Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,971
- Points
- 1,160
Oh god, I think I am sick, I am actually agreeing with something Micheal Byers has written, I couldn't find any recent relative thread to attach this to.
Michael Byers
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Oct. 26, 2009 5:51PM EDT
Last updated on Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009 3:07AM EDT
Like motherhood and apple pie, Arctic sovereignty is difficult to oppose.
So when Conservative MP Daryl Kramp introduced a motion on Oct. 5 to rename the Northwest Passage the “Canadian Northwest Passage,” the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois quickly jumped on board.
It's time to reconsider that move – before the motion is put to a final vote. Renaming the Northwest Passage would weaken our legal claim, offend the Inuit and contradict centuries of Canadian history.
The proposed name change will not strengthen our claim in international law because the dispute “crystallized” in 1985. After the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea sailed through without seeking permission, the Canadian government drew “straight baselines” around the Arctic islands and asserted that the channels within them were “internal waters” subject to the full force of Canadian law.
When an international legal dispute crystallizes, subsequent efforts by either country to strengthen its position are of no legal effect – especially if they attract a diplomatic protest.
The U.S. embassy will write a letter stating that the name change is of no consequence, and that will be it – unless we end up litigating the Northwest Passage dispute with the U.S. or another country. If that happens, our opponent will point to any evidence that the Canadian government is unconvinced by its own legal position. Since the proposed name change is aimed at strengthening that position, it cannot help but suggest a certain insecurity about the strength of Canada's existing arguments.
Bizarrely, the Canadian government has tried changing the name before. In 2006, the Department of National Defence began calling the Northwest Passage “the Canadian Internal Waters” – reportedly on instructions from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I can almost hear the laughter in the U.S. State Department.
Worse yet, in their rush to support Mr. Kramp's motion, all four political parties overlooked the Inuit – the Canadian citizens who, through their thousands of years of living, hunting and travelling on the ice of the Northwest Passage, constitute the strongest element in our sovereignty claim.
When they signed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993, the Inuit explicitly assigned to Canada any sovereign rights they had acquired through those millenniums of use.
The president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Inuit land-claims organization, wrote to all four party leaders on Oct. 14. Paul Kaludjak drew their attention to the legal requirement, set out in the 1993 agreement, to consult the Inuit before changing the name of any geographic feature in the territory.
Mr. Kaludjak wrote that his people expected that any new name for the Northwest Passage would “reflect the history of Inuit use and occupation of the waters in question for thousands of years, and the reality of continuing Inuit use and occupation.”
He is absolutely right. Instead of changing the name unilaterally, parliamentarians should work with the Inuit to identify an appropriate Inuktitut name. That name could then be used in parallel with the existing English and French names.
Such an approach would respect Canada's promises and, by reminding other countries of the Inuit contribution to its legal position, strengthen, rather than weaken, our claim.
It would also be consistent with Canadian history: The name “Northwest Passage” was used throughout the three centuries of British exploration that began with Martin Frobisher in 1576 and ended with the dozens of rescue expeditions sent after the Franklin expedition in the 1850s. Many of those explorers were assisted by the Inuit.
In 1880, the British government formally transferred title over the Arctic islands to Canada, making the historic name as Canadian as the country itself.
The name is an intrinsic part of Canadian culture, too. Songwriter Stan Rogers did not call the waterway the “Canadian Northwest Passage.” He did not need to: It's ours, and our arguments are good.
Michael Byers is the author of Who Owns the Arctic?. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-northwest-passage-is-already-canadian/article1339006/#
Michael Byers
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Oct. 26, 2009 5:51PM EDT
Last updated on Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009 3:07AM EDT
Like motherhood and apple pie, Arctic sovereignty is difficult to oppose.
So when Conservative MP Daryl Kramp introduced a motion on Oct. 5 to rename the Northwest Passage the “Canadian Northwest Passage,” the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois quickly jumped on board.
It's time to reconsider that move – before the motion is put to a final vote. Renaming the Northwest Passage would weaken our legal claim, offend the Inuit and contradict centuries of Canadian history.
The proposed name change will not strengthen our claim in international law because the dispute “crystallized” in 1985. After the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea sailed through without seeking permission, the Canadian government drew “straight baselines” around the Arctic islands and asserted that the channels within them were “internal waters” subject to the full force of Canadian law.
When an international legal dispute crystallizes, subsequent efforts by either country to strengthen its position are of no legal effect – especially if they attract a diplomatic protest.
The U.S. embassy will write a letter stating that the name change is of no consequence, and that will be it – unless we end up litigating the Northwest Passage dispute with the U.S. or another country. If that happens, our opponent will point to any evidence that the Canadian government is unconvinced by its own legal position. Since the proposed name change is aimed at strengthening that position, it cannot help but suggest a certain insecurity about the strength of Canada's existing arguments.
Bizarrely, the Canadian government has tried changing the name before. In 2006, the Department of National Defence began calling the Northwest Passage “the Canadian Internal Waters” – reportedly on instructions from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I can almost hear the laughter in the U.S. State Department.
Worse yet, in their rush to support Mr. Kramp's motion, all four political parties overlooked the Inuit – the Canadian citizens who, through their thousands of years of living, hunting and travelling on the ice of the Northwest Passage, constitute the strongest element in our sovereignty claim.
When they signed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993, the Inuit explicitly assigned to Canada any sovereign rights they had acquired through those millenniums of use.
The president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Inuit land-claims organization, wrote to all four party leaders on Oct. 14. Paul Kaludjak drew their attention to the legal requirement, set out in the 1993 agreement, to consult the Inuit before changing the name of any geographic feature in the territory.
Mr. Kaludjak wrote that his people expected that any new name for the Northwest Passage would “reflect the history of Inuit use and occupation of the waters in question for thousands of years, and the reality of continuing Inuit use and occupation.”
He is absolutely right. Instead of changing the name unilaterally, parliamentarians should work with the Inuit to identify an appropriate Inuktitut name. That name could then be used in parallel with the existing English and French names.
Such an approach would respect Canada's promises and, by reminding other countries of the Inuit contribution to its legal position, strengthen, rather than weaken, our claim.
It would also be consistent with Canadian history: The name “Northwest Passage” was used throughout the three centuries of British exploration that began with Martin Frobisher in 1576 and ended with the dozens of rescue expeditions sent after the Franklin expedition in the 1850s. Many of those explorers were assisted by the Inuit.
In 1880, the British government formally transferred title over the Arctic islands to Canada, making the historic name as Canadian as the country itself.
The name is an intrinsic part of Canadian culture, too. Songwriter Stan Rogers did not call the waterway the “Canadian Northwest Passage.” He did not need to: It's ours, and our arguments are good.
Michael Byers is the author of Who Owns the Arctic?. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-northwest-passage-is-already-canadian/article1339006/#
:2c:
