Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty

[Colin Parkinson]

that's an article that Micheal Byers could write, in fact it's only on the subject that is the Arctic will bother to read his articles. It's telling that 2 people with very different political views would likely sound the same on an issue.

 

[GK .Dundas]

that's an article that Micheal Byers could write, in fact it's only on the subject that is the Arctic will bother to read his articles. It's telling that 2 people with very different political views would likely sound the same on an issue.

It could be worse ,Colin He could have been named Foreign Minister .
If that had happened ,right now I would out back digging a bomb shelter. :facepalm:

 

[MilEME09]

It could be worse ,Colin He could have been named Foreign Minister .
If that had happened ,right now I would out back digging a bomb shelter. :facepalm:

I'd be digging mine into the mountains, but thats just me

 

[CougarKing]

A notable repost from the Globe and Mail and CDFAI's facebook page:

Globe and Mail

More ships in the Northwest Passage will boost our Arctic claim
WHITNEY LACKENBAUER AND ADAM LAJEUNESSE
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jan. 05 2015, 1:45 PM EST
Last updated Monday, Jan. 05 2015, 1:45 PM EST

Behind sensationalist headlines and some over-zealous punditry, the reality of Arctic shipping is far less dramatic. There were no commercial transits of the passage in 2014. Heavy ice effectively cancelled the shipping season.

Variability from year to year, and even from day to day, will continue to make scheduling a transit through the Canadian Arctic both difficult and dangerous. International shipping is a business built on tight schedules, and schedules are hard to keep when a ship’s speed and route cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty.

In spite of nearly seventy years of modern exploration and mapping, Canada’s Arctic sea-routes are still dangerously uncharted. At present, only 12 per cent of the region is mapped to modern standards – a deficiency starkly demonstrated by the 2010 grounding of the cruise ship Clipper Adventure in Coronation Gulf, about 100 km east of Kugluktuk, Nunavut.

These factors, along with high insurance costs, limited navigational aids, and a complete lack of salvage and repair infrastructure, make regular shipping through the Canadian Arctic an uncertain proposition. Although there will be more Nordic Orions in the years to come, they are likely to be niche voyages and government-supported operations, not the uncontrollable flood of transarctic shipping that still dominates popular imagery.

The future of Arctic shipping is likely to remain destinational traffic, made up of resource carriers, resupply ships, and cruise liners moving in and out of – not through – Canada’s Arctic waters. Rather than undermining Canadian sovereignty, these vessels confirm it.

Canada considers the Northwest Passage as historic internal waters, a position in law that requires the acquiescence of foreign entities interested in the region. While this recognition has been hard to win from foreign states, it will be easier to secure from private corporations operating in Canada’s waters. Why, after all, would any company with business interests in Canada risk challenging sovereignty and precipitating popular and political backlash?

Rather than fixating on the political ramifications of Arctic shipping through a sovereignty lens, the government can better serve Canadians by focusing on the practical requirements of developing and maintaining safe sea routes. There remains much to be done in hydrographic surveying, building marine infrastructure, and enhancing search and rescue capabilities.

Investments in these areas will help to ensure that future shipping is safe and beneficial for Inuit, whose traditional hunting-grounds and highways will have to double as transit routes for resource carriers and cruise liners. These priorities lay at the heart of Canada’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council and its Northern Strategy. They are also priorities for Inuit, as the Inuit Circumpolar Council has documented in recent studies like The Sea Ice is Our Highway (2009) and The Sea Ice Never Stops (2014).

It is important to note that Inuit, despite their concerns about the human and environmental impacts of shipping, generally look forward to the prospect of increased maritime activity. More shipping will reduce the costs of supplies and improve standards of living in a region where limited resupply options have led to $7 litres of milk and $40 packs of diapers. Alleviating Canada’s highest levels of unemployment is equally important, and good paying jobs in the resource sector are predicated on cost-effective access to these resources and an ability to carry them to market. The risks inherent in Arctic shipping must therefore be considered alongside these new opportunities as well.

When it comes to the prospect of shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic, safety and security – not defence or sovereignty – should be primary areas of focus. The long-standing questions of sovereignty and jurisdiction are well managed and, as counterintuitive as it may seem, more activity is only likely to strengthen Canada’s position.

While the Northwest Passage is unlikely to emerge as a new international sea route, Canada will have to prepare for increased destinational traffic. As such, new investments in marine infrastructure and monitoring will be necessary to mitigate many of the dangers inherent in Arctic operations. However, if managed properly, this shipping could be a powerful enabler for northern development and all the regional benefits that would flow from it.

