Topic
Harper has made arctic sovereignty a hot button. The stakes for Canada.
[Editor's note: Stephen Harper stood ground against the U.S in his first news conference as prime minister-elect. At issue: Harper's vow to deploy military icebreakers to monitor and defend our northern arctic waters. The day before, U.S. ambassador to Canada David Wilkins had opposed the plan, stating, "There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist." Harper's response on Friday: "The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty. It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
At stake is control over the long sought Northwest Passage route over Canada's northern reaches, fast becoming a reality thanks to global warming. To understand the significance of such a passage, and Canada's interests there, the Tyee presents this in-depth article by UBC international law expert Michael Byers. The text below is adapted from a speech he gave to The Vancouver Institute on January 28.]
To the north of the Canadian mainland lies a vast, polar archipelago made up of 19,000 islands and countless rocks and reefs. Baffin Island is larger than the British Isles, while two of the other islands, Ellesmere and Victoria, are nearly as large. For most of the year, the straits and channels between the islands are covered by sea-ice, fusing the archipelago into a triangular mass that is 3000 kilometres-wide at its base and stretches to within 900 kilometres of the geographic North Pole.
Pierre Berton called the Northwest Passage the "Arctic Grail". From Martin Frobisher in 1576, to John Franklin in 1845, generations of explorers battled the elements searching for a navigable route through the Arctic islands to Asia. Many of them--including Franklin and his men--perished in the effort. Their greatest challenge was sea-ice. Even in summer, thick, hard, multi-year ice has long choked the straits and channels, especially in the western Arctic, rendering them impenetrable to all but the most patient of explorers or, more recently, the most powerful of icebreakers. The Norwegian explorer Roald Admundsen completed the first transit in 1906, but it took him three years.
Now, however, the ice is melting. In the last three decades, climate change has caused a 25 percent decline in the area covered by Arctic sea-ice-a decline of about 2,000,000 square kilometers. The ice is also, on average, 32 percent thinner than before. The melt is particularly advanced in the western Arctic, where the edge of the multiyear ice pack has retreated north and now lies at the northern limit of the McClure Strait. Once this edge retreats beyond the entrance to the McClure Strait, we can expect a dramatic reduction in the amount of multiyear ice moving into the Northwest Passage. This development may explain why, five years ago, a report prepared for the U.S. Navy predicted that, "within 5-10 years, the Northwest Passage will be open to non-ice-strengthened vessels for at least one month each summer."
Reasons for alarm
The changing ice conditions offer a sea route between Europe and Asia that is 7,000 kilometres shorter than the route through the Panama Canal. The Northwest Passage could also accommodate supertankers and container ships that are too large for the canal. International shipping companies are eyeing the fuel, time and canal-passage fees that could be saved; some are already building ice-strengthened vessels.
The cruise ship industry is also looking north; the Kapitan Khlebnikovi, a Russian-flagged converted ice-breaker, already offers luxury voyages through the Northwest Passage-at US $10,000 per person. The melting ice will facilitate access to Alaskan and northern Canada's vast stocks of oil, gas, diamonds and precious metals.
Also, Canada's Arctic waters could eventually become a valuable fishery as reduced ice cover and warmer waters enable plankton and fish species from more temperate latitudes to move north. Indeed, Pacific salmon and Atlantic cod are already invading Arctic waters, with likely dire consequences for smaller, slower-growing indigenous species.
Canadians should be alarmed. An international shipping route along Canada's third coast could facilitate the entry of drugs, guns, illegal immigrants and perhaps even terrorists into this country, as well as providing an alternative route for illicit shipments of weapons of mass destruction or missile components by rogue states. And any shipping involves the risk of accidents, particularly in remote and icy waters. An oil spill would cause catastrophic damage to fragile Arctic ecosystems; a cruise ship in distress would require an expensive and possibly dangerous rescue mission. Any new fishery will be highly susceptible to over-exploitation, particularly because of the difficult-to-police location, rapid declines in fish stocks elsewhere and the consequent, excess fishing capacity that now exists worldwide.
Ideally, these challenges would be addressed by applying the full range of Canada's own environmental, immigration, customs and criminal laws. Sovereignty over the Northwest Passage is about much more than nationalism; it is about protecting people and the environment from serious potential harm. Yet, Canadians could soon lose any ability to regulate foreign vessels in the passage, since any foreign ship that passes through without our permission undermines the sovereignty claim.
Who owns the passage?
Ownership of the islands is not at issue. In 1880, Britain assigned them to Canada and that title has not subsequently been contested-with one small exception: Hans Island. Denmark and Canada have agreed to negotiate a solution, which will likely come in the form of a joint management regime under which the sovereignty issue will cease to matter.
