Law of the sea has been antiquated and is now the Universal Commercial Code which now includes space. We need to park a sattelite in space that covers the north long before we send scuba troops to guard under the ice cap.
Canadians prepared to fight for Arctic, survey
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Some people want more monitoring of the Arctic
CBC News - Technology & Science - Greenland, Nunavut want Arctic protection
CBC News - Technology & Science - Greenland, Nunavut want Arctic protection
Greenland, Nunavut want Arctic protection
Last Updated: Thursday, February 3, 2011 | 6:03 PM ET Comments21Recommend6
CBC News
Some of Greenland's politicians say they want to team up with Nunavut to demand better protection for Arctic waters, as areas like the Northwest Passage open up to more marine traffic.
Several members of Greenland's home-rule government's foreign affairs and security policy committee are meeting with Nunavut Premier Eva Aariak and other leaders in Iqaluit this week to talk about issues concerning the regions, both of which have large Inuit populations.
Aleqa Hammond, one of the Greenland MPs, said people in her country are worried about the shrinking and thinning polar ice cap, and how it could affect Arctic waterways.
"The Northwest Passage and also the North Pole will put us in a very, very fragile and delicate situation," Hammond told CBC News.
"The North Pole will be ice-free during summer in years to come, and that itself will put the Arctic Sea basin on a very high risk of ... environmental disasters that might be there," she added. "Many of the ships that are coming in our waters ... are not built for icy waters."
If an accident ever happens in Arctic waters, Hammond said that could jeopardize the fragile Arctic environment — especially in areas where narwhal and other marine mammals migrate — in both Greenland and Nunavut.
Want tougher shipping rules
Hammond and other members of the committee said Greenland wants to join forces with Inuit in Nunavut to call for tough marine regulations and controls, especially rules calling for all ships travelling in the Arctic to be double-hulled.
The call for tougher Arctic marine rules was applauded by Michael Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
Byers said Canadian marine legislation that governs areas such as the Northwest Passage dates back to the 1970s, and must be updated to address new realities in the Arctic.
He also noted that as the sea ice melts, the waters of the central Arctic could become a very busy shipping route in the next 10 to 20 years.
"It's also quite significant that they're talking about the central Arctic Ocean, talking about areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of any coastal state," Byers said.
"Perhaps we will see here an effort by the Arctic Council to draft a new multilateral treaty on shipping standards for the Arctic Ocean for those areas in international jurisdiction."
The issue of Arctic marine protection is expected to be discussed at the Arctic Council's next meeting this spring in Greenland.
Last Updated: Thursday, February 3, 2011 | 6:03 PM ET Comments21Recommend6
CBC News
Some of Greenland's politicians say they want to team up with Nunavut to demand better protection for Arctic waters, as areas like the Northwest Passage open up to more marine traffic.
Several members of Greenland's home-rule government's foreign affairs and security policy committee are meeting with Nunavut Premier Eva Aariak and other leaders in Iqaluit this week to talk about issues concerning the regions, both of which have large Inuit populations.
Aleqa Hammond, one of the Greenland MPs, said people in her country are worried about the shrinking and thinning polar ice cap, and how it could affect Arctic waterways.
"The Northwest Passage and also the North Pole will put us in a very, very fragile and delicate situation," Hammond told CBC News.
"The North Pole will be ice-free during summer in years to come, and that itself will put the Arctic Sea basin on a very high risk of ... environmental disasters that might be there," she added. "Many of the ships that are coming in our waters ... are not built for icy waters."
If an accident ever happens in Arctic waters, Hammond said that could jeopardize the fragile Arctic environment — especially in areas where narwhal and other marine mammals migrate — in both Greenland and Nunavut.
Want tougher shipping rules
Hammond and other members of the committee said Greenland wants to join forces with Inuit in Nunavut to call for tough marine regulations and controls, especially rules calling for all ships travelling in the Arctic to be double-hulled.
The call for tougher Arctic marine rules was applauded by Michael Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
Byers said Canadian marine legislation that governs areas such as the Northwest Passage dates back to the 1970s, and must be updated to address new realities in the Arctic.
He also noted that as the sea ice melts, the waters of the central Arctic could become a very busy shipping route in the next 10 to 20 years.
"It's also quite significant that they're talking about the central Arctic Ocean, talking about areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of any coastal state," Byers said.
"Perhaps we will see here an effort by the Arctic Council to draft a new multilateral treaty on shipping standards for the Arctic Ocean for those areas in international jurisdiction."
The issue of Arctic marine protection is expected to be discussed at the Arctic Council's next meeting this spring in Greenland.
As far as right of ownership of the Arctic goes we have nothing to prove, the boundary years ago was established along the 49th parallel and further south of that east of the Lake head. Russia gave up her rights to Alaska for $7 million so it was only through stupidity the U.S. gained that- like stealing candy from babies.
To the best of my knowledge America, Russia and China do not recognize Canadian claims to the continental shelf sloping into the Arctic Ocean. The US is not a signatory to the Law of the Sea Convention. Friendship is a good thing.
That's why all the countries involved are doing subsea surveys to find out where the continental shelf actually is and who owns it. No war or conflict is imminent, but we need a greater presence in the north. You have to use it or how can you say it's yours? Passing laws is only one step.
The Ekos Research study of the eight Arctic countries, conducted for the Munk School of Global Affairs, found there is a strong consensus among northern and southern Canadians when it comes to the Arctic.
Fifty-two percent of northerners and 60% of southern Canadians believe in strengthening the military presence in the Arctic, while 82% of northerners and 71% of southerners think the Canadian Rangers — a largely indigenous militia of reservists — should be expanded with more personnel and resources.
