U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Waters&

[Doryman]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

With comments like that from the U.S ambassador i wonder if a policy similar to that would be necessary to assert Canadian control.

Maybe not blow it to sky-high, but board vessels or fire warning shots.

I wonder why the US would make a fuss about Artic Soveriegnty, We have Alaska, and could probably get permission to cross the Canadian artic Areas if we asked REAL NICE. Why are those Washington types soooo difficult about stuff that has little bearing at present and is an if, if the NorthWest Passage was ever Navigable.

Sorry, Mum never taught the southern Colonials any manners.

If Harper really gets us some Navy Icebreakers and lets us effectively lead sovereignty patrols, then he's got my vote for the next ten elections.

 

[Hank C]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

The Conservative leader said he'll stick to his campaign promise to bolster Canada's military presence in the North and build big new military icebreakers. He was responding to comments Wednesday by U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, who criticized the plans, claiming the Arctic passage as "neutral waters."

Harper said Canada will do what it wants in its territory.

"The United States defends its sovereignty; the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," he said.

"It is the Canadian people that we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

This is the kind of talk we need from a Canadian Leader, Mr. Harper has impressed me in his few days as PM. He is managing to get Canada's point across without all the childish "knee-jerk" anti Americanism. This is the kind of talk that the US understands and I have no doubts that our relationship will be strengthened with our new government.

All the people who were dismissing the "arctic sovereignty" issue as foolish or a waste of money, now seem to be getting behind the idea. We now see the Liberal neglect, and that it is importaint so good for Mr Harper on addressing the issue firmly.

 

[Martin Le Acadien]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

If Harper really gets us some Navy Icebreakers and lets us effectively lead sovereignty patrols, then he's got my vote for the next ten elections.

If Harper can teach Baja Canada how to do effective Sovereignty Patrols, we might even vote for him down here. Southern Boundary is being breached by Armed Thugs, etc.

The Artic east of Alaska belongs to Canada, HANS ISLAND is a question and Greenland is administered by Denmark. If it is with in 12 Nautical Miles of Land, it is territorial except for the 200 miles of fishing zone and the OCS (Outer Continental shelf) for mineral production which belongs to the Country which it touches vis-Canada!

Ask permission before USE.

 

[the caracal kid]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

the timing of this ambasadorial "outburst" is interesting....

 

[I think not]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

You know what the best part of this thread is? Those on the left, center and right agreeing on how Harper responded and the way he should conduct himself. Bravo!

 

[#juan]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

the timing of this ambasadorial "outburst" is interesting....

You don't think somebody is loading Harper's gun for him do you?.. :wink:

 

[the caracal kid]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

well, considering the US benefits from us patroling the north given they would be doing it otherwise, and it is unlikely canada would actually deny the US passage, the ambassador making such a statement now seems a little too coincidental.

 

[#juan]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

You could be right

and the timing couldn't have been better if they'd ......

 

[Machjo]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

I'd like to know how the UN recognizes Canada's borders, at least in relation to disputed territory; does anyone know of any official UN website which would contain this information, or any unofficial website which would contain the UN official stance on this? I'd like to know, since this could also determine my opinion on the issue.

 

[Toro]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Can

Is there any country in the world that recognizes Canada's territorial claim over the Northwest Passage?

 

[Machjo]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

And if there are no settled claims on the North, then obviously all parties concerned have legitimate claims. In this case, it would probably be best to settle these claims diplomatically ASAP to keep them from blowing out of proportion in future.

 

[MMMike]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

the timing of this ambasadorial "outburst" is interesting....

You don't think somebody is loading Harper's gun for him do you?.. :wink:

:lol: :lol: The same occured to me earlier. Who really knows what games are played at the highest levels.

 

[Machjo]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

Besides, as long as the UN does not recognize Canada's sovereignty in teh area, then any military presence is mearely dealing with the symptoms (e.g., US subs comming through without permission), but not the sourse (i.e., lack of offifial UN recognition) of the problem.