 

[CougarKing]

Canadian Press

Canadian military deploys spooks against possible Arctic spies and sabotage
The Canadian Press

By Murray Brewster

OTTAWA - The Canadian military has been routinely deploying a counter-intelligence team to guard against possible spying, terrorism and sabotage during its annual Arctic exercise, according to internal documents.

In the view of intelligence experts, the move is unusual because Operation Nanook is conducted on Canadian soil in remote locations of the Far North. Foreign involvement is limited to friendly, close allies.

It is also curious because guarding against such threats at home is usually the purview of either the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the RCMP, said Wesley Wark, a University of Ottawa professor and one the country's leading experts on intelligence.

A spokesman for the military's intelligence branch says the team has been deployed every year since 2008, which is two years after Prime Minister Stephen Harper began attending the military exercise with members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in tow.

The only regular foreign media presence on those trips has involved the Chinese, including the country's official news service and — in 2013 — a representative of a major daily, both of whom are accredited members of the gallery in Ottawa.

Capt. Travis Smyth said the military intelligence branch has a legal responsibility to protect the Forces. The Arctic exercise, despite being within the country's borders, is "highly visible and the potential for threats to security exist."

He would not say what potential threats were posed in the remote region, citing it as an operational security matter.

When asked directly whether the media was targeted, Smyth replied in an en email: "For reasons related to operational security, any individuals or groups that may have been under investigation cannot be publicly released."

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Must have been a REALLY slow news day and someone already nabbed the special article on what wheelbarrow costs are forecast to be this coming spring...

 

[George Wallace]

Must have been a REALLY slow news day and someone already nabbed the special article on what wheelbarrow costs are forecast to be this coming spring...

Yup!  Really slow news day. 

Quite a naive piece on the part of the Reporter and the newspaper.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am sure the Chinese rep would have been shocked and disappointed if we hadn't been watching them.

 

[CougarKing]

The importance of polar icebreakers is increasingly being recognized in Washington. Note the estimates below on building vs overhauling a USCG icebreaker. Comparatively, how much longer can the CCGS Lois St. Laurent serve before the "Diefenbreaker" is needed?

Military.com

Senator: Icebreakers Crucial to US Arctic Strategy

Congressional Documents & Publications | Mar 09, 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) heard from witnesses, including the former commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, who said that increasing the U.S. icebreaker fleet is crucial to the United States.

Cantwell, ranking member of the Committee, and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Committee Chairwoman, led a hearing on U.S. strategy in the Arctic. As polar ice caps continue to melt, the United States will be faced with challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing Arctic. Much of this activity will require investment in Arctic capabilities, research and infrastructure. Cantwell has championed efforts to increase the icebreaker fleet, which is based in Seattle.

"As climate continues to change, the economic importance of the Arctic will only continue to grow in the years ahead," Cantwell said during the hearing. "Our Coast Guard needs the tools and infrastructure required to operate in the Arctic, which means developing a polar icebreaking fleet. It's very important that as we discuss our Arctic strategy, the United States understands it needs to make an investment in icebreakers."

(...SNIPPED)

According to a recent study, the U.S. Coast Guard needs a minimum of six heavy duty icebreakers and an additional four medium icebreakers to meetCoast Guard and Navy mission requirements. Currently, the Coast Guard has only two operational icebreakers - the Polar Star and the Healy. TheHealy is a medium icebreaker and research vessel. The U.S. Navy has no icebreaking capability.

"Icebreaking is the lowest hanging fruit for the U.S. to jump into Arctic assistance and Arctic development," said Patrick Arnold, Director of Operations and Business Development for the Maine Port Authority. "Without this capability, the U.S. does not have the opportunity to lead in a meaningful way regarding the support of future trade lanes or natural resource opportunities, or contributing to search and rescue commitments."

The U.S. is lagging behind other Arctic nations such as Russia in developing and maintaining polar icebreakers. Russia currently operates 29 icebreakers and has 8 more in construction.

In 2014, Cantwell cosponsored legislation that would have authorized the Coast Guard to overhaul the heavy
icebreaker Polar Sea, now idle atSeattle's Pier 36, and return it to service. In 2012, Congress passed legislation with an amendment sponsored by Cantwell that saved the Polar Seafrom the scrapyard. Cantwell and U.S. Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA-02) have repeatedly made the case for strengthening the nation's fleet of polar icebreakers and for protecting the Polar Sea.

Building a new vessel can take eight to ten years and employ more than 1,000 workers. Refurbishing a large icebreaking vessel like the Polar Star can take roughly five years and employ upwards of 300 workers.

