Introduction
Now when I was a little chap I had a passion for maps. I would look for hours at South America, or Africa, or Australia and lose myself in all the glories of exploration. At that time there were many blank spaces on the earth and when I saw one that looked particularly inviting on the map (but they all look like that) I would put my finger on it and say: When I grow up I will go there. The North Pole was one of these places I remember (Conrad Reference Conrad1998:11).
When talking in front of maps, it is quite common for political representatives and others including teachers to use both speech and bodily actions to describe what is being represented. Maps act as a source of both authority and reference; a way of orientating the listener or viewer. President W. Clinton did exactly that in March 1999 when he encouraged American citizens to ‘take a look at the map’ so that they might better understand where Kosovo was in relation to South East Europe. And why it mattered. In Clinton's case, his televised speech witnessed him firmly holding onto his speech papers as he delivered his address, a message telling Americans that NATO bombing was necessary in order to stop Serbian aggression.
Other hand actions including finger pointing are an important element in rhetorical performances, especially when the user wants to direct the attention of others to a particular area of geographical and political concern. From the gesturing of Hitler and Mussolini to the Black Panther salute, hand movements, can and do add emphasis, sometimes dramatically so. One example that comes to mind is the former Secretary of State Robert McNamara standing in front of a large map of Vietnam in the 1960s. Holding a large pointer, he told listening journalists about troop deployments, air raids, enemy losses and, critically explaining to domestic audiences, why the US war effort in Indo-China was so necessary in terms of the global struggle against communism. The large pointer and over-sized map, which dwarfed McNamara, was an important element in his public performance. In retrospect, it appears Vietnam overwhelmed him and the United States.
There are of course many other examples we could employ that go beyond the pointing at the map; from political leaders practising in front of the mirror in private (for example Hitler) to public posturing on the podium and beyond. The point to be stressed more generally is that far from being merely posturing (or finger pointing specifically), these bodily gestures help to frame forms of attachment and understanding and invoke a range of emotional reactions that shape relational ties that can constitute identity and belonging (for example, Ahmed Reference Ahmed2003).
The polar regions: finger pointing
Take two recent examples of finger pointing germane to the polar regions, in which the map has featured strongly. The first concerns the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, pointing to a map of the high Arctic. The press release, dated April 2009, was entitled ‘Extent of Norway's continental shelf in the High North clarified’ (Norwegian Foreign Ministry 2009). Under the title of the press release, a summary paragraph explains that the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) has issued a recommendation pertaining to the outer limits of the Norwegian outer continental shelf, following their submission in 2006. Although Norway did not include the Norwegian Antarctic sector in their original submission, the CLCS recommendation is significant in so far as it extends Norway's natural resource management rights. Støre noted as follows.
This establishes a clear division of responsibility and creates predictable conditions for activities in the High North. It confirms that Norway has substantial rights and responsibilities in maritime areas of some 235 000 square kilometres. The recommendation is therefore of historic significance for Norway.
Directly underneath this attributed quote, the Foreign Minister's finger is seen to be pointing at the map, to the north west of the Svalbard archipelago (Fig. 1).
Pointing the finger at the high north.
As far as one can tell, the extended finger of the Minister's hand is touching the map firmly. It is a confident gesture, which appears to in keeping with the tenor of the press release issued by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. As the Minister again noted.
The recommendations provide a basis on which Norway can establish the limits of its continental shelf in the High North. This is a precondition for future resource management, creates a firmer basis for investments and is an effective implementation in the High North of the legal order for the oceans set out in the Law of the Sea Convention.
The notion of ‘firmer basis’ is significant because the CLCS has not issued a final recommendation with regard to Norway's neighbour Russia's claims to outer continental shelf in the Arctic.
The second example involves the Australian resources and energy minister Martin Ferguson and was reproduced within the Australian media. Released in April 2008, it followed the recommendation of the CLCS and the re-drawing of Australian maritime boundaries including the Australian Antarctic Territory (Australian Government 2008). Standing in front of a large map, with an Australian flag behind him, the Minister is pointing but not touching towards the southeast corner of the Australian continent. Australia's Antarctic and sub-Antarctic territories including Heard and McDonald are identifiable. The outer continental shelf is marked in a distinct colour so that it is identifiable from the exclusive economic zones. Rather differently from the Norwegian Foreign Minister, the Australian minister noted.
It means for a resource-rich nation such as Australia, added resource entitlements going to issues of oil and gas. But also you might say additional responsibilities in terms of the floor of the seabed. This is potentially a bonanza, we have got unknown capacity out there. It also raises questions about what potential regimes might be necessary in the future to encourage such exploration (Australian Government 2008).
