Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty

[Underway]

NATO's Arctic Dilemma is a CBC article focused on dealing with Russian in the arctic.  Not bad reading for the topic.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A guide to writing about the Arctic from a Canadian academic specialist:

How to write an Arctic story in 5 easy steps
OPINION: A foolproof guide for reporters new to covering the Arctic
By Heather Exner-Pirot [https://www.opencanada.org/contributors/heather/]

So you’ve been assigned to write a story on the Arctic. Congratulations! This will be one of your easiest assignments.

The key is to write the exact story your urban, mid-latitude reader expects to read. Stick to this formula and you’ll be on the path to high click rates in no time.

1. Climate change is the pretext for your article, so make sure to point out how many degrees the region has warmed. To avoid doing math, simply state “Twice as fast as the rest of the planet”. Reiterate that this will have significant impacts on polar bears. Don’t forgot your illustration of the Arctic Ocean showing its shrinking sea ice extent since 1979: This is key!

2. The Arctic conflict narrative is essential. Most journalists used to lead with the Russian flag being planted on the seafloor at the North Pole in 2007, but more and more are opening with China’s 2018 Arctic White Paper. Portraying the Russians and Chinese as a double threat to Arctic sovereignty is ideal.

Be sure to note that Russia has way more icebreakers than your country, and that China is building some too. Imply that these icebreakers have some nefarious purpose, like war-fighting or illegal fishing. Describe shipping growth in the Northern Sea Route as a percentage (“80 percent growth”), not the actual double-digit figure (27 transits in 2017).

It’s best to call Russia’s extended continental shelf claim submission a “land grab,” even though 80 other states have made similar submissions under the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. If you do mention that Canada and Denmark have competing claims, make it seem like Russia’s is somehow more aggressive. It is always preferable to refer to the ‘North Pole’ rather than the ‘Central Arctic Ocean’, even though the former is an abstract point.

Bonus points if you can show a map of Russian military assets in the Arctic. Don’t distinguish between Soviet-era airstrips, refueling ports or search and rescue stations. What really matters is that there are a lot of dots. Call Russia’s new Nagurskoye base in Alexandra Land in the Franz Josef archipelago, which accommodates 150 people, “giant” or “massive.”

3. Resource development, of course, is the reason we are all here. Start by asserting that the Arctic region could contain 90 billion barrels of oil. If you are feeling bold, declare it a “trillion dollar ocean”. Point out the paradox that climate change is making oil and gas resources more accessible WHICH WILL LEAD TO MORE CLIMATE CHANGE. For a balanced take, remind the reader that resource development also provides jobs in remote locations. Recite someone from Greenpeace describing how those jobs can be replaced through renewable energy projects or tourism.

4. It is very important to make mention of Indigenous peoples, and the fact that they have lived in the Arctic for millennia. A trip to an Inuit village is optimal. Describe the weather on the day you visit as ‘frozen’, ‘brutal’ or ‘harsh’.

Provide quotes on how climate change has affected hunting patterns. References to addictions, the high cost of milk, crumbling infrastructure — any kind of struggle — are welcome, while descriptions of normal, everyday life are discouraged.

5. The easiest part of your article is picking your headline – there are only four options after all. “Scramble for the Arctic” “Polar Power Struggle” and “Race for Arctic Resources” are good, but it’s hard to top “New Cold War”.

Include an image of soldiers in snow camouflage uniforms in your social media posts.

Once you have checked all these boxes, your Arctic article is complete. Great job bringing attention to this changing, vulnerable region! After all, what happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic...
https://www.arctictoday.com/write-arctic-story-5-easy-steps/

Then see this by two other academics--start of major piece:

Arctic Sovereignty: Preoccupation vs. Homeland Governance and Defence

POLICY PERSPECTIVE
by CGAI Fellow Andrea Charron and James Fergusson
September 2018
...
Introduction

Inevitably, Canadian foreign policy scholars are either asked, or feel compelled, to write about the Arctic.1 More often than not, their writings include the nebulous topic of Arctic sovereignty and it is usually assumed to be under threat. Yet, foreign policy scholars from other Arctic states are not fixated on sovereignty [emphasis added]. They are concerned about their ability to defend their homelands from a variety of (especially) state-based threats. Indeed, analysts from other Arctic states are simultaneously fascinated and confused as to why Canadian foreign policy scholars and Canadian political discourse writ large spend so much time narrowly focused on Arctic sovereignty rather than homeland governance and defence ]emphasis added]. The answer revolves around a misunderstanding of today’s concept of sovereignty and a reluctance to talk about threats to the homeland. The former is a legacy of a Canadian need to navigate great powers and allegiances (read the U.K. and U.S.) and the long and difficult history of securing title to the territory.2 The latter is to avoid U.S.-type language and the (false) assumption that Canada is still “fire-proof”. The result, however, is debates in Canada, which use outdated arguments to simultaneously address and avoid conversations about potential, real threats to Canada, which have nothing to do with the Arctic and wider issues about governance. This article returns to the basics to define sovereignty and then applies it in the Arctic context. We finish with a few thoughts on what might be a way forward...

