Politics, News & Issues >
Politics in the UK
RSS FeedShould Britain attempt to grab land in Antarctica?
Results so far:
| Yes | 28% | 53 votes | Total: 186 votes | |
| No | 72% | 133 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIf land in Antarctica was purchased in blood then Britain would probably have the strongest claim. Many sons of this small island lay dead in this frozen continent, or died there, only later to be repatriated and buried in the soil of their homeland.
When you look at the history or exploration, a lot of the areas on the maps were drawn by British explorers. They established a claim on the Falkland Islands before anyone else knew they were there and established an out post to aid and assist ships moving through the Cape Horn. From there they established Whaling Stations in the South Georgia Islands.
Britain has been a part of Antarctic exploration and exploitation since Queen Elizabeth the First.
They have also been one of the first to realise the potential to destroy this precious area.
Britain were one of the first to abandon whaling, were one of the first to sign the treaty for the peaceful exploration of Antarctica and have been foremost with retaining a presence in Antarctica, with the assistance of the Australians.
Britain's claim come from not only discover and charting much of Antarctica, but also in exploring it, Scott, Oates and others died trying to reach the South Pole and return, Shackleton and his men endured a nightmare there, and with their former colony Australia, they have established numerous scientific outposts devoted to understanding and unlocking this frozen continent.
Britain have more than enough right to step up and ask for a piece, they have given blood for this continent, probably more blood than any other.
Admittedly, Britain's early interest was primarily economic, and were looking to resources to exploit, and lets face it every country that has staked a claim to Antarctica is guilty of that, but over the years as economies have changed and and needs and people's perceptions have altered, Britain moved forward to preserve Antarctica as a pristine wilderness.
One could say that with so many British lives lost in Antarctica and so much of the Early exploration of the continent done by them, what right does America have to claim so much of Antarctica, it is hardly next door to it, or borders it.
Britain's claim is through it's former colonies, Australia and New Zealand, both of which are jump of points for many of the scientific stations there. Both Australia and New Zealand have flights directly to Antarctica.
Both Australia and New Zealand admit that Britain was there mother country and that most of their programs and interest in Antarctica, is a legacy of their time in the British Empire.
So, if Britain wants to grab a piece of a continent they helped pioneer, I say let them have it. They have lost so many sons to that great white wilderness, can any other country honestly else say that.
Learn more about this author, Robert Mcmartin.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
No
I can understand there is a need for certain countries to expand and exploit but insatiable exploitation has to be checked. This is especially important for nations which do not have a majority of the world's population to feed nor do they speak for the hungriest nations on the earth that have never had a fair share of the world's economic pie under the current system of being dominated by the 'have' nations.
Debating a possible 'grabbing' of a continent largely uninhabitable is sickening in itself especially when it was supposed to be kept as a model of no exploitation. One does realize then how fat treaties and verbal agreements work in this world of constant corruptive practices. Aren't countries like Britain supposed to be concentrating on integrating into a larger Europe instead?
There is always the sense of national pride especially when claiming land is related to an explorer's trip. Here Scott was not successful altogether so surely Britain cannot use him as an excuse to claim land. And then one has only to undercover some of the brutality associated with expeditions to unaccommodating lands to reason that much of the sentiment behind lauding these explorers is unfounded. They only became famous in so much as their expeditions were advertised. Nobody then questioned the effect they would initiate by their presence and how they would even ruin the lives of the local inhabitants they displaced on their hunt for fame.
I am referring to Perry's journey to the other pole but think that can be used as an example of the ill effects the average knowledgeable person does not want to see happening at the present time.
Supposedly gone are the days of colonialism but it looks like the presence Britain wants to have on the south tip of the world goes hand in hand with their desire never to give up their insatiable domination of the seas. So I think their desire to grab this vast continent is a last ditch effort to turn back the clock and make their presence felt again around the world as if Iraq and Afghanistan are not reminders enough. Clearly there is also a need for fuel for this populous nation, which is experiencing a hike in petrol prices, but then again shouldn't they be investing more time into alternative sources and trying to make electric vehicles a reality?
Currently the world is experiencing a melting of the ice caps happening through greenhouse gasses. The continued presenc of nations bent on exploring here for more resources will only damage the climate further. Here is where capitalism has to be checked.
Learn more about this author, Martin Dansky.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics in the UK
- Has the British Royal Family become irrelevant?
- Has Tony Blair left new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a better or a worse UK to rule than when Blair started?
- Should Britain keep the Union Flag flying?
- Should Britain adopt fixed Parliamentary terms?
- Does Great Britain have a solid plan in place to protect the country against terrorist threats?
