Canadians prepared to fight for Arctic, survey


dumpthemonarchy
#1
Canadians want troops taken from Afghanistan and other parts of the world to patrol the Arctic. It's only the size of western Europe, it deserves a few bases so it can be patrolled effectively so we know who is there.

- a "clear majority" also wants to increase Canada's military presence in the Arctic.

- "Canadians see the Arctic as our foremost foreign policy priority and one which should be resourced accordingly,"

- A vast majority of Canadians, for example, insist that the famed Northwest Passage is a Canadian waterway, "but, no one else
shares this view."



AFP: Canadians prepared to fight for Arctic: survey

Canadians prepared to fight for Arctic: survey

By Michel Comte (AFP) Jan 25, 2011

OTTAWA Canadians rank the Arctic as their top foreign policy priority and support shifting up to 3,000 troops from UN missions abroad to defend disputed claims in the far north, a survey showed Tuesday.

This view puts Canada at odds with its seven Arctic neighbors and has "ominous implications" for cooperation in the resource-rich region, the EKOS poll's authors warned.

The results, published by the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and the Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation, show that while Canadians say they welcome working with other countries, a "clear majority" also wants to increase Canada's military presence in the Arctic.

Forty-three percent of Canadians said their government should pursue a firm line in defending Canadian sections of the Arctic.
This hard line was echoed by 36 percent of respondents in Iceland, 34 percent in Russia and 10 percent or less in the United States, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark.

Fifty-eight percent of Canadians also said they support a strengthened military presence in the north to protect against international threats.

"Canadians see the Arctic as our foremost foreign policy priority and one which should be resourced accordingly," said the study, noting that most respondents favor shifting military resources to the region rather than deploying them to other conflict zones.
"The Arctic is seen as a crucial ingredient to our sense of national identity but, at the same time, it is also considered an under-resourced area of critical importance to our future."

The researchers warned "there are some huge clashes between Canadian views on the Arctic and those of our Arctic neighbors."
A vast majority of Canadians, for example, insist that the famed Northwest Passage is a Canadian waterway, "but, no one else shares this view."

In addition, 49 percent of Canadians would like Ottawa to assert full sovereignty over the Beaufort Sea while 62 percent of Americans would prefer to strike a deal with Canada to carve up the disputed seabed.

"Perhaps the most noteworthy and troubling conclusion of this research is that Canada stands relatively alone on many issues," the study concluded.

Approximately 9,000 people in eight nations were surveyed in November for the study.
Commenting on the poll, Defense Minsiter Peter MacKay said the Arctic is "a very high priority for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and our government."

Canada's increased militarization of the Arctic, he added, is "in response to what Canadians expect."

The country has stepped up its military alertness along its northern frontier largely in response to Russian "testing" its boundaries with military flights skirting the border, a practice not seen since the Cold War.

The prime minister has also announced plans for a sensor net, more navy patrols, port and airport improvements, and a military training camp in the far north.

Canada's chief of defense staff, however, has downplayed the risk of armed conflict in the Arctic itself.

"There is no conventional military threat to the Arctic," General Walter Natynczyk told a Halifax defense summit in 2009. "If someone were to invade the Canadian Arctic, my first task would be to rescue them."

"The Arctic is a very harsh environment," he explained.

According to the US Geological Survey, the Arctic seabed holds up to 90 billion barrels of oil and 30 percent of the world's untapped gas resources.

Arctic nations are locked in a tight race to gather evidence to support their claims as research suggests global warming could leave the region ice free by 2030, opening up navigation and access for oil rigs to the sea floor.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that any coastal state can claim undersea territory 200 nautical miles from their shoreline and exploit the natural resources within that zone.
Canada and Russia claim the Lomonosov Ridge, a mountain chain running underneath the Arctic, as an extension of their continental shelf.

Canada and Denmark also both claim the deserted Arctic isle of Hans.
 
lone wolf
#2
Hans Island served its purpose as a roadblock to submarine traffic in Nares Strait. By agreement, dated 17 December 1973, and based on Canadian Hydrographic Services, Chart 7071 of July 31 1964 and Chart 7072 of April 30, 1971, there is no border across the Island
 
Chiliagon
-1
#3
they can have it, it's so cold, why would anyone really want to live there?
 
lone wolf
#4
Some folks have balls....
 
