Good thing we didn't listen to some experts and run in to negotiate away our sovereignty, prematurely!!!
Canada Lax on Negotiating Arctic Sovereignty
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Canadian Senate issues report on Arctic sovereignty | Foreign Policy Blogs
Current news on what is happening regarding the Arctic - a PDF of the complete 75 page report is available.
Current news on what is happening regarding the Arctic - a PDF of the complete 75 page report is available.
What's to negotiate. Everything that borders Canadian territory belongs to Canada ... c'est tout. The US can put a line around the Alaskan territory if they want, but Canada obviously owns the bulk and will dominate even outside the line around the Alaskan territory. Canada and Russian can draw a line in the midddle and after that ... there's nothing to discuss.
... or is there something more too it, like Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? The last three were under protection of Russia in the past ... and so be it. Iceland should be able to choose ... nothing for the US to negotiate. It's Canadian territory and thanks to Harper it has been protected and watched since he's been in charge.
... or is there something more too it, like Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? The last three were under protection of Russia in the past ... and so be it. Iceland should be able to choose ... nothing for the US to negotiate. It's Canadian territory and thanks to Harper it has been protected and watched since he's been in charge.
It's the definition of the Northwest passage which is really the only part that needs to be asserted before arctic sovereignty is clear. Everything else is fine, and even the notion that there will be some grand military intervention is overdone (which is why the jets are pointless other than using as trophies to bolster the economy).
But yes, there is still a dispute as to whether the passage is internationally recognized as "internal waters" or an "international strait". If it is an international straight then the U.S. and other surrounding countries will be able to pass through without our consent, and that supposedly might lead to other problems with the local Inuit and the environment from what I understand.
All said and done, is that the sooner we nail this one down, the less voodoo talk about "crazy russians" and military hyperbole we need to worry about. But we already had one chance when the Americans actually favoured our position by calling it an opportunity for terrorists. For whatever reason, we pussied out.
As per the links above, I agree that we're in the clear for everything other than the Northwest passage.
Last edited:
I see ... thanks ... I could never quite figure out how it was in dispute. However, if the US would like the waters to be declared international territories, then indeed Canada would be compromised in several ways. Not only would the Inuit culture be at risk, but Canada would open itself up to an attack from the North. Face to face combat is something from the past, but the Northern border could still come under threat. The US should have no voice in this discussion as it has nothing but Alaska as territories ... and that vote is insignificant in the big picture.
Harper had this one before he was elected, and hopefully he will look after it. The waters will be monitored by submarines with flyovers ... I suppose.
Are the people from the US suggesting that there are weak borders in Canada and if Canada watches over it's territories then terrorists will arrive on the Northern shores?
No dots on the sea floor ... that's like giving away ... water with the air ... giving away the farm ... to a country that cannot manage it's budget. That would be seriously foolish.
Harper had this one before he was elected, and hopefully he will look after it. The waters will be monitored by submarines with flyovers ... I suppose.
Are the people from the US suggesting that there are weak borders in Canada and if Canada watches over it's territories then terrorists will arrive on the Northern shores?
No dots on the sea floor ... that's like giving away ... water with the air ... giving away the farm ... to a country that cannot manage it's budget. That would be seriously foolish.
No no.. the U.S. position at some point was that if the Northwest passage was an international straight, then there would be less security than if Canada enforced the passage as "internal waters". That was our chance to step in and add the point to our bullet list and work towards asserting the most important part in this sovereignty deal.
Since we didn't - we now have this lingering rhetoric about the possibility of attack from the russians or martians from Alaska. That creates an uncertainty about the territory that is partially legitimate, but could also be used as fear mongering.
We need to use words instead of swords to get international recognition of the area as internal waters. That would make Canada a much safer place, and would reduce our dependency on pumping the military-industrial complex.
Now that Baird is done buttering up China, he should add brain to the algorithm that includes his nuts and start working on an agreement.
Technically, there are a lot of choke points in the archipelago that close off the Passage. I see no reason - other than things like Liberian-registrations and potential Exxon Valdiz(es) to keep it from being a money-maker like the Seaway.
The passage will indeed be in use very shortly. It's the only way we can develope and transport the unbelieveable amounts of mineral wealth in the high Arctic.
...and so it begins...
Canada "too small" to develop Northwest Passage shipping, diplomat says
Canada will lose out to Russia's Arctic shipping routes because it is too small to finance the infrastructure, France's ambassador for the polar regions said Monday.
Melting polar ice will make Canada's Northwest Passage more accessible in the next decades, but Canada does not seem interested in exploiting it for shipping, said Michel Rocard, who recently returned from a tour of the Arctic aboard the Canadian icebreaker Amundsen.
"I have the impression that Canada has given up on the competition to attract a large part of the traffic in 25 or 30 years," Rocard said.
The former French prime minister said Canada is "too small to finance itself the infrastructure" needed to spur commercial shipping through its Northwest Passage — a shorter route between European and Asian markets than the Suez and Panama canals. In contrast, Rocard said, Russia is an "Arctic force" with several icebreakers, including four new nuclear-powered ones.