In contrast, the history of Canada's claim over the Northwest Passage is fraught with confusion and indecision. Initially, it did not seem that title over the waterway mattered much, because of the nearly impenetrable ice. Still, a claim to the water was at least implicit in an assertion, first made in the late 19th century, that Canada owned everything between the 60th and 141st meridians of longitude all the way to the North Pole. The most famous articulation of this "sector theory" was made by Senator Pascal Poirier in 1907, and, two years later, Captain J.E. Bernier of the C.S. Arctic placed a plaque on Melville Island that still reads:
However, apart from the Soviet Union, which attempted a similar claim, other countries did not accept the sector theory.
In 1969, an American oil company sent an ice-strengthen oil tanker, the SS Manhattan, on a test-voyage through the Northwest Passage. The company, which was cooperating closely with the U.S. government, made a point of not seeking permission from Canada. Ottawa insisted on granting permission nevertheless, and even sent an icebreaker to assist, and subsequently argued that granting the unsolicited permission prevented the voyage from undermining Canada's claim. A more convincing defence of sovereignty came from an unexpected source. As the SS Manhattan ploughed through the ice near Resolute Bay, two Inuit hunters drove their dogsleds into its path. The vessel ground to a halt, until the hunters-having made their point-moved aside.
The following year, parliament adopted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, imposing safety and environmental requirements on all shipping within 100 nautical miles of the Arctic coast. The claimed right to pollution prevention jurisdiction was, at that time, contrary to international law, which did not recognize coastal state rights beyond the territorial sea. However, it was subsequently made legal by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which allows coastal states to pass laws against maritime pollution out to 200 nautical miles when almost year-round ice creates exceptional navigational hazards.
Also in 1970, a second piece of legislation extended Canada's territorial sea from three to 12 nautical miles. This move was less controversial, since 60 other countries had made similar claims. Its immediate relevance lay in the fact that the Northwest Passage, at its narrowest points, is less than 24 nautical miles across. According to the Canadian government, the overlapping territorial seas meant that foreign vessels making the passage could be subject to the full range of its domestic laws. At the same time, Canada began arguing that the straits and channels between the islands were "historic internal waters".
An 'international strait'?
The latter argument rested on the fact that most of the archipelago had been mapped by British explorers prior to the transfer of title, and very few non-consensual transits had occurred. Canada also pointed out that the Inuit-who are Canadian citizens-had travelled and lived on the ice for millennia.
There was, however, some contradiction in using both the territorial sea and historic internal waters arguments, since internal waters are by definition not territorial sea. The confusion gave strength to the U.S. position, which holds that the Northwest Passage is an "international strait". International straits are narrower in breadth than territorial seas but, because they join two expanses of high seas and are used for international navigation, they are open with relatively few restrictions to ships from any country.
More than commercial shipping was at issue. During the Cold War, the United States was concerned to maintain open access for its navy, and especially its submarines, and not just through the Northwest Passage, but through straits worldwide. Under the law of the sea, submarines may pass through an international strait without surfacing or otherwise alerting the adjacent coastal state or states, something not permitted in territorial or internal waters.
In 1985, the U.S. Coastguard icebreaker Polar Sea sailed through the Northwest Passage, again without seeking permission. Ottawa, once again, made a point of granting permission; it even asked to place several "observers" on board. Washington acceded to the request, strengthening Canada's argument that the transit was consensual and even promised to provide advance notice of any future transits by its Coastguard vessels. Yet it still made a point of publicly disputing the sovereignty claim. Following the voyage of the Polar Sea, Canada again modified its legal position. Central to the new position was the drawing of "straight baselines" linking the outer headlands of the archipelago.
As the result of a 1951 decision by the International Court of Justice in a dispute between Britain and Norway, straight baselines had become a legally accepted means for determining the extent of coastal state control along fragmented coastlines, or "coastal archipelagos". Canada invoked its prior argument of historic internal waters in support of its new baselines, arguing that its title to the waters within the baselines-which by definition are internal waters-was consolidated by historic usage. The historic usage argument was reinforced in 1993 by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, whereby the Canadian government and Inuit affirmed that "Canada's sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic archipelago is supported by Inuit use and occupancy".
The historic consolidation argument is also supported by judgments of international courts. In 1975, in a dispute between Spain and Morocco over the Western Sahara, the International Court of Justice held that the historic presence of nomadic peoples can help to establish sovereignty. And in 1933, in a dispute between Norway and Denmark over Eastern Greenland, the predecessor to the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of International Justice, held that the degree of presence necessary to establish title over territory is lower in inhospitable regions than in more temperate climes.
However, the crux of the dispute centres on the requirement that international straits "are used for international navigation". Canada argues that a couple of non-consensual transits through the Northwest Passage do not provide a sufficient basis on which to consider those waters an international strait.
