A recent cover story in Time magazine entitled 'Who owns the Arctic' had a picture on the cover of a five-to-six ton block of melting sea ice with five flags of the countries claiming some ownership of the Arctic, namely the US, Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark.
More significant to me was the picture inside the magazine of another five flags planted on the North Pole by the explorer who was the first person to reach the Pole in 1909, Robert Edwin Peary. One includes a flag with the Maltese Cross.
In 1909, Robert Peary, Matthew Henson (a black American) and four Inuit (Eskimos) were the first people to reach the North Pole and although this claim has been challenged by others, particularly Frederick A. Cook, it is now generally accepted that Peary and his group did in fact reach the Pole first.
The proof submitted to the US Congress and to some scientific groups, shortly after the expedition included a large number of photographs in black and white, since colour photography was only discovered two or three years after the expedition. The photograph I have mentioned, which was later coloured, was presented as part of the evidence that Peary and his team reached the Pole before anyone else.
From left to right (see photograph) the flags were of the Navy League, the fraternity flag of Peary's University (Bowdoin), the Polar flag, the peace flag of the Daughters of the American Revolution and a flag with the Maltese Cross, which was referred to by Peary and others as the Red Cross flag.
I found the reference to the Maltese Cross flag as the flag of the Red Cross rather intriguing since as far as I could determine, the Maltese Cross was never used nor considered as the emblem of the Red Cross. So I believe it was simply a mistake and the Maltese Cross made it to the Pole because Peary or one of his team had mistaken it for the emblem of the Red Cross organisations. Peary may have wanted to honour the Red Cross because a supply ship from that organisation supported his expedition.
The recent dramatic changes in the ice formations in the North Pole due to global warming, as pointed out by Time, will make the Northwest Passage between Europe and Asia a viable trade route in the not too distant future.
Access through the Northwest Passage will, for example, reduce the distance between Europe and Asia by 8,000 kilometres, making London to Tokyo via the Northwest Passage a 13,000-km trip as opposed to a 20,800 km trip via the Suez Canal (source: Time).
These changes in the ice have also made the global battle for the resources in the Arctic heat up.
This spectacular development in the Arctic was only one of the possible effects of global warming that might have influenced Malta to introduce the item of Climate Change at the UN in 1988. This initiative resulted in the adoption of a United Nations resolution on the 'Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind', and later the 'United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)' and the Kyoto Protocol. This protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005, when it was ratified by 55 countries, although some of the heaviest polluters did not sign it.
The UN Bali Conference on Climate Change which ended on December 15 agreed on a 'roadmap' towards a stronger climate pact, including for the first time the US, China and India. This pact, which will hopefully be agreed upon at a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, will succeed the existing Kyoto protocol which ends in 2012.
Even more significant in the development of this Arctic story is yet another Malta initiative at the UN: the Law of the Sea. With the race to claim the potential riches beneath the ice-covered sea heating up, some of the leading countries that have so far refused to sign the Law of the Sea Convention may now have second thoughts.
In 1967, Malta introduced at the UN an item on the Law of the Sea. Malta proposed that the concept of the common heritage of mankind to the international seabed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, underlying the high seas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, should be applied and that this area should be used for the common benefit of mankind. This led to the adoption in 1982 of the 'United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea', which entered into force on November 16, 1994. To date, 155 countries have ratified the convention, although some major countries, like the US, have not yet ratified it, reasoning that it was not in its interest to do so.
This may soon change in light of the claims being made, particularly by Canada, Russia, Norway and Denmark, due to their close proximity to the Arctic. These countries have been manoeuvring for some time now to claim some ownership to the Arctic and its riches. Some are even using the UN Convention to extend their exclusive economic rights from the 200 nautical miles allowed by the convention to the 350 nautical miles also allowed by the convention if a country can prove that its continental shelf extends from the coastline beyond the present limit. So far this has not been successful.
Some consider the planting of the Russian flag in August this year on the seabed at the North Pole as part of this saga.
In the light of all this, the US may be realising that by ratifying the UN Convention it may improve its position to make its own claims for some of the Arctic riches due to its also being an Arctic state because of Alaska.
Senator Joe Biden, who had always considered the UN convention as being essential to US national interests as a maritime power and the world's leading economy, decided recently to take concrete action and, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, re-started the process to have the US sign the convention. The committee last October overwhelmingly decided to send the matter to the full US Senate for reconsideration. The Senate had already blocked this in 2004. However, now with the Bush administration in favour and with most of the Democrats supporting this and, more importantly, in the light of the latest Arctic developments, it is likely that the US will finally come on board too.
Malta, because of its Law of the Sea initiative at the UN, may in theory benefit from the resources of the Arctic that is left as 'common benefit of mankind' in accordance with the Convention of the Law of the Sea. But judging from the actions of the states surrounding the North Pole, it is unlikely that Malta or any other country not touching the Arctic will soon share in the richness of the area's natural resources.
Malta, however, will certainly always be remembered for these initiatives of great importance at the UN, and will always be recognised for these intellectual and unique landmark contributions to the understanding and development of climate change and the law of the sea which led to the story in Time and will certainly lead to an exclusive place in history for Malta.
No planting of flags or controversy can deny such an honour for the island's foresight and ingenuity in safeguarding the common heritage of mankind, far beyond what was expected from a country of its size and resources.
Mr Bartolo is a former Ambassador of Malta to the United Nations, WTO and the UN Agencies in Geneva and Vienna.