--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Grant Hutchison" <granthutchison@c...>
wrote:
> There are only ~44 signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, of whom ~27
> maintain bases in the Antarctic. I suspect places like the Central
> African Republic feel the whole thing's irrelevant!
Until it turns out that it might give them a voice in some
international conference, where they can use it to obtain something
which is completely unrelated. Never say never (although that's not
what you said, but, oh well, you understand me..)!
> The Treaty seems to be an agreement to disagree - claims are
neither
> formally contested nor formally affirmed. So the UK, Argentine and
> Chilean claims are still out there, waiting in the wings, but
they've
> all agreed to play together quietly at present (though
muttering "is
> so" and "is not" under their breaths). The USA is also hovering in
a
> different way - not making a claim, but not agreeing to *never*
make
> a claim.
> The Chileans certainly take their claim very seriously, and are
> obviously working hard to integrate their wedge of Antarctica as
part
> of Chile: TV weather forecasts in Chile include the Antarctic
> peninsula, there are stories of pregnant women having been flown
*in*
> to give birth (to "native Antarcticans"), and there was certainly a
> small school building in the middle of Presidente Eduardo Frei
> Montalva Base on King George Island when I visited a few years
back.
> (No kids evident, but then it was midnight on a school-day!)
Not only the Chileans are that serious; also Argentina makes a big
point of it. Because a. whatever Chile does, Argentina wants to do
better, and v.v., and b. all the more reason to claim everything in
between, i.e. the Falkland Islands and dependencies. I've seen
Argentine maps that look just like that: two downwardly pointed pie
slices, and some crumbs in between, all of it Argentina.
Peter S.