Arctic tensions heat up

[RanchHand]

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland are considering a recommendation to form a military pact is to be considered at a May summit of foreign ministers from the five nations.
"
It's yet another sign, said University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, of the intensifying international interest in the oil-rich Arctic, its increased strategic importance for northern nations and - above all - a growing wariness of Russia's revitalized military activity in the polar north."

Each of these countries spend nearly double the percentage of their GDP on defense as does Canada. As I have pointed out, the US and NATO countries already complain that Canada does not spend enough on their military to be considered 'their fair share'. Note this is not the amount they contribute to NATO but the homeland Canadian military budget.

For the most part, the recent Russian bomber approach to Canadian airspace was greeted warmly by many posters on this board. Some want the Russians to be a weapons supplier for Canada, map Ottawa with their planes, drop the US as an ally and form a new alliance with Russia, drop all alliances, drop out of NATO specifically and believe if you weren't condemned to live next to the US you would need no military budget at all.

Canada has one of the largest land masses to protect, largest proven oil reserves to protect, largest coast line, and probably in the not so distant future you are going to have tourist cruises and international flights traipsing thru the Northwest passage.

I wonder if the mentioned Nordic countries are just being needlessly concerned? I wonder if they envy Canada's ability to protect all of it''s assets and Arctic claims so efficiently. I wonder if they would gladly trade neighbors with Canada.

Arctic tensions heat up

 

[petros]

map Ottawa with their planes

Did you know the USGS was tickled pink when the wall came down just so they could feast their eyes on the best geo-spatial set known to man?

We can't lose Russia's scientific advances yet again to corporate marketing and made up boogeymen.

 

[earth_as_one]

Russia regularly probes Canada's defences. Making a big deal out of that event makes about as much sense as making a big deal out of Air Canada landing a plane at Pearson. Yes it happens, but no its not really newsworthy. I'm sure NATO regularly probes Russia's airspace and they send their fighters out to escort our aircraft. I doubt that makes their headlines either.

A big deal would have been if Canada did not meet the Russian plane with fighters or the Russian aircraft entered Canadian airspace. As far as I know neither happened.

The Conservatives want to create perceptions of fear and vulnerability which they exploit to boost military spending and raise their standing in the polls. I'm ok with increasing military spending to beef up Canada's military generally and improve our ability to defend our arctic sovereignty. Makes sense to do this during a recesssion anyway. But don't expect me to suddenly become afraid and feel vulnerable.

If Canada decides to spend more on our military, I'd like to see is a "made in Canada" solution. At one time Canada was at the forefront of military technology. Now we unwisely depend on our allies to sell us arms. They could stop selling us arms, or exploit built in vulnerabilities to disarm us in a crisis. That's probably what happened to Argentina during the Falkland war. Many of their missiles turned out to be duds. So many that I suspect the Brits were disarming them using codes from country which made them. Argentina would have been more secure if they made their own arms.

Regarding our arctic sovereignty, we should also look at diplomatic solutions. The biggest threat to our claims to the arctic is the US not Russia. The US considers the NW passage to be an international waterway. Canada should convince them their position is not in their best interest. If the passage is international, then Russian vessels have the right to traverse it, including nuclear submarines.... Its in the US's best interest to recognize our sovereignty in exchange for their right to use it. But the arctic resources are Canadian. If American companies want to exploit these Canadian resources, they can already do this under NAFTA, as long as they follow Canadian laws and regulations.

Canada should also negotiate treaties with all our neighbors which clearly define our borders with them. We should sign agreements with less powerful countries like Denmark, Norway and Iceland first. We have similar concerns as these nations regarding arctic sovereignty and they are less likely to try to bully us into an unfair agreement. That would put pressure on the US and Russia to be reasonable and recognize the same agreements.

Increased international travel through the NW passage would be a good thing for Canada and the arctic communities. We should encourage it as long as this traffic meets Canadian safety/insurance standards and pay fees for services. Canada would maintain navigation and communication services. We would be responsible for search and rescue. Insurance should coverage damage like oil spills. All countries interested in using the NW passage should agree that it must be managed properly.

 

[Nuggler]

Quoting Earth as One: "The Conservatives want to create perceptions of fear and vulnerability which they exploit to boost military spending and raise their standing in the polls. I'm ok with increasing military spending to beef up Canada's military generally and improve our ability to defend our arctic sovereignty. Makes sense to do this during a recesssion anyway. But don't expect me to suddenly become afraid and feel vulnerable.""

