from high-speed craft, and [how to] turn LNG tankers into floating bombs. They (terrorists) are also shown how to use fast
craft packed with explosives, and the use of trawlers, or ships like that, that can be turned into bombs and detonated beside bigger ships, or in ports where petroleum or gas storage areas could go
up as well. They (manuals) even talk of using underwater scooters for suicide attacks. According to Dan Verton in his book Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyberterrorism (2003), al-Qaeda
cells now operate with the assistance of large databases containing details of potential targets in the U.S. They use the Internet to collect intelligence on those targets, especially critical economic
nodes, and modern software enables them to study structural weaknesses in facilities as well as predict the cascading failure effect of attacking certain systems. Al-Qaeda is a goal-driven
organization. This means that they take action toward an end goal of affecting the future state of the world. Al-Qaedas ultimate goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate, which will
ultimately extend across the global Islamic community. The biggest obstacle to accomplishing this is the U.S. Therefore, in order to try to achieve this goal, al-Qaeda must first bring down the
U.S. With Americas growing appetite for natural gas, LNG could potentially become one of al-Qaedas targets. The 2007 Rand study, entitled Exploring Terrorist Targeting Preferences, not

capability and motive as the two variables that can best predict the probability of al-Qaeda or
its affiliates selecting a particular target.

unexpectedly, lists

one

of
It would be impossible for an attack to occur with only one variable. In other words, al-Qaeda must first have a
motive. Once a motive is established, the group must then possess the capability to carry out its selected mission. Without capability, the attack cannot occur, at least not successfully. Capability
includes financial backing, technology, flexibility in movement, physical access to target or target area, ability to penetrate security of a target or target area, ability to conduct reconnaissance and
planning, external links to sources of information/weapons/technology, and sophistication of media. The Rand study broke down al-Qaedas motivational factors into four plausible groups. These

Al-Qaedas desire is to coerce the U.S. and its Western allies

toward a specific goal by causing pain, most likely through casualties. A successful attack on LNG has the potential to be
deadly. Damage: Al-Qaedas desire is to reduce the ability of the U.S. to intervene in the Islamic world. This
would likely be accomplished by somehow damaging the economy. Under the damage hypothesis, al-Qaeda has already repeatedly
four factors are coerce, damage, rally, and franchise operations. Coerce:

demonstrated the desire to try to cripple the U.S. economy through both its propagations (i.e.: its call to attack oil and gas sources to strangle the U.S. economy) and through a pattern of
historical terrorist acts, both successful and unsuccessful, many of which affected the economy to some degree. While the bombing of the World Trade Center was clearly motivated by a desire to

An attack on LNG would also have an impact on the economy

take as many lives as possible, it also had a strong impact on the economy.
. The
extent of that impact would depend upon the extent of the damage, coupled with the human-emotion factor. Rally: Al-Qaedas desire is to rally support in the Muslim world. Under the rally
hypothesis, hard targets symbolize U.S. strength and are the most difficult targets to penetrate. Three of the 14 terrorist attacks analyzed by Rand were hard targets. By striking and destroying
them, al-Qaeda has been able to underscore its credentials as a meaningful force, establishing a benchmark of power that it has then used to build morale among existing members and attract new
recruits. Indeed, al-Qaeda tends to hit soft targets more frequently than hard targets. However, it has already proven it is willing to hit hard targets. With the numerous security measures

The added publicity surrounding LNG terminals in the

U.S. could potentially draw increased appeal to them as targets for terrorist groups hoping to send out a
strong message on their strength and potential, which could lure more support. Franchise: Al-Qaeda might not
possess the means or capability to carry out a particular terrorist act and, therefore, a like-minded terrorist group might assume
the task instead. Under the franchise hypothesis, since 9/11 and the global war on terrorism (GWOT), the U.S. has managed to destroy much of alQaedas infrastructure in Afghanistan. However, some analysts believe that rather than destroying bin Ladens
movement, the GWOT has actually given rise to new, less predictable organizations composed of dozens of like-minded extremists.
If al-Qaeda is unable to execute an attack on LNG, perhaps a lesser known extremist group would step in
unexpectedly. The Rand study found that the majority of terrorist acts committed fell under at least two categories of the above hypotheses. For example, the 1993 bombing of the
implemented in every LNG shipment, LNG terminals and tankers are extremely hard targets.

World Trade Center, in which a car bomb was detonated in the underground parking garage, killing six people, and injuring 1,042, falls under the categories of coercion and damage. This attack
was meant to cause mass casualties while also impacting the economy. September11 falls under three categories coerce, damage, and rally. It caused mass casualties, impacted the economy, and
rallied support in the Muslim world. A well-executed attack on the U.S. LNG infrastructure would fall under three categories, or potentially under all four categories. The most controversial LNG
terminal in the U.S. is the Suez Energy North Americas Everett LNG terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. The location of this terminal makes it an ideal candidate for a terrorist attack under the
coerce hypothesis. Almost weekly, LNG tankers have to pass within several hundred yards of the crowded Boston waterfront, past the end of the Logan International Airport runway, and under a
busy bridge. Immediately after 9/11, Richard Clarke, who was then the White House counterterrorism chief, prompted the U.S. Coast Guard to close Boston Harbor to all LNG tankers. LNG

The
rest of the world does not seem to share the same security and safety concerns as Americans regarding
LNG. This could be a potential problem. Acting on these concerns, the U.S. has strict security measures in place. Meanwhile, in other areas of
the world security is severely lacking, leaving massive tankers floating as easy targets. An attack could
occur anywhere. One key location would be in Southeast Asia. Since 9/11, analysts have often pointed to the vulnerabilities of the Strait of Malacca. The Strait of Malacca is
shipments resumed several weeks later after a federal judge ruled there was no evidence of a credible threat. However, these LNG operations started back up under much heavier security.

approximately 600 miles long, but only 1.5 miles across at its narrowest point. Furthermore, it is the busiest chokepoint in the world. In 2006, more than 65,600 ships passed through it. An attack
on an LNG tanker in the narrowest part of the strait would put a serious delay on the traffic traversing through. This could have a significant impact on the worlds economy, which is heavily
dependent on commerce traversing the strait. At least a dozen LNG tankers pass through the Strait every day. Catherine Zara Raymond, of the Jamestown Foundation, described a number of
potential scenarios that could occur in Southeast Asia involving maritime terrorism. Citing concern by Singapores Foreign Minister George Yeo in a speech to the ASEAN Regional Forum in
July 2005, Raymond suggested that terrorists could highjack an LNG tanker and blow it up in Singapore harbor.

An LNG tanker attack is equivalent to large-scale nuclear war

Lovins and Lovins 1 [Amory Lovins has received ten honorary doctorates and was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1984,
of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1988, and of the World Business Academy in 2001. He has received the World Technology Award, the Right Livelihood Award, the Blue Planet
Prize, Volvo Environment Prize, the 4th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment in 1998,[17] and the National Design (Design Mind), Jean Meyer, and Lindbergh Awards. Lovins shared a 1982

Mitchell Prize for an essay on reallocating utility capital, a 1983 Right Livelihood Award (often called the "alternative Nobel Prize"), a 1993 Nissan Award for an article on Hypercars, the 1999
Lindbergh Award for Environment and Technology, and several honorary doctorates. In 2000, she was named a Hero of the Planet by Time Magazine, and received the Loyola Law School Award
for Outstanding Community Service.[2] In 2001, she received the Leadership in Business Award and shared the Shingo Prize for Manufacturing Research. In 2005 she received the Distinguished
Alumni Award of Pitzer College. Brittle Power, http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Energy/BrittlePower.pdf]

LNG is less than half as dense as water, so a cubic meter of LNG (the usual unit of measure) weighs just over half a ton. 1 LNG contains about
thirty percent less energy per cubic meter than oil, but is potentially far more hazardous. 2 Burning oil cannot spread very far on land or water,

but a cubic meter of spilled LNG rapidly boils into about six hundred twenty cubic meters of pure natural
gas, which in turn mixes with surrounding air. Mixtures of between about five and fourteen percent natural gas in air are flammable. Thus a
single cubic meter of spilled LNG can make up to twelve thousand four hundred cubic meters of flammable gas-air mixture. A single
modern LNG tanker typically holds one hundred twenty-five thousand cubic meters of LNG , equivalent to
twenty-seven hundred million cubic feet of natural gas. That gas can form between about twenty and fifty billion cubic feet of flammable gas-air
mixtureseveral hundred times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. About nine percent of such a tankerload of LNG will probably, if
spilled onto water, boil to gas in about five minutes. 3 (It does not matter how cold the water is; it will be at least two hundred twenty-eight
Fahrenheit degrees hotter than the LNG, which it will therefore cause to boil violently.) The resulting gas, however, will be so cold that it will still
be denser than air. It will therefore flow in a cloud or plume along the surface until it reaches an ignition source. Such a plume might extend at
least three miles downwind from a large tanker spill within ten to twenty minutes. 4 It might ultimately reach much fartherperhaps six to
twelve miles. 5 If not ignited, the gas is asphyxiating. If ignited, it will burn to completion with a turbulent diffusion flame reminiscent of the
1937 Hindenberg disaster but about a hundred times as big. Such a fireball would burn everything within it, and by its radiant heat would cause
third-degree burns and start fires a mile or two away. 6 An LNG fireball can blow through a city, creating a very large

number of ignitions and explosions across a wide area. No present or foreseeable equipment can put out a
very large [LNG]...fire. 7 The energy content of a single standard LNG tanker (one hundred twenty-five thousand
cubic meters) is equivalent to seven-tenths of a megaton of TNT, or about fifty-five Hiroshima bombs.

And, an attack on the Suez would collapse the economy

Donato Scarano writer for The Peak Effect, JANUARY 29, 2011 [Suez Canal Oil Choke Point, The
Peak Effect, http://www.thepeakeffect.com/2011/01/suez-canal-oil-choke-point.html]/sbhag 7.2.2014
Why the recent developments in Egypt can send the world in recession or worst . Egypt can seem a Middle East or
North African problem catching our headlines for few days and then disappearing but in reality depending on how this revolution will develop
can practically bring the entire world in recession . Why Egypt is vital to the global economy is due to the

Suez Canal, even if not that important today as it used to be it still represents one of the main oil choke-points in the world.
Petroleum (both crude oil and refined products) accounted for 16 percent of Suez cargos, measured by cargo tonnage, in 2009. An estimated 1.0
million bbl/d of crude oil and refined petroleum products flowed northbound through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean Sea in 2009, while 0.8
million bbl/d travelled southbound into the Red Sea. With only 1,000 feet at its narrowest point, the Canal is unable to handle the VLCC (Very
Large Crude Carriers) and ULCC (Ultra Large Crude Carriers) class crude oil tankers. The 200-mile long SUMED Pipeline, or SuezMediterranean Pipeline provides an alternative to the Suez Canal for those cargos too large to transit the Canal. The pipeline moves crude oil
northbound from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and is owned by Arab Petroleum Pipeline Co., a joint venture between the Egyptian
General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC), Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabis ADNOC, and Kuwaiti companies. Closure of the Suez Canal

and the SUMED Pipeline would divert tankers around the southern tip of Africa, the Cape of Good Hope,
adding 6,000 miles to transit. Even a temporary blockade of the flow of oil would cause oil prices to spiral
upwards, yesterday as news from Egypt were coming through the price of oil went above $100
immediately. A longer disruption could caase an already weak economy to down spiral in recession .
Currently the most worrisome scenario is in Europe since it is more affected by a possible blockade of the Suez Canal.
The question is, if this happen what Europe will do about it, it will start a military intervention as in the Suez Crisis in 1956 to re-establish transit
and vital energy supplies, any alternative route or source is not viable at the moment in the short and medium

term and waiting too much to re-establish supplies would cause devastating damage to an already
feeble economy.

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 world
economic situation weakens rather than strengthens , and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong.

in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, 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 stability of some
countries is challenged, and there are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic
government in 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 .

Adv: Oil Spills

Arctic oil drilling is coming now it makes oil spills likely
Scientific American 12 [Coming Soon: Oil Drilling on the Arctic Ocean's Outer Continental Shelf,
Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-drilling-outer-continental-shelf/] //JC//
Dear EarthTalk: The

oil industry is planning what some call a dangerous strategy of drilling for oil on the outer
continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean. Whats going on?Vera Bailey, New Hope, Pa. In November 2011 the Obama
administration began lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling that had been imposed in the wake of the
Deepwater Horizon disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a five year plan including 15 leases for oil development on Alaskas Outer
Continental Shelf and in the Gulf of Mexico. For now the East and West coasts of the continental U.S . have been spared from drilling,
but environmentalists are particularly worried about opening up the fragile Alaskan Arctic to off-shore
rigs. This five-year program will make available for development more than three-quarters of
undiscovered oil and gas resources estimated on the [Outer Continental Shelf], including frontier areas
such as the Arctic, where we must proceed cautiously, safely and based on the best science available, Salazar told reporters. Republicans were
incensed that more acreage was not being made available for off-shore drilling, but environmentalists couldnt believe what they were hearing for different reasons:

In June 2011 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had released a 292-page report commissioned by Interior
Secretary Salazar to identify the gaps in scientific or technical knowledge about how drilling in the Beaufort and
Chukchi seas north of Alaska would affect the region, reports Jerry Bellinson in Popular Mechanics. The report, Bellinson says, details several areas where those
gaps exist, including oil-spill cleanup technologies, basic mapping of currents and the effects of underwater noise on sea mammals.

Despite the USGSs

warnings, the Obama administration decided to proceed anyway . Drilling infrastructure permanently alters ocean floor
habitats, reports Defenders of Wildlife. Drill rig footprints, undersea pipelines, dredging ship channels, and dumped drill cuttingsthe
rock material dug out of the oil or gas wellare often contaminated with drilling fluid used to lubricate
and regulate the pressure in drilling operations. The group adds that contaminated sediments are carried
long distances by currents and can kill important small bottom-dwelling creatures at the bottom of the
marine food chain. Defenders also argues that spills, leaks and occasional BP-like catastrophes are unavoidable with off-shore oil drilling, if history is any
guide. Even with safety protocols in place, leaks and spills are inevitabl eeach year U.S. drilling operations send an
average of 880,000 gallons of oil into the ocean. As for wildlife, off-shore drilling can have devastating effects even with no spills or leaks. Seismic surveys
conducted during oil and gas exploration cause temporary or permanent hearing loss, induce behavioral changes, and even physically injure marine mammals such as
whales, seals and dolphins, reports Defenders. Construction noise from new facilities and pipelines is also likely to interfere with foraging and communication
behaviors of birds and mammals. Because they are at the top of the food chain, many marine mammals will be exposed to the dangers of bioaccumulation of organic
pollutants and metals. And off-shore drilling only adds insult to injury as far as Defenders is concerned: In the face of the climate crisis, the U.S. needs to look for
ways to decrease petroleum consumption, notincrease it.

Oil spills are devastating to arctic ecosystems but enabling adequate spill response solves
Pew after 2010 [Pew Charitable Trust Oceans North Campaign, OIL IN THE ARCTIC ECOSYSTEM, http://oceansnorth.org/oil-arcticecosystem]
If an

oil spill were to occur in broken ice, oil would concentrate in polynyas and at the ice edges that form the heart of the
ecosystem, threatening much of the life in the Arctic Ocean . Additionally, oil spill response operations plan to use these
open areas to concentrate and burn the oil, a plan that could result in severe impacts to this ecosystem. See our recommendations on assessing
spill response capacity. Impacts of Oil Oil is toxic. It can affect organisms from plankton to whales, causing acute

harm to creatures such as birds that get trapped in the oil, chronic toxicity to long-lived animals and lasting effects on
populations. The impacts of an oil spill in the Arctic where the environment is already stressed by the
rapidly melting ice pack could be devastating. If spilled or leaking oil can be effectively contained at its
source or promptly removed from the environment, the overall consequences of the release will be much less severe than
a scenario where the full spill volume is released to the environment. In the Arctic marine environment, the chance that a
catastrophic oil spill might exceed the operating limits of oil spill response technologies is significant .
Those limits include high seas that prevent skimmers from recovering oil or heavy fog that grounds aircraft spraying dispersants. Oil persists
longer in Arctic conditions because it evaporates more slowly or may be trapped in or under ice, and is
thus less accessible to bacterial degradation. Population recovery after an oil spill may be slowed because
many species have relatively long life spans and produce fewer offspring. Recent research published in the United

States suggests that long-term

consequences of oil spills to temperate and sub-Arctic coastal environments may

persist well beyond initial projections. Long term impacts could be similarly persistent along Arctic shorelines.

The Arctic is a biodiversity hotspot it supports globally significant populations

CBD 5-20-14 [Center for Biological Diversity, nonprofit membership organization with approximately 625,000 members known for
protecting endangered species, REPORT OF THE ARCTIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP TO FACILITATE THE DESCRIPTION OF
ECOLOGICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT MARINE AREAS, pg. 28-30, http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsaws-201401/official/ebsaws-2014-01-05-en.pdf]//JC//

Arctic biodiversity is an irreplaceable cultural, scientific, ecological, economic and spiritual asset .
The challenges facing Arctic biodiversity are interconnected, requiring comprehensive
solutions and international cooperation. (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment Key Finding No. 9, 2013) 1. The Arctic hosts a globally
significant array of biodiversity, and the size and nature of Arctic ecosystems make them of critical
importance to the biological, chemical and physical balance of the globe (ACIA 2005). 2. The marine waters of
the Arctic are unique in that they contain a deep ocean basin which until recently was almost completely
covered in multi-year ice. No other area in the world has such an ice- dominated deep ocean . That property alone
would make conservation of the Arctic deserve the attention of Arctic States and the rest of the world . The increasing

(CAFF 2013, p. 4)

loss of the multi-year ice places the Arctic under increasing pressure and is exerting impacts on sensitive Arctic ecosystems. These pressures and impacts emphasize the urgency of adopting

The ecosystems of
this vast area exhibit substantial biodiversity, comprising more than 21,000 known species. 3. Arctic
species have developed remarkable adaptations to survive both extreme cold and highly variable climatic
conditions. Iconic ice-adapted species such as polar bear, bowhead whale, narwhal, and walrus, live among thousands of lesser-known species that are adapted to greater or lesser degrees
effective conservation and management measures. The Arctic, as defined by CAFF, covers 32 million km2, 40.6% of which is composed of marine areas.

to exploit the habitats created by sea ice (Eamer et al. 2013). Some species have adapted to the point where they have become ice-dependent, making their population levels vulnerable to loss of

Sea ice is a generic term for a variety of critically important Arctic marine habitats, which include ice
shelves, pack ice, and the highly mobile ice edge. The sea ice complements and modifies other types of habitats, including extensive shallow ocean
shelves and towering coastal cliffs (CAFF/ABA 2013). 4. In addition to supporting a diversity of ice-adapted species, Arctic habitats are also remarkable for
their roles in supporting globally significant populations, including more than half of the worlds
shorebird species. Millions of migratory birds breed in the Arctic and then fly to every continent on Earth, contributing to global biodiversity and ecological health (ABA 2013).
sea ice.

During the short summer breeding season, 279 species of birds arrive from all corners of the Earth3 to take advantage of the long days and intense period of productivity. Thirty species come
from as far away as South Africa, 26 from Australia and New Zealand and 22 from South America. Several species of marine mammals, including grey and humpback whales and harp and
hooded seals, also join the migration (CAFF 2010). 5. Recent changes in Arctic sea-ice cover, driven by rising temperatures, have affected the timing of ice break-up in spring and freeze-up in
autumn, as well as the extent and type of ice present in different areas at specific dates. Overall, multi-year ice is rapidly being replaced by first-year ice. The extent of ice is shrinking in all
seasons, but especially in the summer. The Arctic Ocean is projected to be virtually ice- free in summer within 30 years, with multi-year ice persisting mainly between islands of the Canadian
Arctic archipelago and in the narrow straits between Canada and Greenland (Eamer et al. 2013). 6. Changes in ocean conditions also mean that subarctic species of algae, invertebrates, fish,
mammals (Kaschner et al. 2011) and birds are expanding northwards into the Arctic, while some Arctic- adapted species are losing habitat along the southern edges of their ranges. Relationships
among species are changing, with new predation pressures and shifts in diets recorded for some animals. To what extent Arctic species will adjust to these changes is uncertain. Changes are too
rapid for evolutionary adaptation, so species with inborn capacity to adjust their physiology or behaviour will fare better. Species with limited distribution, specialized feeding or breeding

Humans have long been part of Arctic

ecosystems, and presently the Arctic is home to more than four million people (AHDR 2009). Arctic biodiversity has been the basis for ways of life of indigenous peoples
requirements, and/or high reliance on sea ice for part of their life cycle are particularly vulnerable (Eamer et al. 2013). 7.

for millennia and is still a vital part of their material and spiritual existence. The CBD recognizes this link, inter alia in the draft plan of Action for Article 10 (c), which states that biodiversity,
customary sustainable use and traditional knowledge are intrinsically linked (CBD 2013). In addition to its intrinsic worth, Arctic biodiversity also provides innumerable services and values to

ommercial exploitation of
natural resources, including fisheries, only takes place in waters under national jurisdiction in the marginal seas
surrounding the Arctic Ocean. While the Arctic Ocean was once ice-covered for most of the year, climate change has reduced ice cover,
creating the potential for utilization of natural resources , including fish stocks, in the central portion of the Arctic
Ocean, i.e. marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (Lin et al. 2012). The newly seasonally ice-free areas of the Arctic Ocean contain protected
species such as bowhead whales (Moore et al. 2011) and fish species that may support a commercial harvest (Lin et al. 2012). Among non-renewable natural resources, the Arctic is
estimated to contain a fifth of the worlds remaining oil and gas reserves, the development of which is
expected to increase. Already, 10% of the worlds oil and 25% of the worlds natural gas is produced in the Arctic, predominantly onshore, with the majority coming from the
Russian Arctic (AMAP 2007). 9. The foregoing makes clear that the Arctic is a region of global significance and that
what happens there will have an effect felt far beyond its extent . The description of Arctic areas meeting EBSA criteria is important and
people. 8. Industrial exploitation of renewable and non-renewable natural resources poses special challenges in the Arctic. Currently, c

necessary because this relatively pristine environment now faces threats from increased warming, ocean acidification and increased pollutants, causing among other things erosion of sea ice,

hanges will have significant

consequences for marine biodiversity and biological productio n, as well as for indigenous peoples subsistence use of these resources.
Describing ecologically or biologically significant marine areas in the Arctic is an essential process for
informing policy and management and for establishing a scientific baseline for future observations and to
better inform policymaking. 10. The Arctic Council is a regional body with a long history of effective cooperation on issues related to environmental conservation and
changes in weather patterns, altered natural habitats, and the opening of areas for new development (ACIA 2005). These c

sustainable development; it provides an important forum in relation to marine conservation, monitoring and research. Data generated through Arctic Council activities provide important inputs
into the EBSA process, e.g., through the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA) and the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP). Specific reports, such as AMSA IIC,
demonstrate the important contribution of these activities. AMSA IIC identified areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance in light of changing climate conditions and increasing

incidences of multiple marine uses, and encouraged the implementation of measures to protect these areas from the impacts of Arctic marine shipping. 11. In summary, when considering the

the Arctic is unique relative to the rest of the worlds marine and coastal areas for a number of
reasons, including that: (a) It supports unique cold- and ice-adapted species, biodiversity, habitats and
ecosystems (ABA 2013); (b) The Arctic is undergoing change at a more rapid rate than other places on the
globe, threatening the existence of ecosystems such as multi-year sea ice . In the past 100 years, average Arctic temperatures have
EBSA process,

increased at almost twice the average global rate (IPCC 2007); (c) When viewed on a global scale, the region as a whole meets several of the EBSA criteria: Uniqueness, naturalness,
vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity and slow recovery, which can be found at many scales throughout the Arctic; (d) Owing to cold temperatures, breakdown processes for anthropogenic
contaminants occur more slowly than in a temperate and tropical climate (AMAP 2011); (e) The Arctic is more clearly defined as a distinct and unique geographical region than other areas where
the EBSA process has been applied; and (f) In the Arctic, there exists a challenge for indigenous peoples and Arctic States in how to include traditional knowledge in the description of areas
meeting EBSA criteria, as well as how to assess and include social and cultural significance, especially when these areas cross national borders. 12. These factors justify adopting a higher

The challenges in maintaining the functionality

and biodiversity of Arctic ecosystems are interconnected, requiring comprehensive solutions and
international cooperation (ABA 2013), hence the importance of the EBSA process as a means of drawing attention to the Arctic and helping to inform
baseline level of risk aversion in managing of activities in the Arctic relative to the rest of the world.

responses to the challenges it faces.

