# Sovereignty Requires More Than Lip Service



## ruxted (19 Jan 2009)

Link to original article on  ruxted.ca 


Sovereignty Requires More Than Lip Service

Canada’s Arctic has been in the news again. It has been suggested that climate change will reduce the range of threats to our sovereignty over Arctic waters because they (Canadian waters, _per se_) are less likely to be highly desirable transit routes, thus lowering the relative importance of e.g. Arctic/Offshore Patrol Vessels. At the same time, through a new National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, the USA  is reasserting its claims of right of free passage in the Northwest Passage, making the need for a real Canadian presence more important.

Disputes between Canada and the USA are nothing new but they all have one thing in common: they are, inevitably – over the past century or so – resolved by negotiation.

But our sovereignty is not ‘threatened’ by just the USA.

Further, ‘sovereignty’ can no longer be confined to rigid zones. What a neighbour does or fails to do in its ‘sovereign’ territory and contiguous waters can have grave impacts on Canadians going about their lawful business in our sovereign territory – a ruptured oil well in Russia’s Arctic waters, for example, can (almost certainly will) pollute Canadian waters. Human smugglers in international waters may pose a real, immediate threat to Canada. Arbitrary lines on maps cannot be allowed to threaten our sovereign rights to manage our own affairs and resources in our own territory.

In many cases Canada can negotiate with those who ‘threaten’ our sovereignty. In some cases negotiation will fail.

Our sovereignty must be both asserted and protected. Asserting and protecting our sovereignty is a job for the whole of the Government of Canada, including DND. Diplomats, lawyers and various uniformed services (like the Coast Guard and the RCMP, as well as the Canadian Forces) are in the ‘front lines’ when it comes to asserting and defending our sovereignty.

The Department of *National* Defence is just that: the agency charged with defending the nation. The defence of Canada starts at those arbitrary lines but may well extend beyond that. The lines on maps define our ‘area of responsibility’ – the area in which Canada, without question, may assert its sovereign rights – even as they are being challenged in various international fora. But we also have ‘areas of influence’ where we may make our presence felt and ‘areas of interest’ where we will want and need to ‘see’ what is going on.

When we are in our ‘area of responsibility’ it is, broadly, most appropriate that regulatory and constabulary organizations (e.g. Coast Guard and RCMP) lead in the assertion and protection of our sovereignty – backed up and supported by the Canadian Forces. When we are in our ‘areas of influence’ and ‘areas of interest’ then agencies like Foreign Affairs (DFAIT) and DND will need to be in the lead because they have international recognition of their international roles and responsibilities.

Canada needs to be able to meet its sovereignty protection roles in all our areas of responsibility, influence and interest. That means we need strong, capable diplomatic services and equally strong and capable uniformed services, like the Coast Guard and RCMP, able to operate on the ground, in the air and at sea in and all the way around Canada. The Canadian Forces needs to able to support other agencies in Canada and play a leading role elsewhere to fulfil their role of monitoring, identifying and, ultimately, preventing unauthorized penetration of our territory, contiguous waters and the airspace over both.

To do this, the CF needs:

1.	A capable intelligence gathering apparatus to monitor things happening in our areas of interest, influence and responsibility;

2.	A real time surveillance and warning system that covers all our territory and the ‘approaches’ to it, all the time;

3.	Ships, units and aircraft to patrol our territory and the approaches to it and to intercept, identify and deal with intruders of any and all types.

Parts of these requirements exist but none is complete.

The costs of ships, satellites, aircraft, ground stations and people are high but unavoidable if we want to maintain our sovereignty over and above the land and sea we claim, today, as our own.

Now, in a financial crisis, is not the time for false economies or lip service. Short term financial ‘gains’ achieved by reducing defence spending in 2009 could saddle Canada with some real long term ‘pain’ in the years and decades beyond 2010.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Mar 2009)

It looks like the Russians are putting their money (and trooops) where their mouths are:

Russia plans to create dedicated military force to protect Arctic interests 


MOSCOW - Russia is reportedly planning to create a dedicated military force to help protect its interests in the disputed Arctic region. 
The presidential Security Council has released a document outlining a policy for the Arctic that includes creating a special group of military forces. 
The report, released this week and reported by Russian media today, comes as Canada, Russia and other countries try to assert Arctic jurisdiction. 
The dispute has intensified amid growing signs that shrinking polar ice is opening up new shipping lanes and allowing natural resources to be tapped. 
On Feb. 18, two Russian Tupolev 95 bombers were turned away from Alaska and the Yukon about 200 kilometres from Canadian and U.S. airspace. 
Prime Minister Stephen Harper later warned of "increasingly aggressive Russian actions around the globe and Russian intrusions into our airspace." In Ottawa on Monday, a Russian diplomat said Canada had reacted to the incident with what he termed a "deplorable" Cold War mentality.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090327/world/russia_arctic


----------



## Snakedoc (27 Mar 2009)

Russia accusing Canada of having a cold war mentality? haha they've got to be kidding right?  I'm sure Russia's reaction wouldn't be friendly too if we were flying towards their air space...


