<File Name>

Dartmouth 2012

Arctic cooperation now solves all the affs advantagesmultiple cooperative projects and fora and Russia has backed off of its aggressive policies Klapper 6-2 Bradley, staff writer, Associated Press; Clinton: Arctic Cooperation Essential Huffington Post; June 2, 2012;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/clinton-arctic-cooperatio_n_1564883.html U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday ventured north of the Arctic Circle and urged international cooperation in a region that could become a new battleground for natural resources. On her trip to the northern Norwegian city of Tromso, she conveyed that message of working together in one of the world's last frontiers of unexplored oil, gas and mineral deposits. The region is becoming more significant as melting icecaps accelerate the opening of new shipping routes, fishing stocks and drilling opportunities. To safely tap the riches, the U.S. and other countries near the North Pole are trying to cooperate to combat harmful climate change, settle territorial disputes and prevent oil spills. "The world increasingly looks to the North," Clinton told reporters after a two-hour boat tour of the nearby Balsfjord and meeting with Arctic scientists. "Our goal is certainly to promote peaceful cooperation," she said, adding that the U.S. was "committed to promoting responsible management of resources and doing all we can to prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change." At the least, the U.S. and the other Arctic nations hope to avoid a confrontational race for resources. Officials say the picture looks more promising than five years ago when Russia staked its claim to supremacy in the Arctic and its $9 trillion in estimated oil reserves by planting a titanium flag on the ocean floor. The United States does not recognize the Russian assertion and has its own claims, along with Denmark, Norway and Canada, while companies from Exxon Mobil Corp. to Royal Dutch Shell PLC want to get in on the action. China also is keeping a close eye on the region. Moscow has eased tensions somewhat by promising to press any claims through an agreed U.N. process. But Washington has yet to ratify the 1982 Law of the Sea treaty regulating the ocean's use for military, transportation and mineral extraction purposes. With 160 countries having signed on, the Obama administration is making a new push for U.S. Senate approval. Refusal puts the U.S. at risk of getting frozen out of its share of the spoils. Arguing for its ratification at a recent Senate hearing, Clinton said the treaty would offer the U.S. oil and gas rights some 600 miles into the Arctic. She said American companies were "equipped and ready to engage in deep seabed mining," but needed to join the treaty to take exploit oil, gas and mineral reserves. On Saturday, in the eight-nation Arctic Council's home city, she stressed that the international agreement "sets down the rules of the road that protect freedom of navigation and provides maritime security, serving the interest of every nation that relies on sea lanes for commerce and trade." The Arctic's warming is occurring at least twice as fast as anywhere else, threatening to raise sea levels by up to 5 feet this century and possibly causing a 25 percent jump in mercury emissions over the next decade. The changes could threaten polar bears, whales, seals and indigenous communities hunting those animals for food, not to mention islands and low-lying areas much farther away, from Florida to Bangladesh. The changing climate also is changing the realm of what is possible from transportation to tourism, with the summer ice melting away by more than 17,000 square miles each year. During the most temperate days last year, only one-fifth of the Arctic Circle was ice-covered. Little of the ice has been frozen longer than two years, which is harder for icebreakers to cut through. Europeans see new shipping routes to China that, at least in the warmth and sunlight of summer, are 40 percent faster than traveling through the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea. A northwest passage between Greenland and Canada could significantly speed cargo traveling between the Dutch shipping hub of Rotterdam and ports in California. The Arctic Council is hoping to manage the new opportunities in a responsible way. It includes former Cold War foes U.S. and Russia, but Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said governments were prepared to deepen cooperation "in a region that used to be frozen, both politically and climatically." "Now there is a thaw," he said. Last year in Greenland, Clinton and her counterparts from other nations took a small step toward international cooperation by agreeing to coordinate Arctic search-and-rescue missions for stranded sailors and others. Officials are now trying to enhance the cooperation, including through joint plans to prevent oil spills in an environment that would make cleanup a logistical nightmare. The U.S. has been championing measures such as shifting away from dirty diesel engines, agricultural burning and hydrofluorocarbons to lessen the effect of short-lived greenhouse gases that are a particularly potent source of climate change in the Arctic.