Biodiversity loss risks extinction

Danovaro 8 [Professor Roberto Danovaro, Scitizen.Com, February 12, 2008. Deep-Sea Biodiversity
Conservation Needed to Avoid Ecosystem Collapse.
http://scitizen.com/stories/Biodiversity/2008/02/Deep-Sea-Biodiversity-Conservation-Needed-to-AvoidEcosystem-Collapse/]
The exploration of the abysses of our planet is one of the last frontiers of ecological research .

The dark portion of the biosphere

likely hosts millions of undiscovered-yet new species . A global scale study conducted on biodiversity collected down to
8000 m depth reveals for the first time that small invertebrates (including worms and crustacea) play a key role in sustaining the
overall functioning of these ecosystems . This study concludes that even a minor loss of biodiversity can cause a
major impact on the functioning of the global biosphere. In the future, we should start protecting not only large flag
species, but also the almost invisible and sometime monstrous creatures that inhabit the abyss and the ocean interior. Hard to believe, but so far
we dedicated more efforts on the exploration of the Moon or on searching the life on Mars than on exploring the deep interior of our oceans. The
total amount of seafloor recovered from depths higher than 4 km (which is the average depth of the oceans) is equivalent to less than the surface
of a football pitch. Till few decades ago, we believed that deep-sea habitats were the equivalent of the terrestrial deserts, devoid of life. But
recently we accumulated evidence that the dark side of the biosphere is plenty of life and characterized by an

enormous number of species. Despite the deep-sea ecosystems are apparently far from us and difficult to
reach and investigate there is an increasing evidence that they are susceptible to the direct and indirect
impact of human activities. At the same time they help sustaining human life by providing essential goods and
services (including food, biomass, bioactive molecules, oil, gas, minerals) and contribute to climate regulation, nutrient
regeneration and supply to the upper ocean. The oxygen produced in the upper ocean , for instance, is about
half of the total oxygen produced on Earth and largely depends on the availability of the nutrients
regenerated in the deep-sea floor. Therefore, for their profound involvement in global biogeochemical and
ecological processes deep seas are essential for the air, water and food we consume and consequently
crucial for the sustainable functioning of our biosphere and for human wellbeing. Deep-sea ecosystems
are becoming a target for industries for exploiting the huge natural resources (trawling, drilling, dumping, oil, gas and mineral extraction) and
are already being threatened by other pollution sources. These impacts might have important consequences on

these highly vulnerable ecosystems determining biodiversity losses .

A study published on January 8th on Current

Biology, a prestigious publication of Cell Press, provides for the first time evidence that the functioning of the deep-sea ecosystems depends on
the richness of species living there. The researchers of a joint team collaborating within the frame of the project Hermes (Hotspot ecosystems
along European Margins) and to the EU network of excellence MARBEF, found that the health and functioning of the deep-sea

ecosystems are not only linked to biodiversity, but also increase exponentially with the increase of the
diversity of species living there. In this study, it was found that sites with a higher diversity of species support exponentially higher
rates of ecosystem processes and an increased efficiency with which those processes are performed. Overall, these results suggest that a higher
biodiversity can enhance the ability of deep-sea benthic systems to perform the key biological and
biogeochemical processes that are crucial for their sustainable functioning . This finding, which has no equivalents on
terrestrial ecosystems, has an important consequence: the loss of deep-sea species poses a severe threat to the future of
the oceans. In fact, a biodiversity loss by 20-25% is expected to reduce drastically (by 50%) the functions of these ecosystems, whilst a
species loss by 50% could lead to ecosystem collapse. The exponential increase in ecosystem function as species
numbers rise indicates that individual species in the deep sea make way for more species, and facilitate
each other life. Facilitation among species could be therefore the most efficient strategy to increase the ecological performance of the

communities. Deep

seas are the largest ecosystem on Earth, covering approximately 65% of the total surface. As such it is
could be the most common typology of interactions among life forms . There
are several possible applications of this finding to other systems, and even to human societies, as facilitation could be the most
convenient interaction for the overall wellbeing of the ecosystems and humans. Overall the results of this study
indicate that we need to preserve biodiversity, and especially deep-sea biodiversity, because otherwise the
negative consequences could be unprecedented. In particular we must care also about species that are far from us and
[essentially] invisible. To do this we must preserve deep-sea habitats of these life forms. An immediate policy
action can be crucial for the sustainability of the functions of the largest ecosystems on the planet.
possible to conclude that facilitation

The plan solves exploration and research create effective oil spill response cooperation
with Russia is key
Rosen 4-23-14 [Yereth, Arctic Editor and Reporter at the Alaska Dispatch, Ability to respond to oil spill
in the Arctic called 'sorely lacking', http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140423/ability-respond-oilspill-arctic-called-sorely-lacking]
Before anyone can adequately respond to oil spills in the U.S. Arctic, people need to know much more
about what exists in the Arctic, according to a report issued Wednesday by the National Research Council, the operating arm of the
National Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Engineering. The 183-page report on oil spill responses in Alaskas Arctic outlines a
wide range of deficiencies in knowledge about natural resources, ice conditions, weather patterns and even basic geography in the region.
Adequate infrastructure to respond to an oil spill in Alaskas Arctic waters is also sorely lacking , the report
said. The

lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill ,
is unlikely that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and
air access, stronger supply chains, and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies, and personnel. The report, requested by the U.S.
it said. It

Arctic Commission, the American Petroleum Institute, and numerous federal agencies, makes 13 recommendations for improved spill readiness
in the Arctic waters off Alaska. Those recommendations won consensus from a really diverse committee that spent 18 months drafting the
report, said University of Alaska Fairbanks Vice Chancellor Mark Myers, a committee member. The group included representatives from the oil
industry, academia, government resource agencies and Arctic communities. The report is wide-ranging, Myers said. The oil spill risk

isnt just about oil and gas, he said. It's about marine shipping and even oil tanks on the ground.
Recommendations call for beefed-up environmental and scientific research , enhanced U.S. Coast Guard presence,
training oil-spill responders in local Arctic communities, new oil-spill response research, an expedited study of Bering
Strait traffic, improved sea-ice and weather forecasts as well as more cooperation with Alaskas Russian and
Canadian neighbors. A major scientific effort is needed because baseline and historical information is so sparse, the report said.
And research must be ongoing because the Arctic is being transformed by climate change, it added. High-resolution satellite
and airborne images of coastlines and near-shore environments are needed, and should be updated regularly
because the coastline is rapidly eroding and changing, the study said. Expanded use of unmanned aerial and marine vehicles,
already deployed by UAF and other institutions, could help in mapping, the report said. Realistic spill-cleanup research would allow for
controlled field releases of oil in Arctic waters to test cleanup equipment and methods, the study said. Laboratory tests to date

have
been useful, the report said, but current and emerging oil-spill response technologies should be validated
in tests conducted under realistic environmental conditions -- meaning the actual Arctic environment. Up to now,
discharges of oil have not been allowed in U.S. Arctic waters for training or scientific exercises. Also recommended is more
cooperation with Alaskas Russian neighbors. The Coast Guard should expand its existing bilateral agreement with Russia to
include Arctic spill scenarios and conduct regular exercises to establish joint responses under Arctic conditions, and develop a joint
contingency plan with Russia and Canada, the report said. Some of the recommendations -- such as improved mapping
-- overlap with ambitions articulated in an action plan released Monday by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.
It is unclear whether governments or other entities plan to make the financial investments to carry out the
reports recommendations. The report suggests some potential funding sources. Revenues from oil leasing or production could be
shared with some sort of public-private-municipal partnership, the report said. Cost efficiencies could be found if data is shared, including
between oil companies, Myers said. The Alaska Legislature appears poised to approve a bill that would establish an Arctic infrastructure
development fund, to be administered by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, that could help pay for new facilities in the
region. Lawmakers have made no commitment to put any money into the fund, and there are no anticipated appropriations until FY 2016,
according to legislative documents. As for boosting cooperative efforts with Russian authorities to enhance marine

safety, Myers said he is optimistic, despite rising tensions over Ukraine.

Case Russia

Xtn: Arctic Solves Relations

Arctic cooperation spills over resolves other US-Russian conflict
Pilyasov 5/12/14
http://barentsobserver.com/en/opinion/2014/05/arctic-councils-ukraine-challenge-12-05
Alexander Pilyasov is Professor of Economics and Management, Director of Center on the Economy of
the North and the Arctic and Director of Council for the Study of Productive Forces.
The Ottawa Declaration that established the Arctic Council in 1996 clearly defined the scope of its mission. Military security, for example, was
left out. So it would be reasonable to assume that the council will continue to focus on issues of pollution, sustainable development, climate
change and the future local Arctic communities, as it has in its first 15 years. The main question facing the Artic Council is

how much international tensions over Ukraine will affect its work. The Syrian crisis has shown that US and
Russian foreign ministers use their Arctic Council meetings as an opportunity to discuss contentious
issues. However, there have been no changes in the councils upcoming plans. During the peak of political confrontation and propaganda over
Syria, it suddenly became very important for the powers involved to have a negotiating platform unrelated
to the Middle East that promised consensus on other issues, such as search-and-rescue operations in Arctic seas.
They also needed a venue that would allow them to continue informal talks on hotly contested international issues. Thus, the Arctic
Council came to play a role that, while outside the scope of its mandate, was very important at a time when these
countries, so capable of coming to terms on Arctic issues, found themselves at loggerheads over Syria. A gulf of
mistrust and misunderstanding divided them. As the crisis in Ukraine continues to unfold , the United States and Russia will achieve
more if they view the Arctic Council as a mechanism of mutual understanding rather than a means to
carry over global conflicts to the Arctic. There is cause to hope that this is possible given the positive history of
international relations in the Arctic in the 25 years since the end of the Cold War and the existence of regional institutions of international
cooperation, of which the council is one.

Arctic cooperation is key need to boost investment

Bernstein 5/22/14
Journalist at International News Agency Past Writer / Editor / Reporter at Political Action Committee
Office Assistant at Physiotherapy Associates Fundraiser / Recruiter at American Systems Publications
Education Lewis and Clark College Buxton School, Williamstown, MA
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140522/190037278/Arctic-Cooperation-May-Ease-Russia-US-Tensions-Analyst.html
Tense relations between Russia and the US and NATO could potentially be cooled through Arctic
cooperation, according to the program director at the George Washington Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies. I think
the Arctic is, today at least, one of the last places for cooperation with Russia following the
Ukrainian crisis, Marlene Laruelle said. US-Russia [Arctic] cooperation will probably be less directed to
cooperation on security issues because of the Ukrainian crisis, she specified, but there are several other elements that
are still open for discussion. Since 2011 the US has increased its stake in Arctic security and development and currently holds the
chairmanship for the Arctic Council. The US is planning to invest $1.5 billion focusing on the Arctic, according to former State Department
official Heather Conley. However, US assets in the region are limited and they rely on dated technology and
borrowed equipment from other Arctic nations. Russia is currently the only country employing nuclear-powered icebreakers.

Xtn: UQ Arctic Co-op Low

Ukraine spilled over to the Arctic relations are low but not irredeemable
Qualie 5/19/14
http://blogs.dw.de/ice/?p=15125
Environment journalist Irene Quaile started to travel in the Arctic in 2007 as part of an international
reporting network, with a project grant from the National Science Foundation and scientific backing from
the German polar authority, the Alfred Wegener Institute. The Arctic plays a key role in regulating the
worlds climate, but the region is warming much faster than the global average. Irene started the Ice Blog
on a visit to Arctic Alaska in 2008. Since then she has visited climate research projects and local
communities experiencing changes first hand in Greenland and Spitsbergen. She regularly interviews
experts for Deutsche Welles website and radio programmes. In between trips, the Ice Blogger writes
regularly on climate-related news and views, from developments at the global political level through the
latest scientific findings to grassroots efforts at reducing emissions and adapting to a changing climate.
Her radio feature on climate research in Alaska and the impacts of warming on the traditional lifestyles of
the indigenous community in the Arctic town of Barrow Meeting the Inupiat received an international
radio award in 2009.
When a meeting of the Senior Arctic Officials of the Arctic Council scheduled to take place in Canada in June was cancelled,
one couldnt help assuming the political standoff between Russia, on the one side, and the US and other European partners on
the other over Ukraine must have played a role . The Arctic Council Secretariat, based in Tromsoe in Norway, was keen to play
down any political implications. In response to my inquiry, I was told the meeting had been rescheduled in form of teleconferences and written
exchanges, and various meetings of Council working groups and task forces were going ahead in the coming weeks in Canada and in other Arctic
Council member states. Business as usual? When Canada, which currently holds the chair of the Arctic Council, boycotted a working meeting of
the organization planned for April in Moscow, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq called it a principled stand against Russian actions in
Ukraine. On other levels, the political repercussions of the Ukraine crisis for the Arctic are undisputed . A statement
from the US State Department reads: Given Russias ongoing violation of Ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity, the US government has
taken a number of actions, to include curtailing official government-to-government contacts and meetings with the Russian Federation on a caseby-case basis. And that includes Arctic-related events . In Alaska Dispatch, Yereth Rosen reports the withdrawal of State Department
funding for a hazard-reduction workshop planned for June between Russian scientists and their US counterparts. He also notes the head of
Russias emergency services failed to show up at an international meeting in the US state last month. With the West looking to broaden sanctions
against Russia because of the Ukraine dispute, relations between the two factions are bound to be strained i n a region
where climate change has set off a highly competitive race for oil, gas and other resources. Defending Arctic interests While careful to secure
their own business interests, the USA plans to block exports of oil and gas technology for new projects run by

Russian state-controlled companies, if the Kremlin interferes with the Presidential elections planned to take place in Ukraine on May 25th.
Depriving Rosneft and Gazprom of the most modern technology would be a significant setback for their ambitions in the areas that are the future
of the Russian industry, including the Arctic, writes Ed Crooks in the Financial Times of May 14th. Well before the annexation of Crimea,

Moscow made no bones about its intention to defend its energy and other economic interests in the Arctic
region. President Putin has made it a strategic priority, re-establishing Soviet airfields and ports and preparing a strategic military command to
be set up in the Russian Arctic by the end of this year. Melting ice, easier access, disputed claims (I.Quaile) Melting ice, easier access, disputed
claims (I.Quaile) Territorial claims Russia, the only non-NATO coastal Arctic state, holds more Arctic territory than any of the other seven Arctic
nations. It also lays claim before the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to an extension of its own shelf, including the huge
seabed area of the Lomonosov Ridge. Other countries that have claims on the Arctic seabed include Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United
States. In March this year, the Commission approved Russias longstanding claim to 52,000 square kilometers of seabed in the Sea of Okhotsk in
the Pacific Ocean, believed to be rich in oil and gas. At the time, the Russian Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Sergey Donskoy
told journalists the UN decision was also the first step in our Arctic applications, which will be ready in the near future. The Times Moscow
correspondent Ben Hoyle responded with the headline Russias legal land grab is dress rehearsal for Arctic

showdown.

Tensions crushing cooperative research now

Rosen 5/9/14
http://www.adn.com/2014/05/09/3463580/us-russia-tensions-create-worries.html
staff, Alaska Dispatch

For a week in June, about 20 Russian emergency-management experts and scientists and their U.S. counterparts were planning to tour Alaska
natural disaster landmarks, sharing information about lessons learned and risks avoided. They were to have viewed areas of Seward where
tsunamis swept in after the 1964 earthquake, toured part of Anchorage rebuilt after that massive quake, inspected the site where the trans-Alaska
pipeline was shaken by the magnitude-7.9 Denali Fault earthquake of 2002 and examined other hazard spots before convening in Fairbanks to
compare notes on wildfire and flood manag7ement. Now the summit is off. The U.S. State Department pulled the

funding, making the Alaska hazards-reduction workshop a casualty of the conflict over Ukraine.

"I'm very
disappointed," said geologist and volcano expert John Eichelberger, graduate school dean at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and one of the
workshop organizers. Russia and Alaska have similar natural hazards -- earthquakes, erupting volcanoes and spring floods on ice-jammed rivers
-- so "it's an ideal area for cooperation," he said. The June event was one of several multinational Arctic projects that have

been damaged -- or are at risk of being damaged -- by political tensions in Ukraine . The head of Russia's
emergency services agency was a no-show at an international meeting last month at UAF that focused on emergency response, despite previous
plans to attend. "There wasn't any reason given," Eichelberger said. "It was obvious what was going on." He worries about other

cutbacks, possibly to federal funding that in the past has paid for Alaska students to travel to Russia in a "peer-to-peer" program. "It's
incredibly disappointing to see this turn of events," he said. POLITICAL WINDS CHILL MORE THAN SCIENCE Continuing important
Arctic collaboration while properly responding to Russia's Ukraine activities appears to be a delicate balance, according to a
statement emailed Thursday from the State Department. "Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, the
U.S. government has taken a number of actions, to include curtailing official government-to-government contacts and meetings with the Russian
Federation on a case-by-case basis," the statement said. "The Administration is keenly aware of the value of maintaining scientific cooperation on
collaborative research projects, especially in the Arctic, and will assess our interactions consistent with that awareness." Fran Ulmer, chair of the
U.S. Arctic Research Commission, acknowledged that researchers are worried about new impediments to their work . At an
Anchorage energy conference last week, she said she remains hopeful that Arctic issues will be kept separate from wider conflicts, "but
obviously, everyday decisions are being made in Moscow and Washington and other capitals that could set us back," she said. One of those
capitals is Ottawa. Canadian officials last month boycotted an Arctic Council working-group meeting in Moscow, a decision intended to show
what that nation's environmental minister said is a "principled stand" against Russian actions. The Ukraine crisis' effects in the

Arctic extend beyond the scientific world. In Finland, a country partly dependent on Russian markets and investment, they have
cast a pall. Economists at Denmark's Danske Bank in March downgraded forecasts for Finland, slashing the projected growth rate by half.
Nevertheless, some international Arctic activities are more buffered from U.S.-Russia conflicts, Eichelberger said. An example is the University
of the Arctic, a consortium of 150 universities and research institutes for which he serves as academic vice president. UArctic gets much of its
financial support from Scandinavia, so cutbacks from the U.S. government, if they occur, would have only muted effects, he said. Just this spring,
Eichelberger was in the Russian city of Archaengelsk on UArctic business, helping create an online course in natural-hazards management.
Eichelberger's ties to Russia go deeper than science and academia. He married a Russian volcanologist and lived for a year in PetropavlovskKamchatski on Russia's volcanically active Kamchatka Peninsula. His wife, now a U.S. citizen, is among the numerous Russian-born and
Russian-educated scientists living in Alaska. 'ARCTIC-8' THE ONLY WAY The strong personal ties give him special cause for sadness about the
U.S.-Russia rift, Eichelberger said. But he said there are also abundant practical reasons to continue working with

Russia, which holds more Arctic territory than any of the other seven Arctic nations. "We can perhaps function with a G-7 instead of a G-8, but
an Arctic-7 instead of an Arctic-8 would be pointless, " he said in an email sent earlier in the week. Lawson Brigham, former
chairman of the Arctic Council's Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment and a current UAF professor specializing in Arctic issues, makes a similar
pitch for continued engagement. It is fortunate, he said, that the eight-government Arctic Council has long avoided involvement in military and
defense issues, said Brigham. Instead, the council kept its focus on environmental protection and people's health and safety, he said. " There

are enough environmental issues and enough people issues to keep us busy and keep us together," Brigham
said. He said he hopes tensions will ease enough and U.S. leaders will be diplomatically adroit enough to pull off one of the goals articulated in
the White House's recent Arctic strategy implementation plan -- a 2016 "Presidential Arctic Summit" attended by the heads of Arctic nations to
mark the Arctic Council's 20th anniversary.

Xtn: Arctic Key

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-western-russian-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 its suspension 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 Bragi
Sveinsson said in a Facebook post that the situation in 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 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 high-level 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 the international political agenda, 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.

Artic Coop key to broader relations

CCS 13 [The center for Climate and Security, The Center for Climate and Security (CCS), a nonprofit policy institute with a distinguished
Advisory Board of senior retired military leaders and security professionals, The United States and Russia in a Changing Arctic, 2013/08/16,
http://climateandsecurity.org/2013/08/16/the-united-states-and-russia-in-a-changing-arctic/]
It is important to pay close attention to the Russian point of view on the Arctic as ice melts, and sea lanes open up. The United States will assume
the presidency of the Arctic Council in 2015, and though that seems far away, serious preparations for how to deal with the

changing Arctic landscape will need to happen now. That includes being prepared to deal with claims issues,
sea lane problems, policing questions, and possible strains on cooperation emerging from both the
economic and climatic landscape. For example, both the United States and Russia face a greater need for ice breakers, as the
navigable area of the Arctic increases, leading to an increase in traffic, a greater need for policing, and a possible increase in search and rescue (or
SAR) operations. But in a climate of fiscal austerity, finding the funds for such expensive ships is very difficult. A lack of such

capacities for the U.S and Russia in the Arctic could lead to a largely unregulated Arctic space, and a
greater likelihood of human and environmental disasters occurring. Though such issues are not at all likely to lead to
open conflict between Arctic nations, being prepared to keep cooperation between them on track, in the face of rapid changes, could go a long
way, and not just in keeping the Arctic safe. The need for closer cooperation in a melting north might also lead to

improvements in other areas of diplomacy, such as over Syria, Egypt, humanitarian intervention,
international climate negotiations, and many others. U.S. ratification of the the UN Law of the Sea Convention, which is
supported by a broad consensus of stakeholders including the U.S. military, the Chamber of Commerce
and a number of major U.S. oil companies, has still not materialized. If it did, the scope of productive
cooperation between the U.S. and Russia could expand significantly, in the Arctic and beyond. The United
States and Russia have a rocky relationship, to say the least. A rapidly-changing Arctic complicates that. However, with adequate
investments of political will and financial resources, the Arctic can continue to be a relatively safe and
cooperative space. Hopefully, that cooperation can help lay the foundation for progress on pressing
security, humanitarian and human rights questions across the globe.

