Author Topic: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty  (Read 254246 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,338
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #450 on: January 13, 2018, 13:18:52 »
We punched a railroad West across thousands of miles of some of the toughest land in the world to guarantee Confederation in the mid-1800s.

I assume we can figure out how to go North in the early 20 teens if we have the same will.....
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 63,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,093
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #451 on: January 13, 2018, 13:35:37 »
In fact not until towards the end of the century:

Quote
...
On Nov. 7, 1885, the eastern and western portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway met at Craigellachie, B.C., where Donald A. Smith drove the last spike. The cost of construction almost broke the syndicate, but within three years of the first transcontinental train leaving Montreal and Toronto for Port Moody on June 28, 1886...
http://cpconnectingcanada.ca/our-history/

 ;)

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 622
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #452 on: January 13, 2018, 13:36:04 »
We punched a railroad West across thousands of miles of some of the toughest land in the world to guarantee Confederation in the mid-1800s.

I assume we can figure out how to go North in the early 20 teens if we have the same will.....

We already did this once. Goes to Churchill but it is washed out and no one has the will or the cash to repair it and without a reason for the destination there is no purpose either.  If it costs too much to fix one that is already there, what is the economic sense of creating another one thousands of kilometres long.  There just aren't enough customers at the end of it.  Wouldn't it make more sense to develop an arctic shipping infra-structure centred on Churchill that provided shipping services throughout the entire Arctic?  Although ships are seasonal, they have the advantage that the water is already there and they are capable of hauling large quantities of cargo. Even for mineral development constructing a pier and short spur lines from source to coast makes more sense than trying to finance even a few hundred miles of road.  For those who say that seasonal shipping isn't profitable consider that grain shipments east of Thunder Bay used to terminate mid-December and didn't start up again until April.  Also the steel mills in Hamilton stockpile ore for 3 months or more to cover winter operations: so a short but intense shipping season from mine to Churchill could be conceivable.
Without actions such as this even fixing what we have is a waste of money

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,753
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #453 on: January 13, 2018, 14:12:17 »
Owning a big country is like owning a big chunk of property, either look after it, or someone else will.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 63,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,093
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #454 on: January 13, 2018, 14:21:04 »
Colin P: Only the US could conceivably really threaten our sovereignty--and they certainly would act to stop any serious incursion by a third country, in their own security self-interest (and follow Article 5 of NATO treaty).

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,240
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #455 on: January 13, 2018, 18:19:56 »
There was a significant difference between the CPR and the Churchill line and YZT alludes to it - the CPR line went from someplace to someplace, not from someplace to noplace.

Victoria and Vancouver were already up and running as ports trading into western North America and were growing on their own.  Likewise Halifax to Sault Ste Marie was settled and growing.  Also, both Halifax and Victoria were connected by the White Ensign.  So the CPR, and its associated telegraph, was essentially a shortcut for the RN, as well as the Merchant Bankers of London.

The railway didn't create Vancouver.  It didn't even create Edmonton (the HBC did that) or Calgary (Whiskey traders created Lethbridge and made Calgary necessary). The railway created Ottawa.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,753
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #456 on: January 15, 2018, 10:21:30 »
Colin P: Only the US could conceivably really threaten our sovereignty--and they certainly would act to stop any serious incursion by a third country, in their own security self-interest (and follow Article 5 of NATO treaty).

Mark
Ottawa

Depends how you define sovereignty, if China decides to drill in arctic waters we call our own, but even the US disagrees, then are they going to help us? China does not need to claim it as their own, just state "In our opinion it's belongs to everybody and by the way we have bought enough UN votes to support our postion" 

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,240
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #457 on: January 15, 2018, 15:22:35 »
There is precedent - The Doughnut Hole.

The Doughnut Hole is in the Bering Sea.  It is a space that is more than 200 NM from any American or Russian shore.  Thus it falls outside of the Economic Exclusion Zones of both the US and Russia.  Thus it is International Waters - or Commons.

The Bering Sea is home to a fish, the Walleye Pollock, which has been feeding Japan since the 1960s and the US since the 1980s.  In the 1980s the US asserted its economic rights over its EEZ and started managing the Pollock stock and turned it into a sustainable fishery.  The Russians never managed the same trick.

The Doughnut Hole (or Donut Hole if you prefer) became a major problem.  It became an unmanaged and unmanageable area into which Chinese and Polish Trawlers entered and sucked up the pollock - undermining both the Americans and the occasional Russian attempts to control the fishing of the pollock.  Ultimately it threatened the stock and the ability of the Japanese and Koreans to be fed.

The Doughnut Hole was unique because to access it the "pirates" had to transit nationally controlled waters and because they were proceeding to International waters there was nothing the intervening nations could do to restrict either the fishing, which was not illegal, or the free passage.

That is the type of problem that Canada faces in its Arctic (and Dixon Channel and the Bay of Fundy and Georges Bank).

Canada needs to be able to place DFO and RCMP officers in place to assert Canada's desire and intention to manage the area according to our laws.  The CAF needs to be available and capable of supporting those officers in the event Spanish Trawlers show up again or a Canadian version of the Icelandic Cod War breaks out.

Quote
The Cod Wars
Background to the Cod Wars

 
The cod wars were a series of disputes between Britain and Iceland running from the 1950s to the 1970s over the rights to fish in Icelandic waters. Although it was never a war in the conventional sense of the word (the massive and well-equipped Royal Navy would have easily defeated the tiny Icelandic Navy), the peak of the Cod Wars saw thirty seven Royal Navy warships mobilised to protect British trawlers fishing in the disputed territory. While the wars were eventually settled through diplomatic means there was conflict between British naval vessels and Icelandic ships out at sea. The Cod Wars showed how seriously nations took their fishing rights, and the lengths they would go to in order to access rich fishing grounds.

 http://britishseafishing.co.uk/the-cod-wars/
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 63,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,093
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #458 on: September 14, 2018, 15:32:14 »
Conclusion of very sensible piece at CGAI:

Quote
Arctic Sovereignty: Preoccupation vs. Homeland Governance and Defence
...
by CGAI Fellow Andrea Charron and James Fergusson
...
Referencing “Arctic” and “sovereignty” in the same sentence is generally a recipe for alarmist and precipitous action. It is usually translated into a demand for a more military presence, which, while a ready answer for the Canadian government, ignores the fact that sovereignty issues today are settled in courtrooms. There are no de jure or de facto threats to Canadian Arctic sovereignty. If Russia is a real threat, it is to Canada and its allies as a whole. Indeed, the Arctic is the one issue area in which Russian co-operation has been tremendously helpful. Certainly, as the balance between de facto and de jure sovereignty has changed over time, one cannot predict how it might change in the future. For now, however, Canadians should replace Arctic sovereignty with homeland defence and devote attention to issues which relate to how the federal government exercises its sovereign authority over the people who live in its Arctic territory and how it will work with allies now and in the future to defend Canada.
https://www.cgai.ca/arctic_sovereignty_preoccupation_vs_homeland_governance_and_defence

Relevant earlier post of mine:

Quote
Arctic Tensions Not Really About the Region but Relations With Russia
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/mark-collins-arctic-tensions-not-really-about-the-region-but-relations-with-russia/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.