Controlling the Arctic In the Name of Climate Change

As a reminder, no country currently owns the Arctic. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, no territorial claims can be made on the Arctic.

But in the name of climate change, a new agreement between the United States of America and Canada will allow these two countries to carry out a joint "leadership of the Arctic".

Inuit and environmental organizations are celebrating the prioritization of the Arctic in the joint statement on climate change issued by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Barack Obama.

The statement released Thursday in conjunction with Trudeau's visit to Washington included a commitment to implement the Paris Agreement and reduce methane emissions. A shared leadership model on action in the Arctic was one of the highlights in the document.

The agreement has alot of commendable points, such as the reduction of unregulated fishing in the area. But it also proposes some more points which raise some questions:

promote scientific research in the region

In other words, the establishment of bases. Could it be that researches for Arctic oil exploitation are planned to be conducted in such stations?

If oil and gas development and exploration proceeds, activities must align with science-based standards between the two nations that ensure appropriate preparation for operating in Arctic conditions, including robust and effective well control and emergency response measures.

What catches the most my attention here is that oil corps won't be prevented from drilling holes in the Arctic; they will simply be inspected to make sure they are efficient.

But most striking are the two following points:

Protecting at least 17 per cent of land areas and 10 per cent of marine areas by 2020

Creating a pan-Arctic marine protection network

Doesn't "protecting a territory" mean occupying the territory with some kind of perimeter which would be owned by the country offering the generous protection? Is that not a bit synonymous to an ownership of 17% of the Arctic?

source

Food for thought.

a reply to: swanne

As a reminder, no country currently owns the Arctic.

Depends on who you ask...

Russia believes that it owns 1.2 million sq. kilometers (463,000 sq. miles) of the Arctic. The country has requested that the UN recognize the claim, which it first made in 2002. At the time the UN sent it back, asking for more supporting evidence.
“Ample scientific data collected in years of Arctic research are used to back the Russian claim,” the country’s foreign ministry says in a statement.

And they aren't alone...

Russia and other countries adjacent to the area—the US, Canada, Denmark and Norway—are vying for Arctic territories, which are estimated to contain one-fourth of the world’s reserves of oil and gas.

qz.com...

Everyone wants a piece of good virgin ice to play with.

Canada needs to build its Oil pipeline from Alberta up to the NW Passage where they need to ASAP build a World Class Deep-Water port so they can inject into the area massive volumes of materials attention international investment and concerns and assert their ownership and initiate the complicated constellations of dynamics which will be required to harness World Support and Sympathy for the INEVITABLE defense Canada will have to be making soon,a serious Militarily catalysed defense.

Lets get it started already.....this is after all why Obama prevented the go ahead of one proposed route and why the Canucks prevented the other proposed route from being optioned.........America NEEDS Canada to own and maintain a Deep Water Port which may be defended within deeply contrived and complicated Treaties as a critical National Asset allowing for a Joint Canadian/American defense from any hostile threat or overt intervention in an expedient and concrete manner.Like surfacing an Ohio Class Submarine with A Maple Leaf x American Flag on it, to send a message.

Its time to slam down the Maple-Leaf Hammer and close the front door before someone sticks their foot in it and no one can easily push it out.

Sounds like good potential for the us to try and control yet more of the world.
The US GOVERNMENT will lay claim to any resources in the area and dare anyone to challenge it.

Sounds like good potential for the us to try and control yet more of the world.
The US GOVERNMENT will lay claim to any resources in the area and dare anyone to challenge it.

Controlling the Arctic In the Name of Climate Change

They always leave out the word "Resources".

We wage war in the name of humanity and regime change, but we're really after the oil. They can't 'regime change' the arctic, nobody lives there to blame for invading it.

What are they going to say, the Penguins must go?

Some lyrics by Sting come to mind from 'If I ever lose my faith in you'

Never saw no miracle of science
That didn't go from a blessing to a curse
Never saw no military solution
That didn't end up as something worse

My opinion...... no one should be able to claim the arctic....... but as they say 'might makes right' sadly.

Eventually the elite will populate there and then my old rant post would make sense.
People racist against Antarcticacians.
As well as articaicans.

I would HATE to see an arctic war.

a reply to: intrptr

Yes. Climate Change is not just about carbon tax anymore - now it's also about territories and "scientific" oil drilling.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: intrptr

Yes. Climate Change is not just about carbon tax anymore - now it's also about territories and "scientific" oil drilling.

That and 'research'. We both know its about planting flags, claiming territory, subjugating peoples, stealing… stuff.

originally posted by: swanne
As a reminder, no country currently owns the Arctic. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, no territorial claims can be made on the Arctic.

What is the definition of "Arctic" used by that convention? If it is the land above the Arctic Circle (above 66° 33' north latitude), that that includes the lands of several countries on which citizens of those countries live: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States (Alaska). These are lands that have historically been considered parts of those countries.

If that is the definition that we are using, then I'm not sure how it could be said that no country owns it. The people who live there as citizens of those countries would argue that they own the land that they own. I'm not sure how you can tell a Norwegian citizen, who lives above the Artic Circle in what he would call Norway, that he doesn't control the land on which he lives, or that he is not living in Norway.

If it is just the Arctic ocean (water and ice sheets), then I think countries above the arctic circle would still want to control their territorial waters near their coastlines. I'll use the Norway example again...I doubt Norway would be very happy if it were told that it didn't control the waters a mile or two (or 12) from their coast. That would mean that Norway would not control Norwegian fishing waters.



EDIT TO ADD:
I just skimmed over the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (looking for keywords), and nothing popped out for me that said that "no territorial claims can be made on the Arctic", nor was there a definition for what is meant by "The Arctic".

Here is a link that opens directly to a PDF of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:

PDF -- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

So I'm not sure what is specifically meant in the OP by the phrase "no territorial claims can be made on the Arctic". Does it mean the lands I mentioned above (lands that have historically been considered parts of those countries), or maybe just the waters (and ice sheets) above the Arctic Circle?

a reply to: swanne

I wonder if a new international entity could be established between all neighbor countries so as to make a universal nation whose purpose is resource extraction and directly benefitting the native peoples there as supreme leaders. A new saudi arabia with a less psychotic native leadership.

One in the snow to count on since the one in the desert is insane.......and fought over.