Arctic is the last possible flashpoint for Russian relations - commercial coop k2 reverse the
hostility
Ponars 05-23-2014 [The Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia (PONARS Eurasia) is a network of over 100
academics, mainly from North America and post-Soviet Eurasia, who advance new policy approaches to research and security in Russia and
Eurasia, Laruelle: Arctic is one of the last places for US-Russia cooperation, http://www.ponarseurasia.org/article/laruelle-arctic-one-last-placesus-russia-cooperation]

Tense relations between Russia and the US and NATO could potentially be cooled through Arctic
cooperation, according to the program director at the George Washington Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies. I think the Arctic is, today at least, one
of the last places for cooperation with Russia following the Ukrainian crisis , Marlene Laruelle said. US-Russia [Arctic] cooperation will

probably be less directed to cooperation on security issues because of the Ukrainian crisis, she specified, but there are several other elements that are still open for discussion. Since 2011 the US has increased its stake in Arctic

,
US assets in the region are limited and they rely on dated technology and borrowed equipment from other
Arctic nations. Russia is currently the only country employing nuclear-powered icebreakers. The securitization trend we see in the Arctic from the
Russian side is mostly not an issue of military aggressiveness, but it is a business issue , Laruelle said. Concerning Russias
security and development and currently holds the chairmanship for the Arctic Council. The US is planning to invest $1.5 billion focusing on the Arctic, according to former State Department official Heather Conley. However

delimitation of its continental shelf and control over the North Sea Pass, Laruelle said Russia is playing by the rules. The demarcation of national and international waterways is contested within the Arctic Council, but the first
voyage of a Chinese merchant ship, Hong Xing, through the North Sea Pass last year set a precedent when the ship adhered to all Russian requirements for passage. There are hopes that increased trade will take place through Arctic
routes. The route is expected to see between ten and twelve commercial trips this year.

Arctic cooperation key to US-Russian relationsits the only area left for cooperation
Bernstein 5/22 [Leandra, Writer journalist and political action committee member of psysiotherapy associates, Arctic Cooperation May
Ease Russia-US Tensions Analyst, Ria Novisti, http://en.ria.ru/world/20140522/190037278/Arctic-Cooperation-May-Ease-Russia-USTensions--Analyst.html]

Tense relations between Russia and the US and NATO could potentially be cooled through Arctic
cooperation, according to the program director at the George Washington Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.
I think the Arctic is, today at least, one of the last places for cooperation with Russia following the
Ukrainian crisis, Marlene Laruelle said. US-Russia [Arctic] cooperation will probably be less directed to cooperation on
security issues because of the Ukrainian crisis, she specified, but there are several other elements that are still open for
discussion. Since 2011 the US has increased its stake in Arctic security and development and currently holds the chairmanship
for the Arctic Council. The US is planning to invest $1.5 billion focusing on the Arctic, according to former State Department official
Heather Conley. However, US assets in the region are limited and they rely on dated technology and borrowed

equipment from other Arctic nations. Russia is currently the only country employing nuclear-powered
icebreakers. The securitization trend we see in the Arctic from the Russian side is mostly not an issue of
military aggressiveness, but it is a business issue , Laruelle said. Concerning Russias delimitation of its continental shelf
and control over the North Sea Pass, Laruelle said Russia is playing by the rules. The demarcation of national and
international waterways is contested within the Arctic Council, but the first voyage of a Chinese merchant ship, Hong Xing, through
the North Sea Pass last year set a precedent when the ship adhered to all Russian requirements for passage. There are hopes that
increased trade will take place through Arctic routes. The route is expected to see between ten and twelve commercial trips this year.
Laruelles remarks were part of a panel discussion at the Wilson Center on the interests of the Arctic nations, and the increasing
participation in the region by non-Arctic players, particularly China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore.

Cooperation is key to Arctic expansionRussia will be willing to cooperate

Donald 2/11 [Ros, the Deputy Editor and covers energy and politics. She holds an MA in International Studies and Diplomacy from the
London School of Oriental and African Studies, specializing in global energy and climate policy. She has five years' experience as a competition
law journalist and analyst. America in the Arctic: Melting ice and soft security, The carbon brief, http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/02/arcticmelting-ice-and-soft-security/

If you want an indication that US ambition in the Arctic has been limited, you could turn to the size of its icebreaker fleet. Russia, which sees
exploiting the Arctic as vital to its national interest, has 20 icebreakers. At present, America has just three. To the frustration of many, the US

has never placed the region near the top of its list of priorities. But with the Arctic sea ice in long term
retreat, and new economic possibilities opening in the region, that mindset may now be changing.
Retreating sea ice creates new possibilities for resource extraction, tourism and fishing in the Arctic, as
well as the prospect of a new trade route between the Atlantic and Pacific. Last year, the US Department of Defense
published its Arctic Strategy, followed just recently by an implementation plan. It marks a new level of US ambition in the region - the newlypublished document defines US aims for the region thus: "[A] secure and stable region where US national interests are safeguarded, the US
homeland is protected, and nations work cooperatively to address challenges".Some commentators were almost begging the US to step in before
control of the region was wrested from it by more aggressive parties such as Russia and Canada - both of whom see the Arctic as a vital source of
new resources. Yet, there appears to have been a shift in relations. As Arctic expert Scott Borgerson wrote in Foreign Affairs, "a

funny thing
happened on the way to Arctic anarchy. [...] A shared interest in profit has trumped the instinct to compete
over territory". Even Russia's prized northern naval fleet is receiving less funding than it used to, signalling that the country no longer sees
America and the Nato countries as the threats it once did. Duncan Depledge, research analyst on environment and security at the Royal United
Services Institute says: "Russia

needs international cooperation - such as investment from Asia and technology

from Europe and North America - if it's going to exploit its Arctic resources. And every country needs the
help of others when it comes to cleaning up transboundary environmental threats like oil spills or
conducting search and rescue missions." The Arctic strategy also offers the US an opportunity to craft its image beyond Arctic
relations. Secretary of State John Kerry sees America's stint at the head of the Arctic Council, starting next year, as an opportunity to showcase
the country's commitment to tackling climate change - both in the Arctic and on the international stage. In contrast to the current chair Canada,
which strongly emphasises economic development in the region, Kerry has vowed to make climate change the priority - a move that reflects his
desire to lead on reaching an internationally binding agreement on greenhouse gas emissions reduction at negotiations next year. The new
document shows the military sees that preserving this right is of national interest to the US. It is also ready to "challenge excessive maritime
claims" from other Arctic nations. Future tensions may indeed arise if maritime traffic increases. For instance while Canada sees the northwest
passage off its coast as its sovereign territory, the US has other ideas The

Arctic has become a place where preconceived

notions and roles are challenged. Despite diplomatic deadlock on many other issues in international
politics, Arctic nations manage to coexist relatively harmoniously - at least for the moment.

Arctic Cooperation Key to Expansion

Feshchenko 10/1/14 [Victor, a writer for RBTH and the Village. He used to work as editor-in-chief
for RUSH magazine in Dubai, and for Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily covering events of the Arab Spring,
European financial crisis and the Syrian civil war. Three scenarios for US-Russia relations in 2014,
Russia Direct, http://www.russia-direct.org/content/three-scenarios-us-russia-relations-2014,]
Washington starts a dialogue with Russia on further disarmament. Negotiations on signing of an agreement on trade
and investments are conducted. The first joint development projects for the Arctic are started. Circumpolar

security is an important new strategic arena not only for the USA and Russia, but other countries as well. The
division of wealth and the control of maritime and land boundaries, as a result of polar ice melting is
already evident, Karasik told Russia Direct. Lukyanov, in turn, notes that, Despite the scary predictions that
[the Arctic] is almost a future war zone, this place is such a difficult area, that it can be developed only
jointly. The interests of Russia and America are much less in conflict here than the interests of America
and Canada, for example.\

Yes Arctic War

Tensions make Arctic war increasingly likelyjurisdiction disputes, lack of trust, and oil
stakes
Dr. Kristian tland 3/25/14 [Dr. Kristian tland, holds a PhD in political science from the University of Troms and a MA degree in
Russian studies from the University of Oslo. Russian-Western Relations in the Arctic: Perceptions, Policies, and Prospects
http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/russian-western-relations-in-the-arctic-perceptions-policies-and-prospects_1280.html]
Six years ago, Russia adopted an ambitious national strategy for the Arctic region . The strategy was

aimed at
turning the region into a strategic resource base for the Russian Federation by 2020, and at preserving the
countrys role as a leading Arctic power. The implementation of the strategy has been accompanied by a gradual
increase in Russias military activity in the Arctic. Russias naval presence in the northern waters is higher
today than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s, on the surface as well as under water, and Russia has since August 2007
conducted numerous long-range bomber flights in the international airspace over the Barents Sea, the Greenland Sea, and other parts of the
Arctic. In Russia, this activity is largely seen as a response to measures taken by the other Arctic coastal states, all four of which happen to be
NATO members. The four other Arctic coastal states Canada, the

United States, Denmark, and Norway are following

developments in the Russian Arctic with a heightened sense of awareness . Like Russia, the four attach considerable
importance to their economic and national security interests in the region, as reflected in their Arctic/Northern/High North strategies, adopted in
20062011. Some are concerned that the growing industrial and commercial activity in the Arctic (ship traffic, petroleum activities, fisheries,
cruise tourism etc.) may have adverse impacts on the environment, particularly in the event of a large oil spill. Others

are concerned that

disagreements over borders and jurisdiction may lead to a deterioration of interstate relationships in the
region. Still others are concerned that the renewed international interest in Arctic affairs, among Arctic as
well as non-Arctic states, will lead to an incremental militarization of the region, and that this may
eventually undermine the political and military stability that currently characterizes the circumpolar Arctic. As of today,
Russia and the other Arctic coastal states do not seem to have a proper forum where they can discuss
military security issues and concerns related to the Arctic . Russia is neither a NATO member nor part of the Western
security community. The NATO-Russia Council has so far not been able to serve as an arena for NATO-Russia dialogue on Arctic security. The
same goes for the Arctic Council, which is not seen by either party as a forum in which hard (military) security issues can or should be
discussed. Russian-Western

relations in the Arctic are still marked by a largely lacking sense of trust and
confidence. On top of that, recent developments in Ukraines Crimea region are likely to have a negative
impact on Russias relations with the EU and NATO, at least for some time. Russian policymakers and media have
in recent years had a tendency to portray any foreign military activity in the Arctic as hostile and
provocative, even when such activity takes place well outside the countrys territorial waters or airspace and does not
infringe on recognized Russian rights. The Russians are concerned that foreign state or non-state actors may try to take control of natural
resources and/or shipping lanes rightfully belonging to the Russian Federation. According

to a recent statement by Nikolai

Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council , the United States, Norway, Denmark, and Canada are
pursuing a common and coordinated policy aimed at denying Russia access to the riches of the Arctic
continental shelf. In a somewhat similar manner, Canadas Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has stated on several occasions that his
country faces increasingly aggressive Russian actions, necessitating adequate defensive measures. Obviously, statements such as the ones cited
above are often intended for domestic audiences and should not necessarily be taken at face value. At the same time, there are many indications
that the security concerns are genuine, and that fear

is a factor in Arctic politics also in 2014. Many Arctic states are

concerned that their neighbors or outside actors may attempt to infringe on their rights and interests,
including the access to natural resources or shipping lanes of considerable value to their national
economies. None of the states that surround the Arctic Ocean exclude the possibility of interstate disputes in the region, and none of them are
willing to rely on anyone except themselves to protect their northern maritime borders, sovereignty, and sovereign rights. For Russia as
well as for other Arctic rim states, the stakes are undoubtedly high. It is estimated that some 30 per cent of
the worlds undiscovered reserves of natural gas, and 13 per cent of the undiscovered reserves of oil, are

located north of the Arctic Circle. Among the areas specified for future development are Russias Yamal Peninsula in northwestern
Siberia and the continental shelf in the Barents and Kara Seas. In a more distant future, petroleum operations in areas further north and east may
become a reality. Russia

will soon claim ownership to a shelf area of 1.2 million square kilometers (460,000
square miles) between the outer limits of the countrys current 200-nautical-mile economic zone and the
North Pole. Efforts are also taken to facilitate an increase in ship traffic along the northern coast of the Eurasian continent. The annual
number of passages along this northern waterway is still fairly modest (71 in 2013), but cargo volumes are growing year by year. The Arctic
coastal states security concerns on the northern frontier are shaped not only by the regions emerging role as an arena for economic and industrial

During the Cold War, the

Soviet Union and the United States developed long-range nuclear weapons that could be launched across
the Arctic Ocean, either from locations on land, from the sea, or from the air. The number of deployed warheads has been reduced
significantly since then, but all elements of the nuclear triads are still in operation and thus relevant to the security situation in the region. The
weapons have also become more sophisticated, most notably with the development of land- and sea-based
anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, particularly after the collapse of the ABM Treaty regime in the early
2000s. The latter development is likely to remain a source of contention between the United States and Russia,
which sees sea-based ABM systems as a potential threat to its nuclear deterrent in the Arctic . When developing
activity, but also by the regions place in the nuclear deterrence strategies of Russia and the United States.

strategies to cope with future threats that might arise, security analysts have a tendency to assume the worst, that is, scenarios that do not
necessarily reflect the current state of affairs. Not knowing the (future) intentions of their neighbors or outside actors, they are afraid to risk
shortfalls in military capability, and may therefore chose to play it safe. Based on their own interpretation of other actors intentions and
military potential, they may advocate measures to strengthen domestic military capabilities. Once implemented, these measures may be perceived
by other states as potentially threatening, and lead to military or other counter-measures. In the International Relations literature, this
phenomenon is often referred to as the security dilemma. To the extent that there is a nascent security dilemma in the Arctic, it is not
unmanageable. It may not be overcome in the short run, but its negative effects may hopefully be ameliorated through various confidencebuilding measures, NATO-Russia dialogue on Arctic security, strengthening of the Arctic governance system, and the settlement of jurisdiction
issues. The Norwegian-Russian Treaty on Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, signed in April 2010, may
perhaps serve as a model for the settlement of other boundary and jurisdiction disputes in the Arctic. The conclusion of an Arctic Search and
Rescue Agreement, signed in May 2011 by all of the Arctic Councils eight member states, is another promising development. Through enhanced
cooperation and transparency at the regional level, the states that surround the Arctic Ocean can build mutual trust and lay the foundations for a
genuine security community in the northern part of the globe.

Russia threatens to turn the arctic conflict nuclear

Bluitt December 5, 2013[Rebecca, Reporter for CBS and correspondent to Russian-US relations,
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cold-cold-war-putin-talks-tough-us-artic/story?id=21110178]
Russian President Vladimir Putin said this week that U.S. military capabilities in the Arctic Circle leave
his government little choice but to maintain a strong foothold in the frigid north , where tensions between
the former Cold War adversaries in recent years have heated up as the polar ice thawed . During a meeting
with students in Moscow on Tuesday, Putin was asked whether Russia and other countries might loosen their
grip on Arctic territory for military exercises and exploitation of natural resources in favor of
environmental preservation. The Russian leader replied that the United States hasn't slipped off the ice shelf and
implied that his country's national defense priorities will continue to outweigh conservation efforts. "Experts know quite
well that it takes U.S. missiles 15 to 16 minutes to reach Moscow from the Barents Sea," Putin said,
according to the Associated Press. His comments came on the heels of a recent renewal of U.S. attention to the Arctic. Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel laid out the Pentagon's revised Arctic Strategy at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia
last month. The U.S. policy blueprint calls for "building trust through transparency about the intent of our military activities
and participation in bilateral and multilateral exercises and other engagements that facilitate information-sharing." But the
Russian president's statement suggested suspicion of American intentions in the region , and possible
wariness that the U.S. is not being as forthcoming as it has pledged to be. A Hagel aide said that Russia should adopt a
cooperative policy. "The Department of Defense Arctic Strategy recognizes that changes in the Arctic landscape create an
opportunity for nations to work together through coalitions of common interest," said Pentagon spokesman Carl Woog. "We will
work together with Arctic nations to ensure that the region remains peaceful and free of conflict." Over the last several
years both nations have increased their respective military presence in the Arctic , including U.S. naval and
Russian air force operations. Putin's recent comments indicate uneasiness with U.S. military activity so close to Russian

borders. Putin's mistrust of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines' proximity to Russian borders is fueling
Russia's professed need for a strong military presence in the Arctic , Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear
Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists , told ABC News. But Kristensen discounted the
likelihood that Navy subs operating outside of the Barents Sea would have any real impact on any hypothetical use of U.S.
nuclear power. "Such a launch is technically possible but U.S. missile subs are thought to operate further back in
the Atlantic," Kristensen said. "Putin's use of such a scenario to keep Arctic territories is flawed because they
would not prevent such a launch, which would most likely (to) take place in international waters." With many
experts saying that global warming is expediting the melting of the Arctic icecaps , newly created water routes
have opened up a possible treasure trove of commercial wealth to northern nations in the form of oil, mineral, and natural gases.
There has been competition among countries for Arctic usage rights since the 1950s , but the accelerated

melting of Arctic glaciers in recent years has resulted in the resurgence of a Cold War-like scramble
reminiscent of the United States-Russia moon landing rivalry. Both the United States and Russia have
insisted that there will be no direct conflict between the two nations regarding the Arctic region . But
Putin's worst-case missile scenario suggests indirect conflict over Arctic occupation reminiscent of a
bygone competition.

Arctic war is imminent

Salbuchi December 19, 2013[Adrian, Adrian is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV
commentator in Argentina, reporter and analyst on foreign affairs, Global Arctic Wars Already Started,
http://rt.com/op-edge/global-arctic-war-syria-488/]
Todays globalized geopolitical grand chessboard often plays out in interestingly complex and roundabout
ways. Such is the case of the on-going tug of war between the US , UK and EU on the one hand, and Russia and its
allies on the other. Pieces are moved; sometimes a pawn from one square to the next, at other times a rook or bishop straight
across the chessboard; even a knight in its more crooked way Such is the game of the looming Arctic War which
is starting to unfold, in which seemingly unconnected events begin to make sense when we start joining the right dots
correctly. Round one in Syria: Putin: 1 / Obama: 0 Last September, US President Barack Obama suffered a crushing

diplomatic and political defeat at the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Syrian crisis
with its tragic civil war that is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives . Together with Iraq, Libya and Iran, Syria
forms part of the staunch Anti-Zionist front of Muslim countries in the Middle East (and further afield, if we include Malaysia).
Allowing itself to be dragged (yet again!) by Israels own selfish national interests and powerful Israeli lobbying at home led by
AIPAC American Israeli Public Affairs Committee the White House got itself into a dangerous diplomatic row
with Russia and its allies, this time over Syria. In 2013 this was reflected by Obamas all-options-are-on-the-table sabre
rattling on behalf of Americas increasingly embarrassing Israeli ally, which forced him to stick his head too far out the window;
particularly when the so-called Syrian Freedom Fighters showed their extreme brutality, mass-murder tactics, terrorist AlQaeda links, and suspect use of Saudi-Israeli chemical weapons against civilian populations in Damascus. When things were
on the verge of getting badly out of hand during Septembers G20 meeting in Russia (of all places!), reality
finally forced the US to stand down. That was when Russias and Putins prestige peaked and Obama dropped one further
notch into becoming another lame-duck US president. Round two: Setting up a trap against Russia? So, when right smack in the
middle of the Syrian affair and with the US declaring defeat at the G20 Summit, how timely it was for the environmental NGO
Greenpeaces vessel Arctic Sunrise show to just happen to take place in Russia! The crew of that Greenpeace ship, led by its
US-born captain Peter Willcox, staged the irksome storming of the Priraslomnaja oil and gas rig owned and operated by
Russias giant state-controlled Gazprom company, just off Russias Arctic coast inside its exclusive economic zone .
Video images of half a dozen of its 30-odd environmental warrior crew from 18 different nations hanging like a SWAT team
from the Russian oil rig hit the global media headlines big time. Given that Greenpeace is no innocent environmental
organization but rather an NGO that systematically cosies up to UK (and by extension, US) geopolitical interests, one is
tempted to insert many of its actions into the grand chessboard logic . Greenpeace also kept

thunderously silent when Londons The Guardian newspaper reported in December 2003 that the UK
Ministry of Defence refused to say whether any nuclear depth charges were on board (British war ship)
HMS Sheffield, which was sunk during the Falklands/Malvinas War by Argentine forces during its 1982
war against Britain. So whilst suspiciously quiet regarding US and UK polluters, Greenpeace has a
history of very noisy militancy when it involves countries whose leaders do things counter to UK/US

global geopolitical interests. The world remembers, for example, how the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior tried to stop
French nuclear tests in the Pacific Mururoa Atoll in 1985. They failed after Frances General Foreign Security Directorate
covertly sank that ship before it could interfere with the French military. And, - oh surprise! US Captain Peter Willcox was also
at the helm of the Rainbow Warrior as its skipper. Are we seeing a pattern here? Russia, however, contrary to the French in
1985, kept a very cool head last September. Instead, they arrested the Arctic Sunrise, forcibly towed it to
Murmansk Port in the Arctic, and promptly threw its environmentally inspired crew in jail for a couple of months. Now,
think what a media circus would have been staged by the US-UK if Russia, following Frances bad example, had ordered the
sinking of Greenpeaces intruder as the French did back then Oh, what a hullabaloo! One can almost imagine the headlines:
Authoritarian and environmentally incorrect Russia ignores basic human rights of a group of nice peaceful Greenpeace
environmentalists from 18 countries. The Western media would have relished in giving Putin one great big Zero to tarnish
growing Russian prestige. But, no: Russia just ordered vessel and crew arrested for piracy on the high seas. Again, US/UK: 0 /
Russia: 1. Ever since, Greenpeace has been licking its wounds with outright lies. For instance, since two of theArctic Sunrise
crew were Argentine nationals Camila Speziale and Miguel Prez Orsi Argentina has been simply plastered with a very costly
propaganda campaign which includes TV ads and giant posters showing these two young adults faces with the legend, Prison
for trying to avoid an oil spill? Outrageous!. The truth, however, is that there was no imminent oil spill ; there was no
danger of pollution. Again, shouldnt Canadian-founded, Holland-based. US/UK-funded Greenpeace look more at their own dirty
and filthy polluting oil companies at home rather than poking their noses in the Arctic? Round Three: Run to the Pole? No, Im
not talking about NATOs Anti-Russian Missile defence installations authorized by the Poles in their native Poland. I mean, the
North Pole! For in recently months, the cats been scratching and biting its way out of the proverbial bag, ever since simply huge
oil and gas resources have been discovered under the Arctic Ocean. Estimates run as high as 90 billion barrels of oil (20% of
global reserves; 13% of world supply), 1.67 trillion cubic meters of natural gas (30% of world reserves), plus 30% of natural gas,
plus platinum, gold, tin, plus One of the most aggressive countries claiming territorial sovereignty over all
this wealth is Canada, which more than an actual country is but an offshoot of the British Crown and an
American beachhead into the Arctic. One can clearly sense Uncle Sams breathe behind Canadas forceful. A Russian
NTV channel grab taken 03 August 2007 shows a manipulator of the Mir-1 mini-submarine as it places a Russian state flag at the
seabed of Arctic ocean at a depth of 4,261 meters (13,980 feet), 02 August 2007. (AFP Photo / NTV) Then theres also NATOally Denmark filing its claims through Greenland territorial projection, weak ally Norway and, of course, theres Superpower
Russia which in 2007 actually planted its flag on the Arctic sea bed right on the North Pole. Canada too claims that the
North Pole is hers. Alas! Poor Santa Claus, lets just hope hes not evicted before Christmas As history has shown time and
again, the only language that the US-UK Alliance really understands is the language of force or the threat
thereof. So President Putin has very prudently ordered his military starting 2014 to beef up Russias presence and defence over
its entire huge Arctic sphere of interest: a top government priority to protect its security and national interest in his own words.
In recent months, Russia has started creating new Arctic military units , reinstating its military bases in the
Novosibirsk Archipelago and Franz Josef Land that had been abandoned after the demise of the former Soviet Union, and began
restoring key airfields in the region including those on Kotelny Island which includes making ready the towns of Tiksi, NaryanMar, and Anadyr for increased military personnel and logistical needs. 10 Russian warships and nuclear powered icebreakers are
now operative in that region overseeing key shipping lanes joining the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, including ports like
Murmansk (where the Arctic Sunrise lies peacefully anchored). Clearly, the Arctic is very much on the global grand
chessboards radar screen. What happens there over the next few years will have immense significance

considering that the manoeuvring and relative positioning achieved by the powers in conflict will also
help to consolidate their respective presences in the region and worldwide . For when it comes to oil and gas, the
US and UK have clearly decided to militarize oil exploration, exploitation and shipping lanes. Just as they have done in the South
Atlantic with the UKs Falkland/Malvinas nuclear military base and the USs powerful Fourth South Atlantic Fleet with its rosary
of military bases discretely spread into Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia and other countries in the region. For there lies
another even vaster and richer region: the Antarctic which is not just a sea but an entire continent centred on the
South Pole. Indeed, in our complex world what happens in the scorched deserts of Arabia , Libya and Iraq; in
the infinite steppes of Asia; in the steaming jungles of Africa; or in the windswept pampas of South America has an impact
albeit, indirect - on this new front which we could described as the coming polar wars. Wars involving superpower nations, their
allied countries, environmental NGOs fronting for the global power elites, oil, gas and mining giants, and of course the bankers
pulling the strings from above; way above 10 Downing, way above the White House, the Palais DElysee and Greenpeaces HQ
in Amsterdam.

