New American Arctic policy emphasizes U.S. interests

[CD]

New American Arctic policy emphasizes U.S. interests in Northwest Passage

12 Jan, 7:24 PM

A new United States policy on the Arctic is a powerful challenge for Canadians to establish their control over the area before the Americans do it for them, says a leading academic.

"This is a very clear message to the world that the Americans are saying to the world, 'We're back,' when it comes to Arctic security," said Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary.

American President George W. Bush signed the new Arctic policy - the first such document in the U.S. since 1994 - on Friday and released it late Monday afternoon.

The 10-page paper, which comes only weeks after the European Union released a similar report, is forthright about U.S. intentions to protect its security and remain a major player in the Arctic without regard to Canadian or other international sensitivities.

"Freedom of the seas is a top national priority. The Northwest Passage is a strait used for international navigation," it says.

The U.S. will "project a sovereign United States maritime presence in the Arctic in support of essential United States interests."

The paper also thumbs its nose at proposals from the European Union to regulate shipping, fishing and energy development in the Arctic through an international treaty, saying such a treaty "is not appropriate or necessary."

It does say the U.S. should sign on to a United Nations treaty to determine how the Arctic seabed will be divvied up. It also expresses support for international bodies such as the eight-member Arctic Council.

But it is cautious about any new bodies that might restrict its freedom of action in the region.

Still, it will take years before the U.S. builds up its Arctic presence.

Huebert said that gives Canada a window to move in and show the Americans that it can ensure a secure and well-regulated northern frontier.

"If we worked on having management instrumentation and regimes in place to actually provide security, by the time the Americans actually do anything about it, they've more or less come to rely on us," he said.

The document outlines American policy objectives for the Arctic, with security, governance and boundary disputes the first three topics. It also underlines the U.S. intent to develop the region's energy resources in an environmentally responsible way and strengthen ties between the eight Arctic nations: the U.S., Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Denmark.

But it is clear about its interest in security.

"(The U.S.) is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests," it reads.

The statement comes weeks after the European Union released a document pointing toward its own Arctic policy. That document made an argument for a network of international bodies to regulate the development and use of the increasingly accessible Arctic.

A number of Canadian academics warned at the time that Canada risked losing control over the agenda for northern development, which would likely weaken its sovereignty over the region.

Huebert noted that while the EU and the U.S. have both released clear and concise documents outlining what their goals are in the Arctic, Canada hasn't.

"Just as the EU document was a wake-up call for us, here's one in which the Americans make it very clear where the differences are.

"Why do you want sovereignty unless you are going to use sovereignty for something? This is what the Americans are doing - they're saying this is what we want."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised a "northern strategy," but has never produced one, said Huebert.

[Widow]

Harper plays down threat to Arctic sovereignty
PM's response to U.S. policy in Far North disappoints NWT Premier, who says Canada must actively protect resource-rich area

KATHERINE O'NEILL
January 14, 2009

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dismissed concerns that a Cold War with the United States is about to erupt over a new U.S. policy that boldly challenges Canada's Arctic sovereignty claims in the frozen, resource-rich region.

"We've had some long-standing disagreements with the United States on some of these things, but we've managed to contain these disagreements," Mr. Harper told a Calgary radio show yesterday. "I think we can manage this. ... But obviously we will always speak up when the United States questions our sovereignty."

Northwest Territories Premier Floyd Roland said the increased U.S. interest in the region is of deep concern and the federal government should respond with more than rhetoric.

Mr. Roland said too much is at stake in the Far North, and Ottawa must act decisively to ensure the country protects its economic and political interests there by creating more jobs and investing in infrastructure.

"Let's not lose it for the sake of being nice," he said during a telephone interview from Yellowknife. "Canada can no longer afford to maintain a passive approach to our northern interests."

U.S. President George W. Bush's administration released the controversial new policy on Monday, just days before president-elect Barack Obama is scheduled to take office.

The document reasserts the Americans' long-held claim that the fabled Northwest Passage is an international waterway, open to all. Canada argues that the route is an internal waterway.

The policy, which hasn't been updated since 1994, also states that the United States should develop a greater presence in the Arctic for security reasons, as well as resolve outstanding border disputes, including one with Canada in the Beaufort Sea, so it can tap into the region's vast natural resources.

"The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests," the directive states.

