Read the following article.Another concept to consider: Are borders even necessary or worthwhile in a global community?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Canada U.S. border disputes
Read the following article.Another concept to consider: Are borders even necessary or worthwhile in a global community?
This is my weekly post.
ReplyDeleteThere is an island that Canada and Denmark have been fighting over for three decades, and it’s hit a boiling point in 2005. This island is called the Hans island. It is situated right in the middle of the Kennedy Channel.(1) This Channel basically shows the border of Canadian territory and Danish territory. This island is two square kilometers of rock.(1) The question on most peoples minds is not who owns it rather who would want it. This island has no population, and no vegetation.(1) It’s just a a big rock.
For the first time Canada claimed Hans island on a map in 1967 (1). In 1973 when there was a Danish-Canadian negations of the continental shelf. Denmark didn’t agree with this so both parties decided to say that the island had no territorial sea.(1) The problem is that because the two countries have already agreed that the island will have no territorial sea, there is no possibility to extend one or the other nation’s claims to offshore drilling or fishing rights. Yet Dome Petroleum (a canadian drilling company (2) has been doing work on the island for many years.(1) Collecting data for potions of future drilling rigs.(1)
Neither country can claim Hans Island on the basis of historical occupation. Canada says that they are suppose to have control of the island because the British discovered it. There is one tiny problem with that theory. That problem is that the british didn’t discover it.(1) On August 29, 1871 an American named Charles Francis Hal discovered the island.(1) He named it Hans after a Greenlandic Inuit that was part of his expedition.
Personally I think that ownership of this land should be to Denmark, even though i’m a Canadian. No Canadian Inuit have ever hunted or regularly travelled in the area of Hans Island. (3) Also, no Canadian Inuit lived permanently on the island next to Hans called Ellesmere Island. (3) In history until 1953.(3) The Inughuit of northwestern Greenland historically used the area surrounding Hans Island as part of their traditional hunting grounds. (4) They also have a name for this tiny island. They call it Tartupaluk in recognition of its kidney-like shape. (4)
1-http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/hansIsland/background.asp
2-http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/dome-petroleum-limited
3- http://www.freehansisland.com/
4- http://www.greenland-guide.gl/culture_history.htm
This is my weekly post
ReplyDeleteWe have discussed in class about how the Canada/ US border was drawn as a straight line from BC to Manitoba, not taking into account the settlements that were there before and are now forced to have an invisible border running through in. The Great Lakes are probably the only part of the countries where the border line makes sense, but there are still issues with the invisible border that runs through the middle of the lakes. (1)
We talked in class about some of the unusual and varying border lines on maps drawn by Canadians and maps drawn by Americans. Lake of the Woods and its surrounding area is claimed by the US and Canada. On US maps, the border suddenly goes up and around the Lake and then back down to the 49th parallel(2), but on a Canadian map it shows the border going straight into the 49th parallel keeping the Lake in Canadian territory.(3)
Another irregularity with the border is in Point Roberts Washington. (4) There is only about 1 000 people in the town and they only have one school that only teaches kindergarten to the second grade and then the students have to drive from point Roberts through Canada and back into Washington state everyday.
In my opinion I think that both of these places should be considered Canadian territory. In both cases, it is a much bigger hassle for the people living in Point Roberts as well as the small communities that surround Lake of the Woods to be considered American when the closest American land is across a body of water.
1) http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/ja10/what-is-canada-us-border.asp
2) https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=lake+of+the+woods+canada&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x52be7dba0c0173db:0xff1e4d5fe270bdc9,Lake+of+the+Woods&gl=ca&ei=_Si8UObwAufM2gWF64GYDA&sqi=2&ved=0CKoBELYD
3) http://www.google.ca/imgres?hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&biw=1280&bih=575&tbm=isch&tbnid=fG8TvxZ2rH_U2M:&imgrefurl=http://www.lakeofthewoods.com/location/&docid=dwfnfKHnhJy0AM&imgurl=http://www.lakeofthewoods.com/wp-content/themes/lakebook/images/map2.jpg&w=579&h=523&ei=Ayq8UM3oKOns2QWNzYCoBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=508&vpy=232&dur=3844&hovh=213&hovw=236&tx=87&ty=136&sig=104118837169176898150&page=1&tbnh=118&tbnw=147&start=0&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:0,i:123
4) http://blog.proud-geek.com/2007/07/06/strange-maps-border-between-canada-and-usa/
I agree with aspects of both Emma and swizzleG`s posts. In response to swizzleG, I agree with the fact that perhaps Denmark could make better use of the land if our own Canadian Inuits have not relied on it dependently, or really used it at all. However with Emma`s post, I also agree that it is wrong for the United States to feel as though they can subtly infringe on Canadian borders. I find that to be irksome. As I am a firm believer in communication, I think the United States was trying to `bully` their way into attaining their land of choice and that is wrong. I think that the end decision should be based on a population census and deciding whose population is in need of the space. Only then can it be best decided to whom the land should be long, or perhaps whether or not the land can be shared.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/hansIsland/background.asp
In recent decades the expansion of transnational links between states, better known as globalization, has prompted a debate in international relations over the significance of national borders. Many argue that the increase in the volume of trade, migration and cross-border financial transactions, the emergence of regional trading blocs, and the global,; reach of multinational corporations signal the erosion of national borders. No longer barriers to the movement of goods, services, information, and people, national borders may be an archaic remnant of a bygone Westphalian era.(1) I argue that it is too early to write off the national border. Some states are responding to the permeability of their territorial borders by reinforcing the invisible or conceptual borders held in place by cultural particularity, by collective identity, and by the common understandings that underpin a distinctive political community. Governments willingly open the territorial borders of the state in order to reap the economic reward that accompanies participation in a global marketplace. Nevertheless, they resist the concomitant cultural homogenization-the dilution of national identity-by simultaneously fortifying the nation. States are responding to globalization by attempting to restore meaning to national borders, not as barriers to entry, but as boundaries demarcating distinct political communities.
ReplyDeleteSince the attacks of 9/11 there has been an increase in security along the borders of the United States. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which is a program whose purpose is to protect the United States from terrorist attacks and to reduce the vulnerability of the United States in further terrorist attacks, there has been an unprecedented rise in border patrol. Stanstead, Quebec, which is a town one hundred and sixty kilometres southeast of Montreal, shares a border with Derby Line, Vermont. Prior to the attacks this was a laid back border town that saw people crossing over the border, sometimes just to get home. Some homes are actually built right on the border. As unusual as this seems imagine the surprise one man had when he crossed over the border to go visit a friend and a helicopter appeared and a man on a bullhorn announced that he had to report to the patrol post. This to me seems a bit extreme.
I do understand the concern of the US government and their fear of once again allowing terrorists to come into the country and potentially harming citizens. But this is not a good use of money and resources. Terrorism in its embodiment is unpredictable. It has no gender, colour nor is one specific religious sect always the terrorists. Borders were designed for nationalistic purposes; to have people of the same ethnic origin in one area to ensure the continuation of tradition and culture. This has been blurred over the hundreds of years, due to an increase in travel capabilities and technology.
References:
(1)BATESON, M. C. (1990) "Beyond Sovereignty: An Emerging Global Civilisation." In Contending Sovereignties Redefining Political Community, edited by R. B. J. Walker and S. H. Mendlovitz, pp. 145- 158. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.