Canada's guard is down
The United States, in contrast, focuses on the geographic criterion-joining two expanses of high seas-and points to a 1949 judgment of the International Court of Justice, in a dispute over the Corfu Channel, which held that the volume of traffic was of no relevance. In any event, the fact that any further usage for international navigation might contribute to the Northwest Passage becoming an international strait makes it critically important that no further non-consensual transits occur.
Canada is poorly equipped to prevent such transits. Despite having the world's longest coastline, much of it ice-covered most of the time, we do not have any all-season polar icebreakers. Four of our Coastguard icebreakers do spend each summer in the Arctic, helping ships and barges loaded with supplies to reach remote communities and cargo ships and bulk carriers to access the Port of Churchill in Hudson Bay. But these vessels are neither powerful enough nor sufficiently ice-strengthened to deal with the Arctic winter and they are redeployed to the Gulf of St. Lawrence each autumn.
In 1985, Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government announced that it would build a powerful all-season icebreaker, only to cancel the contract four years later. The situation is all the more worrisome because even non-Arctic countries such as China, Britain, South Africa and South Korea now own or are building vessels of this kind.
Canada does have a fleet of aged Aurora patrol aircraft which are now used mostly for fisheries protection on the east and west coasts; only one or two flights per year are devoted to "sovereignty assertion". The Canadian Airborne Regiment was able to deploy 500 paratroopers rapidly anywhere in the Arctic until the Chrétien government disbanded it in 1995. Today, our Arctic presence is made up largely of the Canadian Rangers, 1600 part-time volunteers who live in 58 hamlets stretching from Baffin Island to the Alaska frontier. The rangers know the land and ice and provide a useful-if slow-moving-search and rescue capacity, yet their abilities are dwarfed by the expanse in which they operate. They are also not equipped or trained for forcibly boarding ocean-going vessels.
Consequently, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act cannot, in practice, be applied-though, to be fair, most vessels entering the Canadian Arctic do meet its standards. It is also unclear whether the right, held by coastal states to exercise pollution prevention jurisdiction in ice-covered waters, extends to international straits, and whether that right will continue after the ice disappears.
Who needs permission?
In any event, as the ice melts, more foreign vessels could attempt to use the Northwest Passage without seeking permission-as they might do in order to evade Canada's environmental laws. Canada's legal argument could soon collapse under the weight of a few precedents, leaving us with little basis on which to regulate foreign vessels, even if we acquired enforcement capabilities in the future. In short, time is running out: we either get serious about sovereignty and protecting the environment in the Northwest Passage now, or we will lose the right to do so.
Submarine transits-which are not dependent on channels free of ice-pose a particular problem. It is widely known, though infrequently acknowledged, that submarines from several countries often travel through the archipelago under the ice. In 1985, after the Polar Sea incident, the Mulroney government announced that it would acquire 12 nuclear-powered submarines for sovereignty assertion purposes. Pressure from the United States quickly resulted in the abandonment of this plan. Almost two decades later, Canada acquired four second-hand, diesel-electric submarines from the Royal Navy that are unable to travel completely submerged for more than a few hours, rendering them useless under the ice.
Arguably, it works in Canada's favour that submarines transiting the passage do not announce their presence. Some evidence of a sense of legal entitlement is generally considered essential before a country's actions can contribute to creating a right under international law. At the same time, it seems likely that Canada, as a long-standing U.S. ally, has always known about the submarine voyages and has simply kept quiet. It is even possible that the U.S. Navy, with Canada's knowledge and perhaps covert approval, has installed underwater acoustic sensors at the chokepoints into the archipelago, though no one will publicly confirm this.
In November 2004, then-Prime Minister Paul Martin declared that sovereignty "is an issue which is becoming even more important, given climate change and the opening of the Northwest Passage to transportation, and the environmental problems that may flow from that." Under the Liberal governments of Martin and Jean Chrétien, some initial steps were taken. Auroras are being upgraded with infra-red sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles are being acquired to provide long-range surveillance at lower cost. Radarsat-2, a federally funded remote sensing satellite, will soon be able to provide up-to-date, high resolution imaging on demand-giving Canada the ability to track surface vessels from space. Yet more needs to be done.
How big a fleet?
Enforcing sovereignty over the small number of navigable straits or channels in the Canadian Arctic would not require an armada. During the recent federal election campaign, Stephen Harper promised three polar icebreakers, a deep-water port near Iqualuit, underwater sensors and a new Arctic-trained airborne battalion. If Harper fulfills his promises, Canada's claim to sovereignty over the Northwest Passage will be more robust. And there is now reason to believe that he might actually keep these promises: last Thursday, just three days after the election, Harper went out of his way to reaffirm that he had "significant plans … for defence of our sovereignty, including Arctic sovereignty."
