United States Senator Lisa Murkowski

Arctic

Senator Murkowski is considered the leading expert among her Congressional colleagues on both sides of the aisle on Arctic issues – and has worked continuously in her time on Capitol Hill to raise awareness that Alaska is the reason that America is an Arctic Nation. 

Below is a Murkowski speech explaining the opportunities available to America as an Arctic Nation.  Click on the image to watch Senator Murkowski’s remarks.

During the 112^th Congress, Senator Murkowski was named Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Oceans Caucus, which educates and informs the Senate on the importance of the oceans bordering the United States and issues the Arctic Ocean faces, as well as the opportunities it holds.

Interest in the Arctic continues to grow globally.  The impacts of climate change and loss of seasonal sea ice has created news possibilities in Arctic waters for shipping, energy development and natural resources. The impacts of the changing Arctic are being felt dramatically by the residents who are concerned about the effects that an ice-diminished Arctic will have on their way of life.  Many of the indigenous people of the region still live a subsistence lifestyle, and Senator Murkowski is working to ensure that they have a seat at the table to discuss these issues critical to them. Senator Murkowski was pleased to bring this viewpoint to the 7^th Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council in Nuuk, Greenland where she was the only Senator invited to participate with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Interior and leaders from other Arctic nations.

Alaska is the only state to border two oceans – the Arctic and the Pacific – and has more coastline than all other states combined.  The coastal villages are literally on the frontlines when it comes to climate change and rising water levels.  During a Senate hearing, Senator Murkowski shared the situation faced by villages like Shishmaref, where coastal erosion is causing Alaska Native families who have lived on the waterfront for centuries to be strongly encouraged to relocate.

As Arctic policy proceeds, Alaska and the nation have immediate needs that need to be addressed. Senator Murkowski has been bringing the issue of icebreaker capacity to the attention of the Administration and Congress and was successful in directing an appropriation for federal funds to refurbish the Polar Star, one of the United States' two heavy icebreakers and funding to start the design process for new Polar Class heavy icebreakers. To put it in context, Russia has 33 icebreakers and America has only one in the water. The Senator finds that unacceptable and believes it is imperative that we increase our nation's icebreaking capability to meet the increasing need for a greater strategic presence in the Arctic, improved scientific platforms and projected increase in marine activity.

One clear example of America’s Arctic needs was in January 2012 when the nation watched a story unfold as the city of Nome, Alaska needed a critical shipment of fuel delivered through sea ice. At Senator Murkowski’s urging, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy was utilized to escort a fuel barge, being the only American ship fit for the crucial mission.  This mission highlighted the need to increase U.S. capabilities in the Arctic.  Once this situation was resolved, Senator Murkowski wrote a letter to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Robert Papp, requesting priority be placed on ensuring the Coast Guard is adequately prepared to address the current and future Arctic mission requirements.  Admiral Papp himself told Senator Murkowski that Alaska and Nome “lucked out” in the mission (watch below), and that he had been asked to deploy the Healy to studies in Antarctica.  America needs an icebreaking fleet to ensure we don’t have to rely on luck in the future.

Senator Murkowski is a strong proponent of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and believes it is crucial for the United States to be a party to this Treaty, not an outside observer hoping our interests are not damaged. As the only Arctic nation not a party to the treaty, failure to ratify continues to keep the United States at a disadvantage internationally and outside the process, without a seat at the table.

The Senator has also introduced S. 352, the American Energy Independence and Security Act of 2011. If enacted, S. 352 authorizes the exploration, leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain in Alaska. S. 352 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

Senator Murkowski plans to continue her work to remind Congress that the United States is an Arctic nation.

UN Law of the Sea Treaty

(Courtesy: Associated Press)

In August of 2007, Russia placed this flag on the seabed of the Arctic Ocean, in essence publicly laying claim to vast areas of the Arctic Ocean.  As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Russia and other Arctic nations are designing the road map for future exploration and development of Arctic waters.

The United States has yet to sign on.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sets forth a comprehensive framework governing uses of the oceans and ownership of the natural resources in the oceans and the ocean seabed.  Although the Treaty was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, the United Nations plays no role in carrying out the Law of the Sea provisions. 

There are now 162 parties to the Convention, including almost all of the traditional allies of the United States.  The United States is the only Arctic nation to not have ratified the treaty, and over half of the United States’ coastline is in Alaska.  Likewise, the Arctic Ocean covers only three percent of the earth’s surface, yet it accounts for 25 percent of the world’s continental shelf area.  Accordingly, Senator Murkowski believes that Alaskans have a very strong interest in the consideration of a Treaty that governs the planet’s oceans and the ocean floor.

Up until the mid-twentieth century, the oceans were essentially subject to a freedom-of-the-seas doctrine, where nations exerted sovereignty over a small strip of water off their coastline and the remainder of the seas were proclaimed to be free for all and belonging to none.  As more and more nations sought to control even more of the waters adjacent to their coastline and the natural resources within those waters, tensions rose among coastal states and foreign entities seeking to exploit those resources increased – nearly leading to conflict.

