Obama cedes oil-rich Alaskan Islands??
Anybody out there want to help me decipher this baloney?
http://www.redstate.com/richsr7/2012/04/21/now-he-wants-to-give-alaska-away/
I saw a post on my normally very a-political wife's grandfather. really a sweet guy - I would like to rebut him with some facts.
thanks!
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Actual Treaty:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=572
On page three, the border between Alaska and Russia is set at the point midway between the two area in the Bering Sea then straight north.
It starts at a point halfway between Little Diomede (Ignaluk) Called Krusentern Island in the Treaty and the Big Diomede (part of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug), also known as Imaqliq, Inaliq, Nunarbuk or Ratmanov Island (Ratmanoff is the name used in the treaty).
Here is Satellite photo of both, they are the small islands in the middle of the Bering strait
If you draw a line straight north from that point, i.e. to the North Pole, it is clear all of these Islands belong to Russia, something we conceded even when the Tsar ruled Russia, and again during the Cold War.
It is only a factor now, for much of this area may have oil, until then no one cared (even during the Cold War Native Inuit did cross over the area to visit relatives (through never officially) but the US NEVER send anything to those islands. Now the US did call the Arctic Ocean an open sea that anyone can use, but that is NOT the same a claiming the right to exploit what is under the ocean. The US has long conceded a 200 miles economic zone around a is country. At present the issue in the Arctic is how to divide it up for oil exploitation and that is all this treaty addresses, but has to be based on existing treaties. The only treaty that applies is the Alaskan Purchase treaty.
Now a counter argument can be made is the form that the Alaskan Purchase treaty did not apply beyond the then accepted limit of three miles from a coastline. Then the discovery of an island makes gives it priority over anyone else, provided they is no evidence of subsequent abandonment. The lack of US attempts to do anything with these islands indicate abandonment of any claim. The conceding of all of these Islands during the Cold War is further evidence of abandonment. For example Argentina every so often send someone down to the Antarctic peninsula and claims it for Argentina, There is no evidence that the US ever did anything similar. Thus the US has no claims to these islands.
One last comment, the US has made a claim to Arctic resources, resolving who gets what is what is being negotiated, but everyone has to start with their claims from the 1700s or 1800s. Given that the largest coastline of the Arctic is Russia, they will end up with the most resources AND given that the Arctic is thawing along the Siberian coast first, that gives the Russian a huge starting point. The proposed treaty just recognize that reality.,
