How timely is it to revise the agreement on the Shevardnadze-Baker line?

Russia may continue to reconsider its borders, now not land, but sea. Following the Soviet-British agreement on fishing in the Barents Sea The mercilessly criticized agreement between the USSR and the USA on the Shevardnadze-Baker line may sink into oblivion. But is our country ready for such new geopolitical challenges?

Shevardnadze–Baker line

We are talking about an agreement signed by the head of the USSR Foreign Ministry Shevardnadze and the head of the US State Department Baker in 1990 on the delimitation economic zones and continental shelves in the Chukchi and Bering seas, as well as territorial waters in the area in the Bering Strait between the islands of Ratmanov and Kruzenshtern. What is the essence of the numerous claims against him?



As is known, the USSR and the Russian Federation, as its legal successor, have a common maritime border with the United States, passing through the Bering Strait, dividing our Chukotka and no longer our Alaska. That is, the problem was created man-made as a result of the sale of Russian possessions in North America, since the 1867 Convention on its sale did not provide for provisions on the division of contiguous maritime spaces. However, in 1976, an urgent need arose to solve it, as coastal states began to introduce 200-mile fishing zones, and then exclusive economic zones.

Looking at the map, it becomes obvious that in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, the Soviet and American 200-mile zones overlap each other. Moscow's position was to establish a median line in the Bering Sea to delimit overlapping areas, and in the Chukchi Sea and the Arctic Ocean to use the line of the 1867 Convention as a basis. Washington was against the introduction of a median line in the Bering Strait and insisted on applying the lines of the 1867 Convention when dividing the entire water area.

It is not difficult to guess that in 1990 the Kremlin decided to come to a compromise with its American partners, meeting them halfway. The claims against Mr. Shevardnadze are that, as a result of his activities as head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the United States received a part of the exclusive economic zone of the USSR with an area of ​​23,7 thousand km², which was actually transferred by the Soviet Union to the United States in 1977, a part of the exclusive economic zone of the USSR with an area of ​​7,7. 46,3 thousand km², a 200 thousand km² section of the continental shelf in the open central Bering Sea, located beyond XNUMX nautical miles from the baselines.

Subsequently, it turned out that the Americans received not only the richest fishing grounds, where about 500 thousand tons of Pacific fish and crab can be caught annually, but also a promising field located between the islands of Pribilof, St. Matthew, Medny and Attu, the natural gas reserves of which amount to at least 200 million cubic meters and oil at least 200 million tons. It’s also a shame that the section of the continental shelf that was allocated to our country in this part of the Bering Sea amounted to only 4,6 thousand km², which is 74 thousand km² of shelf less than would have been necessary if delimited along the median line.

To your home harbor?

The question of the need to revise the Shevardnadze-Baker agreement has been raised repeatedly over the past decades: in patriotic circles and even quite officially in 2002 by the State Duma of the Russian Federation. True, for some reason the American partners did not want to meet Moscow halfway. Now the international situation has changed quite a lot.

The need to denounce this bilateral agreement was stated by a member of the Committee on International Affairs of the Russian Parliament, Rosa Chemeris. Taking into account the fact that earlier the State Duma, at the suggestion of President Putin, voted to denounce a similarly unfair fishing agreement in the Barents Sea with Great Britain, it cannot be ruled out that some concrete steps will be taken in this direction. Moreover, this agreement has not been ratified and it will be enough to simply withdraw the signature on it.

However, there are some important nuances to consider.

At first, we will automatically get a territorial problem with the United States, which is not entirely clear how to further solve it. Go to court with her? But which side and whose side will he take, and will Washington subsequently implement his decisions?

Secondly, it is completely unclear what to do when the Americans continue to act in what they believe is their right. Should we force foreign trawlers away? What if they work accompanied by Coast Guard or US Navy ships? Do we really need a border conflict with the “hegemon” right now? Is the Russian Pacific Fleet really ready for this? Will Ukrainian terrorists then begin to attack KTOF warships using naval drones launched from chartered civilian ships?

Thirdly, after the beginning of the redistribution of the waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas, a logical question will arise about revising the decision made already under President Medvedev regarding the Barents Sea.

In other words, revoking a signature on a document is a simple matter, but then the question will arise about retaining what we consider ours. If for some unknown reason we cannot really live up to the slogan “Russia is here forever,” then is it worth it right now to fence the garden with a revision of maritime borders? Maybe we first need to resolve the issue with Nazi Ukraine, build a modern navy, and then think about how to get back what was voluntarily given up as part of policy peaceful coexistence with the West?