Harper Rebukes US envoy over Arctic sovereignty

[slowpoke]

So far so good. US Envoy David Wilkins was critical of Harper's plans to defend our sovereignty in the Arctic but Harper basically told him to mind his own business. I'm encouraged.

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne...N26175095_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-POLITICS-C-COL.XML

"By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper, who campaigned on the need to improve relations with Washington, rebuked the U.S. ambassador on Thursday for rejecting Canada's claims to the Arctic.

Harper, whose Conservatives won a fragile mandate in Monday's election, said during the campaign that Prime Minister Paul Martin had needlessly exacerbated ties with the United States.

But Harper showed little hesitation in slapping down U.S. envoy David Wilkins for making critical remarks about Conservative plans to boost Canada's presence in the far north.

"The United States defends its sovereignty, the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper told reporters during his first news conference since the election.

"It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

Harper, vowing to boost defenses in the Arctic to stop incursions by foreign vessels, plans to buy three new large icebreakers and build a deep sea docking facility in the Arctic for a total cost of C$2 billion over 10 years.

The United States has long challenged Canada's claims to sovereignty over Arctic waterways -- fabled as the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific -- saying it considers much of the region to be international waters.

This could have serious implications if ice in the Northwest Passage starts to melt due to global warming and shipping companies decide to send vessels through the area to save time and fuel.

"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," Ambassador Wilkins told reporters on Wednesday during a discussion about the plan to buy the icebreakers.

"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters ... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."

Canada says the passages through the archipelago of Arctic islands above the North American mainland are domestic waters. Continued ... "

 

[maxweber]

a little common sense?

So: now that PMs from both sides of the spectrum have stated as much publicly, can we all admit and agree: David Wilkins is a disgrace as US Ambassador to Canada? (And of course his boss is an arrogant dunce for having appointed him.)

MW

 

[Dawgger]

So: now that PMs from both sides of the spectrum have stated as much publicly, can we all admit and agree: David Wilkins is a disgrace as US Ambassador to Canada? (And of course his boss is an arrogant dunce for having appointed him.)

MW

You are good. I am convinced, at least on the dunce thingy!
I am willing to give Harper a chance, I want to see what he does not what he says!

 

[slowpoke]

Agreed. I'd like to see how he fares over the next 18 months, and I wish him well. I'll also give him credit for taking Wilkins behind the garden shed.

My reservations about Harper were mainly his opportunistic behaviour during Martin's minority and the potential for a hard line agenda on the social side of the ledger. This is a pseudo military / sovereignty issue which I'd expect to be one of Harper's strengths. But I'm also a fan of fiscal conservatism so I'm still a bit leery of the projected costs of all these CPOC election promises. I'd worry less about overspending from the Martin Liberals than from Harper's CPOC which is a bit of a switch. How many times in our history have the Liberals looked like the most fiscally prudent of the three parties? Probably never so we're not out of the woods yet as far as Harper's overall fiscal responsibility is concerned.

But in all fairness, we can't exactly pretend that the Libs were doing much about our Arctic sovereignty so this is a welcome development. If we can establish some new ports for a new generation of armed icebreakers, keep the waterways open year round, station some troops up there and develop a network of sensors to monitor trespassing vessels, we should be able to solidify our ownership claims in that region. The US can call these international waters but, historically, we've been the main custodians of that part of the world and it is a natural extension of OUR northern boundary so I rather doubt that the US' claims will stand up under international law. Sending a few subs up there hardly gives the US the right to dictate whether the Arctic is international territory or not.

 

[onthebottom]

So: now that PMs from both sides of the spectrum have stated as much publicly, can we all admit and agree: David Wilkins is a disgrace as US Ambassador to Canada? (And of course his boss is an arrogant dunce for having appointed him.)

MW

Or perhaps you can't simply claim sovereignty over water that happens to be frozen - how many nations recognize your sovereignty over this area? Perhaps you're just universally wrong.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

Or perhaps you can't simply claim sovereignty over water that happens to be frozen - how many nations recognize your sovereignty over this area? Perhaps you're just universally wrong.

OTB

I have this vision, of a single SeaKing flying over the frozen tundra. Wagner playing in the background.....coming in and pro claiming sovereignty...

 

[oldjones]

Or perhaps you can't simply claim sovereignty over water that happens to be frozen - how many nations recognize your sovereignty over this area? Perhaps you're just universally wrong.

OTB

Did you read that first sentence? The most basic claim of sovereignty is, "I'm standing on it and you're not." You can do that w/ frozen water, and our people have been doing that since long before either of our countries were dreamed of. And they still do to this day. They live on that ice. And it's pretty hard to assert some existing international right of maritime passage—as through the Straits of Malacca—when the 'passage' isn't.

It's the wet stuff that still has the international lawyers arguing. But as to that wet stuff, the first passge across the Arctic was made by the RCMP. Police being another classic sovereignty marker, the Mounties have historically and still do patrol throughout the Arctic. And precious few but Canadian vessels travel its waters. At least, travel openly.

It's pretty nigh impossible to draw territorial waters on a map and leave any of the Arctic Islands outside Canada, but do feel free to post a link to a map showing the 'unclaimed status' of the Arctic Islands. You could start by looking at this one from the US Department of State.

Surely you're not suggesting we, or our established interests have anything to fear from our nearest, dearest neighbours?

