Arctic Territorial Dispute

As things heat up in the South China Sea in the dispute between China and the rest of the region (Philippines, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and even Brunei – all with US support), there is a more fun example brewing on this side of the world.

In 1845, a British ship went down in the Arctic in a quest to find the Northwest Passage.  The ship has recently been discovered by the Canadians and they are trying to use the salvage operation as a way to establish sovereignty for the area.  This is a direct parallel to the Chinese activities.  The Chinese are going to claim that their activities building reefs and establishing bases on them demonstrate sovereignty over the area, which is full of fishing, oil and gas, and military benefits.  Canada wants to do the same thing here.  With the melting of the ice caps, there is a lot more potential for economic activity in terms of oil and gas exploration, shipping lanes, and more.

 But instead of building bases, they are salvaging a piece of history.  As the inheritor of the British colony of Canada, they claim that the sunken wreck is part of Canadian history. Its presence and subsequent salvage gives them a legal path to claim the area.

Then there is another interesting twist.  The US has come out against Canada.  Not because it could set a precedent that would help China in the South China Sea, but because it could set a precedent for Iran to claim the Straight of Hormuz.  Iran has similar activities over there.  And Iranian control of the major oil shipping lane would be a huge shift in the geopolitical balance.

Don’t play checkers when the opponents are playing chess !

Free Speech on Campus

I was listening to an interview this morning that was exceptional for two great reasons.  First, there were two guests – a conservative and a liberal.  But it didn’t degenerate into a he said/she said battle of talking points with the two pundits speaking over each other. The two people thoughtfully listened to each other and countered with their own evidence and ideas.  That is too rare these days.

The other reason is the quality of the discussion and the ideas.  The topic was free speech, which as you know is a passion of mine. But even though I have already thought and written a ton on the topic, I still learned from it.  I love it when that happens.

The interview was from On Point this morning and the two guests were Kirsten Powers and David Shipler. Both have books on free speech that just came out but a lot of the conversation focused on the recent Texas fiasco with Pamela Geller and the Mohammed cartoon content.  Both of the authors are strong free speech supporters but with very different approaches to it.  I strongly recommend grabbing the podcast from the web site.

But I just want to describe one story with you here that was shared by David Shipler.  He recalled a time in college during the Vietnam War when one of the leading proponents of US involvement came to campus to speak.  Shipler was active in the anti-war movement.  His group organized a big protest and demonstration outside the auditorium.  They were there when the speaker’s motorcade arrived and when all the attendees were entering the building. But they didn’t try to stop the speech or interfere with it.  They just wanted to protest it.

Once everyone was inside, they put down their signs and went inside.  They didn’t start chanting to drown out the talk; they went in to listen.  That is what college is supposed to be about. Even when you disagree with someone, you don’t try to stop them from talking or from being heard.  You engage in debate.  They raised their hands during the Q&A and asked tough questions. 

Contrast that with what happens now.  Student groups try to get controversial speakers “disinvited,” even when the topic of their speech has nothing to do with the controversy (for example when Condoleezza Rice had to cancel her commencement speech at Rutgers last year).  And if the speech does go on, they don’t protest the speaker.  They protest the administration’s choice to allow it. 

What happened to us?