The document comes weeks after the European Union released a report on the Arctic. It recommended that international agencies be allowed to help manage it by establishing rules for activities such as drilling and shipping oil in the region.

Rob Huebert, an Arctic sovereignty expert and associate director of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, said the Canadian government shouldn't ignore or play down these two documents.

He said Mr. Bush's directive has effectively "thrown a grenade into Canada-U.S. relations" and that it will be interesting to see what the new president does with it.

"This is a very blunt statement ... they didn't play any political niceties here."

Ken Coates, an expert on northern Canadian history and the dean of arts at the University of Waterloo, said it was wise for Mr. Harper not to "pick a fight" with Washington on this issue.

He views the directive as just more "chest-thumping" and "political positioning" by the Americans on Arctic sovereignty, an issue that has sparked diplomatic disputes between the two nations for years.

Even so, Prof. Coates expects that Mr. Harper will raise the issue with Washington because he's long considered Arctic sovereignty and northern development a major priority for his Conservative government.

Historically, federal government action in the Arctic has been mainly symbolic or reactive.

However, in recent years, climate change has begun to transform the North. As ice melts at alarming rates, traffic of all types has increased as the area becomes more accessible and attractive to other countries, including Russia, eyeing new and faster shipping routes and massive natural resource deposits such as oil and gas.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/National

[BibleMonkey]

After ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country has ten years to make claims to extend its 200 mile zone. Norway ratified the convention in 1996, and Denmark ratified it in 2004 , Russia ratified it in 1997 , and Canada ratified it in 2003. The United States is the only arctic country that hasn't ratified it.

That's why Russia was busy proving that the Lomonosov ridge was a natural extension of it's political geography, and they planted a flag -before their timeline ran out.

Canada and Russia actually had a joint science team in the spring of '07 out to continue to gather the proofs required to establish the boundaries as required by treaty-although the news was only full of stories about 'evil crazy Russians' planting a flag on their territory.

To validate their jurisdiction over seabeds, they must give scientific evidence to a United Nations body that proves the area in question is a natural prolongation of their continental shelf. This zone can be extended where a country can prove that the structure of the undersea continental shelf is similar to the geological structure within its territory.

The law of the sea then would grant countries an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles beyond their land borders.

Canada has -and probably always will-do what the U.S tells it to-although the Prime Ministers office ( of both political parties ) periodically releases some propaganda about the arctic to make Canadians think that Canada is really not run from Washington. Canada has until 2013 to provide the neccesssary claims-but they won't-because they've been told not to, rhetoric notwithstanding.

Ten days ago the U.S President , in a ten page release ( U.S Arctic Policy ) , told us that they have taken over a big piece of Canada.

In case you hadn't noticed, 1/3 of That big Red part above mainland Canada there just turned brown.
http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx
but they won't bother updating any maps until after 2013.

Had it been in the south, there would have been an outcry-but since it's way up North, we're too busy focusing on American Idol to notice.

When you have a 400 ship Navy, you really don't need to sign treaties.

[Rockie]

Bush didn't give a shit about what the world thought about the United States or its reputation but Obama does. I'll bet that document is considered meaningless where it counts most.

[. ._]

All I can predict is spilled oil in the Northwest Passage and Canadians sitting back saying, "Duhh. What happened? Why was this (fill in the country's name) tanker there? Duhh."

-istp

[BibleMonkey]

Bush didn't give a shit about what the world thought about the United States or its reputation but Obama does. I'll bet that document is considered meaningless where it counts most.

Interestingly enough, earlier, Mr Bush wanted to ratify the treaty-it was blocked in the Senate and House.

Reagan opposed it, and Clinton was for it. The United States Navy brass is and always was pushing for the United States to ratify the treaty -the U.S Navy hates operating in legal grey areas, they like clear rules about everything-precise rules of engagement, clear definitions where they can sail their big ass cannon/missile laden ships...clarity starts at the very top.

If the overarching rules ( e.g major treaties signed by their commander in chief , or the lack thereof ) are grey , the American admirals lack precise guidance ( are my boats in international waters, or aren't they? -all ship command rules follow from that... )

Anyway-there's an argument in the U.S about whether to ratify it or not-with valid points ( from an American perspective ) on both sides. Senator ( now Vice Pres ) Biden was pushing to sign it, it remains to be seen if it will make it through the Senate and House.

Although I don't think it's high on the priority list down south. Haven't checked lately if it's even on the agenda......