UNCLOS Solves
Hellman 9 * Notes Editor, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. J.D. Candidate, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, June 2009. B.A., with Distinction, The Pennsylvania State University, 2006. The author would like to thank Adam Root for helping formulate this topic, all of the board members and staffers for their tireless effort and helpful suggestions, and, of course, his mother and father for their patience, support and input. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 627 Of further concern for the Americans, the operation exposed the unfortunate reality of the critical and shaky condition of the United States' icebreaking fleet. n44 The Healy is one of only four American icebreakers, and is the only one that is reliable enough to consistently make the trip to the Arctic. n45 However, this deficiency has brought another issue to the Congressional forefront, where support has been mounting to increase Coast Guard funding in an effort to repair, replace, and expand the weak icebreaking fleet. n46

<File Name> Dartmouth 2012 The Danes were not far behind the Americans in their response to the Russian Arctic strategy. Just days after the Americans, the Danes set sail to begin research in the Arctic in an effort to prove that the Lomonosov Ridge is an underwater extension of Greenland (Danish territory), not Russia. n47 It is also likely that they will follow the Canadians' strategy of increasing military presence in the area. n48 [*634] Norway has been surprisingly quiet on the issue, likely because of their history of cooperation with Russia with offshore resource development. n49 Thus, Norway serves to fare quite well if Russia substantiates its claims to the region. Norwegian drillers have by far the most experience and expertise in cold weather and offshore situations, n50 and due to the history of cooperation with Russia, would be an easy choice for a partner. n51 This is a conflict ripe for Alternative Dispute Resolution. n52 There are currently five countries disputing claims in the Arctic, and depending on what, if anything, the disputing countries can scientifically prove, the situation could quickly go from bad to worse. This is not a dispute likely manageable by the courts. It involves a multitude of parties, each of which has competing interests and claims. The conflict also requires consideration of highly technical and scientific evidence, such that a common jury or judge would not normally have the expertise to effectively analyze and make a reliable ruling. Further, there are potential jurisdictional issues, as not all of the countries have signed UNCLOS. n53 [*635] ADR would seem to be a better way to equitably decide these cases, especially if there were to be overlapping claims without conclusive scientific evidence. A binding multi-party suit with fewer winners than losers could leave the "losing" countries with an especially jaded feeling about the whole situation. ADR is appropriate in this case because it offers non-binding strategies n54 that would give participating countries some sufficient say in the final outcome. Proponents of ADR claim that parties that choose ADR methods tend to reach settlements that are "more creative, satisfactory and lasting than those imposed by the court." n55 Further, ADR has been known to reduce costs and delays associated with litigation. n56 That being said, while there is no reason to rush a decision in the instant case, the potential for extensive delay could be detrimental to all of the countries who are depending on potential resources to bolster their oil supply as well as their economy. ADR also gives the parties more "control" over the procedure and outcome of the resolution process. n57 Litigation is often very frustrating in that the process is largely dictated by long-established court rules, and the outcome is more often a function of how the case was presented, how the witnesses performed and, unfortunately, the opinions of the presiding judge. n58 ADR encourages the parties to dictate the process on a case-by-case basis, which allows the parties to decide on the best procedure in light of the particular conflict. n59 There is also the relationship-building aspect to ADR. n60 Often, the confrontation that occurs in litigation may drive the parties further apart. n61 While there is certainly confrontation within ADR processes, the parties are often working together to reach an [*636] agreement, as opposed to competing against each other. n62 In sum, ADR has the potential to give "parties more power and greater control over resolving the issues between them, encourages problem-solving approaches, and provides for more effective settlements covering substance and nuance. It also tends to enhance co-operation and to be conducive to the preservation of relationships." n63 There are also forms of ADR that are binding on the parties. n64 For many disputes, a binding decision decreases some of the benefits discussed above. n65 However, it can be beneficial to have binding decisions in cases where mutual agreement or negotiation seems unlikely. Such might be the case here, as there are five countries disputing claims. A binding method of ADR also brings with it a potential scapegoat n66 for parties on the shorter end of the stick. n67 Due to the greater adversarial nature of the process, a party has less to explain if a panel rules against them than if that same country negotiated an unfavorable--although maybe more realistic-settlement. n68 UNCLOS, suggests procedures similar to those of particular ADR methods. n69 Under the treaty, countries with claims are required to submit their claims to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. n70 However, the Commission is not as powerful as the treaty attempts to make it sound. While article 76 requires [*637] claiming parties to submit to the Commission, the findings of the Commission are strictly recommendations, not legally binding decisions. n71 Only the disputing parties can make a binding decision. n72 In short, the submitting state can choose to honor the recommendations of the Commission or to ignore them. n73 In the face of an unfavorable recommendation, it seems obvious what would happen. On a different front, since the dispute here involves multiple countries that have conflicting claims, there is a distinct chance that, after submission to the Commission, there could potentially be overlapping results. For example, if the Lomonosov, or some other ridge, was shown to be a part of the continental shelf of all of the claiming countries, the treaty points to article 83 n74 which, in oversimplified terms, calls for disputing parties to come to an agreement on their own. n75 If they cannot do so, the treaty points them to other settlement options laid out in part XV of the treaty. n76

