Arctic boundary dispute may be heating up

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Yes, completely immoral and childish. You know there are people up there right? Canadian citizens who live and pay taxes and obey federal laws, and as such as to receive the full protection of the government they pay into.

Protection from what exactly. Has anyone declared war yet? All I'm saying is before we spend more on the military while people are still starving in ourt world, let's define our borders through internaitonal law first. Once that is done, then if anyone violate those laws, I'm all for war. But let's try diplomacy first, shall we. as for Canadian citizens living up north, let's bring that issue up during negotiations too. I'm sure other nations will be reasonable and understand that if there are Canadians living there, they have certain rights too. What are we all getting so paranoid about because of a bit of melting snow.

It is absolutely childish to hold the opinion that "If they aren't from my neighbourhood they don't matter, let the UN, a forum for nations to debate with no power of law, including genocidal members such as Sudan and ruled by nations such as China, dictate the lifeblood of our citizens"

Again, following the same logic, we could just start colonizing any diputed land we want by sending people there, right. But how responsible is that if we haven't even the guts to take the issue up with the disputing nations and settle the matter once and for all. Why drag this for the next 100 years with risk of war when we could sttle this within one year through negotiation and a permanent treaty. While consulting the people up north too to see where they want to be.

I mean, can you even begin to see the problem with letting the UN decide.

Lets say American and Canada let the UN decide. If it goes in favour of the USA, they win. If it goes in our favour, America is within its right as a security council member to state this goes against its national security intrests and veto it.

That is an outright insult ot the US. And I thought I was anti-American! Under president Bush, anythig goes, true. I understand your point there. But even Americans agree he's a loony. I'm sure the next president would be bright enough to see that the US would create many enemies worldwide if it should ever abuse its security council veto that way. After all, Canada would have approached the UN in good faith. For the US to do this would certainly make other nations very nervous of its veto at the UN and could really isolate it. Bush aside, any half-witted US president could see that and so wouldn't even try it.

Net result? Either they win, or it doesn't count. Great solution, way to sell your countrymen down the river. But hey, not your problem if a bunch of citizens get sold down the river if it saves on your tax dollars.

Cheap shot. I'm earning not evenclose to a third of my previous salary due to a choice of empoyment that allows me to be of greater service to others. So trust me, I'm not in it for the money. Far less than many are. But thanks for the insult. So if you don't trust the UN, then is it not hypocritical of us to be members thereof? If Canada truly had character, it would make a clear decision: either the UN is worthy of our trust, and so we remain a faithful member all the way, or it isn't, and so we withdraw our membership. Either decision would be honourable. But to remain members for the prestige without any real intent of making it work is just callous on our part.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
1.) You think the UN is a law body, it is not. Its a forum for debate and has never been anything else.
2.) The Vetoes are put in place for just such reasons. The USA, as well as every other security member has used the veto for far less over the years. No one gives a damn if other countries throw a fit. A security council position is not a position of trust. No one said "Hey, lets let the Soviet union and Mao dictate our laws", it is a statement of military reality. They can veto any resolution because they have enough power that they can throw a monkey wrench in anything you try and do against their wishes.

You are advocating letting Canadian citizens, who choose to be Canadian citizens, who were born on that land and who's parents often go back before Alaska was American (when it was ruskie) and many more go back thousands of years as inuit.

Quite frankly you don't "debate" or "sit down and decide" whether or not your countrymen get annexed. They don't, and you certainly don't let a bunch of foreign autocrats with no legitimate right to dictate terms to you, tell you what land you can and cannot have.

The DeFacto situation is that we have soveriegnty there. Dejure you may try and debate it, but in a situation like this it is entirely "He said/she said" which is not any kind of basis for an agreement, especially in land one foriegn power sold to another (they are in the habit of selling things not their own).