Oil, gas, and rare metals spur increasing tensions for a fast grab
Keil, January 31, 2013 [Kathrin, Europe Director - Arctic Security, Cooperation, Resources and Institutions Dr. phil. (2013), Freie
Universitt Berlin, Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies (BTS), Germany M.Sc. European Affairs (2009), Lunds Universitet, Sweden
B.A. International Relations (2007), Technical University Dresden, Germany kathrin.keil@thearcticinstitute.org For more info and a full CV,
please click here. Research interests: Arctic oil and gas, shipping and fishing development, Arctic geopolitics, cooperation and conflict, role of

international institutions, ecosystem-based management Kathrin Keil wrote her PhD Dissertation at the Berlin Graduate School for Transnational
Studies (BTS) at the Freie Universitt Berlin on the international politics of the Arctic, with a focus on international regimes and institutions in
the areas of energy, shipping and fishing. She further has a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations from the Technische Universitt Dresden
and a Master of Science in European Affairs from Lunds Universitet in Sweden. Kathrin is currently a Project Scientist at the Institute for
Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam, Germany, in the Sustainable Interaction with the Atmosphere (SIWA) cluster, Opening Oil
and Gas Development- A Conflict and Risk Assessment http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2013/01/opening-oil-and-gas-development-in.html]

The recent reopening of Alaskan Arctic waters to hydrocarbon development has sparked a remarkable
interest in the increasing economic utilisation of Arctic resources . This has also led to predictions about
possible conflict over Arctic resources because of rising stakes and insufficient institutional regulations .
Analysts contemplate the possibility of violent conflict over natural resources in the Arctic, forecasting a new scramble for
territory and resources and a race to carve up the region. [1] However, such statements use simplistic underlying
assumptions, taking a one-size-fits-all approach to a very complex issue like the increasing economic development of the
Arctic region. In fact, activities such as increasing oil and gas development, usage of new shipping lanes, and

utilisation of new fishing grounds all have different underlying interest constellations about diverse goods
or resources. They thus demand different institutional responses in order to guarantee sustainable development of the
North. Oil and gas have often been depicted as the Arctic commodities most likely to be the cause of
eventual conflict, given the combination of rising demand for hydrocarbon resources worldwide and their
increasing scarcity, as well as political tension in traditional extraction regions such as the Middle East
and North Africa. To get a coherent picture of the likelihood of possible confrontation over Arctic oil and gas resources, the
Arctic littoral states actual stakes and interests in Arctic energy resources [2] have to be closely analysed along with the
commodity character of Arctic energy resources and the interdependence of the actors involved. A survey of the existing

institutions providing rules for Arctic oil and gas development and their suitability to contain possible
conflicting interests completes the picture. The commodity character [3] of Arctic oil and gas is an important indicator
for its conflict potential. The kind of commodity that is typically assumed to be the most conflictive is the
common pool resource type. Ownership of these resources is usually impossible to establish, it is difficult
to exclude actors from utilising these resources, and the consumption of these goods by one actor
precludes consumption by another. In contrast, the vast majority of discovered and expected Arctic oil and gas
resources are private goods, i.e. their ownership is undisputed and the owners of the goods exhibit private
property rights and thus control access to the goods. However, the natural environment as affected by oil
and gas extraction can be considered a common pool resource because it is difficult to exclude actors
from utilising the environment, and consumption, in the sense of potentially polluting a formerly clean
environment, prevents other actors from utilising the environment, for example for fishing. Especially in the
case of offshore activities, accidents such as oil spills could easily have transboundary impacts affecting other issue areas as well.
A second important indicator of conflict potential is the interdependence or the expectation of future interaction of the relevant
actors during the process of oil and gas exploration and extraction . Indeed, oil and gas exploration and extraction in

the Arctic is necessarily a highly iterative and interactive process. The technological and financial efforts
are so enormous that future projects, which will move into ever more northern and challenging offshore
areas, will not be manageable for one company alone. For example, it takes decades to get investment returns, and
required infrastructure cannot be used for anything else but oil and gas transport. Also, considerable uncertainty as to the details
of future discoveries and developments in the Arctic requires iterative cooperation over a longer period of time. T he US and

Canada have for the foreseeable future only a weak economic interest in the large-scale development of
their Arctic hydrocarbon base. This has largely to do with the low competiveness of US and Canadian Arctic oil and
gas resources with resources further south that are already much better explored and connected to
infrastructure systems. Additional hindering factors are the shale gas revolution in the lower 48 states, the
predominant role of the Gulf of Mexico for US oil production, the vast Canadian hydrocarbon
concentration especially in Alberta, and limited northern infrastructure. The picture looks very different for
Russia, which has substantial gas and oil reserves, the majority of which are located in the Russian North, and which are of high
importance to the overall Russian economy. The government is eager to foster exploration and production of offshore fields.

However, many problems remain, such as the dilemma of having to involve foreign companies in
continental shelf production because of the limited technology and capital capacities, while keeping a
tight state grip on the strategically important resources. In addition, the unconventional gas revolution in the US
creates an oversupplied global gas market. Similarly, the petroleum industry is of vital importance to the overall Norwegian
economy. While the majority of Norwegian hydrocarbon development is still taking place outside the Arctic, the Barents Sea in
particular will play a dominant role in Norways future hydrocarbon production. Recent field discoveries as well as the upcoming

licensing round highlight the increasing importance of these waters. Greenland is a special case when it comes to Arctic oil
and gas interests. While no proven oil or gas resources and no accompanying industry exist yet, the
importance of these resources to Greenland lies in the potential of future development. Revenues from the
hydrocarbon sector could provide the financial means needed to reduce the still substantial financial dependence on Denmark.
Given that the US and Canada show little interest in Arctic hydrocarbons and Norway and Greenland focus on their own national
hydrocarbon base, this leaves Russia as the most prevalent location of Arctic oil and gas development , which
requires the involvement of foreign actors. In other words, if any conflict over Arctic hydrocarbon

development were to arise, it would most likely concern business relationships between Russian (state)
and foreign companies over access to Russias resources and the cost-and-benefit sharing of joint
ventures. Importantly, the interests of all actors involved point in the same direction: Russia wants to
develop its resource base and sell it to high-price-paying Europeans, while foreign energy companies
want a share in this profitable endeavour. What remains is a coordination problem: cooperation increases
the benefit for all parties involved, but the distribution of those benefits and the sharing of the investment
costs necessary to reap them is problematic as the players preferences diverge on the distribution of costs
and benefits. The crucial point is that foreign and Russian energy companies are able to agree on business cooperation
(compare the recent deals between Rosneft and Exxon, Statoil and Eni), and Russian oil and gas development is thus unlikely to
provide an incentive for conflict thanks to existing mutual interests. However, a number of hazard problems remain, mostly in
form of Russias generally challenging and demanding legal and political environment for foreign investors. The picture looks
different for environmental consequences of Arctic oil and gas development. The institutions setting up rules for the

development of oil and gas resources to minimise the risks of environmental degradation must be very
robust, given that they are usually directed against the short-term interests of the affected actors. Relevant
institutions for Arctic oil and gas development are often not entirely adequate for various reasons. While the United Nations
Convention on the Law of The Sea (UNCLOS) provides binding rules for the protection and preservation of the marine
environment (Part XII), it does not sufficiently provide for Arctic-specific rules and dispute-settlement competencies. The

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), while
providing binding provisions, only calls for minimum standards for national systems for preparedness and
response. The Arctic Council Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines provide highly precise but no binding rules for marine
environmental protection. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) in
contrast provides binding and highly precise rules together with strong monitoring and verification competencies. However, the
regional scope of the Convention is limited to the Northeast Atlantic and of the A5 only Denmark and Norway are members. In

sum, it is not the extraction of the resources themselves that contain a high conflict potential but rather
their side effects, first and foremost the environmental dangers they entail. In addition to the absence of
adequate institutional arrangements for the development of Arctic oil and gas resources, an additional
challenge is the linkage between various Arctic economic activities as well as the linkage with the broader
social and ecological circumstances of the specific region in which they occur. In other words, institutions for
the sustainable development of the Arctic have to take account of the complexity of the Arctic region as a system of various
dynamic internal and external relationships that change over time. Importantly, such institutions would take account of the fact
that many potential victims of extraction-induced pollution do not have their interests adequately represented in the existing
institutions. These are especially residents with no, or only weak, representation options and especially the flora and fauna of
Arctic lands and waters. The appropriate institutional device could be an ecosystem-based management (EBM) approach, which
leaves out none of the links in the ecosystem and which is flexible enough to take into account new knowledge about affected
actors and their concerns and interests. These are the actual challenges ahead and not the often-stated likelihood of possibly
violent conflicts over Arctic resources.

Xtn: Relations Low

US and Russia have entered a new Cold War harsh rhetoric, finger-pointing, low
relations expectations, strict sanctions, and European instability
Legvold, July 2014 Marshall D. Shulman Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science,
Columbia University (Robert, Managing the New Cold War, July/August,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/138592)//SY
For all the differences between the two periods, the new Cold War will share many of its predecessors
features. First, Russian and Western leaders have already begun framing the standoff in unforgiving terms
-- much as their predecessors did at the start of the first Cold War, most famously with Soviet Premier
Joseph Stalins February 1946 preelection speech and British Prime Minister Winston Churchills Iron
Curtain speech a month later. This past March, for example, Putin defended Russias annexation of
Crimea by saying that Washington and its European allies were guided by the rule of the gun rather
than international law and were convinced that their exceptionalism allowed them to unlawfully use
force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle, If you are not with us, you are
against us. In May, Alexander Vershbow, the deputy secretary-general of NATO, asserted that Russia
should now be considered more of an adversary than a partner. Second, as in the early phases of the
original Cold War, each side sees the conflict as a result solely of the actions -- or even the nature -- of the
other. Neither pays attention to the complicated interactions that brought relations to their present low.
This preoccupation with pinning fault on the other side recalls attitudes during the late 1950s and early
1960s, when each side viewed the other as inherently alien. Only after surviving the perils of the Berlin
crisis of 195861 and the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 did the Americans and the Soviets step back and
consider where their interests converged. Over the next ten years, they negotiated three major arms
control agreements: the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the first
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I). Third, as during much of the original Cold War, neither side
now expects much from the relationship. Isolated moments of cooperation might emerge when the two
sides interests on specific issues happen to coincide. But neither believes it feasible to pursue cooperation
across a broad front with the aim of changing the nature of the relationship overall. Nor does either camp
seem willing to take the first step in that direction. Fourth, to punish Moscow and to signal the price it
will pay for further aggression, Washington has resorted to a series of Cold Warstyle reprisals.
Beginning in March, it put military-to-military activities with Russia on hold and ended missile defense
negotiations. The Obama administration has also banned the export to Russia of civilian technology with
potential military applications, suspended cooperation with Russia on civilian nuclear energy projects, cut
off NASAs contacts with its Russian counterpart, and denied Russian specialists access to the
laboratories of the U.S. Department of Energy. Many of these measures will likely remain in place after
the Ukraine crisis ends. And even those that are lifted will leave a corrosive residue. Fifth, and most
serious, just as the confrontation over security in the heart of Europe constituted the epicenter of the
original Cold War, renewed uncertainty over central and eastern Europes stability will drive this one as
well. Beginning in the 1990s, NATOs expansion into much of eastern Europe, including the Baltic states,
moved Europes political-military border to the edges of the former Soviet Union. NATO enlargement
also transformed Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine into the new lands in between, successors to Poland
and the parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that the great powers fought over, with tragic results, in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Today, as Moscow fortifies its Western Military District, a key
military command, and NATO refocuses on Russia, the military standoff over continental Europe, which
took two decades to dismantle, will swiftly be reconstituted on Europes eastern edge.

US-Russia relations are at their lowest point in history Russian militarism and harsh US
sanctions
Stent, 6/23/14 Director, Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies, Georgetown
University (Angela, This Is a Low Point, Slow Journalism, Interviewed by Sergei Grits,
Correspondent, Associated Press, http://www.slow-journalism.com/this-is-a-low-point)//SY
Is there still a Cold War mentality when it comes to US-Russian relations? Its a big problem that a Cold
War mentality is the default. You struggle to understand why Russia is doing what its doing and you do
go back to these Cold War categories; for both sides now it is East vs West its Europe and the US vs
Russia. So it certainly sounds like the Cold War. Of course it isnt the Cold War. Its not a global struggle
between the US and Russia to dominate the world, but Putin doesnt want Ukraine to move into the
European orbit or NATO to extend to Ukraine and he sees it in these terms. And even though the US
says it believes in win-win solutions there is no win-win. Its being defined as us vs them which is why it
feels like the Cold War. Why is the US agitated by the Russian annexation of Crimea? The US feels that
Russia has violated all the norms by annexing Crimea. The understanding people had after the end of the
Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union was that you respected the borders of these states even if
you can question whether they make ethnic sense. And Russia apparently doesnt respect these borders.
Why did the US choose to respond with sanctions? Well, all military options were off the table so the
other possibility was sanctions, and historically thats something the US has done, not only vis--vis the
Soviet Union. Now, the US-Russian economic relationship isnt particularly big, around $40 billion a year
in bilateral trade. There are some US firms that are very involved in Russia but not very many. The idea
was to indicate that those closest to Putin would be sanctioned; the US understood that Putin is
surrounded by a small group of people who own considerable assets. But the problem with the early
sanctions on individuals is that most of the individuals probably didnt have assets or bank accounts in the
United States. So the actual impact on them is quite small, and we now understand that Gennady
Timchenko of the oil trading firm Gunvor sold his stake to somebody else shortly beforehand. I think the
sanctions were more symbolic, and a warning that there could be more sanctions in the future. Have any
of the sanctions imposed on Russian individuals been effective? Sanctioning Bank Rossiya has had an
impact because its meant that Visa and Mastercard transactions have now been stopped and this is a
bank close to the Kremlin. I think the longer term impact of the sanctions will be that banks and foreign
firms will think twice about lending money, getting involved in debt restructuring, and future investments
in Russia because the risk factor has now gone up. These things cant be measured yet but you already
hear anecdotal evidence that these sanctions are deterring future investors in Russia. Are US-Russian
relations at a low point? Yes, I would say that this is a low point in US-Russian relations. If we go back
there were two other low points: the bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo War in 1999 when the Clinton reset
was over; the other was the Russia-Georgia war during the Bush administration. There were measures
taken by the Bush administration in 2008 to cut off certain levels of ties with Russia. But we havent seen
sanctions like this before. Its a new low. Even under Gorbachev the US-Soviet relationship was better
than it is now. This new low began when Snowden was granted asylum in Russia last year; that was the
end of the Obama reset on US-Russia relations. Still, there was an expectation that we could work with
Russia on a number of other issues. There was meant to be a bilateral summit which was cancelled after
Snowden. Were still working on Syria, Iran, post-2014 Afghanistan, so there are areas where were
working together. But this is definitely the worst relationship for a long time.

US-Russian relations low now lingering effects of Crimea crisis and Russian displays of
dominance
Rusling, 5/31/14 Correspondent, Xinhua News (Matthew, News Analysis: U.S.-Russian relations
remain strained amid ongoing Ukraine crisis, Xinhua News,
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=221644)//SY

WASHINGTON, May 30 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-Russian relations remain strained amid the ongoing
Ukraine crisis, with no apparent signs of easing tensions on the horizon, U.S. experts said. The United
States and Russia have been at odds in recent months over the surprise deployment of Russian troops into
Crimea, Ukraine. Washington blasted the Russian move for violating international law and slapped
sanctions on Russia as punishment, though Moscow defended it as simply protecting the region's
Russian-speaking population. The development has caused a rift between the White House and the
Kremlin, although experts said any military conflict between the two countries is highly unlikely. Still,
there is no U.S. ambassador in Moscow three months into the Ukraine crisis after former Ambassador
Michael McFaul left the Russian capital a day before Russia's surprise troop deployment. The spat has
given way to much sabre rattling, with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week publicly mocking his
U.S. counterpart Barack Obama. "Who is he to judge, seriously? If he wants to judge people, why doesn't
he get a job in court somewhere?" Putin said in an interview with the CNBC, reflecting his view that the
United States should not interfere with events in Ukraine. "I think Putin ... made an assessment of Obama
and decided that (Obama) is weaker than Putin. And therefore that Putin can push Obama on a number of
issues," Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Heritage Foundation,
told Xinhua. "He thinks that he can get away with publicly disparaging and offending Obama. That he can
undermine Obama's stature as the ... leader of the United States," he said. Moscow also grabbed headlines
last month when a Russian SU-24 fighter plane buzzed closely by the USS Donald Cook in the western
Black Sea in a move analysts said was a message to Washington to keep out of Russia's sphere of
influence, as well as a bid to gauge the U.S. response. That event, plus Russia's general stance toward the
United States at the moment, suggest that Russian policy makers view America as strong but perhaps not
as strong as previously, and not as focused on Europe as its main strategic priority following Obama's
Asia pivot, David Clark, chairman of the Russia Foundation, told Xinhua. So far, Putin has viewed
Obama as weak and unable to economically punish Russia for the latter's moves in Ukraine. After
lambasting Moscow for its moves in Ukraine, Obama merely slapped travel bans on a handful of
Russians, a move viewed as a lackluster response by those who advocated much harsher sanctions.

Even historically strong aspects of US-Russian relations, such as space cooperation, are
failing now
King, 5/16/14 NASA Reporter, Gannett Washington Bureau (Ledyard, U.S.-Russia tensions on space
station concern lawmakers, USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/15/tensions-with-russia-on-space-concernlawmakers/9143723/)//SY
Nelson worries an embargo could spill over to civilian missions. The same RD-180 engines are slated for
use in spacecraft that two aerospace companies Boeing and Sierra Nevada propose to use to send
astronauts to the space station. "If they are not going to sell these engines for military purposes, can we
bank on it that they would sell these engines for NASA civilian purposes?" Nelson said on the Senate
floor. "That is a big question mark." Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George
Washington University, agrees with McCurdy that Russia has little to gain from carrying out its threats
and probably won't. But he said it marks an unsettling chapter in U.S.-Russia relations. "The bad news is
that space is being used as a political pawn in ways that it really hasn't before," Pace said. "Space
cooperation since the end of the Cold War has actually been quite good, one of the few positive aspects of
the U.S.-Russia relationship. If the Russians are now threatening that, then that doesn't bode well."

Now Key
US policy direction key because Arctic Council leader in 2015
Grimmson 5/7/14
President lafur Ragnar Grmsson, president of Iceland since 1996.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/audio-video/foreign-affairs-focus-olafur-ragnar-grimsson-onthe-arctic-scram
To some extent you are. I mean unfortunately the Arctic, although its America's backyard, although you
are one of the true leading Arctic countries, in Washington the Arctic so far has a very low priority.
Although both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry have been very much aware of its importance,
somehow this country is always otherwise engaged in other issues. Next year, the U.S. will take on the
chairmanship of the Arctic Council. This will be a testing time for the U.S. because the chairmanship is
not a normal diplomatic function, it is expected to provide the leadership, the policy leadership and the
direction. And I hope in the coming months, both in Washington and elsewhere, the political
establishment of the U.S. will realize that it is not only America's backyard, this is already becoming a
leading center for global and economic interests in the twenty-first century. And given all of this
discussion about Russia as you referred to before, it's kind of a paradoxical to be so engaged with Russia
and Ukraine, and be very passive in the Arctic.

