The US extended its claims on the ocean floor by an area twice the size of California, securing rights to potentially resource-rich seabeds at a time when Washington is ramping up efforts to safeguard supplies of minerals key to future technologies.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
I vote for Canada on ecological grounds.