Unforgiven
#5
It's always been ours. The North has always been held as a resource rich part of Canada that was happily frozen and kept like a nest egg for the future Canadians benefit when the climate changed and those resources became available.
Now that it's looking like those resources are becoming available, everybody want to own a part of the North.

We own it and any court will provide a showcase for us to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's all ours. By the rules that are established and help up over the years, the North is ours and all it's resources too. Being a member of Nato, we don't have to worry about backing it up militarily. What's more, should push come to shove, I suppose we could lop off a nice chunk for the US in return for military protection from any adversary we couldn't dispatch ourselves.

So bring it on, we have a very strong position and no reason what so ever to give any of it up at this point.
 
darkbeaver
#6
We should sell it to the Russians.
 
mt_pockets1000
+1
#7  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ChiliagonView Post

they can have it, it's so cold, why would anyone really want to live there?

You will not find a more beautiful landscape. Starkly beautiful that is. Dress warmly and you'll enjoy it, I guarantee it.

Perhaps now might be the time to pay a visit before the missiles start flying.
 
darkbeaver
#8
The Russians would build arctic resorts and we could take Arctic Russian icebreaker cruises to visit them. Canada just dosen't have the technology or money to develope the Arctic for proper green exploitation tourism. I just had a thought, "going green", in the Arctic would be a tragedy. White is right. haha
 
Sparrow
#9
We definitely need to stand up for what is ours.
 
darkbeaver
#10
Are you Inuit?
 
mt_pockets1000
#11
Yeah, a chain of ice hotels across the Dew Line. Promote it on the Oprah Windfree show.
 
Unforgiven
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

We should sell it to the Russians.

Screw the Russians they're *******s.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Are you Inuit?

Into what?
 
dumpthemonarchy
#13
We need to patrol the Arctic and watch developments, but we don't have any significant presence. We don't necessarily need military bases, but a coast guard patrol to see who is coming and going. I think it should be open, but we have to know who is going there.

The aboriginal patrol there is a joke, it must be permanent and upgraded.
 
MHz
#14
No use buying any US equipment, we've been using their stuff for 50 years and we haven't caught one intruder yet. We even had Russia do the aerial surveys that looks for mineral deposits just because the US would have been able to have the master copy of the data and we would get what they thought we were entitled to.
 
Trotz
-1
#15
Russia already has a huge piece of the Artic and the Canadian newspapers are trying to sell us aggression from Norway and Denmark? Sounds like a bad joke but I guess the military industry is just barking for more money these days.
 
MHz
#16
Everything we need can be slant drilled into from the stability of land sites, if we ever needed it. Every Nation just has to draw a straight line pointed right at the North Pole and the pie is carved up fairly.

Google Maps
 
ironsides
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

No use buying any US equipment, we've been using their stuff for 50 years and we haven't caught one intruder yet. We even had Russia do the aerial surveys that looks for mineral deposits just because the US would have been able to have the master copy of the data and we would get what they thought we were entitled to.

We already have the information needed, been flying over Canada for years. But seriously, what would you do about countries like Norway and Denmark if they insisted?
 
taxslave
#18
I consider Canadian territory to start from a line 200 miles off Newfoundland to the pole on the east and continue the Yukon/Alaska border to the pole on the west. Not sure that Alaska isn't really ours as well since there is some doubt that Russia had the right to sell Alaska to the US. It should have been part of the Hudson bay grant from the king.
 
petros
#19
Quote:

Canadians want troops taken from Afghanistan and other parts of the world to patrol the Arctic.

We do? I'll bet you a dollar 95% of Canadians have never been north of 55 degrees and I'll bet another dollar that 25% percent have no clue that Nunavut exists.
 
wulfie68
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

We already have the information needed, been flying over Canada for years. But seriously, what would you do about countries like Norway and Denmark if they insisted?

Sweet F.A.

Most Canadians have lost their spine to a large extent. We see it in the way so many Canadians want to appease the seperatists in Quebec, instead of throwing those guilty of sedition and high treason into prison. We see it every time it comes time to upgrade and improve our military's equipment or if there is a mission where our troops might be in danger from more than disease, wild animals and vehicle accidents. Case in point: Afghanistan but there was a lot of public backtracking on the Balkan missions and even Somalia, when we had troops involved in those places. If there are casualties involved, the will of the Canadian public disperses like a fart in a stiff wind.