Other less dramatic measures could also be taken. Canada currently offers a registration service to all ships entering its northern waters, but it is voluntary, unlike the corresponding services on the east and west coasts. Most ships register in order to facilitate rescues, but anyone intent on challenging or evading Canadian laws will likely not do so. Making registration in the Arctic mandatory would bolster Canada's sovereignty. And it could be done even before parliament reconvenes, with a simple Order in Council. Similarly, a couple of Canadian Forces helicopters could, along with a few commandos trained in maritime interdiction, be despatched to Resolute Bay in summer to ensure compliance.
In addition, the Department of National Defence is currently deliberating whether to install high-frequency surface-wave radar at the entrances to the passage. The time for deliberation is over. The information obtained would be useful to the Canadian Forces and Coastguard and the presence of the installations would strengthen Canada's legal position.
The terrorism factor
Most importantly, it is time to persuade Washington to change its outdated position. The United States is more concerned about terrorists finding a backdoor to North America, or rogue states using the oceans to transport weapons of mass destruction, than it is concerned about Russian submarines.
In the Arctic, these new threats could just as easily be handled by a strengthened Canadian Forces and Coastguard, whose abilities would be much enhanced if Canada's domestic laws applied. It does not serve the interests of either country to have foreign vessels shielded from those laws-and subject only to the much weaker constraints of international law-by maintaining that the Northwest Passage is an international strait. And the fact of the matter is: Canada would never deny a request from the United States to allow one of its ships or submarines through the passage. Indeed, Ottawa and Washington are already planning to expand the North American Aerospace Defence Command to include maritime surveillance later this year.
Nor should Washington worry about creating an unwanted precedent for straits elsewhere. The sea-ice, and the resulting paucity of usage of the Northwest Passage for international shipping, has created a situation whereby Canada's Arctic waters can readily be distinguished from the other places where the United States claims rights of transit through "international straits".
The uniqueness of the situation may help to explain why, in November 2004, then-US ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that U.S. national security might actually be enhanced if Washington were to recognize Ottawa's claim. "We are looking at everything through the terrorism prism," he said. "Our top priority is to stop the terrorists. So perhaps when this is brought to the table again, we may have to take another look." Invitations to negotiate do not come any clearer than that. It is time to show that Canada is willing and able to police its Arctic waters; to make the case-not just with words-that Canadian sovereignty can work for America too.
Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. His work on Arctic sovereignty is supported by ArcticNet, a federally funded consortium of scientists from 23 Canadian universities. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
106
Login or register to post comments
rotlin
7 years ago
Comments on "The Need to Defend Our New Northwest Passage&q
Interesting and informative article!
My understanding that one of the worries of the United States is the setting of a precedent which could close other straits - in particular the ones by Indonesia.
Also what is the status of the Berring strait between Russia and Alaska?
cyberfarer
7 years ago
"Sovereignty over the Northwest Passage is about much more than nationalism; it is about protecting people and the environment from serious potential harm."
What? So climate change, the loss of permanent ice, the impact on indigenous peoples, the destruction of habitat and loss of species, and the acceleration of climate change is not serious harm?
This entire farce is stage managed. Policy objectives of both Bush and Harper are being met while Harper, a man who so admires the US and George W. Bush so as to be fawning, presents himself as the defender of Canada's Northern virtue. Bull.
The threat to Canada and the globe comes from climate change. Here we have Harper developing policy to counter a phenomenon he doesn't even acknowledge is real. And he gets good press for it even in the Tyee. Incredible.
And meanwhile, even worse, we concern ourselves with smuggling and terrorism because who cares about the traditions, lifestyles, and nature of the North?
Climate change represents a greater threat to Canada and the world than any smuggling or act of terror. And further, the only reason we now need to even think about exerting our "sovereignty" over the North is because the permanent ice cover is disappearing.
Fight climate change. Protect the ice and it will protect the North.
Avicenna
7 years ago
Perhaps a little oversimplistic, but one way to avoid a "war" over northern oil and resource rich melting caps is to have us (Canada) sign an international treaty with all interested parties which states that the for the sake of some semblance of balance and sustainability (after all, we have - as a destructive species - raped the rest of the planet as well as time would afford us) that this region will remain protected from human destructive practices at all costs. Canada will take on ensuring that all comply, and agrees on not developing short-sighted developments for the sake of mercenary profits. Trade sanctions and international retributions would be a bargaining point - and those with a conscience and an education would be our supporting evidence that this is not a choice, but a necessary action.
Chris H
7 years ago
Very interesting article! I have to agree with Harper on this one. Start building the fleet to protect Canadian. It is amazing to me that the US would want these water declared "international." Not too much security there.
fishguy
7 years ago
cyberfarer says
And so badly and transparently stage managed that I couldn't help but laugh out loud. Ambassador Wilkins comes out with his comments about arctic sovereignty seemingly out of the blue, an issue that was so far off the radar when compared to softwood lumber, Kyoto agreement, Iraq etc... that you could almost hear the nation's collective "huh?"