----------



## conet (27 Mar 2009)

From cbc.ca



> Canada "will not be bullied" by Russia when it comes to staking claim over the Arctic, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Friday.
> 
> His remarks in Montreal came the same day as Russia said it would amass an army dedicated to protecting its interests in the Arctic.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cormen (5 May 2009)

I wonder what the Rangers up their will think, thats a bit to be going on for a small force up there.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 May 2009)

Cormen said:
			
		

> I wonder what the Rangers up their will think, thats a bit to be going on for a small force up there.



If the Russians show up on a cold winter night the Rangers should call their superiors, then make them hot chocolate.

Arctic sovereignty seems to be a catch phrase that perks up people's ears but as the area is occupied and controlled by Canadian authorities there is little legal risk.  There is little military risk because of inaccessibility.  If I remember correctly, Canadian Forces patrolling exercises have not gone well.  I can't imagine that the Russians could be any more successful.  

The risk is not to sovereignty.  The risk is unfettered access to Arctic waters by potentially iresponsible parties that could do environmental damage and a military approach might not be the best answer.  We are party to international maritime agreements and while we may diasagree with the northwest passage being considered a navigation lane, any decision will be based on law not military presence.

The problem may be moot as summer Arctic sea ice increased 40 % last summer and this spring has been cooler than average.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 May 2009)

Further to Dennis Ruhl, much of the hoo-hah about so-called "arctic sovereignty" is politically-driven silliness.  A letter of mine in the _Toronto Star_:

Icebreakers best bet in Arctic  
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/602171



> March 14, 2009
> 
> *Re: Staking our Arctic claim, Editorial March 13*
> http://www.thestar.com/article/601467
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Monsoon (29 May 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> As the editorial notes, the only areas in dispute are at sea: the status in maritime law of the Northwest Passage; the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea between the U.S. and Canada; and the economic rights to the Arctic seabed in offshore areas beyond various countries' coastal 320-kilometre exclusive economic zones.
> 
> I agree that "Gunboats alone can't guarantee Canada's claim to the Arctic." In fact, naval power is essentially irrelevant to the resolution of those issues. They will in the end be settled by diplomacy – not unnecessary new Arctic patrol vessels for the Canadian Navy.



I'm not certain why you consider maritime territorial disputes to be worthy of "only" status. Do you understand the basis of the dispute and the ramifications? Not trying be snarky here - I see you have a background in the civil service so I don't want to embark on a lecture to someone who already gets the basics. Are you saying that maritime disputes aren't a serious matter?

As far as settling the matter by diplomatic means alone, you must understand the role of estoppel in international law. If Canada doesn't make a real (rather than merely token) effort to control the maritime arctic, then any arbitral tribunal hearing the case (which, I agree, is ultimately how matters will be decided) is likely to find that Canada voluntarily waived it's sovereignty over the aspects it didn't seriously address. To whit: we have reason to believe that submarines of at least two nations use the maritime arctic regularly without advising Canada. If we don't seriously address that by acquiring a means to detect and prevent this, then we have in effect said that we don't mind if it continues to happen. Coast Guard boats can't detect or stop submarines.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 May 2009)

hamiltongs: My point is that even on the maritime side there are limited areas in actual dispute (land is, Hans aside, perfectly secure though one might never know it from our politicians and press, hence the "only").  

I think submarines are irrelevant to claims of sovereignty, since they almost never admit where they are--so no presence is established.  Besides which, if unacknowledged and undetected submarine passages became a basis for disputing claims to maritime sovereignty, much maritime sovereignty around the world might potentially come into question.

As for the surface of the NW Passage, civilian CCG activity is as useful as Navy activity in asserting our claim (which may be pretty thin in any event--the US, European countries, and Japan all do not recognize our claim) in terms of international law.  A government presence is a government presence.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Monsoon (29 May 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I think submarines are irrelevant to claims of sovereignty, since they almost never admit where they are--so no presence is established.  Besides which, if unacknowledged and undetected submarine passages became a basis for disputing claims to maritime sovereignty, much maritime sovereignty around the world might potentially come into question.



But submarines are very germane to the question of whether or not the Canadian arctic falls under an "archipelagic waters" regime (as we claim) or whether the waters outside the 12nm limit are high seas (as most everyone else claims). The Law of the Sea Convention is clear that Canada isn't an "archipelagic state", but the provisions relating to archipelagos could probably do with revisiting. If Canada is serious about pushing the issue diplomatically and legally then it needs to be serious about trying to detect and stop submarines from transiting what we claim to be our archipelagic waters while submerged. Otherwise estoppel (or the international law equivalent) undermines our case.