.......Who does that remind us of?
Ramping up the fear factor.
Code red!!! Code orange!!!

Rhymes with Push. Or tush.
War on what now?
more terra?

Same ol same ol con shyte.

 

[Cannuck]

They could stop selling us arms, or exploit built in vulnerabilities to disarm us in a crisis.

While that may be technically true, it is more than just highly unlikely as much of the technology for these things comes from Canada.

If anybody is to worry about "built in vulnerabilities" it wouldn't be Canada.

 

[RanchHand]

To quote the Canadian political scientist mentioned in the article:
"
"Regardless of your view of the Tories, they're not in charge of the Russian military," he said. "They're not the ones down at the Kremlin deploying these aircraft."

To quote earth_as_one:
"The US considers the NW passage to be an international waterway"

So do most, if not all of the EU countries, among others.

The Russian probe of your air space is not that main point of this thread. See the thread title. Why are the Nordic countries considering a military alliance of their own in the Arctic while Canadians want the Russians to map their territory from the air for them? How are the Canadians able to protect their assets with a military budget equal to that of Tonga? Why do the Nordic countries have to spend double the percent of GDP as Canada for defense? What would life like be for the typical Canadian ingrate it your military budget reflected not having the US on your southern boarder, within 50 miles of most of your population, but Russia? Canadians are geniuses at geography, world affairs and other cultures, despite living in one of the most isolated places on earth. Can I get a volunteer to list Russia's allies and put Canada in that list, in alphabetical order please? Extra points for the wait time to take up residency in these countries.

 

[lone wolf]

There are always people out there who believe if you don't shoot first and ask questions later then you're not worthy of existing. Too bad those trouble makers are so hated in today's world. The North Pole is international waters - a global concern. The Northwest passage isn't. We know how to mind our business. Do you?

 

[Tyr]

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland are considering a recommendation to form a military pact is to be considered at a May summit of foreign ministers from the five nations.
"
It's yet another sign, said University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, of the intensifying international interest in the oil-rich Arctic, its increased strategic importance for northern nations and - above all - a growing wariness of Russia's revitalized military activity in the polar north."

Each of these countries spend nearly double the percentage of their GDP on defense as does Canada. As I have pointed out, the US and NATO countries already complain that Canada does not spend enough on their military to be considered 'their fair share'. Note this is not the amount they contribute to NATO but the homeland Canadian military budget.

For the most part, the recent Russian bomber approach to Canadian airspace was greeted warmly by many posters on this board. Some want the Russians to be a weapons supplier for Canada, map Ottawa with their planes, drop the US as an ally and form a new alliance with Russia, drop all alliances, drop out of NATO specifically and believe if you weren't condemned to live next to the US you would need no military budget at all.

Canada has one of the largest land masses to protect, largest proven oil reserves to protect, largest coast line, and probably in the not so distant future you are going to have tourist cruises and international flights traipsing thru the Northwest passage.

I wonder if the mentioned Nordic countries are just being needlessly concerned? I wonder if they envy Canada's ability to protect all of it''s assets and Arctic claims so efficiently. I wonder if they would gladly trade neighbors with Canada.

Arctic tensions heat up

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland are considering a recommendation to form a military pact is to be considered at a May summit of foreign ministers from the five nations

Canada should "beg" to be included

 

[RanchHand]

"The Canadian government says the jurisdiction is clear — they're Canadian waters. But the U.S. and some other countries (the EU), especially now Russia, don't agree"

Battle for Arctic heats up


Perhaps it's not such a great idea for the Russians to map your territory for you or be your arms supplier and best bud. Suggest you cozy up to Tonga for moral support.

 

[taxslave]

Canada's territory extends from 200 miles off Newfoundland to the North pole and up the border between Yukon and Alaska to the pole. Or possibly right up the Bering straight to the pole as I am not convinced that Russia had the legal right to sell Alaska to the US. It may very well have belonged to Canada as part of the Hudson Bay Company grants. The US gets to keep Sara Pollin either way.

 

[VanIsle]

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland are considering a recommendation to form a military pact is to be considered at a May summit of foreign ministers from the five nations

Canada should "beg" to be included

Why? What they want to do is take over the Arctic. They don't want us to join them. They want to go against us.

 

[lone wolf]

I think it's all blown out of proportion by the folks who REALLY think all the world belongs to them....

