U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan

[Navy_Blue]

I'm not a conservative and I don't agree with all our new PM's views.  If he keeps this up though, I'll have allot more respect for the man.  Bravo Zulue Mr Harper!!!  The North was explored by the Danes but never claimed.  To bad...so sad...sucks to be you   Finders keepers boys If the world map shows our little red line around the north then live with it.  Build the boats and make them buy tickets to pass through the passage; if it saves them money on Panama.  Its about time someone stood up and said whats ours is ours.

Cheers

 

[TCBF]

I thought we were a pretty easy bunch here.  You don't have to be Conservative or agree with all of our PM's views. 

But if they believe in Canada, I suspect most people will end up agreeing with a lot of his views.

Let's give it three years.

In the meantime, watch the media fun as they try to say that PM Harper set this up.  Nice try guys.  The media set this up.

Tom

 

[Glorified Ape]

Yes, but it takes a full-wit to realize that we have to be able to ENFORCE our claims, which is why some people are coming up short.

You'll also note that the US is hardly the only country that doesn't reckognize our claims.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we're the only ones who DO reckognize it.  The rest either disagree or haven't even thought about it yet.

Are we the only ones? I find it funny that the US expects/wants complacent cooperation with them on everything from waging war and missile defence to drug legislation but won't even recognize our claim to ownership of waters that flow through an archipelago in our territory.

I thought we were a pretty easy bunch here.  You don't have to be Conservative or agree with all of our PM's views. 

But if they believe in Canada, I suspect most people will end up agreeing with a lot of his views.

Let's give it three years.

In the meantime, watch the media fun as they try to say that PM Harper set this up.  Nice try guys.  The media set this up.

Tom

Pfffft - pull your head out, Tom - it's the illuminati and New World Order that set this up. C'mon, everyone and their tinfoil hat knows that.

 

[a_majoor]

Are we the only ones? I find it funny that the US expects/wants complacent cooperation with them on everything from waging war and missile defence to drug legislation but won't even recognize our claim to ownership of waters that flow through an archipelago in our territory.

Pfffft - pull your head out, Tom - it's the illuminati and New World Order that set this up. C'mon, everyone and their tinfoil hat knows that.

Since we did nothing to seriously stake our claim for most of our history, and during the last half century sat fat and happy on the southern flank while any power with nuclear submarines (and the occasional ice strengthened oil tanker; Google the "Manhatten") sailed through the NW passage with impunity, by now only the Illuminati and New World Order are the only ones who would give serious credence to our claims.

As for what the US wants, they are looking after their national interests. If our past governments had done so, this thread topic would not even exist. Canada's behavior reminds me of the crowd who live in a housing co-op down the street. There is a large contingent who vote for lavish landscaping and building improvements, but "can't" provide labour or contributions in kind because they are on "disability" or other excuses. We expect to live in a modern industrial state with all the trimmings, but "can't" participate in the defense of these benefits because.....

 

[TCBF]

"Are we the only ones? I find it funny that the US expects/wants complacent cooperation with them on everything from waging war and missile defence to drug legislation but won't even recognize our claim to ownership of waters that flow through an archipelago in our territory."

- Naw, theys jes bein good ol boys is all.  Why give us more work when we can't do the work we have now?

I always knew that to be a Lieberal, people needed to hold two contradicting concepts in their brains at once:

Concept One:  We don't need to put military forces in our arctic because the Defence of North America agreements mean the US will defend us. 

Concept Two:  The American maps don't show Canada extending over our Arctic Archipelago: look at Google.Earth! Proof that they want our Arctic!

W-E-L-L-L-L.......  which is it?  Do we own and defend it, or do they?  Someboby has to.  Who will it be?

Tom

 

[Navy_Blue]

The past 50 years we have also been in NORAD and NATO.  Yes we expect that the US will defend us in the event of a challange but we also expect the help of NATO allies as well.  Its part of the deal when you have a group of countries like that.  Now allot of eyes are on us.  We have tons of fresh water, oil and gas and metal resourses.  If we don't stand up fpr our claims now today we wont have them and might not be a country tomorow.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Agreed, but lets do it quietly, not herky-jerky with big announcements..yadayada

 

[tomahawk6]

Frankly I think the US position is weak and I think Condi will sort it out. US subs traverse the area as part of existing military agreements.

 

[a_majoor]

Frankly I think the US position is weak and I think Condi will sort it out. US subs traverse the area as part of existing military agreements.

Um, I think it is Dr. Rice's job to strengthen US positions and claims as Secretary of State, including claims the Arctic waters are international waters. Since she has a few more pressing things to look after right about now, I wouldn't worry too much about it (although I would give an awful lot to sit in on a meeting between Dr Rice and Prime Minister Harper when they do discuss contentious bilateral issues).