Rob Huebert, a professor in circumpolar relations at the University of Calgary, said it's not a question of being "too small" but rather one of political will and economics determining how fast Canada moves on developing transpolar trade.
"We still haven't really made up our minds if we want international shipping coming though our waterways," Huebert said. "Because there's still ice there's not the economic argument for transpolar shipping."
Huebert said shipping companies that transit through the Panama Canal or around the tip of South America still can't be convinced to take the northern route because it requires an icebreaker escort and the shipping season is shorter.
He added there is no "concentrated effort" to chart Canada's Arctic waterways to reflect recent changes in sea ice, making it dangerous in some cases for vessels to travel through.
U.S. researchers have said global warming could leave the region ice-free by 2030.
Michael Byers, an expert in international law and the Arctic at the University of British Columbia, said the Northwest Passage will "almost certainly" be open in September and October for vessels of any kind, not just icebreakers, because the sea ice is growing weaker.
"The 'deepwater route' from Lancaster Sound through Barrow Strait . . . has the depth and width to easily accommodate supertankers and other supersized vessels," Byers told Postmedia News in an email.
However, Byers said, opening up to transpolar shipping raises some difficult questions on how Canada will protect against oil spills or criminal activity — while its sovereignty over the waterway is still a matter of dispute.
"Foreign shipping companies want world class navigation aids, charts, search and rescue, ports of refuge, policing and icebreaker assistance. If Canada builds an 'Arctic Gateway' to the world through these kinds of investments, foreign companies and governments will quickly become more accepting of Canadian sovereignty," Byers said.
Rocard said that Russia's Arctic passage along the Siberian coast is less winding and has fewer islands than Canada's Northwest Passage, but it is a bit longer. And while Resolute Bay in Canada's far north has a mere 280 inhabitants, Russia's northernmost port cities of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk are home to 300,000 and 350,000 people, respectively.
http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+s...iplomat+says/5224606/story.html#ixzz1UdhJ4TWg
Canada "too small" to develop Northwest Passage shipping, diplomat says
Canada will lose out to Russia's Arctic shipping routes because it is too small to finance the infrastructure, France's ambassador for the polar regions said Monday.
Melting polar ice will make Canada's Northwest Passage more accessible in the next decades, but Canada does not seem interested in exploiting it for shipping, said Michel Rocard, who recently returned from a tour of the Arctic aboard the Canadian icebreaker Amundsen.
"I have the impression that Canada has given up on the competition to attract a large part of the traffic in 25 or 30 years," Rocard said.
The former French prime minister said Canada is "too small to finance itself the infrastructure" needed to spur commercial shipping through its Northwest Passage — a shorter route between European and Asian markets than the Suez and Panama canals. In contrast, Rocard said, Russia is an "Arctic force" with several icebreakers, including four new nuclear-powered ones.
Rob Huebert, a professor in circumpolar relations at the University of Calgary, said it's not a question of being "too small" but rather one of political will and economics determining how fast Canada moves on developing transpolar trade.
"We still haven't really made up our minds if we want international shipping coming though our waterways," Huebert said. "Because there's still ice there's not the economic argument for transpolar shipping."
Huebert said shipping companies that transit through the Panama Canal or around the tip of South America still can't be convinced to take the northern route because it requires an icebreaker escort and the shipping season is shorter.
He added there is no "concentrated effort" to chart Canada's Arctic waterways to reflect recent changes in sea ice, making it dangerous in some cases for vessels to travel through.
U.S. researchers have said global warming could leave the region ice-free by 2030.
Michael Byers, an expert in international law and the Arctic at the University of British Columbia, said the Northwest Passage will "almost certainly" be open in September and October for vessels of any kind, not just icebreakers, because the sea ice is growing weaker.
"The 'deepwater route' from Lancaster Sound through Barrow Strait . . . has the depth and width to easily accommodate supertankers and other supersized vessels," Byers told Postmedia News in an email.
However, Byers said, opening up to transpolar shipping raises some difficult questions on how Canada will protect against oil spills or criminal activity — while its sovereignty over the waterway is still a matter of dispute.
"Foreign shipping companies want world class navigation aids, charts, search and rescue, ports of refuge, policing and icebreaker assistance. If Canada builds an 'Arctic Gateway' to the world through these kinds of investments, foreign companies and governments will quickly become more accepting of Canadian sovereignty," Byers said.
Rocard said that Russia's Arctic passage along the Siberian coast is less winding and has fewer islands than Canada's Northwest Passage, but it is a bit longer. And while Resolute Bay in Canada's far north has a mere 280 inhabitants, Russia's northernmost port cities of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk are home to 300,000 and 350,000 people, respectively.
http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+s...iplomat+says/5224606/story.html#ixzz1UdhJ4TWg
Are they saying they want us to charge through the ass to go the trough the pass? What do the Chinese charge to use the Panama Canal?
It's the opposite.
If we begin to build an infrastructure, it will be a way of asserting our sovereignty. We would be able to let our ships pass through alone because we've defined the ports and security measures ourselves. That's why France has been smart enough to get a word in on our ability to finance that kind of endeavor.
There are wolves knocking at the door, and all we have is a paper tiger to respond.