Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Arctic States Meet Over Resources, Military Concerns
OTTAWA - Five Arctic states are to meet Monday in the Canadian city of Chelsea to bolster regional cooperation as concerns grow over a military build-up and opposition to the tapping of its rich resources.
This 2009 US Navy handout photo shows the USS Annapolis submarine breaking through three feet of ice during training exercises in the Arctic region. Five Arctic states are to meet in the Canadian city of Chelsea to bolster regional cooperation amid concerns of a military build-up and opposition to the tapping of its rich resources.
(AFP/US Navy/File/Mc1 Tiffini M. Jones) Representatives from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States will participate in the Quebec talks.
The meeting comes as a global race for vast oil and gas reserves believed to be hidden beneath the seabed intensifies, raising fears of increased commercial activity spoiling the pristine environment.
"Over time, increased access to the region will result in new opportunities and challenges," Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said in a statement.
"It is important that we plan now for the future," he said. "Arctic Ocean coastal states are in a unique position to set the agenda for responsible management of the region."
Each of the five Arctic nations claim overlapping parts of the region estimated to hold 90 billion untapped barrels of oil.
They pledged in 2008 to try to avoid territorial conflicts and balance economic opportunities with conservation of this fragile ecosystem.
But a Canadian study has found a significant and worrying build-up of military assets in the far north.
Research by Robert Huebert of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies showed the five states have either built or announced 66 combat-capable Arctic vessels intended for or capable of operating in the Arctic, including patrol boats, icebreakers and submarines.
Canada also announced a winter warfare training camp and an Arctic military port, and has increased its northern surveillance capabilities.
Cannon insisted: "All of my colleagues are in a cooperative and collaborative mood."
Others point out that US and Canadian geologists are jointly mapping the Arctic seabed, Russia and Canada are working together on search-and-rescue protocols, and Danish troops will soon join Canadians on Arctic maneuvers.
However, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's claim mid-month that fellow Arctic nations were sidelining Moscow in a race to tap the region's resources has created confusion, and some resentment.
Medvedev said there had been "attempts to limit Russia's access to the exploration and development of Arctic deposits." Medvedev did not specify which country, and was met with denials.
The Indigenous Environmental Network, the Council of Canadians and the Alaska-based REDOIL Network meanwhile in an open letter called for a moratorium on all new fossil fuel exploration in the Arctic.
"Increased development of Arctic oil and gas would not only contribute to the climate crisis that is devastating Arctic communities, it would also add more direct pressure to fragile ecosystems that are already stressed by the combined impacts of climate change and existing development," said Daniel T'seleie on behalf of the signatories.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that any coastal state can claim undersea territory 200 nautical miles from their shoreline and exploit the natural resources within that zone.
Nations can also extend that limit to up to 350 nautical miles from their coast if they can provide scientific proof that the undersea continental plate is a natural extension of their territory.
Moscow believes it should also control the Northern Sea Route, a passage that stretches from Asia to Europe across northern Russia, and in 2007 planted a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole in a symbolic staking of its claim over the region.
Canada meanwhile has claimed the Northwest Passage, but is at odds with the United States which considers it to be international waters.
Also, Norway and Russia contest a 176,000-square-kilometer (67,950-square-mile) area of the Barents Sea.
- Posted in



9 Comments so far
Show All...and here we thought that COOK and PEARY would be the only Polar war in history.
"Planning for the future?" If this erupts into another war , then the PEOPLE of the world will be"...sans eyes, sans teeth sans everything."
How are those " ice futures" working Wall St?
The US is noted for shooting itself in the foot especially with respect to foreign policy. How many times has the law of unintended consquences proven disasterous for America? This time I hope cooler heads will prevail. The NorthWest passage is Canadian. I don't know how any party can claim otherwise when it completely splits the Northern half of Canada from the Southern half. The US is forgetting big time that denying Canada's rights to this waterway is opening it up to every country in the world including some hefty hitters in the nuclear weapons field. How nice to have an international waterway a thousand miles closer to the lower 48 for Chinese or other nuclear armed submarines or ships to sail through at their leisure. Come on folks, think straight for once.
Can't we just declare the Artic to be a Global Park? Save it for next centuries' children.
Next thing ya know, they'll be wantin' to put Nuclear reactors in the Artic and AntArtic, because there is natural cooling there.
