Michael Byers is the author of 'Who Owns the Arctic: Understanding Sovereignty Disputes in the North.
CPAC aired a talk given by Michael Byers which I happened to catch the other night.
During his presentation, Byers raised many interesting questions concerning Canada’s policies and practices regarding the Arctic. Addressing issues such as boundary disputes, treatment of northern peoples, environmental concerns, and ideas for expanding our presence in the North among others, he detailed our present approach and then outlined ideas for improvement.
He related a story told to him by a much respected Inuit elder. Apparently, so the story goes, back in 1969 the US and Exxon got together and decided to test the waters of the North with a super tanker whose hull had been reinforced in order to punch through ice. Both parties agreed that they would keep the test a secret from the Canadians. So away they go on their journey through the ice until they get to Lancaster Sound. Out of nowhere, look-outs spot two tiny dots on the ice in the tanker’s path. As the ship gets closer, the figures grow larger. They are finally identified as two Inuit men. The men simply stand there, no weapons, no threat – but not moving. The ship stops, the men are invited on board, and negotiations between the two parties take place. They chat away for awhile; the men debark and go on their way, as does the ship. The Inuit had made their point.
Two men brought a US super tanker to a halt in the Arctic Ocean - two unarmed men who stood their ground to make the point that someone was there as witness.
The Canadian and US governments to this day refuse to confirm or deny the story.
The same Inuit elder was the subject of another anecdote about a meeting he attended at the UN. During discussions about the Arctic, a delegate who obviously knew nothing of the Inuit, stood up and said that nobody lived up there so why was there even a dispute, or words to that effect. After the meeting, the elder went up to the delegate, shook his hand, and said, ‘Hi, I’m nobody.’
I mention these anecdotes because in discussions concerning the Arctic talk invariably turns to boundary disputes, or hydrocarbon extraction, or the sovereignty of Hans Island. As Byers pointed out, of all the countries claiming sovereignty rights in the Artic, not one of them poses as much threat to Arctic waters as does one single supertanker flying a flag of convenience. Why? Ships carrying flags of convenience are not subject to the same standards as ships carrying a country’s flag thus they need not be maintained in good condition and thus pose, if nothing else, a possible environmental threat. Who will be watching for these ships? Who will stop them? Where will they be stopped, and by which country?
Sovereignty is not simply a matter of geographical connection, he said, as it is one of established presence in the area. The CLCS, he stated, looks beyond geographical land connections, taking into consideration evidence supporting a long and well-established cultural and economic presence in some disputed areas.
Time and again he came back to the need for Canada to expand and build on our resources in the North. Some of the ideas he raised included training Inuit people for positions on Coast Guard cutters; scrapping the idea of building a super icebreaker such as the Diefenbaker and adding more mid-sized ships to the fleet, and using technology such as that developed very successfully by Norway for hydrocarbon extraction.
IMHO, Canada’s presence in the North is spotty at best. Our support of people living there is sadly lacking especially when something as necessary as the shipment of good food, (as opposed to rotting vegetables, out-of-date milk and mouldy bread) may currently be held up for days by bad weather, equipment break-downs, or poor ice-roads. We need more ‘witnesses’ in the North. We need to work together with other northern circumpolar nations. Canadian sovereignty may not be in dispute, however, our ability to show we are entitled to it could be.
CPAC aired a talk given by Michael Byers which I happened to catch the other night.
During his presentation, Byers raised many interesting questions concerning Canada’s policies and practices regarding the Arctic. Addressing issues such as boundary disputes, treatment of northern peoples, environmental concerns, and ideas for expanding our presence in the North among others, he detailed our present approach and then outlined ideas for improvement.
He related a story told to him by a much respected Inuit elder. Apparently, so the story goes, back in 1969 the US and Exxon got together and decided to test the waters of the North with a super tanker whose hull had been reinforced in order to punch through ice. Both parties agreed that they would keep the test a secret from the Canadians. So away they go on their journey through the ice until they get to Lancaster Sound. Out of nowhere, look-outs spot two tiny dots on the ice in the tanker’s path. As the ship gets closer, the figures grow larger. They are finally identified as two Inuit men. The men simply stand there, no weapons, no threat – but not moving. The ship stops, the men are invited on board, and negotiations between the two parties take place. They chat away for awhile; the men debark and go on their way, as does the ship. The Inuit had made their point.
Two men brought a US super tanker to a halt in the Arctic Ocean - two unarmed men who stood their ground to make the point that someone was there as witness.
The Canadian and US governments to this day refuse to confirm or deny the story.
The same Inuit elder was the subject of another anecdote about a meeting he attended at the UN. During discussions about the Arctic, a delegate who obviously knew nothing of the Inuit, stood up and said that nobody lived up there so why was there even a dispute, or words to that effect. After the meeting, the elder went up to the delegate, shook his hand, and said, ‘Hi, I’m nobody.’
I mention these anecdotes because in discussions concerning the Arctic talk invariably turns to boundary disputes, or hydrocarbon extraction, or the sovereignty of Hans Island. As Byers pointed out, of all the countries claiming sovereignty rights in the Artic, not one of them poses as much threat to Arctic waters as does one single supertanker flying a flag of convenience. Why? Ships carrying flags of convenience are not subject to the same standards as ships carrying a country’s flag thus they need not be maintained in good condition and thus pose, if nothing else, a possible environmental threat. Who will be watching for these ships? Who will stop them? Where will they be stopped, and by which country?
Sovereignty is not simply a matter of geographical connection, he said, as it is one of established presence in the area. The CLCS, he stated, looks beyond geographical land connections, taking into consideration evidence supporting a long and well-established cultural and economic presence in some disputed areas.
Time and again he came back to the need for Canada to expand and build on our resources in the North. Some of the ideas he raised included training Inuit people for positions on Coast Guard cutters; scrapping the idea of building a super icebreaker such as the Diefenbaker and adding more mid-sized ships to the fleet, and using technology such as that developed very successfully by Norway for hydrocarbon extraction.
IMHO, Canada’s presence in the North is spotty at best. Our support of people living there is sadly lacking especially when something as necessary as the shipment of good food, (as opposed to rotting vegetables, out-of-date milk and mouldy bread) may currently be held up for days by bad weather, equipment break-downs, or poor ice-roads. We need more ‘witnesses’ in the North. We need to work together with other northern circumpolar nations. Canadian sovereignty may not be in dispute, however, our ability to show we are entitled to it could be.