The next day Harper has his first news conference as PM-elect. Much to his consternation no-one in the media bit at this proferred tasty. So he had to clumsily bring it up after the last question was accepted. "Hey Canada! look how tough I am on those nasty Americans" What a crock, cooked up no doubt by Bush administration flaks who are more accustomed to the ill-informed, ignorant and willfully blind American audience.
Grumpy
7 years ago
I see the anti Harper, anti American appeasers are at it again. Oh dear, Harper's spat with the American Ambassador over the Artic was contrived, they claim.
I don't think so. We need to defend our sovereignty in the North and we need military icebreakers as well. I would go one step further, nuclear submarines to also track and defend our country.
Remeber Chamberlain's "Peace in our time", after doing business with a maniac; well we have the same problem, the world wants our land and in the time of globsal warming, our land is becoming lucrative.
Harper's right on this one and he may prove that he is not a 'Tony Blair' lap dog!
nightbloom
7 years ago
I think the challenge to Canada's Arctic Sovereignty is only going to mount as the economic and strategic importance of the region grows.
Icebreakers, aircraft and a restored Airborne troop capacity for rapid remote deployment are necessary. Increased expansion & settlement would help - not sure why we're funnelling all the influx of people into Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver.
But a bona fide Arctic Navy for the Canada's third coastline is a sine qua non.
Nuclear powered submarines are a costly but highly effective means of projecting sovereignty in the Arctic. But as Vice Admiral (ret.) Chuck Thomas has said, submarines are something you do "all the way" or not at all. NDHQ was sufficiently serious about Perrin Beatty's 1987 Defence White Paper that a mini "training reactor" was installed at RMC. Unfortunately, the political opposition capitalized on the public confusion over "nuclear power" and "nuclear armed". The U.S. also didn't want Canadian dilettantes to have an accident and lend credence to the anti-nuclear lobby, who have criticized the use of nuclear energy by First World navies.
Colin
7 years ago
This issue has been on the radar, despite the media ignoring it. Contrary to popular belief, Canada has 3 coastlines not 2. (large gasps of disbelief from Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa)
I spent one season on a Icebreaker (class 2) http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/photos/fleet/sirwilfridlaurier/page1_e.htm
in the Western Arctic, quite the trip and glad I was being paid and not paying, life is expensive up there!!! Not to mention free helicopter trips over the tundra and doing a face to face with a Musk ox!!
Previously Canada was looking at building a Class 8 icebreaker, this project fell through and presently the Lous S. St-Laurent is our biggest icebreaker. The Canadian Navy also operated one called the Labrador. The new proposed ice breakers will help, but won’t come cheap. They will requires crews, fuel and long term maintenance. All Coast Guard ships being built should be fitted and designed with hard points for the fitting of weapons if required. Most weapon systems are now offered in Modular form and can be quickly fitted to a vessel that has a hardpoint (strengthen deck area with power)
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/ice-gla/gallery_e.htm
The navy needs to place deck officers onto Coast Guard ships in order to learn how to operate in the Arctic, this will be a cheap way to build up a Arctic expertise in the navy, which lacks experience in operating up North.
The Rangers have been one of the best programs that the government has every run, not only does it provide intelligence, monitoring, national presence. But it has also become one of the more significant social programs in the North, sometimes the only functioning program in some communities.
http://www.rangers.forces.gc.ca/pubs/rangers/overview/about_e.asp
What I would like to see is military bases established at Tuk and Iqualuit, These bases could help reinforce our sovereignty, provide training and support for the Rangers and be used as command, support and forward equipment depots for Northern operations. Both of these bases can also support naval reserve operations during the summer months with 2 patrol craft at each base. The craft will give employment, training and connection to the local communities. They would also provide security, SAR, policing, oil response to name a few benefits. The craft could be stored out of the water during winter months, which is the normal practice up there.
Also Canada needs to install it’s own sensor system on the choke points to insure that we can track who is going through the area, on the surface and below. The military can buy and store deployable bottom laid remote operated seamines that could be used if a altercation becomes unavoidable.
Nuke subs can operated under ice, but require a huge onshore infrastructure, in fact even the British nukes refuel at US bases. Although our new subs are limited to the edge of the icepack, new technologies in Air Independent Power (AIP) systems will allow them to penetrate further in.
Canadian love to talk about being independent from the US and being sovereign, but start to whine when it comes time to pay the piper. The time has come and we have to start putting our money where our mouth is.
obvious
7 years ago
Back in the early '80's I joined the Canadian Coast Guard. One of the things that was drilled into us was the CCG existed not primarily as a search and rescue service, but to maintain Canadian sovereignty in the North.
Icebreakers were to establish and clear the sealanes through the Northwest Passage.