 

[Nuggler]

:lol:...What with all the heat these tensions are producing, along with "global warming", and the vast amount of hot air released over the Parliament Bldgs., the far north could be without ice cover real quick like.

Better move inland. Find a hill.

8O

 

[CanadianLove]

Update[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]: On 09 July 2007, Prime Minister Harper announced a plan to procure six- to-eight “Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships”. These vessels would act as OPVs in the Pacific and Atlantic most of the year, venturing into the Arctic Ocean only in the summer months – wags immediately dubbed the proposed ships “slushbreakers”. While the A/OPS are not the armed naval heavy icebreakers promised, they would be the first genuinely Arctic-capable Canadian naval vessels since the end of 1957[/FONT]


Canada First Defence Strategy - Defence Policy - Conservative Party - Arctic Sovereignty - Stephen Harper - Armed Icebreaker - A/OPS - Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review

Nice looking ships.

The first scheduled passage through the Arctic to deliver good last Fall.

This is an exceptional vessel.

1st commercial ship sails through Northwest Passage

 

[#juan]

Quoting RanchHand

How are the Canadians able to protect their assets with a military budget equal to that of Tonga?

The first time you posted this nonsense it could have been a simple mistake but this is the third time you have spewed these lies. Tonga's GDP is $219 million while Canada's GDP is well over a trillion dollars. Canada's military budget, is around $14 billion, which is at least a hundred times what Tonga's whole GDP is.

 

[VanIsle]

Canada's territory extends from 200 miles off Newfoundland to the North pole and up the border between Yukon and Alaska to the pole. Or possibly right up the Bering straight to the pole as I am not convinced that Russia had the legal right to sell Alaska to the US. It may very well have belonged to Canada as part of the Hudson Bay Company grants. The US gets to keep Sara Pollin either way.

This is part of a speech by the PM whereby he outlines our borders in the Arctic. I have underlined where he states it is not only Canada that is noticing. He could not be more right. While you may or may not like our PM, what he has to say here is important and is right on the money.

And that’s why we are being absolutely clear and forthright in all our foreign policy pronouncements.

If you want to be taken seriously by other countries, you have to say what you mean and mean what you say.

And I am here today to make it absolutely clear there is no question about Canada’s Arctic border.

It extends from the northern tip of Labrador all the way up the East coast of Ellesmere Island to Alert.

Then it traces the western perimeter of the Queen Elizabeth Islands down to the Beaufort Sea.

From there it hugs the coasts of the Northwest Territories and Yukon to the Canada-U.S. border at Alaska.

All along the border, our jurisdiction extends outward 200 miles into the surrounding sea, just as it does along our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines.

No more. And no less.

Canada’s Arctic sovereignty is firmly anchored in history.

Almost 100 years ago, in 1909, a plaque was installed on Melville Island by famed Quebecois seaman Joseph Bernier, captain of the Canadian government ship Arctic.

It proclaimed, on the ground for the first time, Canada’s sovereignty over the entire Arctic archipelago.

From the 1920s through the 1940s, the great Canadian navigator Henry Larsen patrolled our Arctic waters aboard the famous RCMP schooner St. Roch.

Larsen’s many voyages upheld the first principle of Arctic sovereignty: Use it or lose it.

In the 1980s, the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney won recognition of our Arctic possessions under International Law.

Canada became one of 150 nations – including most European countries, Russia, India and China – to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Only a handful of countries remain outside the treaty today.

I have been very clear in asserting that Canada intends to enforce its rights under the Law of the Sea.

And today I am calling on all countries to sign the treaty and join Canada and the rest of the world in respecting the rule of the Law of the Sea.

Ladies and Gentlement, for far too long, Canadian Governments have failed in their duty to rigorously enforce our sovereignty in the Arctic.

They have failed to provide enough resources to comprehensively monitor, patrol and protect our northern waters.

As a result, foreign ships may have routinely sailed through our territory without permission.

Any such voyage represents a potential threat to Canadians’ safety and security.

We always need to know who is in our waters and why they’re there.

We must be certain that everyone who enters our waters respects our laws and regulations, particularly those that protect the fragile Arctic environment.

Our new Government will not settle for anything less.

And that’s why we have already begun to take action.

This month, for the first time ever, our government began conducting pollution-detection surveillance flights over our Arctic waters.

The military exercise we are launching today will take the Canadian Navy farther North than it has been for many decades.