Let's see what Harper does. Building some icebreakers , in large enough numbers to enforce borders, would be a good economic stimulus-don't think it will happen, though.

Bush wants Law of the Sea approved, but some conservatives balk...Oct. 4, 2007...

We may remember Mulroney canceled the construction of the Polar 8 icebreaker class -the U.S sent up their icebreaker 'Healey' to watch the Russians last year.

Is that new Canadian icebreaker "Diefenbaker ' still a go? Lost track of that one.
Shouldn't build it in Finland, though...

[Four1oh]

Bush didn't give a shit about what the world thought about the United States or its reputation but Obama does. I'll bet that document is considered meaningless where it counts most.

I'd bet you're dead wrong. If Canada doesn't step up NOW and defend it's territory, even from our neighbours, then we deserve to lose it. Having said that, would you prefer the chinese or Russians to be patrolling the NW passage? Or our friends, the Americans? Step up or step back. Why aren't the people of Canada in a outrage and demanding the politicians get the ball rolling on a serious navy to do real work like defending the arctic?

[ettw]

Why aren't the people of Canada in a outrage and demanding the politicians get the ball rolling on a serious navy to do real work like defending the arctic?

Because 99.7% of the population is south of 60 and doesn't see the relevence to their daily lives.

And if we don't resolve the Hans Island issue to our satisfaction (ie. its ours) then the precedence is set that our borders and our sovereignty is open for interpretation to someone elses satisfaction.

I sure hope on my way to Res Bay I never see the American Navy freely wandering around in Lancaster Sound. That's ours! And its way too fragile to be chancing maritime shipping disasters.

Come on Harper! GITTERDONE!!!!

Cheers,

ETTW

PS Until this sitting of government can get rolling its unlikely that Canada's Arctic sovereignty policy will make any headlines

[Four1oh]

bang on ETTW. The Arctic is our future. It is not the frozen wasteland that people down south thing. The shipping, mineral rights, oil/gas/ the northern environment including tourism is all ours and no one else's.

Had it not been for fucking Cretien and his fucking libs, we would have at least had something to patrol our waters, but no, we're stuck with some derelict british subs that I haven't seen leave the YHZ harbour in months... I wonder why.

I praise Harper for moving fast on our heavy lift capabilities.... now we need some major improvements to our navy. Now, 2 years ago, in fact, but... let's just keep giving him a minority government. It's obvious we can only rely on the conservatives to do it, the libs are too busy screaming about COfucking2 emmisions.

[Four1oh]

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA - Flying the flag in the Arctic could cost the Canadian military as much as $843 million annually, says a series of internal Defence Department cost estimates.

The bill for operation and maintenance would be on top of the estimated $4.5-billion capital outlay for new light icebreakers, a deepwater port and a support base, say the documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information laws.

A leading Arctic expert, Rob Huebert, said it's the first time the public has been given a clear glimpse at what kind of sustained financial commitment would be needed to meet the Conservative government's Northern strategy.

He said the temptation would be for Canadians to recoil in sticker shock and it's up to the federal government to lead the debate.

"You need to have this discussion," said Huebert, a professor at the University of Calgary's Centre for Strategic Studies.

The internal reports and memos trace the evolution of the Conservative strategy to assert Canada's presence in the North from the time the party was first elected in January 2006.

"From a cost perspective it cannot be over-emphasized that the vastness, isolation and lack of existing infrastructure will lead to increased costs in all aspects of implementation and operations in the Arctic," said the first assessment, penned by defence planners in 2006.

Subsequent documents have also underscored the financial "challenges faced in asserting Northern sovereignty initiatives."

The federal government realizes the obstacles and the potential costs of operating in the North, said a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

"Minister MacKay recognizes that the Canadian Forces must be able to exercise control over and defend our sovereignty in the Arctic," Dan Dugas said in an email Thursday.

"He also wants to ensure that our military plays an increasingly vital role in demonstrating a visible Canadian presence and in helping agencies such as the Coast Guard respond to threats that may arise."

The Tories had initially proposed construction of three armed, heavy icebreakers to patrol the waters left open by receding ice packs. Experts predict the channels could be open to unimpeded summer navigation by 2015.

The ambitious $1.6-billion plan was abandoned in 2007 in favour of a $3.1-billion proposal to build as many as eight smaller icebreakers capable of operating off all three coasts. Although the current plan is more expensive, officials have defended it as better-suited for the navy.