NO nuclear power
No nuclear power
No nuclear Power
The fact that oil and coal are so bad, is just a sick excuse for the pronukers to jump on the global warming band wagon, when most of them probably didn't even believe it's science in the first place.
I dare any pro nuker to come on and try and discuss this with me... I'm sick to death that this is actually a plan to help with global warming. Especially when you consider the amount of Co2 that will be spewed into the air, just from building the hulks.
So, go ahead pro nukers, make my day...
Well sorry to ruin your day, but the founder of Greenpeace has an excellent argument supporting nuclear power:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Greenpeace_founder_supports_nuclear_energy
And when you've finished that, you can read how the inventor of the Gaia concept and arch-environmentalist, James Lovelock writes "Nuclear power is the only green solution":
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm
Start by debating them and the millions who understand and agree with their arguments.
Here's a start:
1. Being the author or the director of any organization, no matter its goals, does not make one correct (not that I think you seriously argued that it does, but as a place to start).
2. Nuclear power has hideous flaws.
---- No storage possibilities for waste.
---- Massive amounts of dangerous waste, far beyond the oft-repeated "football field" figures, which refer to only high-grade waste as though it were the entire danger.
---- No possibility to fully or near-fully contain emissions
--------- Accidents do happen, even though the industry bans the word from its paperwork.
--------- Even when accidents do not happen, the coolant tubes rust.
---- No way to adequately repair the internals of plants
---- Massive centralization of power production
-------- Creates opacity because it creates a motive to lie
-------- Creates company towns and the resultant monkeywrenching
---- No effective regulation
-------- NRC recruits from the industry and vice versa, creating
-------- Major nuke players are security cleared MIC people
---- No one will insure nuke plants except where most liability is voided by law, as it is in the USA.
People argue for nukes on the basis of practicality, but nukes have only survived economically because of massive government subsidy. Corporations have used military technology, including high-security military technology, without charge. Government and power plants have colluded to cover evidence of deaths and illness from nuclear technology. The worst of this has been military, but by no means all of it. The government is double-subsidizing waste disposal already, as the power companies line up to sue the government for not fulfilling the storage commitments it made to encourage manufacture.
The most common argument for nukes is a large scale false dilemma fallacy based on the claim that solar and wind generation are somehow not practical. Various distortions are regularly made in industry figures to support this:
1. Costs for nukes are figured without including thousands of years of storage and servicing of storage.
2. Costs for nukes are figured without including health expenses or lost productivity of surrounding populations, or any attempt to estimate such losses in future populations.
3. Costs for nukes are figured without including anything approaching full liability for large scale accidents, including possibilities for attack.
4. Practicality has been figured without accounting for the natural liability of such centralized structures to military attack.
5. Practicality has been figured assuming competent use and management despite a history of massive fraud and ridiculous accidents that lies mostly (though not entirely!) buried in in-house documents.
Now, the next big lie is that the cost for solar and wind generation is measured only as if it were to be managed by large, centralized power companies who would maintain complete ownership and practical monopoly by maintaining dedicated land for such purposes rather than placing turbine windmills and solar cells on houses, schools, and public buildings.
Even given all the inefficiencies and hiring out the work, even refusing obvious energy-saving measures, a homeowner who uses lots of AC and heat can make up his investment in several years,
less
time
than
it
takes
to
put
up
a
single
nuclear
plant.
No, the "practical" they're talking about is what's practical for a Westinghouse stockholder's portfolio. Your sources may be honest, but should be more careful of industry hype.
"a global race for vast oil and gas reserves believed to be hidden beneath the seabed" in the Arctic is the direct opposite of what's needed to limit Climate Extreming from CO2-emissions.
As James Lovelock points out, we humans are too stupid to collectively stop ourselves acting stupid. At least so far.
Are we really too stupid to comprehend that we're partly stupid, i.e. not of unlimited intelligence?
Is our collective faulty faith in unlimited growth in a limited environment parallelled by a faulty faith in an unlimited intelligence in a limited brain?
I wonder about this species I've been born into...
I think it's just remarkable, and obscene, that oil and gas corporations and the military are thinking ahead about the consequences (for them) of global warming, while the US government can't get itself to take the first step in preventing it.
It's particularly revealing to see that the oil industry, which has been funding the whole climate-change denial campaign, is up in the arctic plotting ways to take advantage of the melting that it is paying "scientists" and politicians down in the lower 48 to say isn't even happening.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net