Unfortunately since then there has been a steadily declining budget for the CCG. New ships are rarely built and none that can occupy the passages during the winter months.
These days, the CCG is shamefully underfunded for both icebreaking and search and rescue.
jsinger
7 years ago
I can't pretend to be very well informed or to have strong opinions about this entire topic, but, as one whose job requires it, I do have an ability to sense human discomfort and phoniness, and my phony sensors were on high alert when I happened to see and hear Harper bring this topic up at his news conference. I think it was shortly after his secret phone conversation with Bush, and my first thought/feeling was that something very contrived, probably planned between the two of them, was taking place. That feeling was only confirmed when a clip of the U.S. ambassador aired right after. I'd love to hear an analysis of both men's presentations during their statements by people who specialize in determining human veracity from eye and body language, because my intuition was suddenly screaming at me, even though I was only half paying attention to the TV.
nightbloom
7 years ago
The Swedes successfully developed a closed-circuit "Air Independent" diesel-electric submarine using liquid oxygen that can operate under the ice for two weeks without surfacing. This is unprecedented for a non-nuclear sub. The technology's been around for 20 years now. I wonder why this option has not by explored?
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gotland/
Colin
7 years ago
My understanding that it still has major teething problems and the aussies AIP subs spend more time in the yard then at sea. I haven’t made up my mind on our new subs yet, they have problems, but they could be fixed if we allowed the yards to do the job right. However we might have been better off tapping into one of the new build programs going on in Germany and just ordering a few more, would have resulted in a new sub, built by experienced workers and benefited from the previous versions.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-navssk2.htm
The German 212 and 214 series
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/index.html
redrivergirl
7 years ago
Of course it was contrived. His presto 'new' persona is contrived too.
A lot of Canadians are on to him and time can only shine more light on it.
redrivergirl
7 years ago
Look out. Every red cent we used to spend on bettering the lives of Canadians is about to go to Haliburton etal. They're hooking up the pipe-line to our treasury as we write. A phony money 'hole where the money goes' shield, weaponized space, passing over us every 15 minutes, courtesy some poor Canadian kids hot lunch program.
Coyote
7 years ago
I'm not really sure how much average Canadians have been "whining" about this issue. Again, if your objective is to give tax breaks to the already wealthy and suck up to Amerika's corporate power, then your are going to come up short everywhere, including on appropriate defence as much as essential social services to the people. And it your plan is to "deep integrate" the nation into The Empire, then that is certainly facilitated by a state of "military dependance".
So there is an entire "neoconservative" assumption set out there, in place for a very long time, that needs to be challenged and countered, hopefully by even some of our own Neocons here.
Other than that difference, I actually much agree with many points raised by Colin. If Canada wants to be sovereign and independent, at any serious level other than ruling class "ritualistically", then there are a number of fronts, economic, political and militarily that this country needs to make other kinds of "deep changes" to, which run counter to the course the nation has been on for too long, and begun under "Bomarc Missle" Diefenbaker and accelerated especially by NAFTA Mulroney, Conservatives all.
This northern patrol vessel has to be seen as merely one token element in a process, military and otherwise, that runs deeper, wider and more far reaching. There are a whole range of military and economic/political focused issues that need to be seriously and comprehensively broached and changed here, if the intent really is to get out from under our state of dependence and global bat boy/bootlick servitude to The Empire.
And obviously, I think we should dare to go there.
nightbloom
7 years ago
Interesting - the Swedish and German boats are built in collaboration with some of the same people (HDW).
The Victoria Class have very limited (if any) usefulness in the North. Even boats with Air Independent technology are severely circumscribed in what they can accomplish. My understanding is that a submarine's principal usefulness in the Arctic is to position itself to listen/observe. They sit near the bottom for weeks at a time. If it takes five days for an 'air independent' boat to get into position, and five days to get back to open water, it only has 2 days of 'air independence' to do its work.
Maybe what's needed (if we go that route) is a small northern submarine installation (Ã* la Russia with Murmansk) to reduce travel times & prolong the period of effective 'air independent' work these boats can do.
Coyote
7 years ago
And we should use our own raw materials, work force, and shipyards/manufacturing capability, expanded upon as necessary, to build up such defensive arms, equipment and vessels as we need to meet our own defence needs. And I actually do mean "defence", as opposed to a lot of heavy lift, heavy armour shit meant to deliver us to where Amerika Needs Us. It's an area of expertise we need to develop ourselves, comprehensively, rather than tapping into anyone elses, German, US or whose-ever.
If we are going to actually end our long history of foreign dependancy, then let's actually do it, rather than make "token gestures" which only go half way.
Coyote
7 years ago
But eh, a good conversation for all to be having here.
