Posted on 06/12/2003 9:16:57 AM PDT by Beck_isright
No, it isn't clear at all which island the article is referring. For one thing, the article says "Wrangell," not "Wrangel."
For another, the article claims that American citizens are living on Wrangell...something that the Russian speaking Siberians on "Wrangel" island might find as a shock.
For a third, "Wrangel" is only a guano island, protected by the Guano Treaty only as long as bat guano is being actively mined there by U.S. citizens.
You think there are bats living on permanently frozen islands in the Arctic Sea?
Being 100 miles North of Siberia, one would expect that the island might have a little snow...but that's not what makes or breaks a "guano" island.
The Guano Treaty gives U.S. explorers the right to temporarily extend U.S. sovereignty to any uninhabited, unclaimed island...so long as they mine it. The predominant type of such mining was once for bat guano, but other mining may also qualify for this temporary extension of American territorial sovereignty.
Do you mean Arctic *Ocean*? Do you think that bat guano is the *only* type of mining covered by the Guano Treaty?
See Post #27."Stefansson had sent the party to Wrangel Island with the hope that Canada or the United States would be able to claim control of the island, which had always been a part of Russia. The island encompasses an area of about 2,000 square miles. It’s 80 miles long and 18 to 30 miles wide, which makes it about half the size of Puerto Rico.
Now a Russian wildlife refuge, in the early part of the century the island was mysterious because it is surrounded almost constantly by ice fields and often blanketed in dense fog."
Your words in post number 61 were: For a third, "Wrangel" is only a guano island, protected by the Guano Treaty only as long as bat guano is being actively mined there by U.S. citizens.
So what kind of other creatures produce guano on Wrangel Island?
No Child, no matter how you play this off in your pathetic classes, it ain't a legitimate issue.
If you claim "Wrangell" then you can't explain why there is no Russian guard tower on that Alaskan island or why their U.S. chamber of commerce web site is still online.
If you claim "Wrangel" then you can't explain the dearth of Alaskan eskimoes (per the article for this thread), the lack of Guano Treaty applicability (the only potential shot at having any U.S. sovereignty there), or the Russian wildlife refuge there.
In short, you are DEBUNKED!
Nor are you the first to fall. This whole charade was hashed out here on FR in great detail more than 3 years ago already!
Thus, you've fallen for a debunked re-hash. That's like falling for an email scam like "the gangs will get you if you flash your high beams at them on the highway" years after such nonsense has already been exposed.
The burden to prove that the Guano Treaty applies to Russia's Wrangel island would be on whomever claims that American territorial soveriegnty applies there.
That wouldn't be me, by the way.
28 May 2003 Fact Sheet: Status of Wrangel and Other Arctic Islands
I looked at some of the old threads on this and it reinforced my strong opinion that Free Republic is a much better site now than it ever was.
FACT SHEET
STATUS OF WRANGEL AND OTHER ARCTIC ISLANDS
No negotiations regarding the U.S.-Russia maritime boundary have occurred since 1990, when the U.S.-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement was signed. The negotiations that led to that agreement did not address the status of Wrangel Island, Herald Island, Bennett Island, Jeannette Island, or Henrietta Island, all of which lie off Russia's Arctic coast, or Mednyy (Copper) Island or rocks off the coast of Mednyy Island in the Bering Sea. None of the islands or rocks above were included in the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and they have never been claimed by the United States, although Americans were involved in the discovery and exploration of some of them.
Ah, the ad hominem. Sure sign of a losing argument.
If you claim "Wrangell" then you can't explain why there is no Russian guard tower on that Alaskan island or why their U.S. chamber of commerce web site is still online.
For those of you keeping score, it was Southack who confused Wrangell, Alaska with Wrangel (sometimes spelled Wrangell) Island. Now, in a nice example of chutzpah, he is trying to lay his confusion at the feet of his opponents.
If you claim "Wrangel" then you can't explain the dearth of Alaskan eskimoes (per the article for this thread), the lack of Guano Treaty applicability (the only potential shot at having any U.S. sovereignty there), or the Russian wildlife refuge there.
Wrangel Island was never claimed under the Guano Island Act. This is a complete fabrication on Southack's part. The US claim is based on the first landing on the Island by the USS Corwin in 1881, where Samuel Hopper, Captain, USN, "Went on shore and took possession of in the name of the United States". The Soviet Union's establishment of a gulag on the island, which Southack seems unaccountably to believe gives them claim on it, came much later.
Jesse Helms' commentary on the status of the five Arctic islands remains unrebutted.
You were the one who claimed sovereignty was a result of the Guano Island Act. Now you're demanding others prove what you asserted!
Hmmm, whom to believe? One of the most distinguished conservative Senators in our histroy, or some unnamed federal bureaucrat?
Physician, heal thyself.
"Despite the hysterical ranting of certain Bushbots on this thread, this appears to be a legitimate issue."
56 posted on 03/22/2004 3:19:27 PM CST by Right Wing Professor
No. From the article for this thread, above:
"So where exactly are these disputed islands? The Arctic islands, which lie west of Alaska and north of Siberia, include the islands of Wrangell, Herald, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta."
And now from our dear Professor...
"Wrangel Island is 2925 sq. miles in area. It is not a guano island; in fact it's snow- and ice-covered."
60 posted on 03/22/2004 4:07:56 PM CST by Right Wing Professor
"Wrangel Island was never claimed under the Guano Island Act. This is a complete fabrication on Southack's part." - Right Wing Professor
No, it's not a fabrication; it's simply giving my feeble opponents, such as yourself, the benefit of the doubt as there is no other possible legal grounds for claiming a Siberian island that Russia didn't explicitly sell to us in our 1867 Alaska Purchase.
Had there been a Guano claim, then there would at least be some remote legal merit for this tinfoil thread and its tinfoil adherents.
Barring such a claim, then any territorial claim of a Russian island by any U.S. Captain would need U.S. Congressional support...something that Wrangel (with one "l") doesn't have (see the OFFICIAL U.S. State Department notice on Wrangel that I posted on this very thread).
We got there first. Jesse Helms says we have a valid claim. The operators of the Soviet Gulag there thought differently. You've made it clear which side you're on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.