• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattoigta
  • Start date Start date
Russia deploys mission to claim North Pole
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e4aafe79-9a68-43ee-8af3-77d3f43c8638

'The Arctic is Russian,' expedition leader says of quest to plant flag at Earth's most northerly point
 
James Kilner Reuters and Canwest News Service Wednesday, July 25, 2007

MOSCOW - A Russian expedition sailed yesterday for the North Pole, where it plans to send a submarine crew to plant a flag on the seabed and symbolically claim the Arctic for the Kremlin.

The mission is part of a race to assert rights over the Arctic, an icy wasteland that is rich in energy reserves and, as climate change melts the ice, could open up to form a lucrative shortcut for ships sailing between Asia and North America.

"The Arctic is Russian," expedition leader and parliamentary deputy Artur Chilingarov told Russian TV. "We are going to be the first to put a flag there, a Russian flag, at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, at the very point of the North Pole."

A nuclear-powered icebreaker will smash through the weakened Arctic ice, leading the way for the main expedition ship, which will launch the submarine.

One of their biggest worries is resurfacing at the same hole in the ice they dived into -- missing it could mean becoming trapped as the mini-submarine is not powerful enough to break through the ice.

International law states the five countries with territory inside the Arctic Circle -- Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark, via its control of Greenland -- are limited to a 320-kilometre economic zone around their coastline.

But since 2001, Russia has claimed a larger slice extending as far as the North Pole because, Moscow says, the Arctic seabed and Siberia are linked via the same continental shelf.

In recent weeks, the Canadian government vowed not to flinch in the face of new Russian claims to a vast stretch of Arctic Ocean seabed that could conflict with Canada's own territorial ambitions.

"Canada's sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic is long-standing, well-established and based on historic title," the Department of Foreign Affairs said last month in response to reports that Russian scientists have amassed fresh evidence supporting their country's claim to about 1.2 million square kilometres of the Arctic seafloor and the potential riches that lie below.

"Canadian and Russian officials have discussed our respective continental-shelf research programs and Canada was made aware of plans for a Russian expedition. Canada will continue to assert its sovereignty in the Arctic, including in our internal waters."

The Russians who left yesterday say they plan to carry out research, but national pride is the driving force behind the expedition, team member Anatoly Sagalevich said.

"I think we will be the first submariners to travel along the ocean floor under the North Pole, we will raise Russia's prestige," he said. "People have flown to the moon but nobody has yet been to the crown of the Earth."

The first submarine to travel under the North Pole was the USS Nautilus, a U.S. nuclear submarine that did not stop on the sea floor during its 1958 voyage.

Mr. Sagalevich said a similar Russian mission planned for 1998 had had to be ditched when Russian financial markets crashed.

Now, though, with revenues from oil, gas and metals swelling Russia's coffers, it has the confidence and cash to fund the expedition.

"We will be the first to see the seabed under the North Pole, and we will plant a Russian flag made from titanium," Mr. Sagalevich said.
 
From the Globe & Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070725.warctik0725/BNStory/National/home


Less talk, more action on Arctic, expert advises
Canadian Press

July 25, 2007 at 5:26 PM EDT

OTTAWA — Canada needs more than ice-capable corvettes and political speeches if it wants to guarantee access to Arctic oil and gas wealth, says a northern expert.

Professor Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia says the neither the Conservative government nor its Liberal predecessor have put enough time or money into defending the country's economic zone near the North Pole.

Little has been accomplished since Canada signed an international treaty in 2003 that set the clock running for countries to stake out their territory in the polar sea, he said.

Countries bordering the Arctic have 10 years to map and file their claims for international consideration, said Prof. Byers. The time since 2003 should have been spent investing in the technology and ships that would have allowed Canada to explore the inhospitable region, he said.

“I've compared this to Canada's moon mission,” said Prof. Byers, referring U.S. race to beat the Russians to the moon in the 1960s.

“At a technical and a capability level, this is as complicated and daunting as that. To do this properly you need to not only map the area, but you need to do the seismic work.”

Prof. Byers said such an expedition would require one or two heavy icebreakers, which Canada does not have.

The Conservative government recently announced it will build between six and eight armed, medium icebreakers for the navy to enforce Canada's sovereignty in the North, but those vessels won't hit the water until 2012 at the earliest.

Under international law, five Arctic countries, including Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark (through Greenland) control an economic zone within 320 kilometres of their continental shelf. But the definition of the limits of that shelf are in dispute.

Russia first laid claim to wide swathes of undersea Arctic territory in the United Nations in 2001. But the four other polar countries have objected to this bid. Danish scientists maintain the Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of Greenland, making Denmark another claimant to the North Pole and its environs.

