Hans Island: Useful or useless?

[DevoBab]

I hadn't heard anything about the dispute over Hans Island in a while, so I did a news search and a google search and nothing really came up (Except for this non-sense http://www.freehansisland.com). I know in the summers when ice melts and the arctic becomes a crown jewel for countries, disputes over islands happen. But does Hans Island have any particular importance other than two countries claiming it for their own? From what I read it's only about 1.6 km wide and completely barren. Can anything be built on it? If not, then I am taking it to be a pissing match between two countries. If it is of use for strategic purposes, and it is able to be built on then I had an idea. Disregard the following if the answer is, "Hans Island is barren and cannot be built on."

Assuming it can be built on, would making it a multi-national facility make sense? Again, I'm no expert so feel free to put holes in this idea. As of 2007 Canada's own findings say that Hans Island doesn't completely belong to Canada, so the likelihood of Canada ever having the island recognized as completely our own is doubtful. So with that, what about making an arctic facility that houses a mixed facility from fellow friendly nations that surround the arctic?

I realize money is always an issue, but having the facility shared between a number of countries would bring the total down. It has been said on this board before that the Scandinavian countries really know their stuff when it comes to making ships for the northern region and operating in the northern region. Working side-by-side with countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway etc. seems to be a great way to absorb the expertise which we are lacking.

Obviously making this theoretical arctic base solely military is unlikely, but with the Arctic having such a focus and Russia beginning to build up its arsenal and put more of their attention on the Arctic, a northern base seems to make sense, on top of the planned port at Nanisivik. If this place could be made, it seems to be a great location for scientific work and a station for the Coast Guard to work out of if there is a need.

This could very well be a crazy idea, but after reading things like http://www.freehansisland.com, thinking of a better solution that will benefit many seems like a much better way to go.

 

[Run away gun]

Hans Island, from what I understand, is not about the island itself, but more about the expanse in territory that will come with a successful claim to the island. And that territory equals more natural resources like oil.

 

[DevoBab]

I understand that part of its significant, and that is why I thought it might make more sense for Canada to take a step in the direction of calling the island neutral. As I said in the last post, we've already admitted that our own staelltie imagery says only a portion of it is ours. If we share rather than give it up, I figured that would be a better option.
It is politics and I think the "sharing" idea of mine is probably the most "Canadian" solution I could have ever come up with.

 

[je suis prest]

While it is sometimes described as having wider ramifications, resolution of the dispute over Hans Island will not result in either Canada or Greenland/Denmark acquiring any greater interests in the potential natural resources of the arctic.  The boundary between Canada and Greenland/Denmark in Nares Strait, and Kennedy Channel in which Hans Island is located, has been agreed to by the nations involved and the treaty establishing that boundary was settled in the 1973 delimitaton treaty.  The treaty did make an exception for Hans Island, but only for the mile or two of the border the island occupies. 

If it is ceded to Greenland the border will move sufficiently to encompass the island, but the boundaries north and south will not move.  So the practical value of the island is virtually nil.

It is an entirely symbolic issue, not a practical one.

Given the small size of the island, its remote location, absence of any infrastructure including harbours or runways,  or any other practical advantages that would make it a more suitable site for anything other than a rather cruel  place of exile, I don't think either Canada or Greenland would be much interested in actually building anything there.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If we don't stand our ground now during times of more serious negotiations then I feel our claims would be looked upon less seriously by other parties.

 

[je suis prest]

I agree there is no reason to cede Hans Island.  It is, as I said, a symbolic issue, but symbolism is important when sovereignty issues are raised.  On the other hand, because it is symbolic, neither Canada nor Greenland/Denmark are going to raise the stakes any further than they have - and the dispute has, fortunately, not hindered our joint scientific/sovereignty efforts in mapping the Lomonosov Ridge.


One simple solution for the Hans Island dispute, of course, would be to invite Greenland to join confederation.  There would be an additional cost involved, as there is to our administration of Nunavut, but the long-term prospects of Greenland's economy becoming self-sufficient are reasonably bright.  As well, they seem to have handled some aspects of integrating traditional lifestyles and European society better than we have in most or our north - so perhaps they could teach us a few things. 

There is, I believe, a referendum being held later this month on further devolution of power to Greenland, possibly leading to independence.  Given the current international financial upheaval, it may be an opportune time to approach them with a different offer.

 

[DevoBab]

That is the first I heard of Greenland's possible move to independence or something resembling it. If Canada were to approach Greenland, what can our country give them that they are not receiving from Denmark? Obviously there is a distance factor, but beyond that are there specific reasons why Canada would be a better fit?
Personally, I love the idea and if creating links with Greenland will teach us to evolve the treatment of our territories and the Arctic region as a whole, all the better. My concern would be trying to get further resources for patrolling and monitoring the added area. I'm just reading now that the minig of gold and ruby in Greenland is getting more attention, as is exploring hydrocarbon possibilities. You just might be on to something here.

 

[Mike Baker]

If we don't stand our ground now during times of more serious negotiations then I feel our claims would be looked upon less seriously by other parties.

Such as the border lines in the far north with Russia and several other parties. What would they think of us if we were to give up this island without even a mumble?

Beav