Development of the Arctic off to a bad start?

[Machjo]

I've noticed in the last year or so that Harper's sabre rattling in the Arctic has become ever louder, yet it's only recently that he appears to have made barely half-hearted efforts to negotiate a permanent border agreement or take it to international arbitration.

The impression I'm getting with all the talk in the media is that he's chosen to play dangerously with fire by fanning the flames of Canadian nationalism through fearmongering and demonizing our neighbours as a means to legitimize increased military spending.

Now of course there may be some legitimate grounds on which to argue in favour of increased military spending, but normally that comes form a threat not of our creation.

My fear is this: what if Harper's fear mongering spills over to our northern neighbours and spins out of control into a full-fledged arms race that even Harper and possibly his successors for decades to come can no longer control, or that anyone can control for that matter? At that stage, the military threat coming fron any of our contries against another would not longer be fearmongering as it is now, but a genuine military threat to be feared. By the way, such militarization was how WWI started. Europe was armed to the hilt, just waiting for a spark to set it off. Do we really need to repeat the mistakes of the past by starting a potential arms race of our own through such flamboyant fearmongering?

 

[darkbeaver]

Forgot the matches?

 

[Machjo]

Forgot the matches?

No. Not enough gas in the room yet. But if Harper and his successors keep it up for another decade or two, you might might want to keep the matches away and try to open some windows to let some air inside before a big boom.

 

[Tonington]

No. Not enough gas in the room yet. But if Harper and his successors keep it up for another decade or two, you might might want to keep the matches away and try to open some windows to let some air inside before a big boom.

In another decade or two, there will be semi-regular traffic through our own waterways. It makes sense to develop the infrastructure needed to enforce our laws. Or should we just do as we did with Russian factory trawlers, and allow them to do pretty much as they wish? It's not like we have the submarines capable to do as the Americans and Russians do already...

 

[Machjo]

In another decade or two, there will be semi-regular traffic through our own waterways. It makes sense to develop the infrastructure needed to enforce our laws. Or should we just do as we did with Russian factory trawlers, and allow them to do pretty much as they wish? It's not like we have the submarines capable to do as the Americans and Russians do already...

Of course we should develop and defend the Arctic. But we should not be sabre rattling in public; it's bad diplomacy to put it mildly. And we should not count on the military to fill in for diplomatic incompetence. Sure the military's job is to defend our borders, but it's the diplomat's job to define our borders. Meeting with disputing countries to discuss the issue and possibly go to binding arbitration if necessary ought to be a priority. Defending contested territory is militarily dangerous in the long term, especially in a militaristic embiance. Once borders are clearly defined and agreed upon and entrenched in international law, we then have more legitimacy in defending those borders.

I'm not necessarily against militarization of the North if that's what we must do. But I do take offense at Harpers' public sabre rattling at every opportunity along with his sluggish response to establishing internationally agreed upon permanent borders.

 

[karrie]

I tend to be of the opinion that diplomacy requires tailoring your speech to the audience you want to hear it.

Google Putin. Take a gander around the net, and look at who he is, what he's like. Then tell me what language he understands, what type of man he respects. While I don't like threats of violence, and I think war should be avoided at all costs, I don't think Putin hears much other than weapons of war.

 

[Tonington]

I'm not necessarily against militarization of the North if that's what we must do. But I do take offense at Harpers' public sabre rattling at every opportunity along with his sluggish response to establishing internationally agreed upon permanent borders.

Have you ever known a border dispute to be solved quickly? The sabre rattling is more for domestic appearances than anything else, until we have actual sabres;-)

 

[Machjo]

If you read some of Putin's speeches, one recurring theme is global unipolarity, with the US being that pole. Certainly unilateral sabre rattling from a core US ally won't help, and would in fact confirm the argument; whereas multilateral discussions would prove Ruwwia wrong, or at least no longer right, or at least less correct than before. Why woudl we want to feed his arguments.

 

[karrie]

I suppose that's one way to look at it Machjo, but, men like Putin don't strike me as the type to admit when they're wrong about their world view anyway, so where would it leave us to 'prove him less right'? He'd hold fast to his view regardless. He's not a flexible man.

 

[Machjo]

I'm not saying we should not militarize the North if necessary. I'm just saying that the PM should drop the verbal jingoism.

 

[Machjo]

Sure we should militarize if we need to, but the PM should choose his words more carefully in indicating his willingness to discuss matters and even go to international arbitration if need be. But to ignore that and just keep rubbing in how he'll defend us is like saying he's lost the peace already, so might as well declare a start to the war.

 

[Unforgiven]

Sure we should militarize if we need to, but the PM should choose his words more carefully in indicating his willingness to discuss matters and even go to international arbitration if need be. But to ignore that and just keep rubbing in how he'll defend us is like saying he's lost the peace already, so might as well declare a start to the war.

The Military has a role in development I think as a base or harbour of some sort will help to draw economic development to the area. We need to find better ways to get to the North than flying and the change in the ice is perhaps that change we need.

Developing those resources is key but we have to do it smart this time and make sure the wealth is used to uplift those already there, control the impact of that development and provide the infrastructure for civilian support of that development.

 

[petros]

How do you have Arctic sovereignty while treating the Arctic residents like ****?

Good luck Steveo!

 

[petros]

I'm not saying we should not militarize the North if necessary. I'm just saying that the PM should drop the verbal jingoism.

I'm for any PM promoting Arctic development. This isn't Haper's initiative by a long shot. Any politician would be doing the same thing on the cusp of the biggest gold rush in mankind's history.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

A few towns need to be established in the north along with a few bases. There is this idea, that unless the Inuit up north become rich, we should do nothing. Other nations have had to fight for their territory as they border on other nations, example Russia. So you take what you can get.

Where is the evidence of the Cdn coast guard or military establishing a 24/7 regular presence in the north? The world just doesn't see it. So it's up for grabs.