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

[the caracal kid]

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

exactly, Machjo.

Emotion just plays into poorly thought out actions.

Emotion is a wonderful tool of governments to coerce their peoples.

 

[Toro]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Can

See, Bush is doing this to make Harper not look like the lackey he is.

Eh?

Eh?

 

[Machjo]

Don't get me wrong, Caracal kid.

exactly, Machjo.

Emotion just plays into poorly thought out actions.

Emotion is a wonderful tool of governments to coerce their peoples.

If Canada doesn have legitimate claims to the North West Passage in accordance with international law, then I'll stand behind Harper by all means.But from the limited info I've been able to gather thus far, Canada doesn't! This means that for us to spend all that money to have a military presence in teh Arctic is a waste of money, since the UN won't recognize it anyway. And besides, if Canada does have legitimate claims, then it shouldn't need a military presence anyway; a simple visit to the internaitonal court ought to suffice whenever our sovereignty is violated.

this is not to say I don't want Harper to push for this if there is in fact a legitimate claim grounded firmly in internaitonal law.

 

[Jo Canadian]

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

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.

:? All emotions aside. Countries, Nations, Empires, States...they all had to claim their soverignty in the eyes of the world one way or another. When did doing that stop? Just because it's starting to thaw they're NOW taking interest in it??? What? when it was the equivilant of Antarctica in their eyes before it wasn't worth a flick of snot and we could do what we want with it?

Fuck that shit man.

 

[sanch]

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

There are two ways that Canada could appeal to the International Court. One is by making a historical claim which there is no basis for. The other is by making a current claim by establishing a presence. Exercising responsibility for security and environmental protection would be a presence. By not doing what Harper is doing there would be no basis for an argument for any kind of Canadian rights. Harper is being strategic and protecting Canada’s sovereignty or claims to it, which is his job as prime Minister. I fail to see how doing nothing is in the best interests of Canada. We only have so many ports like Churchill to give away for a song.

 

[I think not]

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

You go Jo, I agree with you.

 

[Machjo]

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

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.

:? All emotions aside. Countries, Nations, Empires, States...they all had to claim their soverignty in the eyes of the world one way or another. When did doing that stop? Just because it's starting to thaw they're NOW taking interest in it??? What? when it was the equivilant of Antarctica in their eyes before it wasn't worth a flick of snot and we could do what we want with it?

*censored* that shit man.

The interest might have been increasing in recent years, but from what I can tell, it's not a new issue, having been around at least since the 1960s as far as I can remember. And the laws defining territoriality off shore are not new either; and those laws play an important role here.
Again, I'm not saying we ought not to consider ur options. I'm just saying that we need to look at the relevent international laws realistically while doing so.

As for the US, I couldn't care less what they think; they don't define international law. I'm just looing at it form a strictly legalistic standpoint here, because international law will win the day in the end, whether we as Canadians like it or not. And Harper's military spending will not change that, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Jay]

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

A US investor just bought the Hudson's Bay Company too. I think it's starting already....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2006/01/26/bay-060126.html

 

[Jo Canadian]

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

One is by making a historical claim which there is no basis for.

Actually there is. The Inuit Control the territory of Nunavut...Canada. Now they are able to trace historical claims going past 2500 years ago. Archaeology is a wonderful thing.

Personally a negotiated peaceful solution would be the best effort. But if it comes down to it we as Canadians know what last resort means.

 

[Machjo]

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

There are two ways that Canada could appeal to the International Court. One is by making a historical claim which there is no basis for. The other is by making a current claim by establishing a presence. Exercising responsibility for security and environmental protection would be a presence. By not doing what Harper is doing there would be no basis for an argument for any kind of Canadian rights. Harper is being strategic and protecting Canada’s sovereignty or claims to it, which is his job as prime Minister. I fail to see how doing nothing is in the best interests of Canada. We only have so many ports like Churchill to give away for a song.