Outer continental shelves: finger pointing and flagging
Since images of the Russian flag being planted on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean were widely released into public circulation, there has been renewed interest in the resource potential of the Arctic. Oceanographic features such as the Lomonosov Ridge have attracted a great deal of media attention as some reporters noted that the Russian flag planting exercise was part of a more sinister attempt to claim the entire central Arctic Ocean for its own economic benefit. While others have recently urged a more cautionary note regarding the likelihood of future conflict over resource access, the importance of the titanium flag is primarily visual. Its significance resides not within the parameters of international law but visual culture. After all, if no one had seen the flag being lowered to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean then would there have been the same kind of public reaction from the then Canadian Foreign Minister, Peter MacKay when he noted that, ‘[t]his isn't the 15th century. . .You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say: “We're claiming this territory.”’ He and others ensured that the image was not only seen but also quite literally cited, within political and public discourse around the world.
Under Article 76(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states are entitled to assert rights over a 200 nautical mile (nm) continental shelf provided that there are no overlapping claims via neighbouring states. Moreover, a coastal state might be able to assert rights over that part of the continental shelf that extends beyond the 200 nm limit provided that it forms part of the natural prolongation. Article 76 provides two formulae according to which coastal states can use to establish the basis to establish the continental shelf beyond the 200 nm limit. They also help to establish so-called cut off points as well. Both formulae are based on the assumption that any extension is measured from the base of the continental slope. The so-called Gardiner Line proposes that a claim to outer continental shelf (OCS) can be established with reference to the depth/thickness of sedimentary rocks overlying the continental crust. On the other hand the Hedberg Line uses a distance formula, starting from the foot of the continental shelf. The coastal state making a submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is entitled to use whichever formula is most advantageous. Article 76 also establishes certain outer limits to any OCS submission. The first involves 350 nm from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. In other words, any claim to the OCS cannot extend beyond 150 nm of the EEZ. The second restraint is that the OCS cannot extend beyond 2500 m in terms of water depth.
Preparing a submission regarding OCS delimitation is costly and time consuming and requires detailed geo-scientific information on the area in question ranging from geological data to depth and shape of seabed. Moreover, the establishment of distance measurements from a coastal state's baselines is also critical in terms of preparing maps of OCS. Applying sediment thickness (seismic analysis), locating the 2,500 metre isobath line (bathymetric analysis) and the location of the foot of the continental slope (geological analysis) are difficult and problematic issues not least because it is fundamentally an interpretative process. In the light of these potential ambiguities, it is perhaps not surprising that the CLCS has encouraged, where possible, collective and co-ordinated submissions from coastal states especially in regions that are shared and possibly contentious.
What interests me here is not so much the complex submission process involving the CLCS, but the kind of labour involved (for example Rothwell Reference Rothwell2008). It is an expensive and time-consuming business. So the aftermath matters when a recommendation is finally released. If the OCS submission is accepted, it is common to read coastal state representatives expressing pleasure and satisfaction with the outcome. Standing in front of a suitably altered map, depicting OCS, then become part of an important and indeed necessary public performance. Coastal state representatives can and do point the map and show audiences that there are fewer blank spaces on the world's oceans, following a recommendation from the CLCS.
In the words of Joseph Conrad (Reference Conrad1924), it is a form of geographical triumphalism. Writing in 1924, Conrad argued that in an essay entitled ‘Geography and some explorers’ that there were three periods of European geography, geography fantastic, geography militant and finally geography triumphant. The latter is characterised by a geography that filled the blank spaces of the map. By touching the map, the Norwegian and Australian ministers concerned appear to be suggesting that – yes we did go there, yes we did collect information and yes an international body of commissioners confirmed it is ours! The relevant parts of the ocean seabed have been identified as required under Article 76, foot of slope, seabed depth and measurements undertaken in nm. In Seed's felicitous words, these visual and bodily performances form part of a ceremony of possession (Seed Reference Seed1993).
Conclusion
The white backdrops to both the Australian and Norwegian maps reproduced here are no longer quite so blank. They are now coloured, as if to emphasise possession as well as knowledge. The blank space of the seabed floor has, as the maps suggest, been transformed into ‘territory’. They are now incorporated into national jurisdictions and invested with resource value and strategic significance. While the Australian government asked the CLCS not formally to consider, for the time being, the Australian Antarctic Territory and the outer continental shelf adjacent to it, the Australian map nonetheless has that area clearly identified (Jabour Reference Jabour2009). In the case of the Norwegian submission to the CLCS, the government removed any references to the Norwegian Antarctic territory because of the provisos of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty regarding territorial claims.
These kind of visual performances, such as standing in front of a map, deserve to be taken seriously. They are not just mere gestures. As a longer historical engagement with this issue would demonstrate, ceremonies of possession have been extraordinarily important in regions, which are thinly populated and often remote from domestic audiences. Flags continue to be planted, maps continue to attract finger pointing and political representatives continue to show and tell and in so doing link actions to the process of claiming and administering polar territories (Collis Reference Collis2004).
Acknowledgement
I gratefully acknowledge the permission of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to reproduce Fig. 1.
