Bush asserts U.S. sea power over Arctic straits

[hammond]

Mike Blanchfield and Randy Boswell
Canwest News Service

Monday, January 12, 2009

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1169665&sponsor=Xerox

OTTAWA — In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U.S. military "sea power" over the oil-rich Arctic on Monday, in another forceful rebuttal of Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage.

The White House formally released the text of a sweeping new directive on the Arctic, two years in the making, just eight days before Barack Obama is to be sworn in as the 44th U.S. president.

Key elements of Bush's policy challenge the ambitious Arctic sovereignty agenda put forth by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that includes bolstering Canada's military presence and fostering economic and social development. The Bush directive reiterates that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway — a rebuttal of Canada's claim of sovereignty over what is emerging as a major global shipping route because of the shrinking polar ice cap — and it highlights the boundary dispute in the resource-rich Beaufort Sea.

"I think Canada has gotten a real wake-up call with this," said University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert, one the country's leading experts on Arctic issues.

He said he couldn't recall the U.S. ever articulating its disagreements with Canada "in such black and white terms. There was no effort here to sugar-coat anything."

Huebert noted that the bold assertion of American interests in the Arctic came only weeks after a similar statement by European officials also posed challenges to Canada's polar strategy.

"Freedom of the seas is a top national priority," the White House directive states. "The Northwest Passage is a strait used for international navigation, and the Northern Sea Route includes straits used for international navigation. Preserving the rights and duties relating to navigation and overflight in the Arctic region supports our ability to exercise these rights throughout the world, including through strategic straits."

The Arctic's untapped energy potential has sparked a 21st Century scramble in the Far North that has included a Russian submarine planting a flag on the North Pole seabed and Canada's expressions of its own Arctic aspirations under Harper, which include a greater military land and sea presence.

[More on link]

 

[ballz]

First they want our Arctic, next they're going to want our fresh water. Canada needs a bigger fricken military, asap. :threat:

 

[Kirkhill]

ballz,  If you don't want to ship the Yanks water then stop buying California lettuce (and all those other lovely fresh fruits and vegetables they put on your table).

All that food requires water to grow.  And keep in mind it is not just the water that you actually receive in the lettuce that you are responsible for it is also the water that evaporates on delivery to the field, that evaporates in the field, that soaks into the ground, that is part of the plant that you don't eat, that evaporates on shipment to you and that is lost in the wilted leaves you and your grocer throw out.

Sorry but this notion of water as somehow being special and the Yanks being the problem frosts the bejasus out of me.  There is more than enough water in Canada to go around.  We are using less than 1% of the total outfall to the seas to supply our needs and if we diverted all the water the Yanks need our combined usage would still be less than 1% of the Canadian discharge.

Now, WRT arctic sovereignty,  I agree with you there.  We do need the ability to stick up for ourselves.  Some Danish/Norwegian designed AOPVs, a couple or six proper ice-breakers, listening systems, various air patrols (civil and military, manned and unmanned),  heck maybe even an AIP sub or two, should just about fill the bill.

 

[Greymatters]

Unfortunately, sovereignty doesnt make an impression unless there is a physical presence, which means boots on the ground confirming the fact...

 

[ballz]

When I said "they," I meant "the rest of the world," not just the Yanks. The rest of the world wants our Arctic, and next, the rest of the world will want our fresh water supply. You can't honestly tell me you don't think of our vast amounts of fresh water as a natural resource.

All I'm alluding to is that whether its the Arctic, fresh water, or grassy effin plains full of juicy steaks, Canada is way too rich in resources and land to have such small military power.

Oh btw, California can keep its lettuce, I'm a meatitarian

 

[Kirkhill]

All I'm alluding to is that whether its the Arctic, fresh water, or grassy effin plains full of juicy steaks, Canada is way too rich in resources and land to have such small military power.

And there we agree - You have that which you can hold.  The Israelis and Palestinians would also agree with you on that. 

 

[a_majoor]

As a practical matter, no one will challenge our sovereignty in a physical manner for some time to come (Arctic sea ice is back to levels recorded in frosty 1979, only nuclear subs will be sliding silently under the sea like always). Canada does need to plant a physical presence before either conditions change or technology advances to the point that huge packs of drift ice don't matter, in order to make our legal claim stick.

 

[Greymatters]

True, plenty of time for responding to future merchant traffic (and I see we're avoiding discussing current subsurface traffic), but not an issue that should be ignored until then...

 

[blacktriangle]

So how many American SSN's are in our waters at any given time? (...that they don't tell us about?)  ;D

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So how many American SSN's are in our waters at any given time? (...that they don't tell us about?)  ;D

An even bajillion.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

So how many American SSN's are in our waters at any given time? (...that they don't tell us about?)  ;D

We know where they are. They're in the area around here (points to map) and east, west, south and north somewhat




























;D

 

[Greymatters]

We know where they are. They're in the area around here (points to map) and east, west, south and north somewhat  ;D 

You make them sound like heffalumps and woozles...

