A Northern Union

To explain: the idea is that the countries in the extreme North of the world - Canada, Russia, Finland, Denmark (Greenland included), Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and maybe the U.K. and Ireland (they're right at the border) create an organization for co-operation, to solve soverignity issues, to monitor and maange new trade routes that shall appear as climate change opens up the North.

This idea is based on the theory that climate change will allow more resources, mostly in Canada anad Russia, to be accessed right as raw materials will be more expensive then ever.

America is not included. Why? Because they would have too much power inside the organization for how much thye have in the area. If they are included, their power would not be a of a full member.

Now, some questions to be answered:

1) Who's In It? Do you include Ireland, the U.K.? Do you have problem with Russia being invovled?

2) How do you think it should work?

3) What should it deal with?

edited 13th Sep '11 6:08:43 PM by Erock

Alaska alone is larger than the Scandinavian countries in size. (And it's not the least populous state in the US either.)

I would think that Ireland and the UK's resources are all available right now, unless they have arctic territories I'm unaware of. And you would have to deal with America, if only to arbitrate where Alaska ends/what goes on along that border.

In any case, as you said, most of these resources would be in areas already long since claimed by two huge countries. Not much of a claim dispute, there. The big problem would be environmental policy. (My understanding is that Canada's is pretty damn terrible right now.)

And how many people live in Alaska?

Almost 750,000. If you want to argue population semantics you have to disqualify Canada since 95% or greater of their population is further south than Glasgow.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_live_in_Alaska

Nearly seven hundred thousand. And if climate change goes the way you think it will, more will move there just like they'll move to Canada. But given that there's anyone there at all makes it in the US' interests to have a hand in what goes on there.

I don't think yousee the point. Canada has control over a massive part of the Arctic Ocean, due to NWT and Nunavut.

I kicked America out explicitly because it would have too much power.

Geez, can't you see passive-aggresive diplomacy?

edited 13th Sep '11 6:28:54 PM by Erock

You realize the Russians will bully around all the other members without us right? There's no way in hell it would work without both basically canceling each other out.

Russia gets three votes, Canada gets 2, each Scandinavian country gets 1.

I knew as soona s I included that it woudl completelty take over the thread. Just accept that there is a club you wont' be in, Tom.

edited 13th Sep '11 6:31:53 PM by Erock

The problem with excluding the US based on it's power is that we do have sizable arctic investments, that is to say, Alaska. You might be able to limit our power in the group by giving each nation equal representation, though. Or on a proportional system, we don't get any more power than Russia (more likely equal to Canada at most) due to scaling for the amount of Arctic territory we have.

edited 13th Sep '11 6:32:54 PM by Balmung

And what happens when the Russians decide to basically give the union a big "Fuck you!" and claim the arctic for itself? It has the power to do this in the absence of the US.

The Northern Union plans to negotiate with the US. So the Northern countries can deal with the US on a equal footing.

Who's to say Russia does? Stop being so Slaviphobic.

Exactly.

edited 13th Sep '11 6:34:36 PM by Erock

The general population of the United States has far fewer vested interests than any of the other countries that would be involved in this Union.

While Russia would have the potential to dominate, it is less assured than it would be by including America in the pact.

edited 13th Sep '11 6:33:48 PM by Pentadragon

^ We've got the busiest port city and airports in the North Pacific in Alaska (Anchorage), we are crucial for trans-Pacific economics by way of the Arctic. Few vested investments is a serious understatement.

Well, as pointed out, the general population of Canada doesn't have much of a vested interest in the Arctic, either, since most of them live in the southern parts of Canada.

I'd argue that the US should have a say, but no more than Canada, and more likely, as much as Finland, et al.

edited 13th Sep '11 6:36:17 PM by Balmung

@Pent: In the union Rissia has about the power of Sweden, Norway, and Finland put together. Fair.

@Tom: Then the NU would negotiate treaties with the States.

@Balmung: But more people will live up North when climate imrpvoes and resources begin to be extracted.

Could we have someone other then an American post please?

edited 13th Sep '11 6:36:19 PM by Erock

Putin does. He along with the Duma basically claimed the near entirety of the Arctic Ocean for Russia using continental shelf reasoning. It pissed off a ton of folks in the US and Canada because the claim crosses both countries' maritime borders.

Then the NU would internally negotiate with Russia, or it would exclude them until it co-operated. Or the NU and the US could negotiate together to keep Russia in line.

The idea of the NU essientially being a united frotn against Russia among the smaller Northern countries is tempting, but that wouldn't bode well for Russian relations.

Please, Best Of, save this thread!

edited 13th Sep '11 6:39:58 PM by Erock

@Bal: There is less than a percentage of the United States' population living in Alaska. Although most Canadians live in a strip along the US border, there is a larger percentage of Canadians far north than Americans.

In regards to the Union, I do not see why anyone should oppose it. Seems like a good idea.

edited 13th Sep '11 6:41:09 PM by Pentadragon

And functionally the NU is already falling apart. Excluding the two biggest players dooms the effort in total. If you can't include the big boys, don't try to rally the small fry and hope you can stand up to them.

You don't fucking get it.

This exist as a way for smaller countries to, together, prevent the US and Russa from bullying them. You can't exclude Russia because they would be harder to negotiate with, and they hold a lot more itnerest then the US.

So, please shut up.

I see, so being a bully gets you in? Apparently it's working for Russia.

But Russia would be a member, so it's demands would be listened to as 3 votes.

Franky, your anti-Russian rhetoric is tiresome, ill-advised, and lathargic with a touch of Mc Carthyism. Please stop

edited 13th Sep '11 6:44:21 PM by Erock

When most of the Scandinavian countries have less than a fifteenth the population of Russia? Three votes is hardly fair in a proportional set up like that. You'd be better off just giving each country one vote and simple majority counting.

Look, you plain and simply aren't thinking the proposal through. Discounting, excluding or trying to hamstring such things into the situation you want is not feasible nor likely.

edited 13th Sep '11 6:47:13 PM by MajorTom

The porportion is fair:

Russia gets 3 more then Sweden, because it's population is bigger and landsize is bigger. However, it's GDP for it's population is inferior, and Russia's population is only going down.

Besides, giving R Ussia a strong say is only fair and wiould encourage them to partcipate positively. Look: Sweden, Norway, and Finland alone could match Russia, never mind Iceland, Denmark, and Canada's 2.

And, to be honest, asa Canaidan I don't want Iceland to have the same say as we do

edited 13th Sep '11 6:49:38 PM by Erock