There has been a lot of talk lately about how the world has changed since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon last Sept. 11.

But has the world changed, really? No.

We're a lot less naive than we were a year ago, but there are few signs North Americans are prepared to do all that it takes to combat the problem of world terrorism.

The sight of hijacked jets exploding into the 110-storey twin towers was horrific.

When a United Airlines 777 with 144 people aboard was forced to land at Yellowknife airport we realized we were no longer immune to what was going on in the rest of the world.

Tom Harvey's family ties stretch through Yellowknife, Hay River, Kugluktuk and Holman. He went off to war in Afghanistan, proving that the troubles of the world can affect our next-door neighbours.

But have we truly learned the lessons Sept. 11 teaches?

We're told to be on our guard and watch for suspicious acts. How can that good be for racial tolerance when it was Middle Eastern people with Arabic names who hijacked the planes.

We want our troops to stand shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers. Yet when they do, they don't have the right camouflage and we don't have means to get them to the battlefield. We can't even defend our own borders without U.S. help.

Americans especially, but Canadians, too, wonder what makes people become terrorists. Then we sit quietly on the sidelines as Palestinians and Israelis kill each other with missiles and human bombs.

Canada's peacekeeping record proves we are on the forefront of making the world a better place, but it's a lesson the Americans still have to learn.

While we must fight for freedom when it is attacked, military might alone is not the answer.

Nations like Canada and the United States must work to overcome the suspicion, hatred and injustice that's driving people to kill each other over ethnic origin, religious beliefs and skin colour.

It means reaching out with a hand of friendship and offers of help, and a real desire to end the killing.

Editorial Comment
Darrell Greer
Kivalliq News

Rankin Inlet hamlet council voted down a proposal earlier this month to join a tax-base study being conducted for Cambridge Bay by the Department of Community Government and Transportation. Council's reasoning in the matter was more than a little weak, fearful if it lets CG&T "get a foot in the door," moving to a tax-based structure would be forced upon them.

That notion is a little far-fetched (some would say paranoid), but that's not what troubles us the most.

For the past year, Rankin council has impressed us with its move towards a more proactive approach in dealing with hamlet matters. Recently, however, the spectre of ways past has been rearing its head.

The council was caught with its head down when it came to preparations necessary for the long-promised installation of artificial ice. Failure to do its homework on the project translated into another year's wait for the community. With its decision not to take part in the tax study, council is repeating that mistake.

We agree that Rankin is not ready to move to a tax-based economy. However, the move is inevitable. Taking part in the study would have provided council with the information necessary to start preparing for the transition.

When it comes to moving towards a township and instilling a tax-based economy, council finds itself caught in a Catch 22 situation. On one hand, it wants the increased independence in managing its own affairs a township provides. It also opens the doors to funding initiatives the community is not privy to while retaining hamlet status.

On the other hand, council is worried about fallout being sparked by property taxes being imposed and an increase in municipal service fees.

At this particular juncture, the other hand wins. However, council should have seized the opportunity to learn all it can about a tax-based structure. It was, in fact, painfully obvious at the last council meeting that a number of councillors had very little understanding of the move, outside of the fact homeowners would be shelling out a pretty penny in taxes.

And, while definitely a hurdle to be overcome, it is but one brick in a much larger structure.

Council must lay aside its preconceived notions when it comes to matters of this magnitude. The quicker we have all the information regarding such a move, the quicker we can start analysing data and properly prepare for the day we are able to make the switch. In all probability, that day is not far off.

Editorial Comment
Terry Halifax
Inuvik Drum

It seems despite the attempts of the Gwich'in Development Corp. to research the best deal for the Gwich'in people in the proposed pipeline project, there are still some dissenters within the ranks.

James Firth says the Mackenzie Gas Project doesn't provide enough benefits to the aboriginal people and the ARC plan guarantees aboriginal ownership.

As Chief of the Inuvik Native Band and also as president of the Northern Route Gas Pipeline Corporation, James Firth has a fine line to walk. On the other side of the issue is Nellie Cournoyea, who is chair and CEO of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and chair of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group.

Clearly, both groups have their own agendas. The Inuvialuit have subsurface rights to trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that needs to get to market and the Gwich'in don't.

With much of the gas discovered lying beneath the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, the Inuvik Native Band is feeling left out of the economic equation and Firth feels holding out for pipeline ownership is in the best interest of his people.

While the ideal seems honourable, the goal, simply put, is unachievable.

The producers will never relinquish control of the pipeline to any one group. From all I understand, the big three in this deal were more than reluctant to concede even the one-third ownership negotiated by the APG.

Without producer support in a pipe, there will be no shipping contracts, without the shipping contracts, there can be no bonds issued and without the sale of bonds, there will be no pipeline construction.

Should the ARC plan ever get to the sale of bonds, the real owners of the pipe would be the bond holders, so the issue of ownership is a moot one -- with either plan the aboriginal groups have to go into debt.

So, unsatisfied with the GDC report, now the Inuvik Native Band is having its own study done.

With money from ArctiGas, the band has commissioned a study that will no doubt give them the answer the want to hear.

Seems to me, with all these "independent studies" and all the various factions seeking their own answers to the same problem, no one's getting any closer to building a pipeline.

Granted, the two pipelines are not like comparing apples to apples, but I think we all know that an "independent study" is generally dependent on finding the answers sought by the one paying for the study.

If these groups really wanted the truth, they should all get together to agree on one consultant to conduct one independent study and live with the findings.

This infighting is not making for good relations and certainly isn't inspiring the producers to think that even 25 years after Berger, the North is now open for business.

Editorial Comment
Derek Neary
Deh Cho Drum

While the last thing some businesses want is a meddling financier, the NWT Development Corporation's arm's-length approach with Nats'enelu has been a flop.

The fledgling enterprise needed financial guidance over the past few years, but either didn't receive it or ignored it.

The Development Corporation has a spotty track record as none of its current stable of clients are profitable. Development Corporation president Fred Koe says "it's a tough business."

The high costs for labour, materials and marketing make conditions formidable, according to Koe.

With that in mind, and having been funding businesses for more than a decade, why couldn't the Development Corporation see early on that problems were arising with Nats'enelu? Why didn't it assume enough of a hands-on approach to ensure that its investments can be recouped?

Three years ago -- Koe pointed out that it pre-dated his tenure -- the Development Corporation's board voted in favour of supporting Nats'enelu by becoming a minority owner in the venture.

It was a shortsighted decision. On the face of it, the business produced quality products and had the potential to be profitable, but the necessary expertise was not in place over the past five years.

The Development Corporation elected to hand over investment capital to a company that was essentially flying by the seat of it's moose-hide pants.

In becoming a minority shareholder, the Development Corporation, with all its collective knowledge, could do nothing more than be a background player.

D'Arcy Moses was a gifted designer, but he was up-front about the fact that business was not his forte.

Leaving important financial decisions in his lap was not prudent.

Although he grew into the general manager job to some degree, no one was to take his place.

Fort Simpson cannot be absolved from blame in the downfall of the business, either.

Several appeals were made for board members over the past few years but few people answered the call.

That seems to be changing, with 10 people having attended a luncheon meeting in late August.

Martina Norwegian said there was renewed enthusiasm in the room.

Here's to hoping that enough residents are ready to make a long-term commitment. Otherwise, it won't bode well for the already faltering enterprise.

With Nats'enelu on the ropes, the question that begs to be asked is whether a future Deh Cho Economic Development Corporation would be willing to bail the company out.

At what cost would an investment be made and how long would the Economic Corporation wait for the ship to right itself?