Canada's foreign affairs minister, Peter MacKay, was not available for comment Wednesday.

But his spokesman Dan Dugas said that “Canada's sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic is long standing, well-established and based on historic title.


My question is: What 2003 treaty are they talking about and how is it we have done next to nothing about this for 4 years?

 
cartwright: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070520/arctic_070520
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/05/20/4195386-cp.html

Prof. Byers is no "northern expert"; he's a NDP shill:

I guess context doesn't matter anymore
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-guess-context-doesnt-matter-anymore.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
Thanks for the insight Mark. 

Is the reference to a 2003 treaty then some sort of misprint or has there been a new treaty/amendment etc or perhaps that Canada signed in 2003?  Does it seem like one of the international agreements that everyone ignores because the US did not sign?

Actually, I guess my real question is: Is there a realistic deadline for proving our claim in 2013 or is that complete hogwash?
 
2003 is simply the date of Canada's ratification of the 1982 Convention that came into effect in 1994 (and that's the end of my international law expertise for this!).

As for the 2013 date, I don't know but suspect we'd better work fast.  But remember this is all seabed , continental shelf, stuff--no relevance to the Arctic Islands and mainland that we claim and which no-one disputes.

In any case, surely no nice-thinking person would want actually to exploit any resources on the Arctic seabed given the environmental disasters that would ensue should something go wrong?

Mark
Ottawa
 
Asserting Arctic sovereignty would be easier if we had Coast Guard icebreakers capable of operating like this for extended periods in the Northwest Passage:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=230a509d-842e-476a-8c0d-da1f1225cf09&k=7606

Icebreaker-turned-laboratory begins 15-month Arctic voyage [the headline is a bit misleading if you read the story closely]

ABOARD THE CCGS AMUNDSEN -- Binoculars in hand, Captain Lise Marchand stands at the steamy bridge of her Coast Guard vessel imagining icebergs.

Twenty minutes out of Quebec City's harbour, heat bounces off the glaring white of this gleaming Canadian Coast Guard vessel and sailboats and pleasure boats bob and weave through the widening channel.

But as the 98-metre icebreaker-turned-floating science laboratory embarks on the first leg of a 15-month voyage into chopping northern seas, Marchand knows ice floes lie only a few days from this sun-drenched port -in the fjords of Labrador or the shoals of tiny Inuit villages on Quebec's distant coast.

More than 40 scientists from Canada, the U.S. and beyond -- along with a 35-person crew and a smattering of journalists, teachers and observers -- set sail yesterday on the 2007 ArcticNet Expedition, buoyed by International Polar Year research projects which over the next two years aim to broaden our understanding of this vast world which has been undergoing rapid and at times, startling changes as a result of global warming...

Mark
Ottawa

 
MarkOttawa said:
2003 is simply the date of Canada's ratification of the 1982 Convention that came into effect in 1994 (and that's the end of my international law expertise for this!).

As for the 2013 date, I don't know but suspect we'd better work fast.  But remember this is all seabed , continental shelf, stuff--no relevance to the Arctic Islands and mainland that we claim and which no-one disputes.

In any case, surely no nice-thinking person would want actually to exploit any resources on the Arctic seabed given the environmental disasters that would ensue should something go wrong?

Mark
Ottawa

It's only evil if the Bush-cons think of doing it, Russia is merely struggling to overthrow the cloak of capitalism thrown on it by Reagan-con and minor infractions of the environmental creed must be forgiven in such case. Similar blessing were given to Saddam after the nasty West forced him to drain the salt marshes and light the oil fields on fire.
 
Colin P:  :)

And for once Prof. Michael "Bilge" Byers gets something right:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=f7f65e42-e6fe-4ee6-92d3-c962245e8b76&k=34485

The Conservative government should commit quickly to "the recapitalization of the Coast Guard icebreaking fleet," Byers said. "Two new vessels would likely suffice. In contrast to the ice-strengthened patrol vessels announced for the military, these would be proper Arctic icebreakers that could go anywhere, anytime, including into the area the Russians are claiming."..

--but only because he loathes the "F" in "CF" (great research here by Damian Brooks, and facts the major media never mention about the good professor):
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-guess-context-doesnt-matter-anymore.html

Steve Staples evil twin:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008896.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
(Also posted at "Navy News") This makes sense to me--and then the patrol ships could be redesigned to be much more capable vessels, to replace or supplement the MCDVs, without a serious icebreaking capability

New Coast Guard ships would best fit our Arctic ambitions
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=852819

While the prospect of armed troops in the Arctic and associated infrastructure are commendable initiatives, I believe there are other more creative, cost-effective, supportive methods of providing better service, in less time, with greater benefits to the Inuit community and the current and future development of the Canadian Arctic.

