113

US Claims Huge Chunk of Seabed Amid Strategic Push for Resources (www.bnnbloomberg.ca)

submitted 9 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 49 points 9 months ago

There is a minor conflict between the US and Canada about the demarcation line north of Alaska. Canada argues that it should be an extension line going straight north from the Alaska Yukon border. While the US claims that the line should be perpendicular to the direction of the shoreline at the border. It creates a contested wedge. There's offshore oil and gas there -- which Canada is unlikely to develop (for environmental reasons), but the US may actually develop. On a global scale, it doesn't really matter, but every little bit matters right?

This extension will further extend this conflict. But in the grand scheme of Canada-US relations, it's still relatively minor.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago

The whole Arctic Ocean is going to be problematic as:

a) Global warming makes it more accessible and

b) Fossil fuels elsewhere start running out.

The arctic will be the last gasp of the fossil fuel industry. Russia has been making noises about it for years.

https://polarjournal.ch/en/2023/02/21/russias-claim-to-north-pole-territory-officially-confirmed/

https://www.arctictoday.com/russia-gets-approval-for-the-data-behind-much-of-its-arctic-ocean-seabed-claim/

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

On a global scale, it doesn’t really matter, but every little bit matters right?

It's cheaper to just split profits than going to war over it. And yes the US and Canada absolutely would in principle, the UK went to war with Iceland over cod -- because the UK thought that Iceland would just cave, which they didn't, they won the thing. Not everything needs to be high-intensity, cannot be, as war is the continuation of politics by different means and, as see above: It's often just preferable to agree instead of spending resources on fighting. Similarly India and China mutually agreed to forego guns in the Himalayas (among other things, risk of avalanches) and fight with sticks and stones. Dunno if I should count Canada and Denmark (as protector of Greenland) and their liqueur war over Hans' Island, they didn't even earnestly try to get each other drunk.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 9 months ago

I vote for Canada on ecological grounds.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Isn't this the kind of shit that everybody gets mad at China for doing? Seems a bit hypocritical.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

China’s claims are way more egregious. I’m not defending America’s claims but they’re at least plausibly based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. They might not be winning legal arguments but they’re plausible enough to be legal arguments.

Some of China’s claims in the South China Sea are so far from the UNCLOS that I’m surprised Rudy Giuliani isn’t involved. Like, they sometimes claim the same rights as archipelago nations. China, you may have noticed, is not shaped like the Seychelles.

They also claim some islands based on arguments like “A Chinese guy saw that island first.” But that isn’t a thing. With all due respect to Zheng He (possibly the greatest mariner of all time), the UNCLOS isn’t based on who called dibs.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 19 points 9 months ago

No, everyone gets mad at China for trying to redraw maritime borders with its neighbors.

This is legally highly questionable, but not nearly the same thing.

[-] brianorca@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Everyone gets mad at China for creating a new artificial island in order to claim a huge swath of previously international waters.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Literally no. If it seems hypocritical it’s because you don’t actually understand the significant differences between the two.

How the hell does a comment like this get 20+ upvotes.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

Lotsa tankies on lemmy

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Most of this claim is perfectly reasonable. China is claiming international waters.

I do agree though that the claim around Alaska is way too large -- it looks a lot more like China's claim in the South China Sea. Take some small islands and claim the whole sea as yours.

[-] brianorca@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Except those small islands near Alaska are natural, and have always been there, (On a human timescale, anyways) and were part of the original Alaska purchase. The one China uses to claim a whole sea was completely artificial, and built for the sole purpose of claiming new areas.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

And Russia/China in Canada's north.

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Some of that area is in the Canadian coast

[-] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

Alaska goes down way farther than you might think. You can see Alaska from Haida Gwaii.

[-] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 10 points 9 months ago

So are we doing SeaQuest DSV now? Have the mineral wars started yet?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Be sure to keep an eye out for the Native American aliens.

[-] SeedyOne@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I just want a talking dolphin, is that so much to ask?

this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023

113 points (94.5% liked)

World News

38847 readers

2890 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.