<File Name> Dartmouth 2012 As a general principle, UNCLOS stipulates that disputing parties ought to settle their disputes by any number of "peaceful means." n77 The treaty gives the parties the freedom to choose their [*638] own method for deciding the dispute amicably, as long as they agree on the method. n78 The treaty, though, lists many of its own procedures for settling disputes in part XV. Specifically, when parties are unable to come to an agreement themselves, they are urged n79 to submit their claims to binding adjudication. n80 The treaty creates its own Tribunal, n81 but the parties are not required to submit to it, as UNCLOS allows for the use of other qualifying arbitral tribunals. n82 The disputing countries then submit their claims to the agreed upon tribunal and a binding decision can be made. While this is certainly a possibility for solving disputes, there is a potential problem with getting parties to agree on a tribunal or method for settlement. n83 Also, as Professor Posner notes, international adjudication--by any method--is rarely as effective as it looks on paper and can be extremely slow, n84 which thwarts one of the major goals and benefits of ADR. It is quite obvious that an Arctic land grab--like the nineteenth century imperial land grab--would not be beneficial for anyone, nor is it likely. n85 Either way, it is very important to the global oil market for the involved parties to come to some mutually acceptable [*639] agreement. As mentioned earlier, this is not a situation well-suited for some kind of we win-you lose scenario. This being the case, using established ADR methods is the most likely way to get the disputing parties into negotiations that will lead to useful, proactive and agreeable settlements.

ADR is the best means to forestall Arctic conflict

Hellman 9 * Notes Editor, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. J.D. Candidate, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, June 2009. B.A., with Distinction, The Pennsylvania State University, 2006. The author would like to thank Adam Root for helping formulate this topic, all of the board members and staffers for their tireless effort and helpful suggestions, and, of course, his mother and father for their patience, support and input. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 627 The conflict in the Arctic shelf is unlikely to be resolved within the very near future. With five countries currently making claims to extensive parts of the Arctic seabed, there is, inherently, a lot of scientific work that needs to be done. Russia's initiative to 'claim' large parts of the area has sparked much agitation and action amongst the other four involved nations. n178 While war is not a likely outcome, this is a conflict that cannot be ignored. Fortunately, there have been some encouraging developments since the conflict began in August of 2007. Roughly nine months later, on May 28, 2008, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States came together for the Arctic Ocean Conference in Ilulissat, Greenland. n179 The goal of the Conference, initiated by [*654] Denmark's Foreign Minister, Per Stig Moller, was to foster unity and cooperation in the Arctic area so as to prevent an environmental catastrophe. n180 The result of the Conference was the short but significant Ilulissat Declaration. n181 Most notably, the Declaration states that no new legal framework will be set up to govern the Arctic. n182 Instead, the parties agreed to proceed using the guidelines set forth in UNCLOS. n183 While this Declaration is not necessarily ground-breaking, it is encouraging in that it signals a willingness of the involved parties to work together in amicably settling the dispute over the Arctic. In accordance with UNCLOS, ADR is a potential solution to the problem. More specifically, the two most effective methods would likely be conciliation or arbitration. Both methods are forms of evaluative ADR, n184 granting a panel of conciliators or arbitrators-with the help of specialized geoscientists--the necessary ability to analyze the evidence and make an equitable decision. n185 Due to the number of parties involved, arbitration would probably be more efficient than conciliation. n186 Without a binding judgment (as with conciliation), there is the inevitable risk that one or more [*655] of the involved parties would not abide by the result, which could nullify all the hard work, time, effort and money expended by the parties in an attempt to reach a resolution. In fact, due to the potential hydrocarbon yield of the disputed area, and the significance of the oil in the future of the world economy, potential recommendations seem highly likely to be disputed. Arbitration, with its binding authority, would be the only real way to enforce a decision. Optimistically, a peaceful, equitable resolution is not out of the question, but, as noted above, it will require an enormous amount of cooperation. While a resolution similar to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty n187 is probably unlikely, there is reason to hope that the parties, with the help of a highly organized and motivated third-party and a binding dispute resolution method, can solve this problem in a peaceful, timely and equitable manner.