Russia Says Yes

Russia wants Arctic cooperation
Arctic Info 5/19/14
http://www.arctic-info.com/News/Page/chilingarov--russia-is-for-international-cooperation-in-the-arctic
A unique project in the Russian media market, giving the reader the opportunity to learn about all the
most important, what is happening in the Russian Arctic and circumpolar countries. Central agency office
is located in Moscow, bureaus operate in the Arctic regions of Russia. The project is implemented as a
multi-language: English, Russian, Chinese version. Authoritative source with a growing citation index.
Newsline broadcast in leading news aggregators ("Yandex. News", "Google News", "Rambler.Media"), in
the largest specialized database - online libraries ("Medialogia", "Integrum", "Public.Ru") . Every day for
the materials published on the portal "Arctic-info" link dozens of online resources - both Russian and
English-speaking. Portal audience: three-quarters - Russian Internet users. This Russian national /
regional media, national / regional governance structures; decision-makers in the management / policy /
business; specialists of different professions and residents of northern regions. Quarter resource users readers and colleagues from foreign countries and the CIS countries.
On the eve of Polar Explorer day, the President of the Polar Explorers' Association, special representative of the

President of the
Russian Federation for international cooperation in the Arctic and Antarctic, Artur Chilingarov,
congratulated everyone who lives and works in the high northern latitudes , on their new professional holiday. "A year
has passed since Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on the celebration of Polar Explorer day. This is an important event for those
working in the Arctic. A polar explorer is not just someone who engaged in ice science, but everyone who lives in the far north of the Arctic
Circle: doctors, pilots, sailors, geologists, and oil workers. These people have a common task, set by Russia's administration, of developing the
Arctic expanses," Chilingarov noted. He added that attention to the Arctic region in Russia is growing . "One of the oldest
organizations uniting all researchers North and South poles of the world,the Polar Explorers Association, is actively developing. And that's good,"
said the scientist. According to Chilingarov, it is very important to cultivate interest in the extreme north from childhood. "Now the Polar
Explorers Association is reviving the young polar explorers clubs, which are aimed at the development of youth tourism, so high school students
participate in scientific research work at northern latitudes. For future polar expeditions 'general clearing' of Arctic territories is also being carried
out," he said. "I want to stress that Russia is the largest Arctic state- and it supports international cooperation in the

Arctic region. Despite today's difficult political situation, the Arctic should become a place for close
cooperation and partnership of all states," the famous polar explorer concluded.

Nuclear Terror Impact Add-On

US Russia Coop key to prevent nuclear terror
Hecker et al 5-29-14 [Siegfried Hecker is a senior fellow and affiliated faculty member at Stanford University's Center for
International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He is also a research professor in the
Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford.; Why the US should keep cooperating with Russia on nuclear security,
http://thebulletin.org/why-us-should-keep-cooperating-russia-nuclear-security7207]

A strong US role in nuclear security cooperation remains imperative. In spite of Moscows assertion to the
contrary, its vast stockpile of nuclear materials remains vulnerable to theft or diversion . Whereas the physical
security of nuclear facilities has improved greatly, both because of years of American support and the re-emergence of Russias overbearing security services,

control and accounting of nuclear materials, which are crucial to combat insider threats, still fall far shy of
international best practices. For example, Russia still has no baseline inventory of all nuclear materials the
Soviet Union produced and where they are today. Moreover, it has shown no interest in trying to discover
just how much material is unaccounted for. Our Russian colleagues voice concern that progress on
nuclear security in their country will not be sustained once American cooperation is terminated. They
believe that Russias nuclear security culture and the governments commitment to fund continued
security upgrades are still very fragile and require continued cooperation. It is also in Washingtons interest for Russia to
cooperate on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran is a good case in point. Much progress has been made toward a negotiated settlement of Irans
nuclear program since President Hassan Rouhani was elected in June, 2013. However, little would have been possible without US-Russia cooperation. It is not in
Moscows interest to have nuclear weapons spread to its near abroad. It needs Washingtons continued global leadership in this area. Washington, in turn, needs
Moscow; especially if it is to develop more effective measures to prevent proliferation as Russia and other nuclear vendors support nuclear power expansion around
the globe. Although cooperation related to the stewardship of Washington and Moscows respective nuclear arsenals would be more difficult in an adversarial
governmental relationship, there are numerous areas that would still benefit from collaboration. Scientific understanding of such problems as the aging of plutonium
remains elusive and beyond the full reach of either country. One of the authors of this column has personally been involved in plutonium science collaboration with
his Russian counterparts for the past 15 years. Continued cooperation in this area, as in some areas of nuclear weapon safety and security, remain in our common
interest. As the United States and the European Union take short-term measures to restrain Russias actions in Ukraine, they should not sacrifice the hard-earned
gains made to stabilize the nuclear threats that arose after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Some forms of nuclear cooperation, especially on arms control and
nonproliferation, were supported even during the darkest days of the Cold War, because the alternatives proved unacceptable to both sides. With the Cold Wars end,
nuclear cooperation flourished. Washington

should foster continued cooperation to meet our shared challenges, rather

than allowing it to be held hostage to the Ukrainian crisis. Over the past 20-plus years, when working with our Russian colleagues,
we have all found that at times we must move beyond political disagreements, such as the political situation in Ukraine, to work together to advance the cause of
nuclear security.

Nuclear terrorism causes extinction

Morgan 9 - Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea (Dennis, Futures, November, World on fire: two
scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race, Science Direct)
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question Is Nuclear War Inevitable?? [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out what
most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, theyve figured out that

the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points
out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode
it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian dead hand system, where regional nuclear
commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed, it is likely that any attack would
be blamed on the United States [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to
suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal Samson option against all major Muslim
cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even anti-Semitic European cities
[10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well,
as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift
throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a
nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many
people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication,

false signal or lone wolf act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use
of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear
attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each
country would act under the use them or lose them strategy and psychology; restraint by one power
would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to

win the war. In other words, once Pandoras Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the
signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to
cough. Once one does, however, everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external
war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep,
and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self determination, some of those groups will look for
any means to fight their oppressors [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is
only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used,

it is very likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the
destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a
remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.

Now is key Russia is open to improved security co-op but the US has to take the initiative
Panorama 6-28-14 [Panorama is Armenias biggest news source, Russia ready for new anti-terror cooperation with US Lavrov,
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2014/06/28/lavrov-us-cooperation/]
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday Moscow is open

to renewed anti-terrorism cooperation with the

United States, but added the ball is now in the US court, RIA Novosti reported. We had quite an effective bilateral
mechanism with the Americans, which combined various departments that were employed in the fight against terrorism. Last year that
mechanism was frozen by our American colleagues and now we clearly sense their interestto renew
close cooperation in anti-terrorism. We are ready for that, its up to [our] American colleagues, Lavrov said. The deadly Boston
bombing attack in April 2013 highlighted the need for closer anti-terrorism cooperation between
Moscow and Washington. A year later in early April, NATO foreign ministers announced their decision
to suspend all contact with Russia following a split over the crisis in Ukraine. Now it is feared the freeze may
undo the nations anti-terror efforts in turbulent Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan. Because NATO
decided to curtail cooperation with Russia, this will unfortunately directly impact the combat efficiency of
the Afghan Army. Evidently, this is a shortsighted approach from NATO partners that will hurt
themselves, Russias Afghan ambassador Andrei Avetisyan told reporters earlier in the day. A similar warning came earlier from NATO
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said he hoped the suspension would not affect Russias participation in joint international
projects in Afghanistan, including training anti-drug officials in the country. The planned withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by the yearend is feared might destabilize the Central Asian region, as it could allow the Taliban to act with impunity. The Pentagon plans to leave a residual
force behind, along with three military bases, to maintain peace and security in Afghanistan.

Xtn: Nuclear Terror i/l

Cooperation key now
Panorama 6-28-14 [Panorama is Armenias biggest news source, Russia ready for new anti-terror cooperation with US Lavrov,
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2014/06/28/lavrov-us-cooperation/]
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday Moscow is open

to renewed anti-terrorism cooperation with the

United States, but added the ball is now in the US court, RIA Novosti reported. We had quite an effective bilateral
mechanism with the Americans, which combined various departments that were employed in the fight against terrorism. Last year that
mechanism was frozen by our American colleagues and now we clearly sense their interestto renew
close cooperation in anti-terrorism. We are ready for that, its up to [our] American colleagues, Lavrov said. The deadly Boston
bombing attack in April 2013 highlighted the need for closer anti-terrorism cooperation between Moscow
and Washington. A year later in early April, NATO foreign ministers announced their decision to suspend
all contact with Russia following a split over the crisis in Ukraine. Now it is feared the freeze may undo the
nations anti-terror efforts in turbulent Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan. Because NATO decided
to curtail cooperation with Russia, this will unfortunately directly impact the combat efficiency of the
Afghan Army. Evidently, this is a shortsighted approach from NATO partners that will hurt themselves ,
Russias Afghan ambassador Andrei Avetisyan told reporters earlier in the day. A similar warning came earlier from NATO Secretary General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said he hoped the suspension would not affect Russias participation in joint international projects in Afghanistan,
including training anti-drug officials in the country. The planned withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by the year-end is feared might
destabilize the Central Asian region, as it could allow the Taliban to act with impunity. The Pentagon plans to leave a residual force behind, along
with three military bases, to maintain peace and security in Afghanistan.

We have specific examples of terrorists trying to smuggle multiple different nuclear

materials
BC 6-17-14 [The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs is the hub of Harvard Kennedy School's research, teaching, and
training in international security and diplomacy, environmental and resource issues, and science and technology policy and is ranked #1 think
tank in the world by University of Pennsylvania's Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program.; IPNT Participants Urge U.S and Russia to Continue
Cooperating on Nuclear Security and Counter-Terrorism In Spite of Ukraine Crisis,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/24323/usrussia_initiative_to_prevent_nuclear_terrorism_newsletter.html]

Dirty Bomb Material Intercepted in Ukraine Ukraines interim government announced on May 5th that a group of
individuals had been detained in the Chernivtsi region for allegedly attempting to smuggle possible
dirty bomb material. GSN noted that the Ukrainian security services characterized the seized material as a source of ionizing
radiation which possibly contained uranium-235 with a weight of roughly 1.5 kilograms. In a separate development, NATO
experts visited Ukraine in May to advise authorities there on improving the safety of nuclear power plants, Reuters reported. In late March,
Andriy Deshchytsia, Ukraines acting foreign affairs minister, said his country might seek foreign help to guard its atomic facilities if the
situation aggravates. Nuclear Smugglers Sentenced in Kazakhstan A regional court in the Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan has
sentenced four members of a nuclear-smuggling ring to several years in prison for attempting to sell

cesium. Among them was an engineer from a Kazakhstani uranium-enrichment facility. He pilfered the
cesium-137 from a storage facility in the early 1990s and for years kept the material hidden at his workplace before deciding to ask three
local residents in June 2013 to help him sell it, according to an April 27th report by GSN.

Case Oil

Xtn: Spills Hurt BioD

Oil spills cause ecosystems to fail multiple ways
Kennedy No Date [Jennifer, a scientist, educator and naturalist with a lifelong passion for the ocean
and its inhabitant, Effects of Oil Spills on Marine Life, about.com,
http://marinelife.about.com/od/conservation/tp/effectsofoilspills.htm]//JC//
Many people became familiar with the disastrous effects of oil spills in 1989 after the Exxon Valdez incident in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
That spill is considered the worst oil spill in U .S. history -- although the 2010 BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico could prove to be
even worse. Overall, the effects of an oil spill depend on a variety of factors, including the weather and other environmental conditions, the
composition of the oil and how close it gets to shore. But here are some ways an oil spill can impact marine life , including
seabirds, pinnipeds and sea turtles. Hypothermia Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) coated

in oil, Alaska, USA Natalie Fobes/The Image

Bank/Getty Images Oil, a product that we often use to keep warm, can cause hypothermia in marine animals. As oil mixes with water, it
forms a substance called "mousse," which sticks to feathers and fur. A bird's feathers are filled with air spaces that act as insulation and keeps the
bird warm. When a bird gets coated with oil , the feathers lose their insulating ability and the bird could die of hypothermia. Similarly,

oil coats a pinniped's fur. When this happens, the fur gets matted with oil and loses its natural ability to insulate the animal's body, and it
can die of hypothermia. Young animals like seal pups are particularly vulnerable . Poisoning and Internal Damage Animals
can be poisoned or suffer internal damage from ingesting oil. Effects include ulcers and damage to red blood cells, kidneys, liver and to the
immune system. Oil vapors can injure to eyes and lungs, and can be particularly hazardous while new oil is

still coming to the surface and vapors are evaporating . If vapors are severe enough, marine mammals may become
"sleepy" and drown. Oil can also cause effects 'up' the food chain , such as when an organism higher on the food chain eat a
number of oil-infected animals. For example, reproduction in bald eagles decreased after the eagles ate animals infected by oil after the
Exxon Valdez spill. Increased Predation Oil can weigh down feathers and fur , making it difficult for birds and
pinnipeds to escape from predators. If they are covered with enough oil, birds or pinnipeds may actually drown.
Decreased Reproduction Oil spills can effect the eggs of marine life such as fish and sea turtles , both when the
spill happens and later on. Fisheries were impacted years after the Exxon Valdez spill due to the destruction of herring and salmon eggs when the
spill occurred. Oil can also cause disruption of reproductive hormones and behavioral changes that lead to reduced reproduction rates or affect the
care of young. Fouling of Habitat Cleanup of Taean oil spill / U .S. Army Environmental Command, Flickr U.S. Army, Flickr

Oil spills in the can effect ocean habitat , both offshore and onshore. Before an oil spill reaches shore, the oil can
poison plankton and other pelagic marine life. On shore, it can cover rocks, marine algae and marine invertebrates. The Exxon
Valdez spill coated 1,300 miles of coastline, initiating a massive cleanup effort. Once the cleanup of surface areas has occurred, oil that has
seeped into the ground can hurt marine life for decades . For example, oil can drip into the ground, causing
issues for burrowing animals such as crabs.

Xtn: Solvency + Drilling Now

Companies are making plans for drilling in the Arctic - makes spills more likely
Nunez 4-23-14 [Christina, writer for energy content at national geographic, What Happens When Oil
Spills in the Arctic?, National Geographic,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/04/140423-national-research-council-on-oil-spillsin-arctic/]//JC//
As sea ice melts and the oil industry prepares to exploit the Arctic's vast resources , the United States faces
big gaps in its preparedness for an oil spill in the region , according to a report released Wednesday by the National Research Council (NRC).
The 183-page report marks the first time in more than ten years that the NRC , an arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, has taken a comprehensive look at the impact of oil and gas exploration in the
Arctic. In the intervening decade, sea ice cover hit a record low, shipping traffic increased dramatically, and the price of oil rose sharply,
prompting such companies as Shell,* ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips to acquire new leases for oil and
gas. The Arctic contains an estimated 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil , and one-third of that oil
lies within U.S. territory. Shell's attempt to drill into it in 2012 illustrated the challenge of working in the
Arctic: The campaign ended with the drilling rig, the Kulluk, running aground and needing to be rescued. Shell and other
companies have suspended Arctic drilling plans for 2014, but there is little doubt the push to develop
the region's energy resources will continue . The NRC report invokes the Kulluk incident, as well as the BP Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez
disasters, as cautionary tales. It was authored by a committee that included representatives from academia, research and environmental organizations, and the energy industry. Here are five of the
gaps that the panel says need to be addressed for the U.S. to be ready for an oil spill in the Arctic: 1. We need to spill some oil (on purpose). Much of the existing research on oil properties and

More research is needed to understand how oil behaves in an Arctic

environmentand unfortunately, the best way to find out is to spill some in a controlled way. Research facilities such as the Ohmsett
spill response has been done for temperate regions, the report notes.

test center in New Jersey have simulated spills in icy conditions. But permits to deliberately release oil into U.S. waters for research have become harder to obtain in the United States in the past

We need to know more about the Arctic. The technology available for
monitoring and mapping the Arctic has improved markedly over the last decade, but there are
significant holes. "A decade ago, I think there was hope we might have filled some of these data gaps," says Mark Myers of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who
contributed to the report. "Fundamental, high-resolution data that we need sometimes just isn't there." Existing
nautical charts for the Arctic shoreline are "mostly obsolete," the NRC says, with many of them last
updated in the 1950s. Less than 10 percent of the coastline, some 2,200 miles (3,540 kilometers), has adequate data on seafloor topography, Myers
says. That increases the chance a vessel could run aground and spill oil, according to the report, and it could hamper a cleanup too. So could ice and stormy seas, of course.
The report points to a need for better real-time data and forecasts of sea ice coverage and thickness.
Though energy companies target late summer and early fall for exploration activity , "ice-free regions can
transition to ice-covered conditions in a matter of days at the start of a fall freeze-up," the report says . Sea
ice does offer one advantage, though, according to the report: It could help contain spilled oil in a way that would make it easier to set fire to and burn
15 years. The NRC advocates a streamlined permit process.

off. 3. We need more U.S. Coast Guard presence. "The U.S. Coast Guard has a low level of presence in the Arctic, especially during the winter," the NRC warns. Its closest station to the Arctic, in
Kodiak, is more than 900 air miles (1,448 kilometers) south of Alaska's North Slope, limiting its ability to respond to a spill quickly. "A 'presence' is bodies, but it is also vessels or platforms, and
aerial capability for airlift in the event of an oil spill response," says Martha Grabowski, who chaired the NRC report committee. "The transportation infrastructure that the rest of us would
presuppose to be existing as it is in the lower 48 simply doesn't exist up north." But "the Coast Guard can't do this alone," Grabowski says; it doesn't have the budget. The NRC report stresses the

We need to work with the Russians.

the first transit for a container ship, the first voyages for
Chinese and South Korean vesselsand the first tanker accident. Russia has promoted use of the route,
where its state-operated icebreaker fleet offers mandatory escort in exchange for a fee . Among the ships
traveling the Northern Sea Route last year , the NRC says, were oil tankers carrying more than 800,000
barrels of oil. The expansion of the Northern Sea Route has in turn led to increased traffic through U.S.
waters in the Bering Strait. This points to the need for better traffic managementthe U.S. doesn't have a system for monitoring
ships in the Arctic. But "the international demarcation line [between Russian and U.S. waters] runs
right down the middle of the Bering Strait, so we can't make a unilateral determination with respect to what to do for vessel traffic monitoring,"
Grabowski says. The United States should also conduct joint oil spill response exercises with Russia, the report says . Such planning has already taken place with Canada, but
even though the U.S. has an oil spill response agreement with Russia, it has not conducted formal
exercises or hammered out any contingency plans. 5. We need a plan for wildlife. The Arctic is home to
endangered species such as bowhead whales, polar bears, and ringed seals. Rehabilitating wildlife affected by an oil spill in the Arctic is complicated by
need for public-private partnerships and community engagement to address the challenges of dealing with an Arctic spill. 4.
Last year, the Northern Sea Route between Asia and Europe saw many firsts:

remote locations, adverse conditions, the use of marine mammals for subsistence by indigenous people, and safety concerns (dealing with an injured walrus or polar bear is more hazardous than

There is a general lack of scientific

study, approved protocols, and consensus" on how best to deter wildlife from entering a spill zone, the report says.
dealing with, say, an oiled pelican). What's more, there's no plan for keeping animals out of harm's way in the Arctic. "

Xtn: Drilling Inev

Arctic Off shore oil exploration is imminent
Kasdin 6-28-12
(Alexandra Kasdin is a rising Junior from Princeton University majoring in Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology. June 28th,2012. Arctic Offshore Oil Exploration Could Be Imminent.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/arctic-off-shore-oil-exploration-could-be-imminent
According to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, off-shore oil exploration in Alaska could be imminent.
According to the New York Times, Salazar indicated that Shell would most likely get to start off-shore exploration near Alaskas North Slope this
summer, once they jump a few more hurdles. If Shell meets our standards and passes our inspections, exploration activities will be conducted
under the closest oversight and most rigorous safety standards ever implemented in the history of the United States , Salazar told the

Associated Press. According to the Los Angeles Times, if Shell does start drilling, it will be the first time
offshore drilling has occurred in the Arctic in nearly 20 years. Credit: Neftegaz.ru In 2008, Shell purchased the right to
drill in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea off of the coast of Alaska. Numerous lawsuits and permit appeals later, Shell has yet to drill. In
addition to Shells exploration, the New York Times said that within the week, the Interior Department
will also release an offshore leasing plan for the next five years that will allow for more Arctic oil and gas
exploration and drilling. However, these new leases will only go on sale in 2016 and 2017. The Los Angeles Times reported that in the
four years before these leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas become available, there will be additional scientific study and analysis. The
Interior Department said that this analysis would ensure that the places made available for exploration and
drilling will be areas that have a lot of oil but not areas on which Native Alaskans depend or where
wildlife will be at risk. Salazar is calling this strategy targeted leasing. The Pew Environment Groups U.S. Arctic
program manager, Eleanor Huffines, told the Los Angeles Times, Its very encouraging that they recognize there are areas in the Arctic Ocean
that are too important to drill.

Xtn: Drilling Inev Russia

Drilling in the Artic is inevitable Russia
Martin 6-8-14 (Hector Martin. Artic Journalist. June 18th,2014. Full speed ahead and damn the
sanctions http://arcticjournal.com/oil-minerals/702/full-speed-ahead-and-damn-sanctions)
Russia remains a top priority for Western oil companies, despite continued tensions over the invasion of
Ukraine,executivessaidduringtherecentWorldPetroleumCongress,whichwrapsuponThursdayinMoscow."In the years ahead,
we look forward to tapping advantagesin the Far East of Russia unlocking new supplies of oil and
natural gas in the Kara Sea and beyond,"RexTillerson,theheadofExxonMobil,toldattendees.ExxonMobilpartnerswith
RosneftonanumberofjointventuresinRussia,includingintheKaraSea,intheArctic.That relationship has proved problematic
ever since Igor Sechin, the companys managing director, had a personal sanction placed on him by the
US, due to his relationship with Vladimir Putin, Russias president. Due to the conflict over Ukraine,
executives were reportedly asked by Washington not to attend the conference. The requests were ignored,
and the sanctions so far have not had an effect on oil companies ability to do business in Russia. Executives
said they were unlikely to do so, unless the situation in Ukraine deteriorated further. According to Bob Dudley, the head of BP, the industry
continues to work and do business as usual" in Russia. While the open defiance of Western policymakers was

interpreted as an indication of the value oil firms have placed on business in Russia and its $8 billion
kroner worth of untapped reserves, the conference also proved an important opportunity for Russian firms
as well.Russian companies often lack the expertise to carry out the complex drilling required to tap into
hard-to-get reserves. In some instances, Russian firms also require Western assistance to help them
upgrade installations dating back to the Soviet era. Without Western technology, experts said it was
unlikely Russia could maintain current production levels while many of its offshore reserves in the Arctic
would be out of the countrys reach. In addition, executives pointed out that Russia depended on Europe
as a market, while Europe needs Russias gas. Statoil, the second-largest gas supplier to the EU after Gazprom, has said it could
ratchet up production but said that it could fill only some of the gaps that would be left by a Russian production cut . The conference was being
held as Russia was moving to cut off supplies of gas to Ukraine, but which owns 20 percent of Rosneft, did not expect other European countries
to see similar measures. I think the fact that Europe depends on Russian gas and Russia depends on European

revenues creates an important link and I do believe that energy can act as a bridge, Dudley said.