While I'm not expressing my opinion for or against a greater military presence in the area, I'm just stating that military presence alone, as an end in its own right, means squat. If Harper will spend money on themilitary, it ought to be a means to an end (i.e., obtaining official recognition of Canada's sovereignty in the area through diplomatic mens ASAP). Any military presence ought to to complement, not substitute, the push to settle the Northwest issue once and for all through official UN channels.

After all, a thousand years of military presence without official recognition by the UN will cost lots of money, and as soon as we can't afford it anymore, the problems will come back! Yet official recognition by the UN maintains stability with or without a military presence in the area. This also ensures that any military engagement for Canada's sovereignty would have the blessings of the internationsl community to do whatever it must to defend itself. Until then, we'd just be viewed as becomming increasingly hawkish.

 

[sanch]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

Here is a synopsis of the issues. The region is also resource rich with natural gas and mineral wealth so it is a prize. The US would be making similar cliams if the territory was abutting its land.

http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml

 

[Machjo]

Informative article: Thanks.

Here is a synopsis of the issues. The region is also resource rich with natural gas and mineral wealth so it is a prize. The US would be making similar cliams if the territory was abutting its land.

http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml

So it would seem that, according to that article, to fight to sovereignty of the area would be a waste of time according to international law, but that Canada might be able to push for international laws to protect the arctic environment and protect the Innuit form the potential impact of increased shipping in the area. Canada might likewise be able to gain exclusive rights of some kind (resources for instance) in exchange for responsibility defending internaitonal laws in the area, including those relating not only to the ecology and the Innuit, but also to trafficking and other crimes.

Just what I seem to get from the article.

 

[Jay]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

Here is a synopsis of the issues. The region is also resource rich with natural gas and mineral wealth so it is a prize. The US would be making similar cliams if the territory was abutting its land.

Absolutely.


You never know, we might actually have a real issue here. I can't remember the last time we had a real issue with America...


The territory needs monitoring anyways, we might as well start the infrastructure for that now. It can't hurt.




“Canada’s Sovereignty in the Arctic is indivisible. It embraces land, sea, and ice. It extends without interruption to the seaward-facing coasts of the Arctic Islands. These Islands are joined and not divided by the waters between them. They are bridged for most of the year by ice. From time immemorial Canada’s Inuit people have used and occupied the ice as they have used and occupied the land.”

Secretary of State for External Affairs, Joe Clark, in the House of Commons on September 10, 1985.


:canada:

 

[I think not]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

Here is a synopsis of the issues. The region is also resource rich with natural gas and mineral wealth so it is a prize. The US would be making similar cliams if the territory was abutting its land.

http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml

Sanch, that was a great article, long read, but cleared up a great many things. For one, the US isn't the only country disputing Canadas claims to the Northwest Passage, the EU and Japan among others.

Great read.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

8O I can't believe what I just read. For a moment I'm considering that it's the Bush admin testing the waters to see what kind of reaction that they should get out of Harper. However That type of logic is like saying that the St Lawrence River and the great lakes don't have to be soverign either. EVERY bloody person who lives on all of those islands up there call themselves Canadians....

<<<Sorry, this touches a nerve so I hope your censor program is updated>>>

:x WHO THE fuck do they think they are!! When does that *censored** censored* goddamn government get to rewrite the fucking canadian map to suit the fucking *censored* greedy motives. Harper should double the effort on arctic soverignty now since those *censored* seem to be wanting access to our fuckin land, and is double daring him to make the first move, those cunts should fucking to *censored* and *censored* and learn how to *censored* and respect our *censored* MAP.


*censored*


Ok, I'm done.

 

[Jay]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

I know what you *censored* mean.

 

[Machjo]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Canada has no claim to Arctic Wat

Bad news, Jo Canadian. I love Canada too, and am a Canadian myself. But at the end of the day, it'll come down to international law, not emotions. And from what I got from the article, while Canada might be able to gain certain rights to the area (and that would have yet to be defined by international law), our claim to the area as ours is weak as far as international law is concerned. No point wasting our energy fighting a losing battle. From what I can see, internaitonal law might not support Canada's claims. That's one reason I'd like to read the relevant laws on-line for myself if thery are available.