In an era when the country needs a strong Canadian Coast Guard to support domestic responsibilities in its waterways, the CCG is being diminished and reduced on an almost daily basis. I believe that a more realistic approach would allow our new government to provide a much more cost- and mission-effective solution to this age-old problem of Arctic sovereignty.

Some suggestions, based upon years of experience with the CCG, would be:

• Assign the responsibility for building and operating the Canadian Arctic sovereignty icebreakers to the civilian marine arm of the federal government, the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been designing icebreakers and operating in the Arctic environment since it was formed (1962) and prior to that through the Marine Services directorate of Transport Canada. The CCG and its personnel have earned the respect of Northerners over the years and the experience of its personnel in this unique operating environment is unmatched by any other organization in the world.

• Acquire three multi-mission heavy icebreakers capable of operating in the Arctic on a year-round basis (not for a few months of the year, as with the proposed medium-capable icebreakers). These vessels need to be the best in the world and capable of delivering a suite of federal and territorial programs and services in the area they are designed to operate in. Such vessel designs are currently available and could be purchased and/or leased and in service in less than five years at a cost considerably below the original estimate of $1 billion apiece.

• Primary missions would include, but not be limited to: search and rescue; Arctic science; hydrography; oceanography; fisheries management and protection; law enforcement; maritime security; pollution response (federal responsibility north of 60 degrees north); icebreaking, ice reconnaissance and monitoring, particularly in light of global warming; ice escort, harbour breakouts; remote community support, supporting Arctic economic development; in addition to Arctic sovereignty.

• Operation and management of these vessels would need to be done in partnership with the Inuit community, as well as the Armed Forces, to ensure the concerns of Northerners, who have exclusive rights to these lands through their land-claims agreements, are addressed.

• Such vessels, although much more capable than the ones proposed by the government, would have smaller crews and have the ability to accommodate appropriate mission-specific personnel (i.e. scientists, pollution response specialists, RCMP, Armed Forces, etc.)

• The design of these icebreakers is such that they can often conduct several missions at once and thus achieve a much greater return on our investment and operating costs.

The support to economic and social development is one that is much deserved by our Inuit community. Given the remoteness of the communities, size of their territories, and the difficult environment, they deserve the support of the federal government in a manner that makes sense. While they do not have access to a national highway (Trans-Canada) or railway system, the marine and air modes of transportation are their only connections and, in most cases, airports are not options. Despite their reliance on marine transportation in their everyday life (fishing and hunting), they do not get the same level of support as their southern colleagues because of their remote location and comparatively small numbers. A federal icebreaker with an IFR helicopter can provide much needed support quickly, in addition to extending the reach and range of Canadian sovereignty.

New Arctic-class icebreakers would also allow the CCG to rationalize its icebreaking capability in a cost-effective manner by concentrating on less expensive southern icebreakers for southern operations, deployed to the Arctic on a seasonal basis, and avoid the acquisition/replacement cost of one or more major icebreakers...

Rod Stright is a former director of operations with the Canadian Coast Guard and has more than 30 years experience with the CCG.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Mark - I "Sincerely" hope that you get your Ice-Breaking D9 Cats (  http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/ ). A nice heavy ship for crushing ice, letting scientists see all the nice fishes and counting rocks; a place from which you can service the navigational beacons; a warm and cosy mobile hotel and a stable platform on which to land helicopters.  We can never have enough stable platforms - whether they be ice-breakers, frigates or patrol vessels; ice islands or off shore oil platforms; or northern and coastal bases.  The more the merrier. 

The willingness of some of the Coast Guard to work with other government agencies is gratifying however there is enough confusion based on past history to suggest that not everybody is on the same page.  How feasible is it to change out parts of crews depending on mission and contract rights so that you can supply the right selection of "volunteers"?  ;D

Lets leave all of the Maritime Security and Law Enforcement stuff to the Navy with the Mounties on board.  Those  6000 tonne Svalbard A/OPVs ( http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMII/MMIIMar12.html ) will do just fine as a Multi-Role Patrol Vessel for our littoral waters as well as being Mini-LPHs on which we can learn the skills necessary to perform joint ops on larger vessels. 

