[mirror]

Canada, Denmark dispute ownership of tiny Arctic island

Article

Is this a tempest in a teapot or does it have major significance for Canada? I don't think we should go around creating problems where there are none.

[Yaro]

It has significance in that future water way disputes could be affected.

[kimmy]

Last winter our government tried to fire up Canadians to defend Hans Island from the sneaking Danes; cynics noted a passing similarity to "Wag The Dog". If the Danes are now returning the favor, perhaps it means that Denmark has its own version of the sponsorship scandal or some similar fiasco that it needs to distract voters from.

[mirror]

So now there are two national flags flying on Hans Island. Maybe Canada and Denmark could share the island. We could even have a multi-lingual school there. Danish, English, French, and Inuit.

Denmark protests visit to Hans rock

[mirror]

Things are heating up at Hans Island. Why don't they just sit down with each other and sort this out? I understand Hans Island is closer to Greenland than Canada - maybe we should just give it to the Danes, with visiting vacation rights, of course.

Denmark asks Canada to reopen territorial talks over disputed Arctic island

[Yaro]

I stole the following from another message board, total and complete plagerism. I don't know much about it but I will be researching its validity, anyone else know anything?

Quote

The largest and most influential company in Denmark is AP Moller-Maersk, a major international shipping company. Denmark is nominally a constitutional monarchy but in reality it is a fiefdom of AP Moller-Maersk. In 2000, for example, it was estimated that 125,000 Danes were directly or indirectly imployed with the shipping industry - including 7% of the private sector. AP Moller-Maersk trains 90% of Denmarks ships’ officers.

The stories of fishing rights and oil and gas rights related to Hans Island are just red herrings to deflect attention away from the agenda of AP Moller-Maersk to control the Nares Strait, one of the entrances to the North West Passage.

Not so incidentally, the U.S. has a military base at Thule in Greenland just a few kilometers away from Hans Island that conveniently controls access to the strait and is a threat to Canadian security. The lead member of the American Danish
Business Council is Lockheed Martin Corp, a major defense contractor to the American government.

Get the idea.

This is not just a dispute about an insignificant island. It is an effort by the U.S. to extend its influence over the Arctic, to take Canadian territory, and to seek ownership of the North West Passage.

Denmark and the U.S. are the two deadliest enemies that Canada has.

Considering that Martin has shipping interest (although he would claim not), one wonders how closely he is tied to AP Moller-Maersk. This is conflict of interest of highest order. The only way that Martin can show himself to be above this conflict of interest is to defend militarily Hans Island.

[canadian_conservative]

I disagree with you people who think that we should sit down diplomaticly and "share" Hans Island. It does have oil and other resources on the island but not only that its a test of Canadian soverenty. If we pass this island over to the Danes without putting up a fight who says other countries are not going to come into Canada in the future and claim a Canadian island is theirs. It will just show that we are push overs.

By the way the person who said Denmark is Canada's deadliest enemy is a moron because I would hardly call a frozen ice cib land of denmark a place of a mighty military they probably have a few thousand soldiers. Canada could take them on!

[Black Dog]

Quote

I disagree with you people who think that we should sit down diplomaticly and "share" Hans Island.

Why not? That would probably be the best solution to an insignificant problem.

Quote

It does have oil and other resources on the island but not only that its a test of Canadian soverenty. If we pass this island over to the Danes without putting up a fight who says other countries are not going to come into Canada in the future and claim a Canadian island is theirs. It will just show that we are push overs

Who said anything about giving it up? We can press our claim (if we have one) diplomatically, without the macho posturing.

[SirSpanky]

canadian_conservative, on Aug 2 2005, 01:07 PM, said:

I disagree with you people who think that we should sit down diplomaticly and "share" Hans Island.  It does have oil and other resources on the island but not only that its a test of Canadian soverenty.  If we pass this island over to the Danes without putting up a fight who says other countries are not going to come into Canada in the future and claim a Canadian island is theirs.  It will just show that we are push overs.

By the way the person who said Denmark is Canada's deadliest enemy is a moron because I would hardly call a frozen ice cib land of denmark a place of a mighty military they probably have a few thousand soldiers.  Canada could take them on!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, we are in no position to "take on" anyone. They actually have a legitimate claim based in history. I've heard of a few Canadian scholars who actually think their claim is stronger than ours.

This is also a whole different beast than the Americans and their international waterway rhetoric. The only precident it would set would be for the russians, and if for one second you think the US is gonna allow the russians that much closer to their doorstep, you're mistaken.

[canadian_conservative]

"First, we are in no position to "take on" anyone. They actually have a legitimate claim based in history. I've heard of a few Canadian scholars who actually think their claim is stronger than ours."

What "claim" show me this "claim" because I have not heard of it. Even if the Danes have history to prove this land whoes not to say that the British conquered that island for her North American Colonies way back when.