Xtn: Drilling = Spills

Drilling makes arctic Oil Spills inevitable
Abrams 4-24 [Lindsay, assistant editor at Salon, The U.S. is completely unprepared for the
inevitable Arctic oil spill, Salon,
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/24/the_u_s_is_completely_unprepared_for_the_inevitable_arctic
_oil_spill/] //JC//
Lets face it: if

we start drilling in the Arctic, or even just as ship traffic picks up in its melting waters, what happens
everywhere else is more likely than not to happen there , too. Thats right, there are going to be oil spills and
according to a panel convened by the National Research Council (NRC), the U.S. is totally unprepared to deal with that
inevitability. In a 198-page report commissioned by the U.S. Coast Guard, the American Petroleum Institute and various
other agencies, the NRC spells out the likely disastrous outcome of a large spill. It is unlikely that responders could
quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air access , stronger supply chains, and increased
capacity to handle equipment, supplies, and personnel, it reads. And yet there is presently no funding
mechanism to provide for development, deployment, and maintenance of temporary and permanent
infrastructure. What the U.S. needs, the report continues, is a comprehensive, collaborative, long-term Arctic oil
spill research and development program in order to properly prepare . Easier said than done, as Science reports:
Cleaning up oil in the Arctic is particularly tricky for a number of reasons , the committee notes. The extreme
weather conditions are one problem. The lack of many kinds of datahigh-resolution topography and bathymetry
along the coasts; measurements of ice cover and thickness; distributions in space and time of the regions
fish, birds, and marine mammalsis another. And if an emergency happens, theres no infrastructure in placeno
consistent U.S. Coast Guard presence and no reliable supply chains to support a rapid response. On top of that, there is little real-world
information about how the Arctics own oil (rather than an amalgam from an oil pipeline, as is now tested)
will behave in the Arctics heavily stratified water column, which could prevent deep spills from reaching the surface .
Then theres the lingering question of how effective chemical dispersants or oil-munching microbes are in
the frigid Arctic environment . And virtually nothing is known about how oil and sea ice will interact . Ice
really changes everything, Myers says. Some oil might make its way into the ice, only to later become liquid again when the ice
melts; some might remain trapped beneath it, moving with the iceor possibly not. We have very few observations of the underice environment, he says. The barriers, as Chris Krenz, a Juneau-based senior scientist with the conservation group Oceana, points out, make
disasters like Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez look simple in comparison and we all know how well we were able to handle those

Russia will drill in the arctic using shoddy equipment

Sharp 13 [Cassady, Professional writer for GreenPeace, 9 disturbing signs pointing to a catastrophic
oil spill in the Arctic, September 24th, GreenPeace, http://m.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/high/blog/9disturbing-signs-pointing-to-a-catastrophic/blog/46744/] //JC//
Gazprom may not be as familiar to you as BP or Exxon, but theyre just as capable of making history with a catastrophic
oil spill. The Russian oil giant is the first company to start oil production in the Arctic after their failed
attempt last year in addition to Shells year of drilling mishaps. Greenpeace sent the Arctic Sunrise and international
activists to Gazproms platform, the Prirazlomnaya, since the companys drilling plans in the region threaten three
surrounding nature reserves and their inhabitants with a major oil spill . Russian authorities seized 30 international
activists and the ship, the Arctic Sunrise, without communication for more than 100 hours now after the activists attempted a peaceful protest
against oil drilling by Gazprom. Russia granted amnesty to the activists and all 30 were released in December . Action Against

Gazprom's Arctic Drilling Gazprom is Russias biggest company and is almost totally stateowned
providing nearly 10 percent of Russias entire gross domestic product. In April, Gazprom announced a
partnership with Shell to drill in the Arctic meaning Shells shareholders just signed up for the inevitable
cost of an epic Arctic oil spill. Heres why an Arctic oil spill is not likely, its inevitable. 9. Gazproms oil
platofrm, the Prirazlomnaya, is hardly the pinnacle of modern engineering. The company constructed it using

pieces of decommissioned North Sea rigs and sat rusting in a Murmansk shipyard for years. 8. Gazproms
platform will operate year-round in the remote Pechora Sea, where ice is present for nearly two-thirds of the year and temperatures
can drop as low as -50C. Save the Arctic: Take Action 7. Much of the response equipment will live 1000
kilometers away in Murmansk, meaning the company would not be able to mount a serious accident
response for days. 6. Gazprom was supposed to start producing oil from the Arctic in 2011, but due to the enormous technical challenges
posed by drilling in the region and leaks about concerns with safety, the company delayed the project. 5. When Gazprom finally put
Prirazlomnaya in place for drilling in the Barents Sea in 2011, subcontractors working on its construction were quoted in the press as declaring it
94.2 percent ready for use. However an anonymous source involved in the construction told Nord-News agency

that in reality the platform was no more than 50 percent ready. Gazprom refused to publish any of the
platforms safety documentation, its environmental impact assessment or the oil spill response plan for the
project. 4. Just weeks after being positioned on site, the Prirazlomnayas rig safety ladder was torn off in a
summer storm and a new video shows what appears to be a safety vessel crashing into the platform. Industry
sources now suggest that the platform may not meet Russian offshore operating standards yet Gazprom has
started exploratory drilling regardless. 3. In December 2011, 53 people died when the Kolskaya jack-up rig
capsized during towing. Before this incident, a unit of Gazprom used the rig at a gas production site and had
regularly applied cuts in budget and security measures . 2. Gazprom claims it pays great attention to preventive
environmental protection measures, but according to official plans its worst-case scenario is only for an oil spill of around
10,000 tons or 73,000 barrels. The Deepwater Horizon disaster spewed nearly 5 million barrels into the
Gulf of Mexico while the Prirazlomnaya itself can store up to 650,000 barrels of oil. WalrusinArctic 1. National
parks and wildlife sanctuaries like Nenetsky and Vaygach surround the Prirazlomnoye oil field, home to protected and endangered species such as
the Atlantic walrus and polar bears. Gazproms summary oil spill response plan suggests an oil spill would not only

impact wildlife habitats, but also Indigenous Peoples who rely on the Pechora Sea for fishing and hunting.

Ritzman 2-14-14 [Dan, Alaska program director for the Sierra Club, Guest: Shell, the U.S. not
prepared for risks of drilling in Arctic Ocean, Seattle Times,
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022914154_danritzmanopedarcticdrilling18xml.html]//JC//
Americas Arctic is a place like no other. Its unique conditions extreme weather, long periods of darkness and its remoteness
make it both harsh and fragile. Its a place often underestimated, especially when it comes to drilling for oil in the Arctic
Ocean. Take Shell Oil for example. The company has spent years and billions of dollars trying to drill in Americas Arctic seas.
Despite the companys assurances of safety, it has been made clear again and again that Shell is not prepared for the
risks posed by the icy waters. In 2012, the company failed to even get all of its equipment in place. Its oil-spill-containment dome
failed during testing, its Kulluk drilling ship ran aground, and the company ended up owing more than $1 million in pollution fines.
It drilled no oil. Apparently learning nothing from that experience, Shell announced a plan to return to the Arctic Ocean this summer, only to have
its leases invalidated by a federal court because the company vastly underestimated the environmental risks. Shells decision not to drill in the
Arctic this year is good news, but the threat of drilling remains and we cannot afford to downplay the risks of

drilling to the Arctic environment and to our climate any longer . The reality is that drilling in the Arctic
Ocean comes with a distinctive set of risks to the environment and would-be drillers . History has shown
that where there is drilling, there is spilling. This year marks 25 years since the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground, and oil can still be
found on Southcentral Alaska beaches. Oil spills in the Arctic would cause irreparable damage and be impossible to clean up. The risks extend
beyond a devastating oil spill. Drilling in the Arctic Ocean could release enough carbon pollution to negate efforts to fight global warming and
dramatically alter our climate. The pollution from oil-drilling activities would coat Arctic ice surfaces with black ,
heat-absorbing soot, further speeding the melting of ice in a place that is already warming at twice the rate of the Lower 48 states. The

chain
of reactions would continue because the Arctic acts as a refrigerator for the Northern Hemisphere . The effects
of melting Arctic ice can already be seen in rising sea levels in coastal areas from New Orleans to Miami and in a sharp global increase in
extreme weather events, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations recently released Arctic Report Card. The Obama
administration needs to take advantage of Shells absence this year to finally do a full environmental assessment of current leases, an assessment
that looks deeper than the best-case scenario to risks that are far more likely. An effective climate strategy would require the administration to
cancel lease sales tentatively scheduled for 2016 and 2017. The United States must lead an effort to begin keeping fossil fuels in the ground,
especially in risky, remote and fragile places like the Arctic Ocean . The U.S. should set an example for countries

like Russia and China that are looking to exploit the Arctics dirty energy even as the world looks to
combat climate change. Its time for America to look beyond an all-of-the-above energy policy. I have been fortunate in my life to
spend time in Arctic Alaska. Ive watched walrus gather on ice floes, bowheads breach in ice-filled waters and polar bears prowl the ice edge. I

have traveled with Alaska Natives, who have lived on these lands and waters for hundreds of generations, and I have seen the importance of these
animals to their culture and subsistence. A major spill would leave oil in these waters for decades, killing wildlife and bringing to an end Alaska
Natives ancient way of life. The Arctic is the last place we should be drilling for oil . Cleaner energy and

transportation options are here now. Their capacity to help shape a better future should not be underestimated.

Xtn: Arctic Key BioD

Arctic is key to global biodiversity the impact is extinction
Gill 9 (Michael Gill, Chair of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program, ABSTRACT:
BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, March, UNESCO,
http://www.unesco.org/csi/LINKS/monaco-abstracts/Gill_abstract_MonacoUNESCOarctic.pdf)
Arctic ecosystems and the biodiversity they support are experiencing growing pressure from climate
change and resource development while established research and monitoring programs remain largely uncoordinated, lacking the
ability to effectively monitor, understand and report on biodiversity trends at the circumpolar scale. The maintenance of healthy
Arctic ecosystems is a global imperative as the Arctic plays a critical role in the Earths physical,
chemical and biological balance. A coordinated and comprehensive effort for monitoring Arctic
ecosystems is needed to facilitate effective and timely conservation and adaptation actions . The Arctics
size and complexity represents a significant challenge towards detecting and attributing important
biodiversity trends. This demands a scaled, pan-Arctic, ecosystem-based approach that not only identifies trends in biodiversity, but also
identifies underlying causes. It is critical that this information be made available to generate effective strategies
for adapting to changes now taking place in the Arctic - a process that ultimately depends on rigorous, integrated, and
efficient monitoring programmes that have the power to detect change within a management time frame. Biodiversity is a popular way of
describing the diversity of life on earth: it includes all life forms and the ecosystems of which they are a part. World Food Day the anniversary
of FAO's founding on 16 October 1945 celebrates, in particular, that part of biodiversity that nurtures people and contributes to long-term food
security for all. Biodiversity forms the foundation for sustainable development. It is the basis for the

environmental health of our planet and the source of economic and ecological security for future
generations. In the developing world, biodiversity provides the assurance of food, countless raw materials
such as fibre for clothing, materials for shelter, fertilizer, fuel and medicines, as well as a source of work energy in
the form of animal traction. The rural poor depend upon biological resources for an estimated 90 percent of their needs. In the industrialized
world access to diverse biological resources is necessary to support a vast array of industrial products. In the continuing drive to develop efficient
and sustainable agriculture for many different conditions, these resources provide raw material for plant and animal breeding as well as the new
biotechnologies. In addition, biodiversity maintains the ecological balance necessary for planetary and

human survival.

Arctic Biodiversity is essential to the worlds oceans

CBD 5-20-14 [Center for Biological Diversity, nonprofit membership organization with approximately 625,000 members known for
protecting endangered species, REPORT OF THE ARCTIC REGIONAL WORKSHOP TO FACILITATE THE DESCRIPTION OF
ECOLOGICALLY OR BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT MARINE AREAS, pg. 3, http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsaws-201401/official/ebsaws-2014-01-05-en.pdf]//JC//
On behalf of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Mr. Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias welcomed participants and thanked
them for participating in this workshop, the seventh regional EBSA workshop convened by the Secretariat of the Convention. He thanked the
Government of Finland for hosting this workshop and for their kind financial support, which had enabled the convening of this workshop and the
participation of experts from the region. He also thanked the Arctic Council Working Group on Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)
for their excellent cooperation in the scientific and technical preparation for this workshop, and for coordinating the scientific inputs from other
relevant Working Groups of the Arctic Council. He stressed the critical role of Arctic marine biodiversity to the health

and well-being of Arctic States and coastal communities, especially indigenous communities, and in
supporting the healthy functioning of the worlds oceans. He also noted the close link between healthy
marine ecosystems and resilient coastal communities in the Arctic. He emphasized that the conservation
and sustainable use of Arctic biodiversity were essential to the achievement of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Citing increasing global attention on the urgent need to effectively protect and preserve marine biodiversity,
including in the ongoing United Nations Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, he outlined the critical role of the regional
EBSA workshops in describing ocean areas in need of special attention. He expressed his wish for successful deliberations.

I/l magnifier Small Spills

The smallest spill in the arctic could destroy the Arctics food chain
Sjgren 1-30 [Kristian, Writer for Science Nordic, Even tiny oil spills may break Arctic food chain,
Science Nordic, http://sciencenordic.com/even-tiny-oil-spills-may-break-arctic-food-chain] //JC//
As the Arctic ice is melting, areas that used to be covered by a thick layer of ice become accessible. These areas contain great
amounts of oil and are therefore of great interest to oil companies . However, according to a new study, drilling for oil in
these areas can have disastrous consequences if the increased ship traffic , and the possible oil spills,
increase the amounts of oil in the ecosystem. One of the cornerstones of the Arctic food web the
copepod species Calanus hyperboreus responds particularly poorly to even the tiniest amounts of oil in
the water, and once these copepods run into problems, the entire food chain with everything from fish to humans in it
also runs into problems. So says Professor Torkel Gissel Nielsen, of DTU Aqua at the Technical University of Denmark ,
who co-authored the new study, published in the journal Ecotoxicology. There are huge oil reserves in the
Arctic. When we start extracting them, there will inevitably be spillage at some point, he says. The Calanus hyperboreus is one of 13,000 copepod species.
(Photo: Russ Hopcroft) Our research shows that it only takes tiny amounts of oil in the sea to significantly reduce
copepod egg hatching rates. If there are no copepods in the sea, there is no food for the fry. Even tiny oil
spills in the Arctic can end up breaking the food chain entirely. Why copepods are important The reason
that the C. hyperboreus is a key species in the food chain is that it is the food source of virtually all fish in
the ocean. The copepods feed on algae and thus convert the algae into food for other animals . The total
weight of the copepod population also exceeds the weight of all other aquatic animals , so even though each individual
copepod is less than one centimetre in length, they collectively make up a considerable amount of food for fish, birds and crustaceans. A reduction in the
copepod population, or a mere displacement of the various copepod species , will therefore have catastrophic consequences
for a wide variety of other animals, too. Fatty copepods are most important In their study, the researchers specifically
looked at the C. hyperboreus, as this is the fattest one of the Arctic copepods and thus also the most important
one in this context. In the Arctic, fat is key to survival, and without the fatty copepods, there is less fat
being transported from algae up through the food chain, first to copepods, then to fish and birds, and lastly to whales, seals, polar bears
and humans. If the number of these fatty copepods is reduced as a result of oil spills in the ocean , it is possible that
they will be replaced by other species, says Nielsen. However, for animals that feed on the copepods , this would be similar to
changing from a diet of bacon to one of rice crackers and still being able to stay warm through the Arctic
winters. That is not possible, and many species will be experiencing great problems. Oil prevents eggs from
hatching The problem with the C. hyperboreus is that its eggs are much more susceptible to oil exposure than eggs from other species. Most
copepods have hard eggshells, but C. hyperboreus eggs are only covered by a thin membrane. This membrane is permeable to organic
substances such as oil, which can penetrate the egg and kill it. An oil spill can therefore have the
consequence that an entire generation of C. hyperboreus is wiped out. This will result in an entire generation of fry
also losing a key food source, as they have no fatty copepods to feed on when preparing for the cold
winter, says the professor. Oil enters the food chain In their studies, the researchers exposed the copepods
to very small and realistic amounts of oil in the laboratory. The oil concentrations corresponded to the
amount of oil that can be expected from a small oil spill . The oil turned out to cause a sharp reduction in
the number of hatched eggs. The oil also affected the female copepods which , although they did not die, became less active
and ate less. However, the apparent fact that the copepods survive the small doses of oil is a problem : It means
that the oil enters the food chain, and that means it may affect other animals whose response to the oil we
still do not know. This is another problem caused by oil spills in the Arctic.

Case Shipping

Xtn: UQ No Capacity Now

The US lacks the capacity in the squo to pursue Arctic Ocean market expansion

streng 13
Willy, senior researcher and chairman of the research institute Ocean Futures in Oslo and affiliated faculty at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, was scientific
director/professor at the Centre for Advanced Study at the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters from 2003-2009, director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute
Norway from 1978-2003, and adjunct professor of political science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim from 1994-2004, was
special advisor to the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1998-99, member of the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and letters, and of the
International Academy of Regional Development and Cooperation in Russia, vice-president of the Norwegian Academy of Polar Research, Shipping in Arctic
Waters: A comparison of the Northeast, Northwest and Trans Polar Passages, pg 48-49
Throughout history, the

Arctic Ocean has remained off the beaten track of large-scale world shipping operations.
the West, the general tendency has been to play down the
geopolitical aspects of the Arctic Ocean and emphasize the climatic, hydrological and bathymetric restrictions of the NSR and NWP. On the
whole, the conclusion has been that these routes are of no interest for market-based economies. Lack of regular sailing schedules,
It has been the operational backyard of a few Soviet/Russian ships. In

limited length of sailing sea- sons, costs of icebreaker assistance, high insurance premiums, limited sailing speeds and cargo capacity, and cost of building icereinforced freighters are just a few of the numerous cost factors invoked when disregarding the Arctic Ocean as an alternative transportation medium between the
Atlantic and the Pacific. Even

the NSR- the most developed of these transportation corridors (see Chapter 7) has been
regarded as nothing but a misbegotten product of communist command economy rather than as a
legitimate offspring of market forces. In most Western quarters, the Arctic routes have never been seen as
viable and realistic alternatives to the Suez and Panama Canals. Their fleets are mostly fitted and designed for blue water
operation, and have never been built with Arctic operational capabilities in mind. To a large extent, this is still the case. Lasserre and Pelletier show that,
in spite of the increasing focus on Arctic transit shipping in media and elsewhere in recent years, there is
no explosion (in the orders to shipyards) of Arctic-plying ships. 24 As of February 2011, most of the ice class ships ordered or
built worldwide 120 in total were directed at the Baltic and Northwest Atlantic, and only 24% were built for the Arctic Ocean, in particular the Barents Sea and the
NSR. The building of ice class ships peaked in 2005 with 234 vessels. Since then it has decreased and, again, most of those ships were not designed for deployment in
the Arctic Ocean, but in the Baltic Sea and northern Pacific.25 By

and large, Western shipowners still lack the capacity to

undertake shipping assignments in the Arctic Ocean. No wonder the majority of them signal a lack
of interest to take on the challenge. Their lack of capability directs their interest towards blue waters.
The blanket rejection by Western shipping companies to engage in Arctic operations and their lack of
capability to undertake them have failed to take into consideration the fact that there are several feasible
uses apart from all-year transit sailings, among them destination Arctic-applied transport.26 The Kara Sea Route is the most prominent
example of this (see Chapter 1). As stated by the former President of the Norwegian Shipping Association, Rolf Saether, in 1999: To study the possibilities facing sea
transportation [in these waters] was a task too complex for individual companies. This [called] for international cooperation. When the INSROP programme27 was
presented, we decided to follow it closely. The pro- gramme seemed well organized and the most outstanding experts worldwide were invited to cooperate in INSROP.
Our purpose for joining in was that the research programme could reveal the potential of the northern sea route to commerce and shipping both economically and
technically. We expected the programme to answer the questions we had about the ice and weather conditions along the route. Further, we expected to learn about the
environ- mental challenges along the Northern Sea Route, and how these challenges could be met. We knew that the natural resources in the northern regions were
very rich, but we needed more accurate information about oil and gas, minerals, forests and other resources. Finally, we hoped the INSROP would indicate the type of
know-how a shipping company would need to be a quality operator in the area.28