The Italians successfully operated the 7650 tonne San Giorgio LPDs ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/san_giorgio/ ) in conjunction with their San Marco marines.  The Kiwi's Canterbury is operated in a similar role ( http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/mrv-lcm.htm ).  The Dane's 6300 tonne Absalon Flexible Support Ships are moving along those lines
( http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm ) althoug more of a frigate with some LPH/D capabilities.  The Danes also have their new 1700 tonne Arctic Patrol Vessels building which are essentially ice strengthened Micro-Mini LPDs on which a small helicopter can land  (http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm)

I hope that the CF can afford the larger and IMHO more flexible, stable and capable 6000 tonne version of the Svalbard, rather than the 3000 tonne version the RFP seems to suggest.  It does't cost a lot more to build a bigger tin can around an empty hold but that empty hold can come in useful on occasion.

Gawd I'm glad that is over.....3 weeks of enforced silence due to a 56k modem AND being stuck with the in-laws.  I have ground to make up and you are it  >:D.

Cheers mate.
 
Kirkhill: Nice ships but Canadian governments won't buy them.

A number of things about "Arctic" sovereignty:

Nobody is claiming our land (islands included except Hans) territory in the Arctic--so giving lots more money to the Natives or building military bases and expanding any government presence are irrelevant in this context.

Nobody is claiming the surface North Pole which is in recognized international waters.

What the Russians (along with everyone else including Canada though we are not doing it very well) are trying to do is stake claims to parts of the Arctic seabed by demonstrating that they are extensions on their internationally-recognized continental shelf. This is allowed by the Law of the Sea Convention. Claims must be made by 2013 and then will be adjudicated by a an international body set up by the Convention. Naval and other military forces are irrelevant to all this except to the extent that they can help in doing the scientific work to support the claim (the same is true for Coast Guard assets)--unless one wants to use force to prevent the research for the claim or force to dispute a decision late made under international law.

The situation with the Northwest Passage is that no significant state recognizes this as Canadian internal waters. So far that has been essentially irrelevant as there is no real waterway because of the ice. However if the ice does melt enough to allow regular maritime traffic the issue will become live. If at that point Canada has made considerable use of the Passage, even with ice (e.g. by Coast Guard icebreakers of a type that we now do not have), then we would have some basis to support our contention that they are indeed "inland" waterways--though I have my doubts how far that would go in international law.

Without such usage our claim seems about as strong as melted ice.

The new Arctic Patrol Ships can be used to control to some degree ingress or egress from the Passage. I have no idea what force this would have under international law; such action might even be seen as a breach of international law--as would be any effort by the Indonesia to close the straits between its islands to "innocent passage" (though mere inspections before allowing onward progress would be something else but wouldn't seem to assert sovereignty over the waterway itself).

So I still don't see much point in the AOPSs.  And the CCG has experience as acting as a "platform" for the RCMP and for Fishery Officers for enforcement activities:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2005/hq-ac66_e.htm

Four of the new CCG Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels specifically are to be jointly manned with the RCMP on the St. Lawrence Seaway-Great Lakes system:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2007/hq-ac15_e.htm

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Kirkhill: Nice ships but Canadian governments won't buy them.

A number of things about "Arctic" sovereignty:

Nobody is claiming our land (islands included except Hans) territory in the Arctic--so giving lots more money to the Natives or building military bases and expanding any government presence are irrelevant in this context.

Nobody is claiming the surface North Pole which is in recognized international waters.

What the Russians (along with everyone else including Canada though we are not doing it very well) are trying to do is stake claims to parts of the Arctic seabed by demonstrating that they are extensions on their internationally-recognized continental shelf. This is allowed by the Law of the Sea Convention. Claims must be made by 2013 and then will be adjudicated by a an international body set up by the Convention. Naval and other military forces are irrelevant to all this except to the extent that they can help in doing the scientific work to support the claim (the same is true for Coast Guard assets)--unless one wants to use force to prevent the research for the claim or force to dispute a decision late made under international law.

The situation with the Northwest Passage is that no significant state recognizes this as Canadian internal waters. So far that has been essentially irrelevant as there is no real waterway because of the ice. However if the ice does melt enough to allow regular maritime traffic the issue will become live. If at that point Canada has made considerable use of the Passage, even with ice (e.g. by Coast Guard icebreakers of a type that we now do not have), then we would have some basis to support our contention that they are indeed "inland" waterways--though I have my doubts how far that would go in international law.

Without such usage our claim seems about as strong as melted ice.

The new Arctic Patrol Ships can be used to control to some degree ingress or egress from the Passage. I have no idea what force this would have under international law; such action might even be seen as a breach of international law--as would be any effort by the Indonesia to close the straits between its islands to "innocent passage" (though mere inspections before allowing onward progress would be something else but wouldn't seem to assert sovereignty over the waterway itself).