Eddy Haskel
7 years ago
It's just that age old scam of the weapons merchants. Need a new market for some guns...create a crisis...and then cash in on the mayhem. Harper's buying it hook, line, and sinker. Perhaps it's all a hidden agenda to weaponize The North.
Colin
7 years ago
My god, Coyote and I agreed on something!! The equilibrium of the world will be disturbed!
Sorry Eddy, but this has be brewing for years, Canada already shares it’s Coastlines with Denmark, Greenland, France and Russia (sort of)
Weaponization of the North? You’re about 30 years to late for that.
Eddy Haskel
7 years ago
Colin, I see you are still running for the cliff. We should be promting the disarming of the world, not advocating for expanded military roles.
redrivergirl
7 years ago
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138575009838&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
One reason, I have faith in the RCMP.
We can expect more of the same because in my view it's about some people getting rich from war.
Colin
7 years ago
Another option for nations like ourselves with limited budget will be Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV’s) These are unmanned subs that perform a variety of tasks, each year they are getting more and more advanced. For now we can use ones that spend ½ their time on the surface, listening for passing vessels, they would surface and transmit data, then be ordered to investigate or ignore. Even if unarmed a AUV actively hunting subs would make submariners uncomfortable and buildup a database of sub signatures, so we will know when someone is trying to enter our waters. The active sonar needs not to be as strong as the ones being used by bigger ships and just the act of active sonar will force the subs off course and make the point. The threat of arming them will also force other nations to respect our boundaries. It would give us more options.
Eddy
Better a strong arm and a quiet word, rather than pleading for your life.
Colin
7 years ago
Redrivergirl
Thanks for the link, people in the military having been complaining for years about the contracting system and felt there was strange stuff going on, but they were ignored. Another example of the Liberals sucking on the teat. I am sure Ottawa is having a brownout with all of the shedders running at max getting rid of embarrassing documents.
Most politicians view the military budget as a cow to be milked and most of the money goes for mundane things rather than the pointy bits.
wiley
7 years ago
Since there really isn't a snowball's chance in hell of slowing global warming down much, we might as well adapt. The north pole may well be ice free by summer 2050. The military and industrial interests already have made this assumption, and are acting accordingly. "Business as Usual" is as hard to change as the practices we have become locked into that created global warming. But we better save some energy for moving to higher ground as the sea levels rise. It won't be easy.
Grumpy
7 years ago
Eddy, you sound like a 1930's global chant of world disarmament, guess what it didn't work! If Canada is to survive in this world, we need a strong military.
We don't have, especially in the airforce and navy. Some Artic survivable ships, may just prove to someone somewhere that Canada means business. When the icecaps begin to melt and the sea levels rise (the Brits just said the sea level may rise by 7 metres in the next 1000 years. This is going to cause mass migration og millions of people, war, starvation,etc. Canada's north will become vary valuable indeed.
Trouble with Canada we never look 2 minutes into the future.
Grumpy
7 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4660938.stm
Colin
7 years ago
I wonder how the weather predications will compare to the period that existed when Eric the Red came over, apparently it was much warmer then and ice much less a problem.
Frank
7 years ago
Colin, Greenland was covered in ice in the time of Eric the Red too.
Steve P
7 years ago
Great article.
Although I agree that it was "convenient" for Harper to disagree with the US shortly after the election (especially on an issue that won't erupt in gunfire any time soon), I still think that supporting Canada's sovereignty in the North is essential for our own security, and our relationship (based on mutual North American security arrangements) with the United States.
lynn
7 years ago
I believe in intuition, too and I think yours, jsinger, was every bit as good as the sensor system waiting to be installed at the choke points of the Arctic.
Global warming, terrorism are just such gleeful handrubbing opportunities for corporations everywhere. If the US didn't like the idea of Canadian nuclear ice-breakers under Mulroney any about face now would indicate that there is now something much more profitable in it for them...and that they have the correct handmaiden now in position to facilitate their cause.
You gotta watch how the meaning of sovereignty will change under Harper...he'll use the word but it will mean more and more a co-operative joining of hands with the US...it will be the impression of sovereignty but not the actual real thing. (remember the tainting of the words sustainability and flexibility under the Campell government). Their true meaning forever lost.
Now sovereignty that hot button issue will be used, no, not actually for real defence of our country but for the defence of the privatization of the north. This is the carpe diem kind of opportunity that corporate Amerika has waited for.
And I agree with a strong defence for Canada...just that we better be careful who or what we are being set up to defend.
My son volunteers as a ranger in our local area, (not up north). He has always liked the outdoors but he learned a lot of valuble skills through the ranger training, they even rescued themselves a few times :-)...and I noticed he gained a real love and feeling for this country through the different experiences the training offered him. The northern rangers are highly regarded by all, a great service to this country but certainly not a means of defence.