Xtn: Arctic Key

The NSR is superior, feasible, and evades political upheaval and pirates that cut developing
countries out of the trade loop
Zeeshan Raza was writing this as his Masters thesis, 2013 [A Comparative Study of the Northern Sea
Rout (NSR) in Commercial and Environmental Perspective with focus on LNG Shipping, Masters thesis,
Vestfold University College Faculty of Technology and Maritime Sciences, Tnsberg, Norway, November
2013, Page 20-25,
http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/192946/Raza_Z_2013_Masteroppgave.pdf]sbhag
6.30.2014
As described earlier in the first chapter that currently the trade between Europe and Asia is carried
through the Suez Canal route . This section intends to provide a comparative overview of the existing
Suez Canal route and the emerging alternate the Northern Sea Route. Suez Canal is a 119 miles long
artificial waterway that has served the global trade over the last one and half century. The canal connects
the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez providing navigational access to Far East Asian countries.
Today about 50% of the total traffic of the canal is covered by container vessels whereas the LNG ships
count approximately 6% of the entire traffic volume. The Suez Canal can handle up to 25000 ships per
year and the current traffic is on average 20000 vessels per year, which is 15 percent of the entire
maritime trade (SCA, 2013; Rodrigue et al., 2009). As discussed in the previous section that because of
ice melt a new route is emerged namely the Northern Sea Route of NSR. The NSR is the seaway that
connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and follows the northern coast of Russia. It is necessary to
mention here that northern sea route is not a specific or fixed shipping lane rather it is an arrangement of
several different shipping routes. The passage is spread over around 2200 to 2900 nautical miles of icy
water and traverse different straits and seas such as the Kara Sea, the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea,
and the Chukchi Sea (streng As compared to Suez Canal the NSR is particularly characterized with
considerable distance saving of nearly 40% between Rotterdam and Yokohama (Liu & Kronbak, 2010).
The sailing on the route demands the mandatory assistance of icebreakers. An LNG tanker navigating
through the NSR curtails substantial benefits over the traditional route of Suez canal such as fuel saving,
increased number of voyages results in multiple gas deliveries, saving from LNG evaporation and lower
amount of CO2 emissions et cetera (Gazprom, 2012). The following table shows the distance to some of
the ports located in Asia and Europe using the NSR in relation to the Suez Canal. Figures derived from
different sources vividly depict that NSR is the most attractive option on the trade route between Europe
and Asia. The researcher of this study had a chance to interview Willy Ostreng about the comparative
scope of the NSR and Suez Canal. Willy Ostreng headed the International Northern Sea Route program
(INSROP) and currently is serving as a senior researcher and the president of Norwegian Scientific
Academy for Polar Research. The interview held in down town Oslo in October 2013. During the
interview, some interesting points were unveiled about the Northern Sea Route and Suez Canal. A
transcript of this interview with Willy Ostreng related to this section is presented here to deliver a
professional viewpoint to the readers and to form a theoretical base for the research questions of this
study. For the details of the interview questions and the concerning answers (See Appendix). What would
you say about the potential of the Northern Sea route as an alternate to the Suez Canal, for the LNG
shipping? Thats is a big question, but in the light of accelerating sea ice melting there is no doubt that
between northern European , northern Asia and northern American countries the northern sea route or the
north east passage has a huge potential because its shortcut between the most economically developed
parts of the world. Thus in that respect, if the sea ice is removed by global warming as it is, and even this
is accelerating, and if the sea ice that is left is weekend then of course the potential of the suit is
enormous. If you go London to Yokohama in Japan, you save 40 % of the trade distance in comparison
with going through the Suez Canal that is 6 600 nautical miles through the NSR and 11 400 nm through
the Suez Canal. It goes around same, when you have set a saving in distance it can be transformed in to

savings in sailing days and we know that there are multiple examples that 15 up to 18 days can be saved
by using the northern sea route instead of the Suez Canal. So in general the very fact this is the shortcut
geographically speaking and the fact that the ice both retreating throughout the north pole and the
marginal seas are getting ice free and the remaining ice getting weaker, then of course you can use the
passage with existing shipping technology. What you will have to do is all the investments to build up a
fleet that can cope with ice-infested waters because even if it is free there will always be icebergs and
drifting in the sailing lanes of the ship. Consequently, you will need to have ice-strengthened hull on the
freighters and there would need to have icebreakers assistance. So thats the general answer to this
question and when it comes to LNG of course there is need for LNG in multiple Asian countries, such as
Japan the biggest LNG consumer in the world, China, South Korea their needs are really important in this
respect. Not least, they have all the experience that going through the traditional sea routes in southern
waters means that they are subjective to piracy, political conflicts in the Suez Canal, in the Panama Canal.
Consequently, in order to really have secure deliveries of LNG which then support the idea of going north
which is the only place with no piracy and I would argue that where there are no political risks of
deliveries being stopped. So as seen from a broader perspective, mean in political and criminal
perspective the northern sea route or the Northeast Passage. Because there is difference between NSR and
North East Passage, the Northern Sea Route extends from Novaya Zemlya to the Bering Strait whereas
the North East Passage also includes the Barents Sea that makes the North East Passage a two state
passage. We usually think that North East Passage is Russian route, to a large extent it is, but little
Norway also has to say in this respect. I would say in general that this route has a huge potential to
compensate for some of the problems such as political problems we face in southern latitudes. In the postworld war periods Suez canal was closed for several months twice and forcing international shipping
to go around Africa which adds extremely to the costs of energy and of course the poor countries,
the developing countries are suffering the most in that respect. So again, going north has a huge
potential if ice melting will continue, so that ice is getting weaker and ice is disappearing. The NSR is a
kind of alternative to compensate for political problems in the Middle East, for political problems outside
of Somalia. Political problems in the South China Sea you will avoid all these problems by using the
NSR. There is huge momentum or motto for those who are in the need of LNG to develop a shipping fleet
that can operate in ice-infested waters. When I say ice infested waters its because the ocean will freeze
out in winter but of course then ice is weak and its thinner and it can be combated by the existing ice
breaking technology, so even if you have ice this ocean has a huge potential given the melting (streng,
2013). Similarly, Henrik Faclk who is maritime professional in a Norway based arctic shipping company,
during the personal interview that held in his office located in the outskirts of Oslo on 1 st October 2013,
he commented as following on the question about the potential scope of NSR; The scope of Northern Sea
Route as an alternate to the Suez Canal, in particular for LNG transportation: The Northern Sea Route
can open for new LNG projects in the far North, previously it was like finding a gold mine on the moon it
did not help because the transportation will kill everything but today the transportation can be very
competitive with alternative sources of supply. The distance from Mostar, Bergen to Yokohama is same as
the distance from Arabian Gulf to Yokohama. Of course when you go from Arabian Gulf to Japan you are
not crossing any canal, you do not pay any, and you need not to have any ice class vessel etc. Going
through the NSR from Melkya to Tobatta is exactly fifty percent quicker than sailing through the Suez
Canal. It opens up a completely new market but what is particular for the LNG trade is that the
investments are so huge that nobody starts an LNG plant unless they have the long-term contracts and
Melkya was established before the NSR was finished. Therefore, everything is sold out but of course
they have already done two or three trips through this passage and they are saving 8 million dollars on
one trip. In Sabeta, where the Russian company Novatek plans to establish an LNG plant for them the
advantage is more better because they are five days close to the Far East market It will only be of
relevance for those who are contemplating to produce LNG up north, for the LNG coming out from the
US in future it has absolutely no relevance. I think it is a game primarily for Russia. I often say that the
freight will no longer kill the deal because of the northern sea route. Previously if you have LNG up north
you were too far away from the consumption market but now you are very close to the market. So thats

why investing a huge amount in LNG plant of Yamal, with the 20 percent share of Chinese National Oil
company (CNOC) at the Sabeta port (Falck, 2013) Summing up from the above, we can say that the
NSR is comparatively more efficient in terms of sailing distance and it compensates for the problems lie
in the Suez Canal today. The NSR has a huge potential for the LNG shipment primarily from the northern
hemisphere.

Xtn: Solvency
Lack of maps means ice conditions are too unpredictable prevents shipping
ORourke 6-5-14 [Ronald, Specialist in Naval Affairs for the Congressional Research Service, Changes
in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf]
The unpredictability of ice conditions is a major hindrance for trans-Arctic shipping in general, but can be more of a
concern for some types of ships than it is for others. For instance, it would be less of a concern for cruise ships, which may have the objective of merely visiting the

unpredictability is of the
utmost concern for container ships that carry thousands of containers from hundreds of different
customers, all of whom expect to unload or load their cargo upon the ships arrival at various ports as indicated on the ships advertised schedule. The
presence of even small blocks-of ice or icebergs from a melting Greenland ice sheet requires slow sailing and could play havoc with
schedules. Ships carrying a single commodity in bulk from one port to another for just one customer have more flexibility in terms of delivery windows, but
would not likely risk an Arctic passage under prevailing conditions. Ice is not the sole impediment to Arctic shipping. The
Arctic rather than passing through and could change their route and itinerary depending on ice conditions. On the other hand,

region frequently experiences adverse weather, including not only severe storms, but also intense cold, which can impair deck machinery. During the summer months
when sea lanes are open, heavy fog is common in the Arctic. Commercial ships would face higher operating costs on Arctic routes than elsewhere. Ship size is an
important factor in reducing freight costs. Many ships currently used in other waters would require two icebreakers to break a path wide enough for them to sail
through; ship owners could reduce that cost by using smaller vessels in the Arctic, but this would raise the cost per container or per ton of freight.71 Also, icebreakers
or ice-class cargo vessels burn more fuel than ships designed for more temperate waters and would have to sail at slower speeds. The shipping season in the Arctic
only lasts for a few weeks, so icebreakers and other special required equipment would sit idle the remainder of the year. None of these impediments by themselves
may be enough to discourage Arctic passage but they do raise costs, perhaps enough to negate the savings of a shorter route. Thus,

from the perspective

of a shipper or a ship owner, shorter via the Arctic does not necessarily mean cheaper and faster.72 Basic
Navigation Infrastructure Is Lacking Considerable investment in navigation-related infrastructure would be required if
trans-Arctic shipping were to become a reality. Channel marking buoys and other floating visual aids are
not possible in Arctic waters because moving ice sheets will continuously shift their positions. Therefore, vessel captains would
need to rely on marine surveys and ice charts. For some areas in the Arctic, however, these surveys and charts
are out of date and not sufficiently accurate.73 To remedy this problem, aviation reconnaissance of ice
conditions and satellite images would need to become readily available for ship operators.74 Ship-to-shore
communication infrastructure would need to be installed where possible. Refueling stations may be needed, as well as, perhaps, transshipment
ports where cargo could be transferred to and from ice-capable vessels at both ends of Arctic routes. Shipping lines would need to develop a larger pool of mariners
with ice navigation experience. Marine insurers would need to calculate the proper level of risk premium for polar routes, which would require more detailed
information about Arctic accidents and incidents in the past.

Lack of adequate mapping prevents shipping in the status quo

Kendrick 6/28/14 [Lyle, Reporter for the Barents Observer, Map Shortcomings Could Hinder Northern
Sea Route Growth, Barents Observer, http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/06/map-shortcomingscould-hinder-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-Gunnar-Winther, director of the Norwegian Polar Institute,
to the BarentsObserver. Satellite communication with ships in the High North is weak which means ship operators cannot adequately

take real-time high-resolution images for other vessels to use , Winther said. These kinds of images give information about
sea conditions which allow efficient and safe maneuvering in water that is partly covered in ice, he said. The area is particularly
dangerous to navigate without sufficient mapping data because there is limited infrastructure for search and
rescue operations. 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 mapping,
or 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 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 BarentsObserver. 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 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.

Yes Shipping
Arctic shipping is coming commercial attraction, increased reliability, southern capacity
limitations
Khon et al, 10-10-2009 [V. C. Khon (B)I. I. Mokhov V. A. Semenov - Obukhov Institute of
Atmospheric Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences; V. C. Khon Institute of Geosciences, University of
Kiel; M. Latif V. A. Semenov W. Park -- Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Kiel;
Perspectives of Northern Sea Route and Northwest Passage in the twenty-rst century, Climatic
Change (2010) 100, p 764-766]/sbhag 7.1.2014
Development of the Arctic marine navigation in the coming decades will be mainly driven by exploration
of offshore oil and gas elds in the Arctic Shelf (e.g. Granberg 1998; Peresypkin 2006). Melting Arctic
ice will facilitate transit trafc through the two Northern Passages (Arctic Marine Transport Workshop
(AMTW) 2004). The increase of marine navigation season (Fig. 4) may signicantly reduce expenses for
icebreaker escort and ice reinforcement for cargo ships, shorten mean shipping time and diminish the
accompanied risks. This will result in increased reliability and decreased cost of transit trafc, which may
signicantly raise a commercial attraction of the Arctic transportation systems compared to the southern
marine routes (through the Suez or Panama Canals). Moreover, given the current growth rate of marine
freight transport (6% per year AMTW 2004), capacity limits for both the Suez and Panama Canals may be
reached by the middle of the century (AMTW 2004). Economical prot of EuropeAsia transit through
NSR relative to the Suez Canal is estimated (Granberg and Peresypkin 2006) as up to 500,000USD per
passage. To assess potential economic benefits, we used estimates of the seasonal freight rates FNSR
obtained by Kitagawa (2001) for the NSR using developed transport- economic model and observational
data for the second half of twenty-first century. The relation between the ice conditions and the ship speed
was obtained from the experimental voyage of the Kandalaksha (Kitagawa 2001). Estimates of observed
(Rayner et al. 2003) and simulated (5-model mean) sea ice extent SNSR (Fig. 5 a) for the NSR sector
(30-190 E; 60-90 N) were used to assess a seasonal dependence of the FNSR on the observed
sea ice extent SNSR (Fig. 5b). The data for the second half of the twentieth century yield a linear
dependence AFNSRIASNSR % 3.5USD/(t 106 kmz). Simulated ice cover extent (dark grey line for
model mean and shaded area for model spread on Fig. 5a) agree well with observations, which justifies
estimation of the NSR transit cost during the twenty- first century. This suggests 15% less annual mean
costs (Fig. 5c) compared to the transit through the Suez Canal by the end of the twenty-rst century
according to the model projections analyzed in this study. According to the model simulations the intraannual variability will be substantially increased during twenty-rst century in response to strong
reduction of summer sea ice. It should be noted that the NSR may become more protable than the
Suez Canal transit even in winter by the end of the twenty-rst century (Fig. 5c).

AT: T

T Its c/i
Its mean belonging to or associated with
Oxford Dictionary 10 (Of, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/its?view=uk)
Pronunciation:/ts/
possessive determiner

belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified:turn the camera on its side he chose the
area for its atmosphere

Of or relating to
Websters 10 (Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary, its, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/its)
Main Entry: its
Pronunciation: \its, ts\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1507
: of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor,
proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>

agent, or object of an action <going to its kennel> <a child

T: overlimits development
Federal ocean development occurs by permits the federal government never directly
develops anything
Winter, 9 - E&E reporter (Allison, Greenwire, White House task force crafting 'marching orders' for
managing waters 8/24, http://www.eenews.net/stories/81712/print)
The Obama administration is working to craft a new overarching national ocean policy that could change
how federal agencies address new projects at sea -- from offshore energy development to aquaculture to
marine conservation.
Top administration officials last week kicked off what will be a cross-country tour of public listening
sessions on the plan, the first public events for a group that has worked in overdrive, but under the radar,
throughout the summer to craft the new policy.
Once completed, the group's work could significantly alter marine planning and set the stage for a new
system of ocean "zoning" that would allocate marine resources among interests such as fishing, boating,
oil and gas development, shipping, renewable energy and wildlife.
The new ocean policy is intended to give a unifying voice to the 20 federal agencies and more than 140
separate laws that address aspects of ocean policy. Two major national oceans commissions recommended
the creation of an overaching ocean policy five years ago in reports that found the marine environment is
seriously depleted and disrupted by overfishing, development, pollution and climate change.
"It is commonly understood that the lack of a cohesive policy, the lack of mechanisms to ensure the health
of the ecosystem, is one of the reasons we're seeing so many problems in the oceans," said Jane
Lubchenco, one of the administration's chief advocates for oceans as head of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and a member of the task force.
Lubchenco added: "It is high time we took a careful look and made a statement about what the national
oceans policy should be, to bring that all together in a cohesive fashion with clear marching orders, clear
intent for our uses of the oceans and our uses on land for things that affect the oceans."
The White House-appointed group plans to release the recommendations for a first-of-its-kind national
ocean policy next month and a framework for marine planning by the end of the year.
Its recommendations, which will go to President Obama for approval, are an attempt to address issues
such as who should oversee permits for ocean development, conflicts over shipping lanes that run into
marine mammal migration routes, wind farms poised to enter recreational areas and water pollution from
Midwest farms that kills fish in the Gulf of Mexico.

Federal ocean development occurs by creating legal frameworks to guide private actions
Winter, 9 - E&E reporter (Allison, Greenwire, White House task force crafting 'marching orders' for
managing waters 8/24, http://www.eenews.net/stories/81712/print)
The new policy will likely provide "general guidance" to federal agencies on the national priorities for the
ocean, according to Lubchenco. Further regulations or laws may be needed to translate the guidance into
action, she said.
"But its importance shouldn't be underestimated," Lubchenco said. "There are currently no guidelines,
there is no cohesive statement about the nation's intent for the use of the waters and ecosystems under its
jurisdiction."
The next phase, the marine spatial planning framework, will set parameters for how the federal
government could approach ocean development and conservation at the ecosystem level, rather than
just project by project in different isolated agencies.
The marine plan could eventually lead to a system of zoning the ocean for different uses, mapping out
areas for different activities, such as energy development, recreation or fishing. But Lubchenco said the

task force is unlikely to come up with something that specific by the end of the year. Rather, she said the
task force will likely assemble a "road map" for how to move ahead with more specific plans.
"It's not clear how detailed we will be able to get," she said. "I think, in the time we have available, we
will be making recommendations about a fairly generic approach framing what [marine spatial planning]
is, what it looks like, who might be responsible and what it would include."

T: overlimits - arctic
Us-Russian coop is a prerequisite to Arctic exploration
Grimmson 5/7/14
President lafur Ragnar Grmsson, president of Iceland since 1996.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/audio-video/foreign-affairs-focus-olafur-ragnar-grimsson-onthe-arctic-scram
REID: And do you think we're seeing that cooperation because, in fact, there's no other way that it's sort
of necessary to work together in order to benefit from the vast resources in the region?
GRMSSON: I think so. I think the Arctic, the north, the high north, given the ice, the extreme weather
patterns, the vastness of the territory, humbles people. People realize that despite all of the technology and
even despite the military strength of the greatest powers, the tough natural forces in the north can defeat
any military power of this kind.
So not one country, whether it's Russia or the United States, can alone make a success of the Arctic. So
given the strong northern partition, the legacy of the Arctic within Russian history and Russian culture, I
believe that they are very much aware of this in the same way as people up in Alaska, and absolutely are
aware that Alaska alone cannot make a success of the Arctic.

!! Tanking coop with Russia crushes Arctic development

Osthagen 4/30/14
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2014/04/impact-of-ukraine-crisis-on-Arctic.html
Director, Norway MSc. Politics and Government in the European Union: The International Relations of
Europe (2009), London School of Economics (LSE) B.A. Political Economy (2008), Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU) email: andreas.osthagen@thearcticinstitute.org twitter:
@andreasosthagen Andreas sthagen is currently working as a program coordinator/fellow at the
Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies (IFS) in Oslo. He also serves as Director for Norway at The
Arctic Institute, having participated since the beginning. His Arctic passion stems as much from his
everyday work, as from his heritage as a citizen of the Norwegian Arctic (Bod, North Norway). Before
returning to Oslo, he was the Acting Director, and before that an advisor, at the North Norway European
Office in Brussels. The office is responsible for representing the interests of the Norwegian Arctic to the
European Union and monitoring relevant EU policies. Previously he has worked on Arctic and security
issues at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C., as well as the
Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation in Toronto, while also taking part in the Arctic research programme
'Geopolitics in the High North' through his affiliation with the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies
(IFS). Andreas has a particular focus on the mapping of different actors and interests as the Arctic
develops, covering natural resource exploitation, regional development and international affairs. His
publications range from the EU's role in the Arctic to case specific developments in the North American
and Norwegian Arctic. Andreas holds a Master of Science (MSc) from the London School of Economics
(LSE) in European and international affairs, in addition to a joint Bachelor degree in political economy
from the University of Bergen and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Canadas recent decision to boycott an Arctic Council task force meeting held in Moscow is a direct
example of how the Ukraine conflict is starting to impact Arctic cooperation. Given its prominent position
in the Arctic, however, Russia is integral to most schemes for the regions future development. As

vocalized by both former US Secretary of State, Clinton, and the current Prime Minister of Iceland,
Gunnlaugsson, the Ukraine crisis might have a severe and unintended impact on Arctic cooperation [1].

Cooperative ventures key to INCREASE exploration its a T mechanism, not a spike

Kintisch 4/30/14
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/04/bigger-better-arctic-studies-needed-u.s.-report-argues
citing National Research Council
Eli is a contributing correspondent for Science magazine
Creating stable interdisciplinary partnerships and funding formal data centers will be key to carrying
out such studies, the authors argue, and to creating a culture of data preservation and sharing. At the
moment, a survey of 300 Arctic scientists revealed, many researchers who participate in international
research collaborations do so as a volunteer activity, Pfirman said. When they give up that activity, the
whole collaboration tends to fall apart. Researchers also need to be engaging a broader set of people in
collecting data in real time, Huntington added.
The report is silent on the total amount of funding required to study the changing Arctic, but it suggests a
number of structural changes to funding mechanisms. The typical recipients of 3- to 5-year research
grants are driven by the demands of publication, which cost them flexibility and can constrain them from
collaborations with other scientists, it argues. An approach that could augment those grants would be
multi-investigator projects with lots of collaborators studying portions of a system to encourage crosspollination, the authors write.

T: overlimits Exploration
Co-op is key to exploration affs
NRC 3 [National Research Council - Committee on Exploration of the Seas Ocean Studies Board,
Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown, pg. 63,
http://explore.noaa.gov/sites/OER/Documents/national-research-council-voyage.pdf]
No nation owns the oceans, and no nation has the financial, intellectual, or technological capacity to undertake a truly
global program of ocean exploration alone. The challenge of exploring such a vast and diverse environment will be met with the
financial, human, and equipment resources of many partners. International collaboration is the best avenue to a global
exploration program. Nearly half of the people on Earth live within 100 km of an ocean (World Resources Institute, 2001), and demands on
the ocean for resources and waste disposal are increasing as the population expands. Exploration in the coastal ocean requires the active
participation of the coastal nations that control exclusive economic zones. Moreover, given the considerable economic investment and effort
needed for global ocean exploration, the United States can not by itself explore the vast regions of the ocean yet

unknown and beyond the control of any single nation. To promote and sustain an effective ocean
exploration program, it is important to involve scientists and governments from many nations in a truly
global effort. Most nations of the world have an ocean frontier, but ocean processes affect all nations, and the benefits of
an ocean exploration program are global. Capabilities for ocean exploration are widely distributed around
the globe, and no single nation can afford the kind of broad effort of greatest benefit to all. As part of the work of the committee on
Exploration of the Seas, the International Global Ocean Exploration (IGOE) Workshop was convened to examine the possibilities for establishing
a program and to air the concerns of various nations in beginning an ocean exploration effort. Seventy-three representatives from 22 nations met
in Paris in May 2002 to discuss their interests in ocean exploration. Appendix C is an agenda and a list of participants, and Appendix D
summarizes the proceedings. Presentations and discussions at the workshop made it clear that only a few countries have the

interest, funding, and ocean-going ability to justify participation in a truly global ocean exploration
program. Discussions and presentations at the Workshop suggested that a coordinated international organization for ocean exploration
should be designed to accommodate the following goals:
promote and support the highest quality science and technology;
provide for the development and application of promising new tech- nology by leveraging the capabilities of international partners;
encourage the broadest possible participation to achieve a synergistic effect and worldwide implementation;
develop an international voice for ocean exploration;
encourage increased international funding for exploration;
provide the most efficient access to and use of platforms and capa- bilities;
support the broadest possible and most efficient methods for sharing information;
reduce political barriers to exploration and research;
include developing countries in partnership and capacity building; and
emphasize and promote effective international education and public outreach.

Coop is a prereq to exploration

NRC 3 [National Research Council - Committee on Exploration of the Seas Ocean Studies Board,
Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown, Executive Summary,
http://explore.noaa.gov/sites/OER/Documents/national-research-council-voyage.pdf]
The involvement of many nations in ocean exploration efforts would expand an ocean exploration
programs usefulness by broadening the base of human, mechanical, and financial resources available. In fact, inter-national collaboration is
necessary to support a truly global ocean exploration program. And the interests of individual nations must be served to promote such participation
something not readily achievable by a largescale, internationally coordinated effort. The informal consensus of the workshop attendees was that a one-program-serves-all effort would be neither
effective nor efficient. An international program could be best served by developing individual national ocean exploration programs to suit the needs of the countries involved. National priorities
would be set and then partners sought for individual programs. Such bilateral and multilateral agreements have worked extremely well for ocean science programs such as the Ocean Drilling
Program (ODP) and should serve well for ocean exploration. Although many nations would likely be interested in participating in limited ocean exploration programs, relatively few have the
resources necessary to provide significant financial support to a program. A U.S. national model should offer the example for other nations, and it should work to incorporate people from other

By developing distinct
exploration programs for international cooperation to seek discoveries of specific resources or investigate
regional features, the burden of international policy and agreements could be greatly reduced.
nations to generate interest more broadly. The development of similar national programs elsewhere should be encouraged and anticipated.

AT: Icebreakers CP

No SolvencyTimeframe
Plan takes forever new icebreakers take too long
Restino 12 (Carey, Icebreaker fleet in U.S. lags behind, The Arctic Sounder,
http://www.thearcticsounder.com/article/1202icebreaker_fleet_in_us_lags_behind)
Fast forward four years, and those decisions have yet to be made. It's estimated

that once commissioned, an icebreaker

might enter service in eight to 10 years and at a cost of $900 million. Refurbishing the Polar Sea to last
another 25 years might cost $400 million, the congressional report said.