Cantwell pointed to the Polar Star's recent mission to rescue a commercial fishing vessel that got stuck in Antarctic ice. The Polar Star traveled 860 miles and broke through 150 miles of thick Antarctic ice to rescue 26 people.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Related, on both US and Canadian Coast Guards:

US “Coast Guard Working With Canadians, Finns on Future Icebreaker Design”
https://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/mark-collins-us-coast-guard-working-with-canadians-finns-on-future-icebreaker-design

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Lot's of different types out their, River icebreakers generally have more longitudinal strength, whereas open ocean breakers need to be strong all round to avoid being crushed. 

 

[McG]

Arctic alert: Russia is taking aim at the North
Derek Burney and Fen Osler Hampson
Globe and Mail
09 Mar 2015

The brutal assassination of the prominent Russian opposition leader and former deputy prime minister, Boris Nemtsov, should dispel any lingering doubts that Vladimir Putin’s “New Russia” is a normal country that respects the rule of law and with which the West can do business. In the words of former Russian prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, Russia “is rolling into the abyss.”

There are ominous signs that Russia’s new revanchism is also taking direct aim at the Arctic and not just Ukraine where, despite a flurry of high-level diplomacy in search of peace, Russia’s incursions continue largely unabated, complemented most recently by threats to curtail gas shipments.

Largely unnoticed in Canada is the appointment of Deputy Prime Minister Dimitry Rogozin as head of Moscow’s new Commission for Arctic issues. Mr. Rogozin has been in charge of defence and space industries since 2011. Before that, he served as Ambassador to NATO, where he undoubtedly learned first hand that the alliance had become a rudderless, paper tiger lacking capacity, leadership and resolve.

Known best as a staunch advocate of the rights of ethnic Russians throughout the former Soviet Union, Mr. Rogozin has demonstrated neither diplomacy nor tact. His inflammatory rhetoric is unnerving to say the least. He has indulged Twitter more than once to stir nationalist sentiments. When Norway’s Foreign Minister wrote an article suggesting stronger military co-operation among Nordic countries, Mr. Rogozin lashed back that Russia would “respond in kind.” When his flight over Romanian airspace was curtailed because he was among the first names on Western sanctions lists, he vowed on that his next flight over Romania would be “in a Tu-160 bomber!”

Echoing Mr. Putin’s claim that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest catastrophe of the 20th century” Mr. Rogozin endorsed the view that the sale of Alaska was a “betrayal of Russia’s power status.” He declared solemnly that Russia had the “right to reclaim our lost colonies.” The Duma (and Twitter for that matter) is no stranger to right wing wackos but few have risen to the high office in Moscow that Mr. Rogozin now enjoys.

While Mr. Rogozin’s rhetoric may be more colorful than significant at this stage, the undercurrent and the nationalist fervor on which it feeds should not be ignored, especially by an administration in Washington that finds it easier to block a pipeline from its neighbour and ally than to muster the will to thwart the ambitions and the violations of international law by a resurgent Russia.

Also largely unnoticed in Canada are the steps Russia is taking to assert its interests in the Arctic through military means. Russia’s new military doctrine, which was signed by Mr. Putin late last year, calls the protection of the Arctic by the country’s armed forces during peacetime a matter of national priority. This is also a first. Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu has also gone out of his way to state that Russia will use military means to defend its interests in the North.

Canada has a distinct interest in any threat to the Arctic and our position cannot be adequately defended by annual, high-level visits and solemn assertions of territorial and legal claims. It would be prudent and timely for Canada’s new Defence and Foreign Ministers to initiate an urgent dialogue with their American counterparts, notably new Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, who clearly “gets it” on many issues, to give new meaning and relevance to NORAD by planning a security perimeter for our shared Arctic. Equally, they should broaden the dialogue to include like-minded Nordic countries in a concerted effort to guard against Russian intransigence.

There also need to be tangible deeds and not just communiques to anchor such discussions. The West should have learned by now that high level talk shops and paper agreements are no match for the rising tide of “New Russia” nationalism.

