The Atlantic Community is beginning a series on the geopolitical implications of shrinking arctic ice.  THis is not about Global Warming per se, but about the potential struggles over natural resources that may happen due to facilitated access.

My comments to the first piece,

"Militarizing the Arctic might be regressive, but it also quite likely.

While there is no question that all five coastal states will seek peaceful ways of securing access to the new resources being made available by receding ice, each will have to look at "hard power" mechanisms as well. Pieces of paper are nice and can carry moral weight, but guns (and in this case ice breakers) carry strategic weight.

Already, other nations are making some rumbles about their desire for access to the area.

For example, China has already begun staking a claim rhetorically. The below is from the Diplomat blog (http://the-diplomat.com/2010/03/09/china%e2%80%99s-arctic-play/)

" ‘The Arctic belongs to all the people around the world as no nation has sovereignty over it.’ So said Chinese Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, in comments relayed by the official China News Service on March 5 that essentially staked Beijing’s claim to the North Pole."

Each of the coastal states are going to have to be very careful in determining just what territory they are claiming. Indeed, they need to come to agreement amongst themselves and then work in a concerted effort to explain themselves to the world at large. Even so, there will be a lot of unhappiness in state capitals of nation's that aren't geographically proximate to the Arctic."