No SolvencyMalfunctions
The unpredictable conditions of the Arctic prevent solvency since even icebreakers are
susceptible to damage
US Coast Guard 8
US Coast Guard; Report to Congress: U.S. Coast Guard Polar Operations; 2008;

http://www.uscg.mil/history/docs/2008CRSUSCGPolarOps.pdf; page i; retrieved 6/27/12

In the Arctic, there is now water part of the year where there used to be ice ; however, more open water
does not equate to a safer operating environment. Indeed, it may mean more hazardous conditions for
vessels and their crews and passengers if greater access is accompanied by larger, more numerous ice floes , limited
navigation information, and harsh and unpredictable weather patterns. If more vessels operate in the nascent open water of the Arctic Ocean,
the risk of a vessel becoming beset by an ice ridge or unexpectedly impacting thicker multi-year ice increases. This brings a corresponding
increase in risk to their crews and the environment as well. Even icebreakers and ice-strengthened vessels may encounter

unexpected conditions that could cause vessel damage or loss . If changes in summer Arctic conditions continue the trend
observed in the past six years, we may expect incidents and casualties to occur with greater frequency and/or farther from U.S. shores. The
USCGs ability to respond to these incidents, provide access to support other agencies and governments, and enforce laws and treaties in the
region will be driven by the availability of icebreakers, ice-strengthened vessels and cold-weather air support. The logistics and basing
infrastructure in the region must be enhanced to provide extended operational presence.

No SolvencyCapability
The Coast Guard cant build successful icebreakers no capability
Ewing 11
Philip; December 1; Staff writer for DoDBuzz; http://www.dodbuzz.com/author/philewing/
Theres another problem: The best warships in the world are built in the United

States. But American yards do

not have a lot of experience building the kind of heavy-duty icebreakers the Coast Guard needs. The yard
that built the polar rollers, up in Seattle, is long gone. So in a perfect world, the best option for the Coast Guard might be to
send its requirements to a Finnish builder and then fly its crew over to take delivery. But first somebody would have to stand up and tell Congress
to send hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work to a foreign shipyard.

AT: Solves Shipping

ice breakers arent necessary anymore melted ice
Daniel Cressey is a reporter with Nature in London, 2011 [Scientific challenges in the Arctic: Open
water, Published online 12 October 2011 | Nature 478, 174-177 (2011) | doi:10.1038/478174a,
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111012/full/478174a.html]/sbhag 6.30.2014
Last month, US researchers took a 4,000-tonne gamble when they steered the Marcus G. Langseth
through the Bering Strait and into the Arctic Ocean. The 72-metre research vessel was not built to plow
through ice, so it had never ventured that far poleward before. But the rules are changing quickly in the
new north. Managers at the US National Science Foundation (NSF), which owns the ship, decided to send
the Langseth into the Arctic after reviewing satellite images that showed that the intended survey area in
the Chukchi Sea had been largely clear of ice for four of the past five summers. In an e-mail to Nature
during the cruise, its principal investigator, Bernard Coakley, said: "We are rolling the dice a bit to take
her up north." But the bet paid off for Coakley, a marine geologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Sea-ice coverage was at near-record lows this summer, and the Langseth due back in dock this week
has not encountered any troubling ice. With the Arctic warming roughly twice as fast as the rest of the
globe, there is more need than ever to monitor the changing conditions there. And the retreating summer
sea ice is opening up new options for scientists who want to explore the once difficult-to-reach Arctic
waters, allowing them, for example, to use vessels other than icebreakers.

AT: Red Spread

Arctic Coop > Confrontation

Arctic confrontation is the exact wrong response to Russian aggression misunderstands
Russian motives
Regeher 4/23/14
Ernie Regehr, OC is a Canadian peace researcher and expert in security and disarmament.[1] He cofounded Project Ploughshares, a peace research organization based in Waterloo, Ontario, with Murray
Thomson in 1976 [2] and served as its Executive Director for thirty years.[3] Project Ploughshares is an
ecumenical project supported by the Canadian Council of Churches.[4] Regehr has been a Canadian NGO
representative and expert advisor at numerous international disarmament forums including UN
Conferences on Small Arms.[1] Regehr is currently a Research Fellow at the Institute for Peace and
Conflict Studies at Conrad Grebel University College (Waterloo, Ontario) and The Simons Foundation
(Vancouver, BC).[5] He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Africa Peace Forum in Kenya.[1]
http://www.thesimonsfoundation.ca/sites/all/files/What%20do%20Russian%20actions%20in%20Ukraine
%20portend%20for%20the%20Arctic-DAS,%20April%2023,%202014_0.pdf
What do Russian actions in Ukraine portend for the Arctic ? Speculation about Russias post Crimean posture in the Arctic
has become a prominent sidebar to the Ukraine story. With Russia again asserting a willingness to deploy force across borders to advance its
agenda, some pundits and public officials in other Arctic countries have been advising Russias Arctic neighbors to
take note and prepare accordingly. T he Arctic, like any other arena in which Russia wield s influence, will not be immune to t he
changing dynamics among Russia, Europe, and North America a linkage reinforced by Ottawas ill considered decision to boycott the April
working group meeting of the Arctic Council in Moscow. 1 B ut predictions of renewed Arctic military rivalry owe a lo

t
less to strategic realism than to an instinctive default to Cold War categories whenever it comes to Vladimir Putin
and his troublesome behaviour . Russias tactics in Ukraine certainly require a response, but they hard ly signal a
new era of vulnerabilit y for Russias Arctic neighbours . The post Cold War world has seen plenty of military
incursions into sovereign states, but an interesting feature of those military ventures across international boundaries is that they have been
launched only a gainst states already in deep crisis. And the obvious and relevant point about the Arctic is that it is not in crisis. In
every case of post Cold War cross border military intervention the United States being by far the most pro lific instigator , but Rus sia, NATO,
France, South Africa, and others hav ing at times joined that dubious fraternity the target country was already enmeshed in intractable conflict,
suffering a deep crisis of legitimacy. Th e point is not to justify or excuse military interventions , but to understand the circumstances under which
cross border military attacks or intimidations are more likely , or less likely , to occur . S table, well governed countries in stable

neighborhoods are not invaded not ever in the past quarter century, regardless of their militarily strength or weak ness , and no
matter how great their resource wealth may be or how much the powerful may covet what they have . Since 1989 there is really only one partial
exception to that rule, and that is Iraqs invasion of Kuwait and even there, to say that pre invasion Kuwait was well governed in a stable
neighborhood is a stretch, but it was not a country in crisis . In all other interventions the target state was in unambiguous crisis consider
Georgia ahea d of Russias 2008 intervention; Bosnia (1990s), Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001, Iraq (2003), and Libya (2011) ahead of US and
NATO led interventions ; Somalia ahead of the arrival of US (1992) , Ethiopian (2006) , and Kenyan (2011) troops ; Lesotho ahead o f South
Africa intervention (1998); Mali ahead of France (2013); and South Sudan ahead of Ugandan troop deployments there (2013) In other words, w
hat make s a country especially vulnerable to attack is internal disarray. This is not a matter of blaming the victims, but does serve to point out
that w hether the objective of an attack is to overthrow a regime, support one side in a civil war, protect vulnerable people, or deliver
humanitarian assistance , a primary indicator of a state vulnerable to direct m ilitary interference is deep domestic crisis, usually within a
conflicted region . Mr. Putins renewed Russian revanchism deserve s wariness, but in a world still clouded by

Cold War instincts, drawing the wrong conclusions seems almost routine and there are some who are promoting
exactly the wrong response in the Arctic

Cooperation best adversarial response can destroy all coop within HOURS
Regeher 4/23/14
Ernie Regehr, OC is a Canadian peace researcher and expert in security and disarmament.[1] He cofounded Project Ploughshares, a peace research organization based in Waterloo, Ontario, with Murray
Thomson in 1976 [2] and served as its Executive Director for thirty years.[3] Project Ploughshares is an
ecumenical project supported by the Canadian Council of Churches.[4] Regehr has been a Canadian NGO
representative and expert advisor at numerous international disarmament forums including UN
Conferences on Small Arms.[1] Regehr is currently a Research Fellow at the Institute for Peace and

Conflict Studies at Conrad Grebel University College (Waterloo, Ontario) and The Simons Foundation
(Vancouver, BC).[5] He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Africa Peace Forum in Kenya.[1]
http://www.thesimonsfoundation.ca/sites/all/files/What%20do%20Russian%20actions%20in%20Ukraine
%20portend%20for%20the%20Arctic-DAS,%20April%2023,%202014_0.pdf
But cooler heads are also weighing in, pointing out that the

Arctic is not Crimea the Arctic is steeped in, indeed depends on,
cooperation in scientif ic, economic, and public safety, 11 making the Arctic genuinely different from the
usual hotspots. Similarly, Arctic blogger Mia Bennett notes that not all follow the kind of Cold War formula pushed by Ms. Clinton , citing
Iceland Preside nt Olafur Grimsson, who warns against Arctic states pursuing the Ukraine conflict with Arcti c based
counter measures: We would not need more than an hour to destroy Arctic cooperation....Therefore, one
should be very careful with the way they bring each countrys conflicts into this kind of dialogue. Bennet
concludes: ...[I]ts not really just up to Putin . It is up to all of the movers and shakers in the Arctic to try to contain the geopolitical conflict on
the Black Sea to ensure that it does not spill over to the Arctic Ocean. 12 The most effective way to blunt the advances of an

expansionist Rus sia, assuming that is even remotely an apt description of Russian designs in the Arctic, is by continued
cooperation in the region, strict adherence to the rule of law, and transparency and consultation. M ore m ilitary force
will not settle Arctic territori al disputes, let alone political differences. The Ukraine occasioned confrontation with Russia will be felt in the
Arctic, but security relations among Arctic states will sour only if Arctic states ignore recent history and

defer instead to the Cold War habits of an earlier age. In the post Cold War era, a nywhere in the world , including in the Arctic, the
very best defence against violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity is to be well governed, to earn the support of the
population (legitimacy) , to develop competent and trusted public institutions, and to promote regional security cooperation .
Countries that fulfill those conditions are the safest and, if the experience of the last quarter century is to be credited at all, the least likely to be
attacked. Arctic states have been working collectively to fulfill those conditions. The security of Arctic states will be most

imperilled by diversions from that collective effort , not by events in Ukraine.

Non-Unique Russia Expanding Now

Russia is aggressively increasing presence in the Arctic wants access to energy resources
and shipping routes
Anishchuk, 4-22-14 [Alexei, Russia's Putin wants beefed-up presence in Arctic, Correspondent,
Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/22/us-russia-putin-arcticidUSBREA3L1BN20140422]//SY
(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Russia should step up its presence in the Arctic
and challenge other nations in exploring the world's largest untapped natural reserves, days after it started
shipping its first oil from the region. Russia's ambitions in the Arctic have for some time been raising
eyebrows among other states vying for a presence there, but the Kremlin's annexation of Ukraine's
Crimea Peninsula is likely to put its Arctic plans under greater scrutiny. Russia has staked its future
economic growth on developing the Arctic's vast energy resources and reviving a Soviet-era shipping
route through the ice. The United States, Denmark and Norway are also pressing for access to what they
consider their fair share of the Arctic's massive oil and natural gas reserves. Russia loaded its first crude
tanker from an oil platform in the Pechora Sea last week. "Over decades, step by step, Russia has built up,
strengthened its positions in the Arctic," Putin told a meeting of his Security Council in the Kremlin.
"And our goal is not only to regain them, but also to qualitatively strengthen them." Moscow and the West
are in the middle of their worst standoff since the Cold War. The row centers on Russia's annexation of
Crimea and its support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Last year Putin ordered the
reopening of a Soviet-era Arctic military base in the Novosibirsk Islands, two decades after abandoning it,
and Moscow has sent 10 warships and four nuclear-powered ice breakers there in a demonstration of
force. "More often the interests of the Arctic powers, and not only them, cross here - countries that are far
away from this region are also expressing interest (in the Arctic)," he said. "In these conditions we must
take additional measures not to fall behind our partners, to keep our influence in the region and in some
aspects be ahead of our partners." Russia, Canada and Denmark all say an underwater mountain range,
known as the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches 1,800 km (1,120 miles) across the pole under the Arctic
Sea, is part of their own landmass. China, the world's No 2 economy, has expressed interest in the Arctic
shipping route. Last week Russia loaded its first oil tanker at the Prirazlomnaya platform in the Arctic.
The area is seen by Moscow as a source of fuel that can gradually replace output from its depleting West
Siberian fields.

Russia is accelerating its Arctic development oil and military operations

Bender and Kelley, 6-4-14 [Jeremy and Michael B., Militaries Know That The Arctic Is Melting -Here's How They're Taking Advantage, Business Insider, BA, Middle East Studies, Rutgers University
and Military and Defense Reporter, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-competitionfor-arctic-resources-2014-6]//SY
As the Arctic ice melts, the area is predicted to become a center of strategic competition and economic
activity. Last year, China signed a free trade agreement with Iceland and sent an icebreaker to the region
despite having no viable claims in the Arctic. Wildly rich The region is stocked with valuable oil, gas,
mineral, and fishery reserves. The U.S. estimates that a significant proportion of the Earths untapped
petroleum including about 15% of the worlds remaining oil, up to 30% of its natural gas deposits, and
about 20% of its liquefied natural gas are stored in the Arctic seabed. And in terms of preparation,
America is lagging behind its potential competitors. In front is Russia, which symbolically placed a
Russian flag on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole in 2007. The country, one-fifth of
which lies within the Arctic Circle, has by far the most amount of developed oil fields in the region.
Russias increasing advantage CFR notes that many observers consider Russia, which is investing tens of

billions of dollars in its northern infrastructure, the most dominant player in the Arctic. Shipping
throughout the Arctic will also take on unprecedented importance as the ice recedes and the Kremlin
has a plan for taking advantage of this changing geography. Russia wants the Northern Sea Route, where
traffic jumped from four vessels in 2010 to 71 in 2013, to eventually rival the Suez Canal as a passage
between Europe and Asia. And it could: The Northern Sea Route from Europe to Asia takes only 35 days,
compared to a 48-day journey between the continents via the Suez Canal. Arctic Ocean Changing Routes
A new Cold War Because of the Arctics potential resources and trade impact, countries are stepping up
military development in the region. For years, Norway has been conducting Operation Cold Response.
This year, the military exercise brought in more than 16,000 troops from 15 participating NATO
members. A U.S. Arctic Roadmap promotes naval security, the development of operational experience in
an Arctic environment, and the bolstering of naval readiness and capability. The Navy has accelerated its
plan after noting that it is inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic.
USS AnnapolisThe US Navy attack submarine USS Annapolis (SSN 760) rests in the Arctic Ocean after
surfacing through three feet of ice during Ice Exercise 2009 on March 21, 2009. Russia, meanwhile, has
reinvigorated its process of building its naval operations on its northern coast. Russia, the only nonNATO littoral Arctic state, has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic priority, restoring Sovietera airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets, the CFR presentation explains. In late 2013,
President Vladimir Putin instructed his military leadership to pay particular attention to the Arctic, saying
Russia needed every lever for the protection of its security and national interests there. He also ordered
the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian Arctic by the end of 2014. CFR notes
that while most experts dismiss the prospects for armed aggression in the Arctic, some defence analysts
and academics assert that territorial disputes and a competition for resources have primed the Arctic for a
new Cold War.

Prefer Aff Ev
Prefer our evidence security experts have a vested interest in an intrinsic Russia threat
Shlapentokh2000[Dmitry,associateprofessorofworldhistoryatIndianaUniversitySouthBend,TheIllusionsand
RealitiesofRussianNationalism,TheWashingtonQuarterly23.1(2000)173186]
ThestrongantiWesternfeelingsamongaconsiderablepartoftheRussianeliteandtheapparentlyparanoidtwistsintheirviews
ontheRussianWesternrelationshipis,ofcourse,fraughtwithvariousoutcomesandnoneofthemshouldbeexcluded.Yetit
wouldbewrongtoassumethattheirantiWesternstatementscouldmeanonlyonescenariocouldcometopass
theimmediateriseofaharsh,antiWesternregime,meaningthattheRussianbearhaddecidedtojumpfromitsdenfora
finalconfrontationwiththeWest.ThisscenarioispleasingforbothRussianintellectualsandquiteafewofthe

WesternexpertsinRussianstudies.BothofthemhaveavestedinterestinpresentingRussiaasa
dangerousthreattotheWest.FortheRussianelitethisimageofRussiaasapermanentdangertotheWestis
importanttoreceive"loans,"whichtheyhavenointentionofrepaying.ForspecialistsinRussianstudies,theimage
ofadangerous,mighty,totalitarianRussiaisimportantasitenhancestheirintellectualimportance.
YetthesadtruthforbothgroupsmightbethatRussiawillnotmoveinthedirectionofbecomingastrong
authoritarianstate.Themodelofdevelopmentmightbequitedifferent.Thepresentday,antiWesternoutcryonthe
partofRussianelitemaybenotthebattlecryforafutureconfrontation,[EndPage185]butthegroanofamortally
wounded(selfinflicted)animal,readytoretreat.

no resolve link
Resolves not key wafflings inevitable and doesnt matter
Friedman 3/19/14
http://warontherocks.com/2014/03/ukraine-and-the-art-of-crisis-management/
Lawrence Freedman has been Professor of War Studies at Kings College London since 1982. His most
recent book is Strategy: A History (OUP, 2013).
Many commentators have given Western countries poor marks so far for its crisis management over
Ukraine. The failures have variously been described to be: (1) Easing President Putins risk calculus with
an evident reluctance to take forceful positions in recent crises, for example over Syria, and looking for
diplomatic exit routes over Iran; (2) Failing to appreciate the developing logic of Putins fear of liberal
democracy and his assertiveness both at home and in Russias near abroad; (3) Paying inadequate
attention to the full implications of what was going on in Kiev in February 2014 and supporting what was,
in the end, an anti-democratic seizure of power; (4) Offering only feeble responses to the Russian move
into Crimea at the end of that month. These are the sort of criticisms that are invariably made of liberal
democracies when they are trying to keep up with fast-moving events. They always contain some truth
because it is in the nature of liberal democracies to be distracted, risk-averse, and superficial when
assessing developing situations, and then at a loss when they are caught by surprise. Authoritarian
governments have a natural advantage, especially when executing a bold move for which they have all the
capabilities in place. Regarding the first charge, it is possible that in Putins mind there is an image of
President Obama as weak and tentative when faced with a big crisis, but this line of criticism is overdone.
In 2008, under President Bush, NATO countries did not respond with force to events in Georgia. And
even President Obamas critics admit that there are no serious military options available in response to the
current crisis. Matters will have to get much darker before military responses are even mooted.

AT: Politics

Arctic Popular
Arctic development is politically popular
Alaska Dispatch News 13 [White House, key Congress members still committed to Arctic drilling,
January 3rd, http://www.adn.com/node/1460766]
WASHINGTON Critics want a halt to offshore Arctic drilling in the wake of Shells latest mishap in the waters off Alaska but theres

no sign the Obama

administration and key members of Congress are backing off their support for drilling in the sensitive region. Interior Secretary
Ken Salazar let Shell begin preparatory drilling in Alaskas Arctic waters this summer, the first time in two decades. Environmental groups on Thursday called for the
administration to immediately stop all permitting for Arctic offshore oil exploration as a result of Mondays grounding of Shells drilling rig off Kodiak Island. But
Salazar isnt willing to put the permits on hold. The administration understands that the Arctic environment presents unique challenges and thats why the secretary
has repeatedly made clear that any approved drilling activities will be held to the highest safety and environmental standards, Salazar spokesman Blake Androff said
Thursday. The department will continue to carefully review permits for any activity and all

proposals must meet our rigorous standards.

chairman of the
House Resources Committee, Republican Doc Hastings of Washington, is a drilling supporter and that hasnt changed.
Rather than jumping to conclusions, he believes the focus right now needs to be on safely resolving the situation, said Hastings spokeswoman Jill Strait. Shell is
taking some heat. A group of 46 House Democrats released a statement Thursday saying they want answers from the Coast Guard and the Interior
Department about the rig incident. This is the latest in a series of alarming blunders, said the House Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition Caucus. But
the group represents a small minority of the 435-member House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. Shells
Salazar has not given Shell permission to drill deep enough to actually hit oil. The company hopes to get that approval this summer. The

drilling rig Kulluk broke free from the ship towing it Monday after running into a winter storm in the Gulf of Alaska. The rig grounded off Sitkalidak Island, just south
of Kodiak Island. An attempt to salvage the rig is being planned. There are worries about a potential spill of an estimated 155,000 gallons of diesel fuel and other
petroleum products on board. The vessel that was towing the rig, the Aiviq, is owned and run by the politically connected Louisiana company Edison Chouest
Offshore. Edison Chouest was the top campaign contributor in the most recent election cycle for Hastings as well as Alaska Republicans Rep. Don Young and Sen.
Lisa Murkowski, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. The company is also among the top donors to Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark

Begich, who also supports Shells offshore efforts. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who is the incoming chairman of the Senate Energy
and Commerce Committee, isnt ready to put the hammer down on Shell. The Coast Guard and Interior Department will be investigating
the causes of this incident, so its too soon to draw any firm conclusions, Wyden said in a prepared statement. But as Ive said before, I plan to look at
drilling safety rules this year to see if regulators are doing enough to make sure offshore drilling
operations arent putting lives or the environment at risk. Murkowski is the top Republican on the Senate
energy committee and has shown signs of working closely with Wyden.

AT: Midterms Link

Russia and foreign policy dont matter for midterms healthcare thumps
RCP 3-26-14 [Adam O'Neal and Caitlin Huey-Burns, U.S.-Russia Tensions: A Key Issue in the
Midterms?, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/26/usrussia_tensions_a_key_issue_in_the_midterms_122055.html]
While the GOP clearly hopes to make Russia an election issue, its unclear whether it will be an effective
one. Congressional elections are most often decided on a few fundamentals, primarily the condition of the
economy, the presidents popularity, and the quality of the candidates. When a single issue becomes
central in an election, its usually a domestic one that directly affects voters -- like the Affordable Care
Act.Still,therehavebeenexceptions:In2006,thelasttimeatwotermpresidentfacedhissecondroundofmidtermelections,Democratsrode
awaveofdissatisfactionoverPresidentBushshandlingoftheIraqWartoretakecontrolofCongress. Will 2014 be another year
when foreign policy proves crucial to flipping a chamber? Probably not. RepublicanNationalCommitteeChairman
ReincePriebushasrepeatedlysaidthatGOP opposition to the ACA will be the preeminent issue in November.
PriebusDemocraticcounterpart,Rep.DebbieWassermanSchultz,hassaidthatDemocratswillcampaignonthelaw.Andifthespecialelection
inFloridas13thCongressionalDistrictearlierthismonthisanyindicator,Obamassignaturelegislationwillindeedcommandthecampaign
spotlight.