<File Name>

Dartmouth 2012

Law of the sea solves arctic environmental exploitation, cooperation, and scientific expeditions VANDERZWAAG et al 9 (David VanderZwaag Dalhousie University - Schulich School of Law Timo Koivurova University
of Lapland - Arctic Centre - Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, June 11, 2009 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol. 18, No. 2, 247, 2009, http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transnational/vol18_2/koivurova.pdf) During the Cold War, Arctic-wide cooperation was not possible, except in very limited policy areas, such as the conclusion of the 1973 Polar Bear Treaty66 between the five Arctic range states. This was due to the fact that the two superpowers and their allies confronted each other in the Arctic, which was estimated by many as one of the major military strategic hot spots during the Cold War. After all, NATO was a neighbor to the Soviet Union via Norway, and the United States and the Soviet Union shared a border in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. It was the perestroika and glasnost that opened up opportunities for pan-Arctic cooperation. Secretary- General Gorbachevs speech in Murmansk in 1987 proposed pan- Arctic cooperation in a number of fields, one of these being the protection of the Arctic environment. Inspired by Gorbachevs speech outlining various areas for Arctic cooperation, Finland took the initiative in 1989 for pan-Arctic co-operation in one of these policy areas, that of environmental protection; in 1991 the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) was adopted by the eight Arctic states by means of a declaration.67The AEPS achieved one important thing. Even though the cooperation itself was a fairly low-committal exercise with weak institutional structure, it enabled us to start thinking of societal and environmental problems for the first time from the Arctic perspective (rather than from the perspective of individual countrys northern or Arctic region) and tackle them with policy measures. The AEPS is also vastly important for understanding the current functioning of the Arctic Council,68 and the proposals to renew it, since, even though the Arctic cooperation ostensibly was transformed from the AEPS to the Arctic Council during the transitional period of 1996-1998, the basic elements of the cooperation have been in place from 1991, with only slight changes taking place. Even though there is a new mandate on sustainable development in the Council, the AEPS had a task force on sustainable development and utilization in the Arctic, which had more ambitious goals than the present Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG).69 There are still the same participants in the cooperation, although the Declaration establishing the Council strengthened the status of Arctic indigenous peoples organizations as permanent participants with power to influence decision-making (they were observers in the AEPS). The same institutional structure has been retained, ministerial meetings convened every two years and senior arctic officials (SAOs) managing the day-to-day activities of the Council. The four environmental protection working groups of the AEPS, namely Conservation of Arctic Flora and Faunaand Fauna (CAFF), Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR), and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), were integrated into the structure of the Council. In addition, two new working groups were established, the SDWG and the Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP).To date, there is no permanent secretariat in the Council, as was the case in the AEPS, although the three Scandinavian states have agreed to maintain the secretariat in Troms till 2012.70 Aswas the case in the AEPS, there is no permanent, mandatory funding mechanism in the Council, although a project support instrument has been created to pool resources for funding of individual projects.71 Finally, and importantly, both the AEPS and the Arctic Council were established via a declaration as soft-law organizations, not inter-governmental organizations having binding decision-making power. Hence, even though many have cherished the argument that the Council can be formalized into an inter-governmental organization, given that Arctic cooperation has already once been revised in its short life-cycle, it is important to keep in mind that the foundation of the cooperation has remained much the same, allowing us to conclude that the Arctic Council is fairly resistant to change.But even though the structure has remained much the same, the Arctic Council has become a stronger forum for cooperation over the years of its existence. In addition to the changes identified above, the working groups have become stronger in status and in terms of their deliverables. This is due to the fact that it was bound to take a few years before these working groups could start functioning effectively. Increasingly, their strategies and deliverables have become more ambitious. The Council ministers have also adopted important, albeit not very strong, policy recommendations connected with major scientific assessments, such as the ACIA. After the release of the ACIA, climate change considerations have become a cross-cutting issue in the Council, placing pressure on the working groups to adjust their work to future challenges. There is also more interest in the work of the Council; major states (like China) are interested in becoming observers.