Pressure increased following World War II, and in 1958, four treaties were drafted:

• The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone;

• The Convention on the Continental Shelf;

• The Convention on the High Seas; and

• The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas

The United States signed onto all four, and they entered into force in the mid-1960s.  But the treaties did not address every concern, like the breadth of territorial waters (the United States argued for three nautical miles) and the limits of the continental shelf.  To address the shortfalls of those four treaties in use, negotiation began in 1974 on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Treaty sought to bring stability and resolve conflicting claims with regard to navigational rights, territorial sea limits, economic jurisdiction, and the legal status of resources beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

When the Treaty was presented for signature in 1982, the United States had considerable concern about Part XI – the Deep Sea-Bed Mining provision.  Then-President Reagan said the United States would not sign the Treaty until Part XI was revised.  However, President Reagan instructed U.S. agencies to abide by all other parts of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.  This policy has been followed to date.

The Reagan Administration was successful in convincing other nations not to sign the Treaty until the Deep Sea-Bed Mining issue was resolved.   In 1994, an Implementing Agreement was reached that met the objections of the United States and other industrialized nations, and the Convention came into force on November 16, 1994.

Moving forward a decade, Senator Murkowski was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which favorably reported the Treaty to the full Senate in 2004 and 2007.  However, the Treaty was not considered by the full Senate at those times and it was returned to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for future action.  Earlier this year, that Committee held a series of four hearings on the Treaty featuring testimony from Cabinet officials, military officials, and American business interests in support of ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as from opponents of the Treaty.

Senator Murkowski believes that although the full Senate did not previously consider the Treaty, circumstances have changed and it deserves consideration on the Senate floor.  Alaska has a front row seat as nations take a new look at the transportation routes and resource opportunities that have recently become accessible in the Arctic region.  Maritime traffic across the Arctic has increased considerably as circumpolar sea-lanes have become navigable for longer stretches of time.

• In 2010, only four ships transited the Northern Sea Route (NSR) along the Siberian coast.  Last year, 34 ships made the passage, including tankers, cruise ships, and freighters with 820,000 tons of cargo. 
• Forecasts suggest that 1.5 million tons of cargo will be shipped via the NSR this year, and 64 million tons by 2020. 
• Circumpolar navigation is also becoming more of a possibility through the Northwest Passage.  Each route has implications for Alaska as more and more vessels transit through the Arctic. 

Just as the reduced polar cap allows for increased maritime traffic, it has also opened up areas of the Arctic to natural resource exploration and development that were previously unreachable.  The Law of the Sea provides the United States with complete control of living and non-living resources in the ocean and on the sea floor up to 200 nautical miles from shore – our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  This means control over fisheries, which is extremely important for Alaska, as well as mineral and hydrocarbon deposits, such as oil and gas, in the continental shelf within our EEZ.

In addition, a party to the Law of the Sea can make an additional claim out to 350 miles if that nation’s continental shelf extends that far.  Through the extended continental shelf claim mechanism, Russia has laid claim to a significant section of the continental shelf and seabed under the Arctic Circle spanning 460,000 sq. miles, which is roughly the size of Western Europe.  Canada and Denmark (Greenland) also intend to put forth large claims.

Thus, the flag in 2007.

The United States could also claim a considerable section of the continental shelf in the Arctic but only nations that have signed on to the Treaty can make an Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) claim.  In addition, only nations that have signed on can object to another nation’s claim.  Senator Murkowski believes that if the U.S. is not party to this Treaty, it will lose the opportunity to make a claim to an area the size of California in the Arctic, and it will lose the right to challenge other nation’s claims that could overlap its own claim.  The United States could also lose the chance to exert control over any waterways that open up if the Arctic ice cap continues to decrease.

The seabed within the United States’ potential ECS area holds valuable minerals which the United States could exclusively develop.  As a party to the Convention, the United States could lock in its rights to these claims.  As a non-party to the treaty, the United States has no access to the Convention mechanisms that are currently being used by other Arctic states to solidify their rights.  Without the investment certainty that being a party to the Convention affords the oil and gas industry is unlikely to spend the billions of dollars needed to explore and develop the ECS.  Neither will companies that seek access to the rare earth elements and other valuable minerals the ECS could contain.

Senator Murkowski also understands that this Treaty is important to the armed forces, as America’s military is nearly unanimous in its support. The U.S. Navy relies upon customary law to transit key navigational waters like the Taiwan Strait and the Strait of Malacca off of Singapore, but those laws can change over time.  The Law of the Sea Treaty codifies these rights of passage. Thus, U.S. acceptance of the Law of the Sea Treaty ensures the freedom of navigation on the high seas that the U.S. Navy depends upon for operational mobility.

In July of 2012, two U.S. Senators announced they did not plan to support the convention. Combined with other Senators who've expressed concerns about the Treaty, this announcement imperils the prospects for ratification – given the 67 vote threshold required.  However, Senator Murkowski remains optimistic that the treaty’s benefits for the nation will become self-evident and that momentum on Capitol Hill will gravitate towards the long-term positive impacts.