Canada's Arctic Sovereignty

This brief exposition of the sovereignty question provides the backdrop for understanding the Canadian Arctic sovereignty preoccupation. While one might contest the legality of the transfer of de jure sovereignty of Arctic territory from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1880 by Order in Council,4 no one in the international community has contested or challenged Canada’s legal sovereign status over the area. Nor has any sovereign state provided a de facto challenge (i.e., seized control of part of the territory) to Canadian sovereignty over its Arctic territory [emphasis added].5

Of course, the status of the Northwest Passage (NWP) is regularly portrayed as a threat to Canadian de jure and de facto sovereignty. While one may debate whether the passage should be legally treated as an international strait, this debate is not about Canadian sovereignty per se, no more than other recognized international straits are about the sovereignty of the adjacent states...Canada, in reality, does not need to control the territory, because there are no challenges to its de jure sovereignty [emphasis added]. While many point to Russian Arctic military capabilities, their simple existence does not translate into a de facto threat to Canadian sovereignty. Russian aggression is evident across the world but we have yet to see Russian designs to take over and control Canadian Arctic territory. Even with the resumption of Russian military flights over the Arctic Ocean approaching Canadian territory, Russian pilots have been cautious to respect Canadian airspace knowing the potential consequences of a significant, lingering breach. Canadian Arctic sovereignty is not at stake. Rather, bona fide threats to Western states as a function of Russian designs on territory in Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics must be discussed in the context of homeland protection. The Canadian Arctic remains a pathway to key potential targets in the south (especially in the U.S.) ]emphasis added...
https://www.cgai.ca/arctic_sovereignty_preoccupation_vs_homeland_governance_and_defence

See this earlier post:

Arctic Tensions Not Really About the Region but Relations With Russia
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/mark-collins-arctic-tensions-not-really-about-the-region-but-relations-with-russia/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Using Putin's "polite green men" strategy. Imagine a scenario based around a Chinese statement at the UN that Canada's claim to the Arctic is illegitimate, with political support from Chinese and Russian vassal States, Putin moves a contingent of scientists, civilians with protection by heavily armed naval infantry and logistical support of one of it's new nuclear icebreakers and takes over Mould Bay, claiming it as a "International science station" administrated by Russia on behalf of the world. What can Canada do? Sure the US could move a nuke attack sub into place, but is it going to torp a civilian nuclear powered icebreaker in the arctic, likely quietly supported by a Russian nuke sub?     

 

[MarkOttawa]

I do not believe any US administration would tolerate such action against/on Canadian territory--if necessary a forceful response--passive acceptance = end of NATO (amongst many other consequences unacceptable to Americans).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

yes but what can they actually do? Would they land troops to contest it? Plus the US is not overly in love with our definition of Arctic sovereignty either.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Well, US forces in coordination/with help from CAF, could try to interdict/stop Russkies en route ("Ice Station Zebra" in reverse scenario, sort of--fun flick http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/783/Ice-Station-Zebra/).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My suspicion is we won't even notice till they land and announce it. A 3 day voyage for their big icebreaker depending on ice conditions, even if we notice it on the 2nd day, it take a whole day just for the BN to get up the chain and another couple of days before some sort of decisions is made to protest through diplomatic channels. Likely they have people landed by the time we our first overflight. If they sent 2 icebreakers, they could likely land 50 people and supplies for a year in a week of hard work. Plus their icebreakers can work earlier and later than ours can. China sends up theirs as an act of "solidarity". Neither are "naval vessels".

Canada has a couple of Ranger patrols nearby, a unarmed icebreaker and Aurora attempting to maintain air coverage, with the occasional CF-18 escorting it. 

Russia can provide sub cover all along the supply route, along with Bears providing air coverage.

 

[Stoker]

My suspicion is we won't even notice till they land and announce it. A 3 day voyage for their big icebreaker depending on ice conditions, even if we notice it on the 2nd day, it take a whole day just for the BN to get up the chain and another couple of days before some sort of decisions is made to protest through diplomatic channels. Likely they have people landed by the time we our first overflight. If they sent 2 icebreakers, they could likely land 50 people and supplies for a year in a week of hard work. Plus their icebreakers can work earlier and later than ours can. China sends up theirs as an act of "solidarity". Neither are "naval vessels".