Meanwhile we are actively exploring options for the establishment of a deep water port in the Arctic that will extend the Navy’s reach even further.

We are determined to expand the Army’s presence in the North by establishing a new Arctic training centre and revitalizing the Canadian Rangers.

New long-range unmanned aerial surveillance drones will provide continuous air patrols throughout the Arctic.

And finally we’re looking at technologies to give Canada undersea surveillance capacity – acoustic or movement sensors to detect subs and ships in our Arctic waters.

Some in the opposition dismiss our focus on northern sovereignty as expensive and unnecessary.

Some have actually come to the North and suggested our plans here are a waste of money.

To that I say, government’s first obligation is to defend the territorial integrity of its borders.

And this will become more important in the decades to come - because northern oil and gas, minerals and other resources of the northern frontier will become ever more valuable.

The technologies used in Arctic resource extraction and transport are increasingly sophisticated and affordable.

And the Northwest Passage is becoming more accessible every year: Some scientists even predict it will be open to year-round shipping within a decade.

In short, the economics and the strategic value of northern resource development are growing ever more attractive and critical to our nation.

And trust me, it is not only Canadians who are noticing.

It is no exaggeration to say that the need to assert our sovereignty and take action to protect our territorial integrity in the Arctic has never been more urgent.

The North is poised to take a much bigger role in Canada’s economic and social development.

It is attracting international attention, investment capital, people, and commercial and industrial development.

Therefore the Government of Canada has an enormous responsibility to ensure that development occurs on our terms.

In particular, we must ensure the unique ecosystem of the North, and the unique cultural traditions of the First Peoples of the North, are respected and protected.

That’s what we said we would do, and that’s what we’re going to do.

We want the world to know about the amazing opportunities that lie ahead for northern Canada; but let there be no misunderstanding:

This is Nunavut – “Our Land” – just as Yukon and the Northwest Territories and the entire Arctic Archipelago are “Our Land.”

And, on this you have my word, we will back our sovereignty over “Our Land” with all the tools at our disposal, including the men and women of our Armed Forces who are launching Operation Lancaster from Iqaluit today.

 

[EagleSmack]

I think it's all blown out of proportion by the folks who REALLY think all the world belongs to them....

I know you want us to THINK that but in reality we don't. That is just talk. Sure we may toss our weight around a little too often but we do not think the world belongs to us. However the Russians are saying that the Artic BELONGS to them... not the US... the Russians.

I know it is tough to swallow... to think that the Russians are claiming what Canada has claimed as their own. The US has said it is international territory... the Russians have planted their flag.

 

[Tyr]

Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland are considering a recommendation to form a military pact is to be considered at a May summit of foreign ministers from the five nations.

Since Finland and Sweden don't have an Arctic coastline. I'm a 'tad confused in their stake in it.

If Canada was to ally with anybody or the Arctic sovereignty issue, it would be Norway, Denmark and Iceland. If they want to include Finland and Sweden as associate allies, more power to it, but by the same token include the UK as an associate ally also

As for the Arctic.... Nobody has a real case for ownership past 53,5N. It's international waters. Anything south of that is either part of the USA, Canada, Russia, Iceland, Norway or Denmark

The North West Passage is contained for the most part within Canada's territorial waters and requires Canada's permission to tranverse it.

It's not complicated

 

[Tyr]

I know you want us to THINK that but in reality we don't. That is just talk. Sure we may toss our weight around a little too often but we do not think the world belongs to us. However the Russians are saying that the Artic BELONGS to them... not the US... the Russians.

I know it is tough to swallow... to think that the Russians are claiming what Canada has claimed as their own. The US has said it is international territory... the Russians have planted their flag.

You don't get out much do you.

In one of his final rants, Jr. Bush adamently stated that the Northwest passage was international, not Canadian

 

[lone wolf]

I know you want us to THINK that but in reality we don't. That is just talk. Sure we may toss our weight around a little too often but we do not think the world belongs to us. However the Russians are saying that the Artic BELONGS to them... not the US... the Russians.

I know it is tough to swallow... to think that the Russians are claiming what Canada has claimed as their own. The US has said it is international territory... the Russians have planted their flag.

What does it take to get it through to living and thinking grey matter that the North Pole - where that Russian flag was planted - is NOT Canadian territory?

Just talk ... well founded talk. The whole world knows how Uncle Sam respects boundaries.