Points well taken. Certainly a greater presence, especially in law enforcement, etc., will help Canada's claims by showing our responsibility to the area. this might also grant Canada some special privileges to the area. But I'd have a hard time believing that it will win sovereignty over the area. I coud be wrong, but again, that's why I'd like to read the relevant laws for myself. So perhaps an increased law enforcement presence via the Coast Guard could be useful.

 

[Machjo]

But that's an Innuit, not Canadian, claim...

One is by making a historical claim which there is no basis for.

Actually there is. The Inuit Control the territory of Nunavut...Canada. Now they are able to trace historical claims going past 2500 years ago. Archaeology is a wonderful thing.

Personally a negotiated peaceful solution would be the best effort. But if it comes down to it we as Canadians know what last resort means.

That would mean we'd really need to keep the Innuit on our side. Develop their communities, provide higher education facilities in the area so as to promote more economic and technological development of their poplation etc? But then we're talking about an actual civilizational as opposed to military presense. A military presence is actually a weak argument in some ways, since the soldiers don't actually live there. They just patrol, then go home.

A civilizational presence (providing facilities for higher education in the are, for instance) would actually establish more active and responsive democratic communities in the local areas, which international law might need to consider more seriously. Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm sure international law must have provisions repsecting local populations in any disputed area.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: But that's an Innuit, not Canadian, claim...

That would mean we'd really need to keep the Innuit on our side. Develop their communities, provide higher education facilities in the area so as to promote more economic and technological development of their poplation etc?

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. And those ideas are being implemented. Development doesn't happen overnight, but I can tell you living there now is much much better than living there in 1980.

 

[sanch]

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

It could be held in trust for the Inuit and administered by Canada with oversight by the UN to ensure that the Inuit benefit fully from whatever revenues are earned. This would be an ideal solution.

Full sovereignty is just a starting point. It's hard to start at the bottom and negotiate more rights. You start at the top and negotiate down.

 

[Canucklehead]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Can

OK, so if by international law, territorial waters extend 200mi out from the shores... that kinda puts the northwest passage in our hands regardless, even if we ceded control of all the lil islands, would it not?

 

[Machjo]

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

But again, all my posts in this thread are shots in the dark. I have little knowledge of the legal background for the dispute between the nations concerned over the Northwest passage. I know some of it has to do with distance from land, history and other factors. Does anyone know of any good sites?

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: U.S. Embassador; "Can

OK, so if by international law, territorial waters extend 200mi out from the shores... that kinda puts the northwest passage in our hands regardless, even if we ceded control of all the lil islands, would it not?

That depends. How much distance is ther between the islands?

I'll admit my ignorance on that one.

 

[Canucklehead]

RE: U.S. Embassador; "Can

Any links would be helpful, definately.

My main point of contention and basis for complaint is I agree and believe firmly that every and any nation should do whatever necessary to protect their borders.

If the U.S. wants a wall along our border... go for it. If we wanna take pot shots at ships in our waters illegaly, that's our right as well. Whether it would be politcally and morally acceptable or expedient is a completely different issue.

 

[sanch]

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

Here are some links.

http://www.imli.org/docs.html

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: RE: U.S. Embassador; "Can

That depends. How much distance is ther between the islands?

This may help:

If you're needing an idea on the scale in miles this: --> _ <---would be around 50 miles

200 would be around ____

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: U.S. Embassador; "Can

Any links would be helpful, definately.

My main point of contention and basis for complaint is I agree and believe firmly that every and any nation should do whatever necessary to protect their borders.

If the U.S. wants a wall along our border... go for it. If we wanna take pot shots at ships in our waters illegaly, that's our right as well. Whether it would be politcally and morally acceptable or expedient is a completely different issue.

Fair enough, but what happens when borders overlap? If country A and country B claim sovereignty over C, and they both have the right to defend their sovereignty, you can see there's a problem. That's how wars start!

So perhaps a more civilized way at that stage is not to defend anyone's sovereignty, but rather to defend international law. that keeps us a little more level headed and keeps missiles from flying in the distant future.