<File Name>

Dartmouth 2012

LOST Key to Global Ocean Biodiversity and Food Supply

<File Name> Hamilton, 8/27/07 (Lee, Director Woodrow Wilson Intl Center and Former

Dartmouth 2012

Representative, indystar.com,http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/OPINI

ON/708270327/-1/LOCAL17)

These economic benefits are accompanied by environmental considerations. Pollution of our oceans has led to the disappearance of scores of species, including some that are important to our food supply, and threatens to have devastating consequences on the global environment. The Convention puts a framework in place to reduce pollution, including a set of standards that America already adheres to. By joining, we will strengthen our leverage to press others to do

Turns the case cant have Arctic ownership if we buck LOST

Hellman 9 * Notes Editor, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. J.D. Candidate, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, June 2009. B.A., with Distinction, The Pennsylvania State University, 2006. The author would like to thank Adam Root for helping formulate this topic, all of the board members and staffers for their tireless effort and helpful suggestions, and, of course, his mother and father for their patience, support and input. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 627 UNCLOS grants ratifying countries ten years from ratification to prove disputed areas are part of their continental shelf. n31 With most of the involved countries ratifying the treaty in the late 1990s or the first few years of the twenty-first century, n32 there is increased urgency to find conclusive scientific data to substantiate claims. [*632] The United States, which signed, but did not ratify the treaty, is in an interesting position. If it does not ratify, it is going to have trouble maintaining any claims to the region under a U.N. context, aside from the 200 mile boundary off the coast of Alaska. n33 However, the treaty has not escaped the view of important United States politicians. Specifically, the Bush administration supported it, but was not able to garner enough Congressional support to ensure its ratification. n34 With the inauguration of President Barack Obama, however, the treaty might finally be able to gain enough support in the Senate to be passed into law. n35 Eric Posner, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, posits that the reason for the lack of Congressional support is that the treaty governs much more than just sea-bed resource exploitation and the limits of a country's continental shelf. n36 Posner explains, "it also determines territorial waters in general, provides for the international exploitation of the seabed, provides some environmental controls, restricts how countries can treat ships on the high seas and in territorial waters, and much else." n37 Despite all of this, Posner clarifies that, for the most part, "the United States government has no objection to this treaty, and in fact treats most of its provisions ... . as customary international law." n38 AND
Law of the Sea prevent Arctic territorial claims Roth 11 Copyright (c) 2011 Yeshiva University Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law Summer, 2011 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 19 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 851 BIO: * Juris Doctor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, June 2010. The majority of the research for this Note was conducted during the 200809 academic year. Despite changes in the Arctic region's political landscape since that time, the primary thesis advocating for consensus-based mediation still applies.

The "Age of the Arctic" has arrived. n1 Over the past decade, [*852] diverse areas of the Arctic region n2 have increasingly become the focus of parties asserting competing claims over energy, n3 mineral, n4 fishery, n5 military, n6 navigational, n7 and territorial n8 rights. There is significant agreement among climatologists and other scientists that the Earth shows increasing evidence of warming caused by human activities. n9 The United Nations has declared climate [*853] change a "flagship issue" n10 and undertaken numerous initiatives to address it, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change n11 (which produced the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework

<File Name> Dartmouth 2012 Convention on Climate Change n12) and programs launched from the United Nations Development Programme. n13 Global warming is evidenced in part by the melting of sea ice in the Arctic region, which many scientists agree is likely to continue. n14 The once-fabled Northwest Passage has now become a [*854] reality, n15 and by 2013 the Arctic Ocean may be entirely ice-free during summer months, n16 giving rise to increased oil and gas development, mining, military operations, n17 shipping, n18 fishing, tourism, n19 and other uses. n20 Ironically, these activities, made possible in part by the effects of global warming in freeing up ice-covered waters, may further contribute to harmful climate change. n21 Additionally, increased usage and development of the Arctic could upset the delicate ecological balance that [*855] characterizes the region. n22 Many Arctic inhabitants, including indigenous communities, find their lifestyles rapidly changing as ice thins, permafrost melts, n23 and wildlife is displaced. n24 The circumpolar Arctic region consists of approximately equal portions of land and ocean. n25 Eight states possess territory within the Arctic: Canada, Denmark (through Greenland), Norway, the Russian Federation, the United States, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. n26 Five of these states - Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States (Arctic Five) - have coastlines with the Arctic Ocean. The potential for conflict in the region has increased as the Arctic Five have focused on establishing claims over portions of the petroleum-and mineral-rich Arctic Ocean seabed and subsoil. n27 The warming of the Arctic and the rush to assert sovereignty claims in this region n28 have given rise to the question of how to move forward in recognizing rights in and instituting protection for a globally significant n29 and environmentally vulnerable n30 bioregion.