Some where along the line, we forgot that we're a country that has always been involved in conflict; we want to believe the myth that our history is so much more peace loving and bloodless than our American cousins. We've also lost touch with who our allies are and who shouldn't be trusted as much, as evidenced by those who want to crawl in bed with the Chinese, Russians and pretty much anyone but the Americans.

Don't get me wrong: our troops are top notch at what they do, and they aren't afraid to take on challenges but our overall public support for them is weak and our governmental leadership is weaker.
 
petros
-1
#21
Grow poppies on the tundra then the military will have some working capital for Arctic patrols.

It works for NATO.

NATO = Need Another Tonne of Opium?
 
BaalsTears
#22
How will Canada defend its claims in the Arctic? The Canadian military punches above its weight, but that doesn't change the fact that to defend the Arctic by itself Canada will have to undertake a significant military buildup.

The ambivalence of the Canadian people about America means it may be very unlikely for the two countries to be able to work together on the Arctic.

We are all aware of Russian claims. Are we all aware of China's interest in the Arctic? Opinions - The Globe and Mail

Today China wants observer status on the Arctic Council. Tomorrow China will want full membership.

Who are Canada's friends and who are not her friends? Canadians have decisions to make.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Grow poppies on the tundra then the military will have some working capital for Arctic patrols.

It works for NATO.

NATO = Need Another Tonne of Opium?


The experience of Afghanistan has hollowed out NATO.
 
lone wolf
#23
Blah.... Some folks just like to impress - so much so that they'll go belly-up with debt just to maintain an appearance....
 
Machjo
#24
As far as I'm concerned, Canada does not own any land other than that recognized by the international community. If we wish to make a claim on any other land, then let's settle the dispute once and for all and have it recognized.

This is pure logic. If Canada can unanimously make a claim on any land it thinks it owns, then naturally this same right applies to all countries. I'm sure any thinking person can see how that can lead to a few problems. This is why we have international laws, to establish rules that are agreed-upon by the international community to avoid such conflicts. Strong-arm tactics without first looking at legal solutions is pure thuggery. I'd like to think Canada can rise above that.
 
lone wolf
+1
#25
...or a map
 
Machjo
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

...or a map

Huh?
 
petros
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

As far as I'm concerned, Canada does not own any land other than that recognized by the international community. If we wish to make a claim on any other land, then let's settle the dispute once and for all and have it recognized.

This is pure logic. If Canada can unanimously make a claim on any land it thinks it owns, then naturally this same right applies to all countries. I'm sure any thinking person can see how that can lead to a few problems. This is why we have international laws, to establish rules that are agreed-upon by the international community to avoid such conflicts. Strong-arm tactics without first looking at legal solutions is pure thuggery. I'd like to think Canada can rise above that.

There is a woman named Dr. Ruth Jackson from the Canadian Geological Survey that you really should google sometime. She is the type that will answer your emails if you want to know what precisely is being disputed.

I'm sure it will be a very enlightening experience for some of the commentators on this thread.
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

There is a woman named Dr. Ruth Jackson from the Canadian Geological Survey that you really should google sometime. She is the type that will answer your emails if you want to know what precisely is being disputed.

I'm sure it will be a very enlightening experience for some of the commentators on this thread.

I Googled Dr. Ruth Jackson, but a ton of sites come up, and for all I know there could be a few Dr. Ruth Jacksons. Any links?
 
petros
#29
NRCan report here: Polar Continental Shelf Program Science Report 2008/09: Logistical Support for Leading-Edge Scientific Research in the Canadian Arctic

CDN/US joint project here: Extended Continental Shelf Project
 
Machjo
#30
Battle for the Arctic - Doc Zone | CBC-TV

Interesting article here. Now if there is a legal way to claim that land as it appears we're trying to do here, then great. After all, we can have all the troops there that we want, but without legal recognition, the land still won't belong to us. If we can prove that it does belong to us according to the Law of the Sea, then we have something going for us even without troops there.
 
no new posts