"Who said anything about giving it up? We can press our claim (if we have one) diplomatically, without the macho posturing."

Pressing are claim? what will that do, i mean if we start doign it diplomaticly why not but the danes are going to put up as much fight as we are 0so why not take agressive action?

[Black Dog]

Quote

Pressing are claim? what will that do, i mean if we start doign it diplomaticly why not but the danes are going to put up as much fight as we are 0so why not take agressive action?

Because its a tiny, uninhabitated piece of rock and permafrost in the middle of nowhere that's not worth one Canadian getting so much as a hangnail over?

Because negotiating is what civilized countries do?

[Riverwind]

canadian_conservative, on Aug 2 2005, 01:38 PM, said:

What "claim" show me this "claim" because I have not heard of it.  Even if the Danes have history to prove this land whoes not to say that the British conquered that island for her North American Colonies way back when.

There are many other 'disputed' islands around the world. I can think of one in asia that could spark a full blown war between China and Japan. Canada and Denmark could do the world a favour by negotiating joint soveriegnty over the waters around the island with the intention of setting an example that can be followed elsewhere. From that perspective it does not make a difference whose claim is more legimate - the point is both nations have semi-legimate claims that must be resolved.

[canadian_conservative]

"Because its a tiny, uninhabitated piece of rock and permafrost in the middle of nowhere that's not worth one Canadian getting so much as a hangnail over?

Because negotiating is what civilized countries do?"




tiny and uninhabited yes, but you must not read the news or watch TV much if you don't know how rare and scarce oil is right now.

I and many other Canadians wouldnt care about this island if it didn't threaten are soverenty, if we just decide not to care about it liek i said we might as well put Canada up for claim to anyone who wants it and not put up a fight over it.

Negotiating??? Civilized??? nobody is civilized now people go to war without ngotiating take for instance Iraq their was no negotiating, Afganistan no negotiating (by the way I am against terrorism and backed Afganistan i am just using it as an example of no negotiating) let's see what else cold war nuclear weapon build up cold war russia and USA their was also no negotiating untill at least the 90's. So why do we need to negotiate?

[Black Dog]

Quote

tiny and uninhabited yes, but you must not read the news or watch TV much if you don't know how rare and scarce oil is right now.

The first time I've seen Hans Island and oil mentione i n the same sentence is here, by you, with no attribution or citation.

Quote

The question that arises is why this island is so important? In and of itself, the island is remote. However, its location affects the manner by which the maritime boundary is determined between northern Greenland and Canada. In turn, this international boundary takes on significance for three reasons. First, these waters contain important fish stocks including turbot and shrimp. The boundary will affect the northern divisions of this resource. Secondly, it has been reported that Greenland Inuit have been crossing over to Baffin Island to engage in illegal polar bear hunts. The Canadian Rangers have been dispatched to Baffin Island but have not caught any of the alleged hunters. If it proves to have been a long-term habit, it is conceivable that the Greenland homeland government could argue that the hunt is an established right. Thus, any boundary dispute between Canada and Denmark could exacerbate that situation. Thirdly, the impact of climate change is expected to cause substantial warming of the Polar region. Thus, while the region is remote and inhospitable, this could change rapidly as the region warms.

Nothing about oil.

Quote

and many other Canadians wouldnt care about this island if it didn't threaten are soverenty, if we just decide not to care about it liek i said we might as well put Canada up for claim to anyone who wants it and not put up a fight over it.

So let me get this straight: if we don't respond aggressively (ie. militarily) to the Danes claim to this remote island, we're basically seting ourselves up to hand Fort McMurray over to the Swiss or something?

Nonsense. We can protect Canada's soverignty without resorting to aggression.

Quote

Negotiating??? Civilized??? nobody is civilized now people go to war without ngotiating take for instance Iraq their was no negotiating, Afganistan no negotiating (by the way I am against terrorism and backed Afganistan i am just using it as an example of no negotiating) let's see what else cold war nuclear weapon build up cold war russia and USA their was also no negotiating untill at least the 90's. So why do we need to negotiate?

Well, notwithstanding the utter irrelevance of youir examples, there's also the factual errors. The U.S. and Soviet Union negotiated a lot during the Cold War. How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved without a war? How were agreemenmts like the ABM and SALT treaties developed?

Why NOT negotiate?

[canadian_conservative]

Their is claimed to be oil their my freind

Resort to military is last option i'm saying if the UN (if they are even doign anyhting) can't fix up this problem and the Danes take Hans out from are noes than we resort to military action.

Missile crisis??? Negotiated do you know any hostory at all the missile crisis was when the Soviet Union was deprting weapons and settign up camps on Cuba their allies the Cuban missile crisis is when US frigates intercepted them and blew their ships appart that wasn't to peacefull nor negotiated was it? anyways thats besides the point we are way off topic.