In May 2008, amid growing concern over the possibility of military confrontation, the Arctic Five issued a statement n31 declaring their intention to peaceably resolve any overlapping territorial claims and asserting their commitment to the legal framework established by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or Convention). Extend HamiltonLOS key to Biodiversity---US unilateral action and therefore withdrawal from UNCLOS inhibits there ability to preserve this and turns case.

SQ solves your impacts other actors fill in Hobson 12 (Margaret Kriz Hobson, E&E reporter EnergyWire: Wednesday, June 27, 2012, http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/06/27/1)
Shell, which paid $2.1 billion in 2008 for leasing rights in the U.S. Arctic waters, is the first of several multinational oil companies that have lined up to explore for oil and gas in the region. ConocoPhillips and Statoil are also planning to move into the region during the next two years. Canada, Norway, Russia and other Arctic nations are also encouraging oil and gas drilling off their northern shores. Norway, where interest in Arctic energy drilling is booming, yesterday announced plans to award oil and gas exploration permits next year in 72 blocks in the Barents Sea. In Alaska, the sparsely populated northern communities will be dramatically affected if Shell's exploration is successful, said Charles Ebinger, director of the Brookings Institution's Energy Security Initiative. "If Shell finds the mother lode, you will see a stampede," he said. "And I'm not sure that's good." Yesterday, Salazar made it clear that change is coming to the American Arctic. Speaking to reporters, Salazar said the government will soon release its five-year plan for oil and gas that will allow leasing in the Beaufort Sea in 2017 and the Chukchi Sea in 2016. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Beaufort and Chukchi seas combined could hold as much as 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Oil development is only one facet of the changes coming to the Arctic, noted Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D). "It's not just energy," he said. "It's also transportation, the visitor industry, scientific research, military. Some are looking at the mineral potential. When you put it all together, we see this a frontier that I think people underestimate." With global warming causing Arctic waters to remain icefree for longer stretches each summer, transportation companies plan to cut shipping costs by moving cargo through the Arctic Ocean. Tourist boats are popping up in Barrow and other Native communities along Alaska's northern shores.

SQ solves science diplomacy Johnson 10

(Jenny. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 8 April. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/usaid-appointment-boosts-science-diplomacy-focus.html) The US government's international development agency is stepping up its focus on science and technology with a key appointment intended to enhance the agency's programmes in the Middle East and bolster the Obama administration's push for science diplomacy. Alex Dehgan was appointed USAID's science and technology advisor last month (11 March). The agency described him in a statement as "the focal point for implementing the Administrator's vision to restore science and technology to its rightful place within USAID". An agency spokeswoman said that Dehgan will work closely with USAID's senior counselor and director of innovation, Maura O'Neill, and will help shape development strategies, as well as create "novel science-based initiatives". Dehgan's appointment is widely seen as strengthening the administration's commitment to science diplomacy the use of scientific programmes, such as efforts to forge international cooperation among scientists and engineers, to achieve broader political objectives. Dehgan, a conservation biologist and an attorney in international law, has worked for the US State Department in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East. He also has experience working on large-scale conservation projects in the non-governmental sector. The appointment is "very encouraging", said Caroline Wagner, author of The New Invisible College: Science for Development. "Dehgan has a long background in science diplomacy, he is a bench-trained

<File Name> Dartmouth 2012 scientist, and he is young he has energy and drive." She said that this appointment adds to a growing list of high-level experts currently promoting US science diplomacy. "There is a lot of interest and experience that's being brought to this issue." Al Teich, director of science and policy programmes at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), said that the appointment of Dehgan who has worked as an AAAS fellow, helping to set up an electronic library of scientific journals in Iraq shows that science diplomacy is "an idea whose time has come".