Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The serious angle to this is obviously the potential for (yet) undiscovered natural resources and the struggle to control these.
How should such resources in uninhabited areas be managed?
My own country has made claims in Antarctica and is signatory to the Antarctic Treaty which endeavours to protect the extremely fragile environment that exists in Arctic and Antarctic areas.
But what will happen when (rather that 'if') substantial natural resources such as hydrocarbons are discovered in these fragile areas.  The US was willing to go to war with a country which was no immediate threat in order to get a better handle on the resources  of the middle-east - at great human and financial cost.  If the neo-cons become entrenched in the administration I doubt that a treaty will stop potentially harmful exploration and development. See what happened to ANWR.
by ask on Sat Jul 30th, 2005 at 04:29:14 AM EST
they had a pretext of sorts for Iraq (a known villain, doubts on his intentions, and some usable history at the UN. This ended up not being enough, legitimacy wise. Any other military "adventure" will now need to meet much more stringent criteria - inside the US (the only place that matters).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 30th, 2005 at 07:57:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Danes make better havarti, but the Canadians are better at hockey. Who will prevail, and more importantly, what are the odds in Vegas?

Seriously though, any land up in those parts belongs to the Inuit. This is just another example of Europeans (or their North American progeny) planting flags where they don't belong.

by US Blues on Sat Jul 30th, 2005 at 11:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series