Ronald Reagan’s adage about the old Soviet Union – “Trust but Verify” – was never more relevant than it is today. The difference is that, for Mr. Reagan, these were not simply words. He spoke with the authority, the conviction and the power of a serious, superpower – and the Russians paid attention.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/arctic-alert-russia-is-taking-aim-at-the-north/article23354606/

 

[CougarKing]

Another issue that should be be brought up at tonight's Federal debate:

CBC via Yahoo News

Russia's Arctic claim to North Pole could be an election issue
CBC – Wed, 5 Aug, 2015

Russia's new bid to the United Nations for vast regions of the Arctic — including the North Pole — may put the Canadian government in a lose-lose situation in an election year.
In a statement released Tuesday, Russia's foreign ministry said their country is claiming 1.2 million square kilometres of Arctic sea shelf. The area extends more than 650 kilometres from the shore.
"I think the election will have a very strong influence on the immediate reaction of the Canadian government," said Rob Huebert from the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
He says Arctic sovereignty has been one of the major platforms of the Conservative government, and in an election year it can become a hot-button issue.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The US doesn't consider any full passage through the Northwest Passage international waters.  There is no passage through that is always wider than 24nm, which means some of it is de facto Canadian Territorial waters. Although there are a lot of different passages, the closest is Lancaster Sound, Barrow Straight, McClure Strait which narrows possibly only once near Resolute.

They don't recognize our 1986 Declaration of Straight Baselines, which makes all of it Canadian Internal Waters.  However, as they have not actually contested or challenged it then it could become recognized.

What they do claim is that it is an International Straight, and that therefore transit passage is enjoyed (think Straights Of Gibraltar, etc).  This would mean they would not have to ask permission; certain rules of the EEZ would still apply (esp Environmental).  However, the rules for International Straights are deliberately vague; they refer to "Straights Used For International Navigation" which alludes to they need historical precedent, but they don't formally define them.  Canada believes there is no precedent for the Northwest Passage, the US does.

This http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/98836.pdf is a relative recent statement of their position.  Note they say it is an International Straight, and make no justification; that is so that there position is that it is a fact.

My understanding is that by not challenging formally, but still conducting transits as they please avoids legitimizing our claim and allows them to continue ops as required. Anyways a discussion for another thread.

 

[Baz]

My understanding is that by not challenging formally, but still conducting transits as they please avoids legitimizing our claim and allows them to continue ops as required. Anyways a discussion for another thread.

Agree it belongs on another thread...

The US has done a lot of transits: http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/NWP_Fulltransits.php, and the ones they do they notify us due to the 1986 Agreement (to which we give permission, because that is how the game is played).


I am wondering, though...  would the US prefer to have it recognized as Internal Waters (or not as an International Straight) in order to leverage against Russia and/or China; they haven't indicated that so far...


The best "defense" against this isn't military... get a permanent Coast Guard Station in Resolute or Nanisivik, call everybody up that goes through and give them "permission," have the ability to do SAR properly (not from a base thousands of miles to the south), go out and do environmental inspections of ships in our EEZ; because we are exercising sovereignty we in fact would have it.  The question is a t point is it required to the extent the cost can be justified.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would go with both CCG and DND. CCG keeps a fleet of vessels at Inuvik for the Mackenzie river, I would start there by adding a deep water patrol boat of some 70' and base a helicopter out of there in the summer. On the East side a DND base that supports the rangers year round, likely a leased civy SAR copter in the short term, which also supports RCMP, CCG and other government departments, federally and territorial, have a 70'+ lightly armed patrol boat, manned by a mix of local reservists and people brought up from the south. the first decade will be bumpy, but the offer of steady employment up there will help and not only help all government services, sovereignty, but would also add to the social well being up there, as does the Rangers. Eventually have a combined DND/CCG/RCMP Marine section working out both Western and eastern arctic. As for spending infrastructure monies, start building bigger and better airports and emergency runways. Better marine and air navigation aids. Build some decent harbour facilities throughout the Arctic as well. this is one area where the Conservatives and Liberals can sit down and map out a long term strategy to build up Northern infrastructure, so funding and will does not change when governments do.   

 

[Kirkhill]

My understanding is that by not challenging formally, but still conducting transits as they please avoids legitimizing our claim and allows them to continue ops as required. Anyways a discussion for another thread.

Isn't the Bosporus and Dardanelles (Montreux Convention) a better guide than Gibraltar, Malaca, Kattegat or Hormuz?  Same country on both sides of the straits.

Also I wonder how Denmark has managed things.  They have the Kattegat passage between Sweden and Denmark and Lillebaelt-Storebaelt passages inside Denmark.

 

[CougarKing]

It was only a matter of time before this happened, as China sets its sights northward as well: 

Time.com

China Could Be Preparing to Challenge Canada’s Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage

    Nash Jenkins @pnashjenkins

5:05 AM ET

Beijing has declared that it plans to ship cargo through the arctic waterway

China has declared that it plans to ship cargo through the Northwest Passage, a series of waterways in the Arctic Circle over which Canada claims sovereignty.