Also, while a majority of Americans seem willing — even eager — to compromise with Canada on control of the Beaufort Sea, Canadians overwhelmingly want to claim the resource-rich Beaufort Sea as their own and say the government should be prepared to defend it.
From Toronto SunFifty-two percent of northerners and 60% of southern Canadians believe in strengthening the military presence in the Arctic, while 82% of northerners and 71% of southerners think the Canadian Rangers — a largely indigenous militia of reservists — should be expanded with more personnel and resources.
Also, while a majority of Americans seem willing — even eager — to compromise with Canada on control of the Beaufort Sea, Canadians overwhelmingly want to claim the resource-rich Beaufort Sea as their own and say the government should be prepared to defend it.
I do believe a strong Canadian military presence in the North would send a strong signal to the World that "this is ours, we value it and intend to defend it". I also believe that the Canadian Ranger force of Indigenous People is a vital component of a Northern military presence. Rather than splintering policies that result in "us' and "them", the Canadian Rangers could be a big help in integrating Indigenous People into Canadian society as well as providing much needed employment and education opportunities.
Are Canadians prepared to pay the taxes required to defend their claims? Has anyone quantified how much it will take.
Take a look at the struggle between the Chinese and Japanese over the resource rich seas around the Shenkaku Islands. There are peoples on earth that do not play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules.
We Americans have discovered we are not exempt from the processes and forces of history. I suspect the Canadians are not exempt either.
Imo Canada is capable of defending its claims by itself if it is willing to become a military power to be reckoned with. But that will be a different Canada than the one I know.
Take a look at the struggle between the Chinese and Japanese over the resource rich seas around the Shenkaku Islands. There are peoples on earth that do not play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules.
We Americans have discovered we are not exempt from the processes and forces of history. I suspect the Canadians are not exempt either.
Imo Canada is capable of defending its claims by itself if it is willing to become a military power to be reckoned with. But that will be a different Canada than the one I know.
If the Law of the Sea says all on our continental shelf is ours, then all on that shelf is ours regardless of whether we have troops there or not. Inversely, all that is not on our shelf isn't ours, no matter how many troops we have there.
Who the hell did the survey? I remember reading:lol: that Canadians dont want f-35's, and i think have 2 subs bought from the brits that suck...No one wants to fight, its just all steam..... When the Russians submit their additional data and get the Losmonov Ridge no one reading this article will rush up their on foot patrol to stop them.... And if or when the place warms up and the straits become navigable you know some heavy **** will be going through and around up north. And we gotta get our people up there so hit those earth sciences classes hard cause the wild west just came back.
Well, should the Russians manage to prove that that ridge belongs to them, then let them have it. Until then, it's international waters. And if we manage to prove it's ours, then we'll claim it and defend it if necessary, but again, until then it's international waters.
Should we need to expand our military to patrol that region though, I'd hope we do it the responsible way by raising taxes, not borrowing more like we seem to be doing now.
It seems right now 'Support our troops!' is synonymous with 'Let the lender support our troops for now until we pay back at interest!' rather than 'Give us the privilege of supporting our troops through our own hard-earned money so as to save on debt and interest later so as to ensure a strong country later!'.
After all, a strong military on a weak economic foundation won't last long.
Huh?
If the wild wet comes back up there, just what would Canada do if Russia wanted to mine/drill in a area you claim? Just how far would you push this aggressive stance?
If it's just an area we claim, then I'd say let's not even claim it. If however we can prove that according to the established law of the sea it's on our continental ridge and so we own it, as per established international laws, then I would certainly defend that territory. Remember, the last thing Russia wold want would be a war over it even if it is militarily more powerful than Canada, on the simple grounds that if as per established international laws it is recognized as legitimately Canadian territory, the Russians would know they're in the wrong and so it would tarnish their international reputation and the trust of their neighbours in their respect for the rule of law. So it's highly unlikely they'd even bother claiming territory they can't prove belongs to them as per international laws.
But just for entertainment's sake, let's suppose they did claim it anyway and were prepared to fight for it. With ten times Canada's population, the Russians would certainly have an edge. I'd personally fight Russian on a number of fronts:
1. Militarily, with whatever we have.
2. Diplomatically on the international stage by getting other countries on our side to either fight on our side or at least declare an embargo on Russia on the grounds that it's adopting a dangerous expansionist policy.
Whether we win or lose, Russia is bound to lose too owing to the enemies would would have built for itself among its neighbour countries which would suddenly be more loath to trust it.
By the way the same applies to Canada. Should Canada claim land it cannot prove to own legitimately, and should it fight for it, even if it did win, it doesn't change the fact that even the US would be hard-pressed to defend Canada when Canada would clearly be in the wrong.
Honestly Ironsides, would you want the US government to side with Canada in a war against Russia over territory Canada would be claiming illegitimately?
Honestly, I appreciate our alliance with the US, but I sure hope the US alliance with Canada is also one based on principle, and not blind loyalty. I'd hope that if Canada were violating international law in claiming land it doesn't own, let's say Russian just for the sake of argument, that the US would stand on the principle of the rule of law and not blind loyalty to Canada.
And honestly, I hope Canada's alliance with the US is based on the same principle of the rule of law. Allies, yes, but only in full accordance with the principles of international law.
What international laws? They'll just send a Russian Jew to argue with you. Good luck with that.
The funny thing is that I'm 90% sure we would side with you out of loyalty alone. That's what real friends do.
i fear this is going to be a huge fight.... after all wouldn't it be awsome drinking water some day :-0))
Forget it, your not getting Alaska.We never recognized the King. May help ya fend of the other guys though.
When one has to negotiate one needs a starting point. It would be foolish to have as a start the position you hope to end up with. We get Alaska but you have to keep Sarah Paulin and keep her off TV.
Unless the global warming theorists are right it is largely moot anyway since without open water there will be little development.