ARE we about to see an old fashioned scramble for land and territory reminiscent of the bad old days of empire-building and the rise of colonialism? I suppose the region in question could not remain inviolate to the competing territorial ambitions of its neighbours forever - despite the fact it's just an ice cap comprised of compacted ice and snow.

No, no one is about to launch a hostile take-over attempt on Santa's toy workshop at the North Pole (although you might want to keep an eye on WalMart in this regard). But the geographic location is correct. I am talking about the icy region that lies within the Arctic circle.

For centuries the region did not prompt any great interest on the part of nations or peoples looking for new lands to settle except, of course, the Inuit people (once known as Eskimoes) who have lived there for thousands of years.

The reason for this lack of interest on the part of countries then in the empire-building business was simple; the region was considered to be too inhospitable for human habitation; there was no prospect of farming or even exploring the area for natural resources.

It took a long time for the rest of the world to become interested in the ice cap although a few nations had set up what they called research stations in the region or, in the case of the United States and Canada, missile tracking stations that came under the umbrella of their mutual defence agreements..

In recent times, as the world has become increasingly desperate for energy supplies, some areas of the Arctic have been explored for oil and natural gas reserves. And the test drillings that have taken place there have met with some successess (don't forget, the vast Alaskan oil fields extend under this area).

Now, in the early years of the 21st century there appears to be a flurry of interest in the Arctic Circle. As oil and gas extraction methods become cheaper and more efficient, as drilling machinery is being built that can withstand the frigid conditions, there now exists the real possibility of conflicts breaking out between nations over their competing claims to the region.

To date there have been no less than five nations which have staked claims to the Arctic Circle; they include Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark (along with its regional dependencies, the Faroe Islands and Greenland) and the United States.

Ironically this sudden interest in the ice cap has been prompted, in large measure, by the prospect finding untapped fossil fuel reserves, reserves that have become accessible as a consequence of the ice that is melting in the region due to global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Suddenly the North West Passage, ice-bound for centuries, might become open to normal shipping, creating a new route from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

It's calculated that there may be decades worth of oil and natural gas supplies lying under the region's sea-bed, enough fuel to power the industrialised world well into the latter part of this century.

In that regard, in a bizarre twist on the flag-raising that always accompanies territorial claims in newly settled lands, Russia sent a mini submarine to the bottom of the area that it claims to plant a Russian flag on the floor of the ocean.

This action prompted a quick response from Canada, which has beefed up its military presence in the area and has staked its claim to the small island called the Hands Island which are also claimed by Greenland. Canada also has stated that it has control of the North West ocean passage which has prompted protests by the United States which considers the potential route to be an international waterway, open to free shipping.

All of these claims are predicated on the dubious belief the continental shelves of these nations extend into the areas of the Arctic Circle now in dispute. I say "dubious" because the continental shelves do not have clearly demarcated borders. In any event, recently it was claimed that Bermuda itself may be sitting atop vast natural resources that supposedly lie beneath our seas. Does this mean we could find ourselves embroiled in a future dispute with the US, which could claim these potential riches because someone might argue Bermuda actually sits on the outermost edge of the North American continental shelf?

If you think that the world has got beyond open conflict over the control of natural resources, you had better think again. The United States claims that it did not go to war in the Persian Gulf over oil, but most will take that argument with a wink and a shake of the head.

Before things went very bad for the Anglo-American military intervention in that part of the world, it was not only the prospect of direct control of Iraq's oil, the country that holds the second greatest proven reserves of oil behind Saudi Arabia, that mesmerised the powerbrokers in Washington. They were also ecstatic about the economic benefits which would accrue from the rebuilding of Iraq's war-shattered infrastructure, which the lion's share of the proceeds earmarked to go to American companies (like Vice-President Cheney's former firm Halliburton), with the rest going to America's allies who stood with the US when it launched its military intervention in Iraq.

This is what nations have always done throughout the history of warfare: fought to carve up control of the natural resources which lie outside of their borders.

Another good example of this is a conflict which took place in, of all, places, the continent of Africa. This was ironic because of all the regions of the world, Africa is the continent which has suffered the most from colonial land grabs and empire-building schemes of other nations. But in the late 1990s, no less than five African nations were involved in armed conflict in the Congo. They included Rwanda; Burundi; Uganda; Angola and Zimbabwe. As regards three of the combatants, they initially became embroiled in the Congo as a direct consequence of internal conflicts within their own borders; the countries in question were Rwanda and Burundi, with their ongoing fighting between Tutsi and Hutu populations (which resulted in the genocide of a large part of the Tutsi population in Rwanda) and Angola. They tried to distract from their internal problems by engaging in the Congo. But the real reason for the conflict soon revealed itself with Rwanda and Uganda openly fighting for control of the lucrative diamond trade. Contracts and concessions were then picked up by Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe in return for Harare deciding to back the Congolese government against its enemies.

All in all, in four years of civil war and outside African military intervention over four million people died. A large number of the dead were civilians. The conflict was the largest internal warfare undertaken by post-Independence Africa and has been called Africa's First World War fought for the long-time old fashion reason of control over natural resources at the Arctic circle; time will tell?

As to Bermuda's claim of vast amouts of valuable natural resources lying beneath our waters, if such discoveries are confirmed would that prompt Britain to withdraw its pledge that if Bermuda wants to go Independent then London will not stand in our way? Or will the UK try and get a cut of the proceeds? All the more reason why we should start seeking Independence now.