So I still don't see much point in the AOPSs.   And the CCG has experience as acting as a "platform" for the RCMP and for Fishery Officers for enforcement activities:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2005/hq-ac66_e.htm

Four of the new CCG Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels specifically are to be jointly manned with the RCMP on the St. Lawrence Seaway-Great Lakes system:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2007/hq-ac15_e.htm

Mark
Ottawa

But Mark, if we're not using our internal waters no one else is either.  Manhattan and Polar Sea would qualify as good attempts although failed.  There have been some other commercial passages - Russian Cruise-Breakers eg but those are with Canadian knowledge and consent and as long as consent is being requested thenour position is solid.

I don't believe covert submarine passages qualify as threats to sovereignty - otherwise the waters around Sweden where a Russian Mini-Sub left caterpillar tracks would be Russian waters.

The AOPS will do a fine job of gate guard on the passage that the Coast Guard opens up annually.  They will do a fine job supplying support to littoral operations by law enforcement.  They will do a fine job on disaster response.  The will do a fine job supporting sovereignty operations ashore.  They will do a fine job as training platforms for amphibious operations.  There is much that those vessels will do.

As to the Canadian Government not buying the vessels: I presume you are referring specifically to the Italian San Giorgios.  I am referring not specifically to the vessel itself but to the type of capabilities it brought to the Italian government in its home waters.  I am suggesting that similar capabilities are found in the Canterbury, the Svalbard, the Absalon and the Danish Arctic Patrol Vessel as well as the San Giorgios.  They are essentially mobile tin cans (or tupper ware containers if you prefer).  The contain things and people.  They transport things and people.  The can launch and recover helicopters and boats to communicate with the shore.  They are equipped with radios.  And, most importantly, they have tall masts on which Canadian flags can be flown.    All this and a willingness to engage the "enemy" with whatever weapons are made available.

The OPP doesn't chase speeders with Snowplows and D9s.  ;)
 
Kirkhill:
The OPP doesn't chase speeders with Snowplows and D9s.

It appears the new CCG patrol vessels will be faster than the A/OPS ;):
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2007/hq-ac15c_e.htm
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_news/news_e.asp?id=617

Mark
Ottawa
 
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/LCP_Class(2004).htm

How about a 40 km "cruiser" with a 100 km range  from "mother" (200 km round trip) when you absolutely have to get there in a hurry - and you have open water available.

The Danes are carrying these as combination utility boat/LCP. 

They are based on the Swedish CB design which can more heavily armed - 7.62 - 120mm.  RWS systems are no doubt possible (seen in the Brazilian movie below). Armour is incorporated in the Swedish boats.

Just the thing to run down those "speeders".   Especially if "mother" has UAV and Helo support and can stand-off in overwatch.

And here's the movie:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=116896


 
They (2nd picture) make a nice landing craft and I bet you could modify a Oil-rig resupply icebreaker (Terry fox) into a Mother ship with a ramp and A frame over the stern and 3-4 boats on deck. We could use it for training and developing SOP's and requirements for future Assault landing vessels. Terry fox runs on around a 35 man crew. I suspect they are to heavy for Davit launch, perhaps you might be able to swing them with a 1100 Class crane (12-15tons if I recall) and maybe 2 landing craft on the well deck.
 
Is this the one you are talking about Colin? http://www.answers.com/topic/ccgs-terry-fox

Canadian Class 4 isn't she? 4 feet or about 1m - about the same as being suggested for the AOPS and the Svalbard and at 4200 tonnes a little lighter than the Svalbard?  In fact the Svalbard looks like a tarted up version of the Terry Fox.

An interesting starting point anyway.

Here's some more CB-90 porn.  The Swedish ones are operating in a more Canadian environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-8NHfAYEK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHFgDIGvOA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Oq1l2ZdNk


 
Yes that is the Terry Fox, not the best ship in the Fleet, but one of the cheaper ones. As a test bed it should do fine. Although I don't know if she is still under lease or bought outright.

Also yes on the CB-90, I love those boats!! However with a displacement of 13,000 kgs likely to heavy for a 1100 class crane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Boat_90

Another option might be a deep Sea trawler, which would require less modification to the stern, but likely could only take 2 boats. The processing area could be modified to carry troops.

Keep in mind I am only suggesting the above as intermin vessels to build the capacity into the fleet, not as a long term solution.

I like the surface to surface CB-90, wonder how stable the mortar version is. A couple of the CB-90 along with 1 Anti-ship missile equipped version would be useful at Tuk to patrol the Western Arctic and could hauled out at the end season. Could be manned mostly by locals.
 
heh... while the locals would be practicing their anti ship gunnery, the whales wouldn't stand a chance.
 
Back
Top