# Quelle horreur! Bush administration wants Law of the Sea Treaty ratified



## MarkOttawa (21 May 2007)

The US going the multilateral route of international law--the temerity! The perfidy! The threat!

Arctic boundary dispute may heat up with U.S. push on law of the sea: experts
http://www.cjad.com/node/531159



> Canada's unresolved Arctic boundary disputes with the United States could be heating up with a new American push to join the international treaty on the Law of the Sea, say experts on both sides of the border.
> 
> Drawn by resource wealth and climate change concerns, the Bush administration is asking the U.S. Senate to approve the treaty and give the U.S. legal tools to press its claims to an energy-rich wedge of the Beaufort Sea that Canada considers its own.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (21 May 2007)

If I remember correctly, the U.S. wants the Canadian/Alaskan border to veer 30 degrees east once it reaches the Beaufort Sea, thus leaving the lion's share of the oil resouces in U.S. property.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 May 2007)

Well they would, wouldn't they?  More from the story:



> Canada has long insisted the international border continues through the ocean in a straight line from the land. The U.S. argues instead that the border angles 30 degrees to the east.
> 
> The area is considered to have high oil and gas potential. Alaska has put exploration rights to the block up for sale several times, but no company has bid on it while its nationality remains disputed.
> 
> ...



Surely all good, multilateralist Canadians should cheer that the US wants to deal with the problem through international law based on a treaty.  Unless we are not all that confident about our case...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vangemeren (21 May 2007)

http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp322-e.htm#c.%20The%20Beaufort%20Sea%20Dispute

It could be worse they could have unilaterially made their claim with more than just a treaty.


----------



## FredDaHead (21 May 2007)

Why do I have the feeling our government is going to be forced to buckle under the pressure, thanks to the Lieberals and their buddies?


----------



## George Wallace (21 May 2007)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp322-e.htm#c.%20The%20Beaufort%20Sea%20Dispute
> 
> It could be worse they could have unilaterially made their claim with more than just a treaty.



At the looks of your diagram, they want to use "Magnetic North" as their bearing and that is outright "RETARDED".  Magnetic North, for all who have used maps know, fluctuates.  There is a calculable variance annually.   

It looks like the Canadian bearing is a "Grid Bearing" and less likely to change over a 'short' period.  ('Short' being hundreds of years, well outside our normal lifespans.)


----------



## vangemeren (21 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> Why do I have the feeling our government is going to be forced to buckle under the pressure, thanks to the Lieberals and their buddies?



Um... what would lead you to this conclusion?


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2007)

Be prepared for some hard bargaining.....

Canada recognises the headland to headland base line + 200 km Edit: miles (or the continental shelf) both of which favour the US.

US recognizes Canada's sovereignty over the internal waters in exchange for right of innocent passage.

Canada controls those waters and the approaches (6 APVs, some UAVs and satellites for starters).

Joint development of the Alaska/MacKenzie Valley pipeline to bring the hydrocarbons to market - offsetting that 16 BCAD price tag that is being discussed.

Maybe throw in a railway to boot.

Canada gets development and sovereignty.

America gets physical and energy security.

Alles ist kuhl.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 May 2007)

Let's just say I'm not as confident as you in the objectivetivity and fairness of International Law, as agreed upon by self-interested parties.

Specifically, if the Americans swap support of a free waterway (which the Europeans want) to the Europeans in exchange for European support of the U.S. claim to petroleum resources, we could end up bent over a barrel very quickly.

I would prefer we negotiated a bi-lateral agreement with the United States to settle the border issue and ensure national control over the NWP in exchange for production guarantees from the oil sands and free passage for all US Naval Vessels through the NWP area (the alternative is Federal subsidization to a new Pacific pipeline carrying  in excess of a million barrels/day to Asia).

Bottom Line:  I don't like any initiatives that impact us, being led by others.  If such initiatives are under discussion, we need to be leading the resolution....not stuck with their results.


Matthew.   

P.S.  It appears once again Kirkhill was typing almost the exact same thing I was, but his unwillingness to spellcheck his work (kuhl?  ;D) ensures he's first to post.


----------



## stealthylizard (21 May 2007)

The Canadian position seems to be more logical because it is a straight line from preexisting borders.  The American position, being nonlinear, seems like a setup so they can include something in that shaded area.  KISS (keep it simple, stupid) seems to be the better solution.  Straight lines are easier.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (21 May 2007)

I'd think that this has the potential to fuel MAJOR anti-american sentiment in Canada which will therefore lead to stiff political resistance to the American's trying to 'take our land', as most parties will jump on the anti-american band wagon to win votes.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> P.S.  It appears once again Kirkhill was typing almost the exact same thing I was, but his unwillingness to spellcheck his work (kuhl?  ;D) ensures he's first to post.



Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya   - sour grapes


----------



## Adrian_888 (21 May 2007)

> At the looks of your diagram, they want to use "Magnetic North" as their bearing and that is outright "RETARDED".  Magnetic North, for all who have used maps know, fluctuates.  There is a calculable variance annually.



Yes, but just think about when the poles switch, we could conquer Alaska! .... sure it might take a thousand years, but will wait... will wait.  >


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2007)

The Yanks might also want to think about the impact on their "straight line" boundary with Russia if they force Canada off of our "straight line".

There is an awful lot of water over 2000m deep between the North Slope of Alaska and the North Pole and I wonder if people are going to accept sea bottom at 2000m to 4000m as being anybody's "Continental Shelf".

They may end up winning the Beaufort Sea from Canada and end up losing their chunk of the Arctic Ocean to Russia or the "International Community".


----------



## CougarKing (21 May 2007)

Slight hijack here...this issue kind of reminds me of that old Richard Rohmer book "Red Arctic" where the Soviet Union (the novel was written in the 1980s) made a claim to the Northwest Territories and the Arctic islands based on the discovery of the remains of an ill-fatted Russian expedition that met its demise there in the late 1700s- and mind you, the Russians used international law as well as the preserved body of the leader of that expedition found in one of the islands, to back their claim.


----------



## Mike Baker (21 May 2007)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Yes, but just think about when the poles switch, we could conquer Alaska! .... sure it might take a thousand years, but we'll wait... we'll wait.  >


 And Greenland, with it's huge oil reserves!  ;D


----------



## Greymatters (21 May 2007)

Its Bush logic...no surprises there...


----------



## vangemeren (22 May 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Its Bush logic...no surprises there...



The American position has been around much longer than even his father.

http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp322-e.htm#a.%20The%20Gulf%20of%20Maine%20Dispute(txt)






We were able to bi-laterally solve this difference of opinions in the Gulf of Maine, I can't see why not we can't in this situation.


----------