 

[Journeyman]

For anyone wishing to read the actual Presidential Directive, rather than rely upon what reporters and editors choose to emphasize, National Security Presidential Directive-66 is available online through The Federation of American Scientists' website.....

Two points:
1) One of the key policies is to "strengthen institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic nations (the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and Sweden)" -- specifically excluding the European Union*

2) Most National Security Presidential Directives are classified, with even some of titles/subject matter completely unknown, this NSPD was issued as an unclassified, public document.



I suspect this was public diplomacy aimed at the European Union, not Canada.

.....but one may not get that interpretation by relying merely upon some journalist's report   




* The Directive subsequently allows for scientific cooperation (but no mention of economic/territorial efforts), through the Nordic Council (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the autonomous territories of Faroe Islands, Greenland, and the Åland Islands), as well as the scientific European Polar Consortium (whose research goal is to "set the Foundations of a ‘European Polar Entity’," whatever that means).

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's the analogous debate: Turkey vs Russia

Turkey in row over straits access  
By Jonny Dymond
BBC News, Istanbul  



The Bosphorus is wide enough, but its waters can be treacherous

Turkey is engaged in an international battle to restrict the use of one of the world's busiest waterways - the Bosphorus Straits.

The straits divide European and Asian Istanbul and are the main route for trade from the Black Sea out to the Mediterranean and beyond.

Russia has complained about Turkey's restrictions on the number of oil tankers that can use the channel.

Turkey is used to having international attention focused on the Bosphorus.

For centuries, Russia wanted free access to the channel which links the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

In World War I, Britain led a disastrous attempt to take the straits and open up a new front in the deadlocked conflict. Now the politics of international trade - in particular, oil - has led to fresh complaints.

Russia insists that it has the right to use the international waterway and that Turkey's unilateral limiting of the number of tankers going through the straits is illegal.

Turkey says the rules governing the passage of ships down the Bosphorus were designed for a different age.

Explosives' danger

The Turkish Maritime Authorities are concerned that large tankers carrying oil, gas or chemicals pose a serious danger to the 12m or so residents of Istanbul.

The authorities say 9,000 ships carrying explosive materials went through the straits last year.

 
The tonnage of explosive material passing through has more than doubled in seven years. The Bosphorus looks wide enough. But it is treacherous.

Ships can be swung around and sent into the city's coast if captains are not alert to the twists and turns of the straits and the currents below the surface.

Turkey has invested millions of dollars in a radar monitoring system.

It insists that only one tanker travels the straits at any one time and that no ships go down in bad weather or at night time.

Some observers believe it to be a ploy to force investment in pipelines across Turkish territory.

But the authorities insist that the safety of the city and its residents is their key concern.

I can't, at the moment, think of any other international straits where the both sides of the straits are controlled by the same land power.  All the others that I can think of (Skaggerak/Kattegat, Gibraltar, Malacca, Hormuz, Mandeb) are contested by two competing land powers and it is their interests to have the waters declared a no-mans land - until they can secure the opposite shore as well.  There might be a case made for the Suez and Panama canals (although both of those are considered "national" waters, I believe.  Denmark might have an analogous situation with the Storebaelt which allows ships to pass through broad Danish waters instead of the narrow international waters of the Skagerrak/Kattegat.

There is a Canadian case to be made FOR the US position. Freedom of movement by the world's navies, including ours, assists in maintaining international stability and reduces threats to commerce by creating havens for denying havens to pirates.

On the other hand, the USN's transit theory seems to run up against a bit of a wall when tested against the Straits of Bosphorus.  

In the old days international waters would have been an arrowshot away from shore, then a cannon shot (3 miles), then a rifled cannon (12 miles).  Having established the precedent that "you have what you can hold", and the ability to destroy an intruder, it is difficult to argue against a continuation of that policy despite living in an age of 200 mile shore launched cruise missiles, 1000 mile land based fighters, 5000 mile land based patrol aircraft and uavs and globe circling ballistic missiles.

Edit: On that basis, seeing as how we currently mount patrols by armed land based aircraft, and can launch armed land based fighters, both of which can "destroy intruders" then we have a sure title to those waters.

At one level On the other hand, it can be argued that the whole world is a national strait of the United States.  They have the ability to destroy an intruder anywhere.

Time to start negotiating.

 

[Sub_Guy]

First they want our Arctic, next they're going to want our fresh water. Canada needs a bigger fricken military, asap. :threat:

No one is going to war over water, its cheaper to build desalination plants than it is to mobilize and go to war.

I don't have a problem with anyone considering the northwest passage an international waterway, but if we want to toughen our stance we need to at least show a presence up there.  Negotiate all you want, but it doesn't mean a lick of crap if we can't physically make a presence.

 

[Kirkhill]

No one is going to war over water, its cheaper to build desalination plants than it is to mobilize and go to war.

I don't have a problem with anyone considering the northwest passage an international waterway, but if we want to toughen our stance we need to at least show a presence up there.  Negotiate all you want, but it doesn't mean a lick of crap if we can't physically make a presence.

Agreed entirely.