From a maritime security standpoint, submarines are _the_ issue in the Canadian arctic; you're right that a Coast Guard ship could adequately address the fishery and environmental enforcement aspects, though. That being said, the AOPS project is essentially a domestic capability that needs to be acquired/replaced outside of the arctic context as well. To the extent that the Kingston class needs to be replaced eventually, it makes sense that the next generation of ship be faster, have a longer range of endurance and be able to take on a certain amount of first year ice. I'd agree that billing them as "Arctic" vessels is mostly a PR move, but hey - calling the Halifax class "Patrol Frigates" (as opposed to "Guided Missile Destroyers") was, too. It doesn't mean we didn't need them.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 May 2009)

hamiltongs: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about subs.  As for the A/OPS, my problem is that by giving them a limited ice-capability they will be slower and less capable as general patrol vessels (which will be what they do most of the time), and the added expense means we buy fewer of them.  Two _Torch_ posts:

What the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (A/OPSs) are all about 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-aopss.html

Let's stimulate the economy with those "Arctic offshore supply boats"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/lets-build-those-arctic-offshore-supply.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 May 2009)

The problem with creating an Arctic fleet of warships is that it is extremely unlikey it would ever be employed in it's designed role.  We will not arrest an American ship sailing through the NW Passage and we will never sink a submarine because even chances say it will be an ally.  No country is ever going to request permission  to sail through.  It would be a case of arming for no reason.  In the event of a real war no country is going to sail a surface ship through the Arctic because it would be too vulnerable and the only thing to chase out submarines would be nuclear subs and they aren't in the plans.


----------



## aesop081 (29 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> No country is ever going to request permission  to sail through.



You would be incorrect. Furthermore, if we were to more closely track and indentify who passes in waters we claim as ours, then we will be in a better position to apply political pressure. Its hard to pint the finger when you dont know who to point it at. Enforcing our sovereignty doesnt always mean having to fire.




> *the only thing * to chase out submarines would be nuclear subs and they aren't in the plans.



Oh really.........


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You would be incorrect. Furthermore, if we were to more closely track and indentify who passes in waters we claim as ours, then we will be in a better position to apply political pressure. Its hard to pint the finger when you dont know who to point it at. Enforcing our sovereignty doesnt always mean having to fire.
> 
> 
> Oh really.........



I was thinking ships, they can't sail through packed sea ice very well - I guess aircraft could do a job on subs.

If the "really" meant nuclear subs are in the plans - a lot of things are in the plans such as replacements for almost everything that flies, floats, or drives.

One Mountie on a snowmobile enforces sovereignty equally well.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl:



> One Mountie on a snowmobile enforces sovereignty equally well.



Except that, as I have noted, land sovereignty is not an issue (Hans...).  And I don't think Mounties are sent out much on ice ;D.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081 (29 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I guess aircraft could do a job on subs.



Indeed an aircraft can.



> If the "really" meant nuclear subs are in the plans -



No, it means that your assertion that only a nuke sub can chase out a sub is false.

[/quote]
One Mountie on a snowmobile enforces sovereignty equally well.
[/quote]

No. Once again you like to over simplify.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (29 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Indeed an aircraft can.



Aircraft can,but are our aircraft doing the job right now?Do we have near the numbers?Do we scramble aircraft to seek out unknown sea craft as we do with our bears nearing our airspace?
Serious question as I have zero idea what you guys can do/are doing. I worked with you guys once with the RCMP and other organizations IRT drugs,but thats it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2012)

I am resuscitating this thread to post a report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, about Arctic surveillance:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/us-arctic-plans-could-serve-as-a-wake-up-call-for-canada/article2377590/


> U.S. Arctic plans could serve as a wake-up call for Canada
> 
> PAUL KORING
> 
> ...




To repeat part of the _Ruxted Group's_ shopping list, we need 24/7 network of near real time space based, terrestrial and underwater surveillance and warning systems that cover ALL of Canada's territory, contiguous waters, the airspace over both and the approaches to all three. We also need _interceptors_ to positively identify intruders and, if and when necessary, escort them our of our territory, waters or airspace. Such a project should be, of necessity, an _integrated_, government wide initiative involving, especially but not exclusively, DND/the CF, the RCMP and the Coast Guard.

How much would it cost? Most likely more than the F-35 project.


----------



## CougarKing (3 Mar 2015)

An update on Nanisivik:

Reuters



> *Canadian navy delays opening of crucial Arctic facility to 2018*
> 
> By Mike De Souza
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2015)

I seem to recal another article in the past few months indicated that the scope of development had also been significantly scaled back to keep the Nanasivik facilities under budget.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Mar 2015)

Actually, Reuters is not quite correct in describing the differences between Canada and the US on the North-West Passage (and the US and Russia on the North-East Passage too).

Canada claims that you can draw lines from Island to Island along the outside of the Arctic archipelago and that all that is encompassed within those lines are internal waters of Canada, subject to our absolute whim under the law of the sea applicable to such waters.

The US recognizes Canada's claim to those waters, but as territorial sea which, as they link two ocean or two parts of the same ocean and are navigable, constitute international straits, subject to the rules appertaining there to - including the unimpeded right of innocent passage for non Canadian shipping, including warships transiting but not conducting operations.


----------