The federal government has also proposed constructing a deepwater port and base in Nanisivik, Nunavut, and a winter warfare school of excellence.

The Defence Department cost estimates do not include what Ottawa would potentially spend on development and other non-military initiatives in the North.

The head of the army, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, conceded there will likely be a hefty pricetag, but the cost of doing nothing would be more damaging.

"Think of it as a return on investment," he said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press. "It's sovereign Canadian territory; so it's part of our land.

"Who knows what untold mineral wealth might lay beneath those lands? Who knows what possible impact of folk using our North might be?"

The U.S. recently issued an Arctic policy paper which challenged Canada's attempts to establish control over the region.

The 10-page paper, signed by former president George W. Bush just days before he left office, spells out Washington's intention to protect its security in the Arctic, regardless of Canadian or other international feelings.

The European Union has issued a similar report of its own.

New Democrat MP Dennis Bevington, who represents the Western Arctic, argued in a recent paper that Ottawa is putting too much emphasis on the military.

"Clearly, there are other ways where we can spend Canadian taxpayers' money to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic and advance other priorities of Northern development," he wrote.

Leslie said the army is well along with plans to put boots on the tundra by designating, training and equipping four reserve battalions for Arctic operations. The proposal includes the purchase of snowmobiles and heavy over-snow vehicles to aid Northern search and rescue, he added.

The plan to build Arctic offshore patrol ships is just passing through its first design phase and defence officials said they expect to see not only drawings but a firm cost estimate by mid-2009.

The navy has commissioned environmental and buildings studies in Nanisivik, a deepwater port that is still under Fisheries Department control.


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0901 ... rctic_cost

[2R]

Anyone familiar with the Alaska treaties of 1845 between Russia ,USA,and Great Britain ?

The fate of the Artic may lay in the obscure wording of those old documents

[North Shore]

I hear what you are saying, 410, but there's this part, too: OTTAWA - Flying the flag in the Arctic could cost the Canadian military as much as $843 million annually, says a series of internal Defence Department cost estimates.
Where's the money going to come from? Tax increases? Or are there going to be hidden cuts to services (such as the YVR ports police, cut by Paul martin in the '90s) that will manifest themselves in other problems down the road? (Huge gang/drug problems in hte YVR area)

[Four1oh]

North Shore, considering this stimulus package Ottawa is contemplating... not even a billion seems pretty cheap to me. It would actually be a good use of tax dollars for once.

[Four1oh]

What's your sovereignty worth to you? What's next after declaring the NW passage international? All islands north of it get divided up between Russian and the US, and Denmark?

What really burns my ass is how little anyone gives a shit to this issue. We're more interested in the new american president and the Gaza strip.

[MG_]

.

[Four1oh]

Ass, hair, arm...what's the diff?

[BibleMonkey]

We gots some Lifeboats! 5 of them. And some crumbs to keep the Victoria shipyard going ...

...$175 million for the procurement of new Coast Guard vessels and to undertake vessel life extensions and refits for aging vessels

..Five new Coast Guard lifeboats, including one home-ported in each Prince Rupert and Campbell River

Need another 3, 4, million to pay some newly unemployed Fort Macmurray welders to weld some snowplows on the front and we got us some ice-breakers...

[mcrit]

Arctic conflict possible, Russian report says

Document a 'wake-up call' for Canada, expert maintains

By Randy Boswell, Canwest News Service; with files from ReutersMay 14, 2009

A new Russian government security report that predicts possible military conflict over energy resources -- including Arctic oil -- is another "wake-up call" for Canada, one of the country's top analysts on polar geopolitics says.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Somni ... story.html

[benoit.baril]

Russian ambassador sent in quite a good reply to Times arcticle on the subject.

Article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 283130.ece

Reply:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 306971.ece

[BibleMonkey]

[meflypretty]

We must defend the arctic. WIth global warming, I am looking at some pretty sweet vacation properties up there! Get 'em while they're still cheap!

[SenyorJim]

past pansy waist politicos have had no vision
its the Avro virus I think
We should have equipped 3 nuke subs 20 years ago when the yanks and ivan were wandering around under our ice pack and given them the 'nudge'- instead we were busy giving nuke capability to india and ultimately their connected friends for 'peacefull ' purposes
God help Canada to wake up