 

[langeweile]

Surely you're not suggesting we, or our established interests have anything to fear from our nearest, dearest neighbours?

Since water is going to be the next scarce commodity,you should be worried about those that don't have much of it.

 

[onthebottom]

Since water is going to be the next scarce commodity,you should be worried about those that don't have much of it.

I'm not worried, we can always drain those Great Lakes.

OTB

 

[red]

I'm not worried, we can always drain those Great Lakes.

OTB

if you break the treaty governing the use of the water therein

 

[slowpoke]

Or perhaps you can't simply claim sovereignty over water that happens to be frozen - how many nations recognize your sovereignty over this area? Perhaps you're just universally wrong.

OTB

http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/shepson/Alert/alertsign.GIF

http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/canada/arctic_e.php

Check out the maps showing the distribution of Canadian settlements already in the Arctic. Most of those islands have a seasonal ice cover and ice extending out from their shores but there is still a base of clay and gravel etc. So it is terra firma - not just frozen water. If we own the islands, we can extend our sovereignty out into the adjacent waterways right up to our territorial limit - just like on our east and west coasts. I think it is 200 miles and there are other international conventions that apply as well. I just don't know what they are.

The RCMP have been enforcing Canadian laws on the residents up there for over a century. There are numerous instances of Innuit being arrested in the high Arctic and then being transported down to our southern cities be tried and to serve their prison sentences. Those laws were enforced across the full extent of the Canadian Arctic, on the sea, ice, land - you name it. The guy who accompanied Knud Rasmussen the Danish explorer on his Thule expeditions wrote in the 1920's about how an Innuit up on Ellesmere Island near Alert was arrested for murder and taken back to be tried. This is all part of recorded history so I think we probably do have first dibs on that whole region.

 

[oldjones]

Since water is going to be the next scarce commodity,you should be worried about those that don't have much of it.

Now where have I heard something like that before …

Kinda along the same lines, on what my sons biology teacher told the class. The Americans will invade Canada within the next fifty years, to steal all the drinking water!!!???

Still think it's a laughing matter, or are you now warning us?

 

[maxweber]

wha??

Or perhaps you can't simply claim sovereignty over water that happens to be frozen - how many nations recognize your sovereignty over this area? Perhaps you're just universally wrong.

OTB

That doesn't even come close to making sense. But you're not really even trying, are you?

MW

 

[oldjones]

I'm not worried, we can always drain those Great Lakes.

OTB

'Course the drainage capacity of the Chicago Sewage Channel being just a tad less than 'most any one of the rivers—your side or ours—flowing in, you'd have to nuke the toddlin' town to get it outta the way. But then you can flush 'em right through Chicago all the way down the Mississippi and flood out everyone along the way all the way down to New Orleans. Yeah, got the T-shirts awready.

Good thinkin' bro'. Don't let some petty little thing like breaking another treaty stop you.

 

[langeweile]

Now where have I heard something like that before …

Still think it's a laughing matter, or are you now warning us?

One doesn't exclude the other.
Future problems with water..yes...American invasion...nonsense

 

[onthebottom]

Why has no one answered the question of how many countries recognize Canada's sovereignty up there? This is right up there with Curling results and Soft Wood for me on the give-a-shit meter but now I'm curious.

OTB

 

[someone]

Why has no one answered the question of how many countries recognize Canada's sovereignty up there? This is right up there with Curling results and Soft Wood for me on the give-a-shit meter but now I'm curious.

OTB

I think the truth is that most countries don’t have enough of a stake involved to even bother taking a position. However, if you want a run down on the basic issue, see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060127/REALITY27/TPNational

 

[Svend]

The territorial limits extend to whatever that particular country says they do. Can we back it up though?

The US claims 3 nautical miles off their land. Most Caribbean island nations claim 3-12 miles although there are exceptions. The territorial limits of certain Caribbean nations and other island nations whose area consists of many small islands often overlap creating a larger territorial area than one would assume.
Canada decided to claim 200 miles so we could scoop the cod from the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, but some countries don't recognize this.

 

[someone]

The territorial limits extend to whatever that particular country says they do. Can we back it up though?

The US claims 3 nautical miles off their land. Most Caribbean island nations claim 3-12 miles although there are exceptions. The territorial limits of certain Caribbean nations and other island nations whose area consists of many small islands often overlap creating a larger territorial area than one would assume.
Canada decided to claim 200 miles so we could scoop the cod from the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, but some countries don't recognize this.

The Third United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea. set the limit of territorial waters to 12 nautical miles (22 km), in which area the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate any use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. Beyond the 12 nautical mile (22 km) limit there was a further 12 nautical mile (22 km) or 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the territorial sea baselines limit, the "contiguous zone", in which area a state could continue to enforce laws regarding activities such as smuggling or illegal immigration.
The exclusive economic zones (EEZ) extended the exploitation rights of coastal nations to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from shore, covering all natural resources. (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea)

 

[arclighter]

The territorial limits extend to whatever that particular country says they do. Can we back it up though?

The US claims 3 nautical miles off their land. Most Caribbean island nations claim 3-12 miles although there are exceptions. The territorial limits of certain Caribbean nations and other island nations whose area consists of many small islands often overlap creating a larger territorial area than one would assume.
Canada decided to claim 200 miles so we could scoop the cod from the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, but some countries don't recognize this.

Gun boat diplomacy is the final arbiter.

Good luck.