8.20.2007
Arctic arena
News source: Same old power play
Welcome to...
THE ARCTIC ARENA!
Putin, Harper, Bush, Rasmussen and Stoltenburg.
ROUND 1:
3...
2...
1...
FIGHT!
At the top of the world, everything is heating up.
With the advent of global warming, the frigid, frozen Arctic Ocean is defrosting at an ever-increasing rate. Scientists speculate that this ice cover could further diminish in the immediate future, until all the Arctic ice disappears in the summer. In view of this, policymakers of many national governments have initiated their reports on the implications of an ice-free Arctic Ocean. Five nations which border the Ocean - all economically developed - have expressed interest in claiming parts of this area, namely Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Norway. In so doing, they have created a fresh international bone of contention.
Anyway, what is it that these adept policymakers see in a watery North Pole, to warrant such a hullabaloo? First up is none other than money. The Arctic sea floor potentially holds a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. In a world addicted to energy, black is the new gold, and it is highly lucrative to possess fossil fuel deposits. Furthermore, an ice-free Arctic would open up new trade routes for shipping. Also, one must consider that each side has a desire to preserve intrinsic national pride and honour, regardless of the value of the claim (or lack thereof).
It is fundamentally due to this that the five nations are willing to expend vast amounts of funds, technology, manpower, effort, and time, in order to put themselves ahead in this rat race. In short, I understand their reasoning, but below I voice my disappointment over the way they substantiated their claims.
All five nations have approved scientific missions to map the sea floor off their respective coasts, evidently to exploit trivialities in sea floor topology, especially the extent of the continental shelf.* The Canadian and Russian governments have an all-out Arctic policy, with Canada constructing Arctic military installations, and Russia planting the Russian flag on the North Pole sea bed.
I find it particularly disturbing that the primary course of action of these two nations is to use primitive means to aggressively provoke their neighbours, and ignore the alternative option of engaging in diplomatic dialogue. As the Prime Minister of Denmark said of another territorial dispute, "It is time to stop the flag war. It has no place in a modern, international world." It is disconcerting that developed nations fail to practice what they preach - peaceful resolution, and not mutual aggression.
The Arctic arena was, in the first place, bred out of climate change, which is in turn ironically due to industrialization and development. As the author writes, "In a better world we might hope to see that kind of money and manpower going into the development of fossil fuel alternatives." The developed world still cannot recognize the need for sustainability. As adroit as those policymakers are, can they not foresee fossil fuels running out?
Perhaps we have been blinded by momentary prosperity, and rendered incapable of seeing in the long-term - which hardly makes one feel at the top of the world.
*In addition, Russia is claiming the North Pole because the undersea Lomonosov Ridge, which extends thousands of kilometres off the continental shelf, is apparently connected to the Eurasian continent. (If you don't really know who Lomonosov is, nor what his ridge is, you'll understand just how nitty-gritty the claims get.)
# posted by splot @ 00:48 