Even if everyone starts work today, an effective full time presence in the High Arctic will take a long time to establish. Maybe Prime Minister Harper can discuss this with President Rice in 08.....

 

[Kirkhill]

I think that this could probably be sorted out quite easily by allowing US subs the same type of passage through Canadian waters that Canada permits to USAF aircraft and the US permits to CF aircraft.  Just so long as the US can be convinced that Canada can indeed keep the area under surveillance, secure the territory and control access.

That seems to be the underlying position of the US when looking at the statements of Cellucci in the past.  There's a deal to be had there.

Also wrt air-breathing subs, perhaps there is a role for them in the North - acting as gate-guards in open waters at the edge of the ice, monitoring and controlling traffic flow into the ice.  You might not need to go chasing under the ice,  any more than police need to go chasing after every speeder.  There aren't that many useable deep channels in the north and thus not that many exit points or choke points.  Those that there are are clustered fairly tightly together.  One sub at the entrance to Hudson Strait to the south of Baffin Island, another at the north end at the confluence of Lancaster Sound and Nares Strait and a third operating in the Beaufort Sea might just about get the job done.  It would certainly constrain the ability of subs or any other vessels to freely transit the area.  In that role the subs operating in domestic waters with the ice-breakers and air cover in support could spend time as much time on the surface as they wanted and the ice, weather and tactical situation allowed.

 

[tomahawk6]

I think Alert needs to be kept as a base if the arctic is going to be a big priority.

 

[Kirkhill]

Based on the suggested move of troops to the perimeter (Comox and Goose Bay as well as the Arctic generally) it would seem reasonable that both for sovereignty as well as technical surveillance reasons Alert might stay put.

 

[Armymatters]

Based on the suggested move of troops to the perimeter (Comox and Goose Bay as well as the Arctic generally) it would seem reasonable that both for sovereignty as well as technical surveillance reasons Alert might stay put.

And Alert makes a damned good science station... there are plenty of scientists crawling all over that base on occasions, and its role in SIGINT for Canada cannot be underestimated.

 

[TCBF]

C'mon Al, when you quoted tomahawk6, did you have to quote  his whole map too?  Golly...

"I think Alert needs to be kept as a base if the arctic is going to be a big priority."

-Yes, but for what it does best.  Decades ago, the RCAF was looking at Hazan Lake on Baffin Island for an all-singing, all dancing base.  That area is now in a park.  I think a base on a defile in the NWP (and located on the islands, not the main continent: just to prove our point) would work, along with satelilte/SOSUS/RPV/Aurora/dogsled etc.

Tom

 

[UberCree]

"Even if everyone starts work today, an effective full time presence in the High Arctic will take a long time to establish. Maybe Prime Minister Harper can discuss this with President Rice in 08..... "  a_majoor
It will be with vice president Rice or with president Powell.

 

[Jantor]

Hello everyone

When the  northwest passage opens up enough for commercial shipping to use it, there will have to be a way to inspect and certify those carriers for using it. We couldn't allow just anyone to sail though there because any accidents or unauthorised bilge water/fuel spills would directly impact the the environment of the whole area whether it was internationally recognized or not. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to regulate passage. The ecology of our territory is to important to leave to chance in my humble opinion.

Buz

 

[Kirkhill]

Jantor brings up the other aspect of "Sovereignty" and that is the 200 mile Economic Exclusion Zone or more recently the Continental Shelf approach.  Under that approach we don't claim sovereignty over the territory but we do claim custody of the area.

That's the regime under which Canada enforces fisheries, environmental and commercial laws on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts currently and under which Canada is set to extend jurisdiction out to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.  Its the legal basis for arresting Spanish trawlers and polluting CSL ships.  To my knowledge that doesn't prevent foreign military vessels transiting or operating in these zones.

One further point on sovereignty claims - Canada and the US have three areas where they have agreed to disagree on maritime boundaries for probably a century or more - the Straits of Juan de Fuca at the southern end of Vancouver Island, Dixon Channel at the entrance to Prince Rupert and where BC meets Alaska, and finally some island in the Bay of Fundy.  We haven't gone to war over those areas yet despite the occasional arrest of a vessel that tries the patience of one side or the other.

Expect the Arctic situation to be handled in much the same way.  The requirement is for surveillance, power of arrest (bodies and a place for them to sleep), and if possible get the other guy to write you a check or at least sign a waiver recognizing your authority.  That and some army training missions in the North and we'd be away to the races.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now thats the kind of thinking we need.....our taking back a little more control of the "wild north" is not to poke the US with a stick, but to show our mutual co-operation.