Chinese maritime authorities tacitly declared the news by printing a lengthy guide to Arctic shipping and navigation; a state spokesperson then confirmed it to reporters on Tuesday, the Globe and Mail reports.
(...SNIPPED)

 

[Baz]

The article linked states "U.S. believes the passage to be international waters."  That is untrue; the US believes it to be an International Straight under UNCLOS, as does China.  There are areas where it cannot be International Waters because it is less than 24nm wide, therefore it is de facto Canadian Sovereign Waters.

The US position is actually "The Northwest Passage is a straight used for international navigation.  Therein, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, in accordance with international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.  The enjoyment of transit passage is not subject to prior notice to, or permission from, Canada as the State bordering the straight."  http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/98836.pdf

Further, from the President (Bush): "we believe it's an international passage... We'll manage the differences, because there are differences on the Northwest Passage." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=57868baf-87b0-4f29-9a4f-b6251b48582d&k=92663

As well, economic control over the entire straight (fisheries, oil, etc) is Canada's as it is part of our 200nm EEZ.

The issue isn't that someone is going to suddenly decide to go up there and take it; it's whether or not Canada wants to maintain (exert?) exclusive control over who goes through it.  What is and isn't an International Straight is governed by customary law: if it's always been that way, then that's the way it is.  However, this is a point of disagreement because those who believe it is an international straight think that the only reason it hasn't been used continuously as such is because it couldn't be (due to it was frozen).

When (and if, although I believe when) it can be used as a straight, then if countries start to use it as such (companies can't, as vessels are flagged by states), and we don't challenge it, then it will in fact become an international straight.  Strongly worded letters will mean nothing.

This why we need the Coast Guard (this is there job, not DNDs) to have a permanent presence (VTS, radar, AIS, SAR, air recce, and surface inspection) at the main areas where it narrows.  If you don't have permission, and don't subject yourself to Canadian territorial law, then you don't enter.  I am not certain the current government cares enough to do that... I'm not even certain the last one did, to tell you the truth (proof is in action, and they didn't do anything).

As the EEZ thaws we also need the ability to exert our monitoring over it.

The only reason we need an armed (ie DND) capability is if we truly believe there is/are nation(s) willing to press the point with an armed escort.  I don't think there are; the international response would immediately put them on the wrong side of the discussion.


Now the nuance: Canada also claims straight baselines over the entire thing as an archipelago; ie we would seal the west end and the east end and *all* of it is internal waters.  This is more of a stretch since the archipelago section of UNCLOS is more directed at states that consist of nothing but islands.  There is much less international support for this; the US certainly has made it plain that if they never enter Canadian 12nm waters they can do whatever they want (from the letter above: "For the record, the United States sees no basis in international law to support Canada's drawing of straight baselines around its Arctic Islands and its claim that all the waters among the Canadian Arctic Islands, including the Northwest Passage, are internal waters of Canada").

Canada's claim is much weaker here.  If we intend for that to be our position, then we better start treating them like internal waters and get a robust patrol capability over and on them *all the time*.  I don't think we are going to do that, and so by customary use they will de facto become international water's (outside of our 12nm limit, of course).  This will in no way change that if the water's are in fact enclosed by overlapping 12nm limits then they are, in every sense of the word, territorial waters.


I wish that commentators on this would actually use the right terms and explain the positions correctly (which Time.com didn't)... but the people that write this stuff see no need to actually give the facts a lot of the time.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There are a few other more subtle twists, but Baz basically got the gist of it in his post.

International straight means we cannot deny right of innocent passage, but since some (most) of the passage is narrower than 24 NM, it is at the very least Canadian territorial waters, meaning that anyone entering would still be subject to Canadian law.

In most of our territorial waters, this means little, but up in the North, we still have this little act called the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It's enforcement means that we could deny access to the straight to any ship that does not meet that regulation, and it would still be in accordance with the law applicable to international straights. In fact, even the US has recognized that right of Canada in the past.

Personally, I must say that I find comforting that China is taking the time, in advance of any passage, to compile for its Merchant seamen a thorough guide to the waters that looks at the known dangers, unresolved risks and all other aspects of the passage that can have an important influence on safe passage. I can guarantee you that when the passage opens, many "western" shipping companies, operating on the cheap under flags of convenience will not bother with such niceties: they will just tell their captains "that's the way we want you to go, so just go". 

I also personally believe that the "base-lines-around-the-archipelago-enclosing-internal-waters" argument will never fly. We'd better accept sooner rather than later that they will be territorial waters including within them an international straight, and exercise our sovereignty accordingly: Were I the government, I would be right now investing heavily in updating charts of that portion of the Arctic archipelago that constitutes the North-West passage and setting up both a VTMS (Vessel Traffic Management System) and a Separation Scheme Juan-the-Fuca Straight style, but all Canadian.