Search this page for:
 
.
Polar Race
.
 

»

by: Guy Taillefer, Le Devoir


The North Pole. Guy Taillefer writes, "Northern governments and oil companies have never salivated to quite the same extent over the Arctic, which becomes all the more hospitable to them as the ice melts ... If one were a cynic, one would say that in this instance it is altogether to Ottawa's advantage to drag its feet in the fight against greenhouse gases ..." (Photo: NASA GSFC Direct Readout Laboratory / Allen Lunsford).

    Four hundred and twelve billion barrels of oil. A third of the planet's proven reserves. That's what the depths of the Arctic contain, according to the US Geological Survey's most recent evaluation. One may count on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take advantage of the opportunity to reassert Canada's "unquestionable" sovereignty over the North - and to reduce the debate over the development of the circumpolar world to a war of flags and icebreakers.

    Last Wednesday, after four years of research, the US Geological Survey, the American scientific agency specialized in hydrocarbons, delivered the first exhaustive estimate of potential oil and gas situated north of the polar circle: 90 billion barrels of crude, three times as much natural gas, 20 percent of the probable global reserves of liquefied natural gas.... The news is guaranteed to have a strong impact, given the present context of tightening energy supplies, surging prices at the pump, and the extraordinary growth of demand in developing countries. Northern governments and oil companies have never salivated to quite the same extent over the Arctic, which becomes all the more hospitable to them as the ice melts.... If one were a cynic, one would say that in this instance it is altogether to Ottawa's advantage to drag its feet in the fight against greenhouse gases.

    Moreover, quite by chance, the US Geological Survey estimates were made public one year, almost to the day, after two little Russian sailors dove to a depth of 4,000 meters in the beginning of August 2007 to plant a flag on the North Pole. This striking gesture - without any legal effect, however - relaunched the debate on the subject of sovereignty over the Arctic in great style. Cut to the quick, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay decreed that the region Russia coveted was "unquestionably" Canadian.

    Unquestionably? That remains to be seen. Experts from the UN, guarantors of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, will say between now and 2013 which between Ottawa and Moscow has the better-founded pretensions from a scientific perspective. At the moment, however, it seems that Russia is better placed to prove geologically that the Lomonossov Dorsal, a chain of undersea mountains that cross the Arctic, is the prolongation of the Russian continental plateau, and not of the Canadian plateau.

    Politicians, unfortunately, don't bother much with such scientific details in their communications with the electorate, preferring to play a nationalistic rhetoric that is easily digested. So the bad scenario would be that, in this race for the summit of the world, the sharing of the Arctic will be less the result of a UN judgment and multinational dialogue than of power struggles between the five countries involved - Canada, Russia, the United States, Denmark, and Norway. That scenario is altogether plausible.

    "The Canadian Arctic is at the heart of our national identity," Stephen Harper declared last year. He has announced, among other military measures in the last year, an investment of $7 billion over 25 years for buying naval patrol boats. A depressing prospect: that Canada seeks to take on its northern identity is laudable, that it proposes to get there by emphasizing military defense to the detriment of social, ecological and diplomatic initiatives, is much less so. It is difficult in any case to imagine that pugnacious Prime Minister-President Vladimir Putin will allow himself to be intimidated.

    Nonetheless, the Harper way remains very questionable, in that it is a thousand leagues from the Canadian Way - based on dialogue and cooperation. Still, the most recent decades have demonstrated that it's by balancing its own interests with those of its circumpolar neighbors - and not by sticking out its chest - that Canada has succeeded in preserving its Arctic sovereignty.

    Moreover, in order to calm tensions, the five held a big meeting last spring, which ended in the participants' commitment to settle any litigious question "in an orderly way," to "strengthen their cooperation based on mutual trust and transparency" and to "assure the protection and preservation of the fragile marine environment of the Arctic Ocean." Empty phrases? The future will show how these beautiful promises that we'd like to see kept will withstand the lust for 412 billion barrels of oil.

    

    Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.

»

Comments

While I rarely agree with

While I rarely agree with Stephen Harper, I do agree, as a Canadian, that the Arctic has always been a part of my personal national identity. It disturbs me greatly that the Canadian military is expending its resources on a questionable mission in Afghanistan while northern communities are struggling unaided with the impacts of climate change. I believe the Canadian military would be best serving our national interests by putting more resources in the Arctic to document and help northern peoples deal with the changes that are taking place. Villages in the north are tumbling into the sea and people are relocating again and again. The recession of the sea ice is impacting wildlife and industry alike, and locals are struggling to meet the demands while our national forces, who should be on hand to deal with the crises that are happening more and more often, are engaged in a potentially fruitless battle to improve life on the other side of the planet. Mr. Harper, I urge you to bring Canada's military home and deploy them in the north to help the people deal with the catastrophic results of the energy policies your government is pursuing. Oh yeah, and there's oil too...perhaps this evaluation will encourage Ottawa to do what should have been done years ago.

The U.S. doesn't have to go

The U.S. doesn't have to go to war with Canada for its oil Our Prime Minister (referred to as "Steve" by G.W.Bush) is just the head of the Republican farm team in Canada and a real Bush toady.

So, just when does the US go

So, just when does the US go to war with Canada and/or Russia for this oil?
.
.