International Law is not law, that is something people need to understand. It is international suggestions, it has no binding power and no legitimacy.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So are you opposed to establishing treaties within a reasonably short time so as to settle this issue once and for all? And as for a Canadian settling on disputed territory, whose fault is that? If the government did not inform him of that land's precarious status, then taht is the government's fault and ought to fully compensate them no matter what happens.

If they themselves chose to move there despite, then they made their choice.

As far as I know, however, it is only water, not land, that is disputed and so no one ought to be living on water anyway (wait till summer comes!).
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Letting the UN decide is not really an active solution for a G8 country. The longer Canada goes without building settlements in the North to establish a presence increases the odds this piece of real estate will be in a serious dispute. At present a military solution is ludicrous, there is no problem in the North, right now, that requires a military solution. However it would be childish for Canada to do what it is doing up north and expect the problem to go away. We should be spending less money on Afghanistan, and more on the North.

There is no news coming out on a regular basis in the media stating the territory in the North belongs to Canada. I teach English in Korea and when I brought an article to class about global warming and Cdn sovereignty-in a Korean newspaper, the students had no clue about the issue. They knew about global warming of course, but from a Cdn perspective, nada.

On Korean Arirang TV one of their maps on TV does not even show northern islands. This is not just a legal dispute, it is an economic one too. Shipping companies will not refrain from entering the Arctic ocean because Canada says it owns it.

Ottawa has to build cities up north to encourage Cdn settlement there,
 

RomSpaceKnight

Council Member
Oct 30, 2006
1,384
23
38
62
London, Ont. Canada
You can only build cities in the north at outrageous expense. Exertion of sovereignty by military presence is enough. The largest part-time unit in the RCAF are the Rangers. Cree and Inuits who conduct military exercise with regular forces.

I believe one day the states will use military threat to coerce Canada into resource allocations or rights that are good for the USA. This may not happen in our life time. 200 years is a long time in politics. 200 years ago we were at war with the US.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Letting the UN decide is not really an active solution for a G8 country. The longer Canada goes without building settlements in the North to establish a presence increases the odds this piece of real estate will be in a serious dispute. At present a military solution is ludicrous, there is no problem in the North, right now, that requires a military solution. However it would be childish for Canada to do what it is doing up north and expect the problem to go away. We should be spending less money on Afghanistan, and more on the North.

There is no news coming out on a regular basis in the media stating the territory in the North belongs to Canada. I teach English in Korea and when I brought an article to class about global warming and Cdn sovereignty-in a Korean newspaper, the students had no clue about the issue. They knew about global warming of course, but from a Cdn perspective, nada.

On Korean Arirang TV one of their maps on TV does not even show northern islands. This is not just a legal dispute, it is an economic one too. Shipping companies will not refrain from entering the Arctic ocean because Canada says it owns it.

Ottawa has to build cities up north to encourage Cdn settlement there,

So what you are suggesting is blackmail! You're suggesting that the government take my hard earned tax dollars and then tell me that if I want a good-paying maybe even tax-free job, it's willing to hire me up north? Oh wow. Doesn't that make your proud to be Canadian? We are willing to be blackmailed over a chunk of land! Oh wow!
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
You can only build cities in the north at outrageous expense. Exertion of sovereignty by military presence is enough. The largest part-time unit in the RCAF are the Rangers. Cree and Inuits who conduct military exercise with regular forces.

I believe one day the states will use military threat to coerce Canada into resource allocations or rights that are good for the USA. This may not happen in our life time. 200 years is a long time in politics. 200 years ago we were at war with the US.

So what's the point of wasting money on troops there for the next 200 years when we could reach a final settlement within the next year. Take it up at the internaiotnal level and finalize it already.

this way, we won't need so many ground forces; just a satellite. If we see them cross, we take the treaty to internaiotnal law. Simple as that. And if they still refuse, only then do we resort to military use on then very legitimate grounds. Right now the grounds are not legitimate since the world has but our word that that land belongs to us. That means squat.