Canada has a couple of Ranger patrols nearby, a unarmed icebreaker and Aurora attempting to maintain air coverage, with the occasional CF-18 escorting it. 

Russia can provide sub cover all along the supply route, along with Bears providing air coverage.

Just you never heard of satellite coverage.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and what do they see? Two Russian icebreakers on the edge of their normal territory for 1/2 the voyage, a cover story of setting up a ice weather station on the ice floes which has been made public a couple of weeks before. That's 1.5 days of their trip, someone has to also notice them, interpret the data, sees Arctic type shipping in the Arctic, they might not even make an urgent report, perhaps an e-mail on Friday evening that sits till early next week.. Even if you do get the report to the right ears, what are they going to do in that time? 

 

[Cloud Cover]

Yes, yes. But we have special satellites with frickin laser beams.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes, yes. But we have special satellites with frickin laser beams.

No we had a program to arm sharks with frikin Laser Beams, but since sharks were expensive and hard to come by. We were offered an cheaper option with regional benefits, now we have Farmed raised Atlantic Salmon with Frikin dollar store Laser beams duct taped to their heads.  8)

Wait to PETA hears about it, or Greenpeace!!

 

[Stoker]

and what do they see? Two Russian icebreakers on the edge of their normal territory for 1/2 the voyage, a cover story of setting up a ice weather station on the ice floes which has been made public a couple of weeks before. That's 1.5 days of their trip, someone has to also notice them, interpret the data, sees Arctic type shipping in the Arctic, they might not even make an urgent report, perhaps an e-mail on Friday evening that sits till early next week.. Even if you do get the report to the right ears, what are they going to do in that time?

You are reading too many Tom Clancy novels my friend. Don't you think we have an organization that looks at the maritime picture in the Arctic continuously?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You are reading too many Tom Clancy novels my friend. Don't you think we have an organization someone else has assets that we piggy back off of that looks at the maritime picture in the Arctic continuously?

;D

 

[Stoker]

;D

True that, we do have some assets though and your right we do share with others with greater resources than our own.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You are reading too many Tom Clancy novels my friend. Don't you think we have an organization that looks at the maritime picture in the Arctic continuously?

I work in the Federal Government, i have very little faith in their ability to monitor anything and respond to it. As for novels, I just look how Putin operates and such a move is one he would make. He outmaneuvered the west in Syria and Crimea, if you don't think he won't try again somewhere else, then you will be in for a surprise.   

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . As for novels, I just look how Putin operates and such a move is one he would make. He outmaneuvered the west in Syria and Crimea, if you don't think he won't try again somewhere else, then you will be in for a surprise. 

While Putin the Russians (though I give credit specifically to Vlad, he isn't the sole smart one in that country) did steal a march on the West, bear in mind that they already had a foot on the ground in both the Crimea and Syria.  It would be a decidedly different scenario for Russia to attempt such a move in claiming a part of Canada's land territory regardless of its remote location and sparse population.  Is the Bear's move to regain what it lost following the break-up of the Soviet Union over?  Most likely not, but it is also most unlikely that Putin is having fantasies of occupying our North when he is probably licking his lips at the prospect of re-establishing suzerainty in some of the Eastern European territory that was his stomping ground in his KGB days.

 

[Stoker]

I work in the Federal Government, i have very little faith in their ability to monitor anything and respond to it. As for novels, I just look how Putin operates and such a move is one he would make. He outmaneuvered the west in Syria and Crimea, if you don't think he won't try again somewhere else, then you will be in for a surprise. 

Thank you for not having much faith in us, unlike you I regularly see the maritime picture in the Arctic...  If you want to maintain that a scenario where the Russians and possibly the Chinese as a self declared near Arctic nation will enact a beach head in our Arctic territory as a possibility then that's fine. Like was mentioned already that will mean war as the US will never allow such a incursion near their territory, Russia knows that and so does China.

 

[QV]

Thank you for not having much faith in us, unlike you I regularly see the maritime picture in the Arctic...  If you want to maintain that a scenario where the Russians and possibly the Chinese as a self declared near Arctic nation will enact a beach head in our Arctic territory as a possibility then that's fine. Like was mentioned already that will mean war as the US will never allow such a incursion near their territory, Russia knows that and so does China.

I sure wish we could all say: "Canada will never allow..."

 

[Cloud Cover]

... on the other hand, let them come in and build all the infrastructure, then surround it and kick them out.

 

[Kirkhill]

Have you seen Russian and Chinese infrastructure?