What I think is interesting about all these discussions lately, (too long to get into here) is the increasingly significant role, First Nations - in this case the Inuit (re: "historic internal waters") are playing in issues of sovereignty. Their historic and true connection to the land is a power in its own right against all that now threatens.
Very interesting article, Michael Byers and Tyee.
Colin
7 years ago
This site has an interesting discussion on Denmark’s claim
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-indetail.htm
Coyote
7 years ago
I understand the desire for across the board military disarmament. Indeed, Canada is all but disarmed to near every last sword to go to a plowshare already. And never has just our own neighbourhood been more dangerous to us.
At the same time, we have this major "power/military" threat problem with the USA, one of the most aggressive, arbitrary and self-serving States in the world as a neighbour. I don't see much even near immediate threat elsewhere, even China, being seriously capable of at least the short term threat to us, our bit of terra firma and its resouces, and our ability to determine these and our own outcomes freely and independently, against all comers-, but especially the US Empire.
It, the US Empire has for a long time been the main obstacle, in fact, to the serious application of global disarmament agreements, or even such one would think simple an items as the international agreement eliminating the use of landmines in warfare, to say nothing of even agreement to the minimal reduction of harmful fossil fuel emissions as the Kyoto Agreement allowed for. We are along a lengthy and vulnerable border with this rogue state, at the same time, armed militarily to the teeth.
So yes, I agree we do need to limit ourselves to a military of a level and suitability to only secure and defend our own homeland soil, a strategy Frank astutely characterizes as being a bristling porcupine, which but wants only to be left alone, uninterfered with. Likewise, we need a clearly articulated and spelled out policy of none-interference in the internal affairs of other states, granting to all, only what we seek for ourselves.
That is a realistic and practical objective for these times, which if all would agree even only to this, and actually practice it, the world would be an already much, much safer place for all.
But to ask Canada to totally disarm is to fly in the face of all practical reality even immediately around us, in my view. You offer up your cheek for a second slap from The Empire, and you'll be ass over tea kettle into oblivion in damned short order. Better you be able, and of a greater contribution to a practical peace, you be able to kick his ass and cause him considerable angst, pain and treasure if he seriously attempts, nay actually does physically "interfere" with you.
Consider merely that the Canadian people elect a government that they decide they do not like, or declare a threat to them.
My view.
redrivergirl
7 years ago
Colin, I have nothing against our military. The military industrial complex hurts enlisted people as we see in Iraq with inadequate armour and the forces being used as body guards for Halliburton employees earning 10 to 100 times the soldier. I admire a conservative man like Murtha. How could I not? I understand we have our own world view. He has a lot of integrity. And, yes, he's a Dem, but a conservative man. I believe him when he says the generals are very upset. Certainly many resigned already.
redrivergirl
7 years ago
And, once again, it is about privatizing everything including the military, including our elections etc. Halliburton provided the troops with chemically contaminated water! That's the latest scandal with them. Nevermind the billions that have gone missing!
I don't want our taxes going to that. I want them going for balance in our military and help for our citizens.
Coyote
7 years ago
"I'd love to hear an analysis of both men's presentations during their statements by people who specialize in determining human veracity from eye and body language, because my intuition was suddenly screaming at me, wrote jsinger."
And would I my friend, and would I. I don't question the need to patrol and defensively maintain to security of all our shores and boundaries. And it's within that context we need to formally contain ourselves.
But there [I]is[/I] something a little to convenient and contrived about all this, I agree.
What betcha, there is some reason(s) having to do more with US than Canadian imperatives involved here with this north coastal defence vessel? The bootlick history of Harper is just too long, with too much evidence and history, and his Calgary U advisors, from the US themselves.
My trust of this snake goes out only so far as I can see him wiggling his ass in the gravel. And I gotta big stick in hand.
Think Homeland Defence, the War Against Terrorism, Continental Ballistic Missle Defence, all Empire Causes Celebrer. If this development actually has a squat to do with the independent Homeland Defence of Canada, except as interpreted by George Bush, I'll never drink a single malt Scotch Whiskey again.
Now, you know I'm really, really, really serious. :-D
Phil
7 years ago
Is it just me, or is lots of this rendered moot. I read in the vancouver sun last week that the renewed NORAD agreement that Paul Martin's been working on, and now Harper, will for the first time include giving the U.S. permission to patrol our coastal waters? Oops, no more Arctic sovereignty!
Yammer
7 years ago
I know. The Quebec separatists want their own country. The northern border needs to be populated. I see a fit here...
maikeru
7 years ago
Thanks for the links Colin.
This sublink:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking3.htm
regarding Denmark's Arctic Assets, is an interesting page.
excerpt:
"The Thetis class is a specialized adaptation of the DanishÂ* Standard Flex 3000 frigate design. The armament installations are, like some other ship’s systems, completely modular. In theory, the modules can be installed (right) or removed at dockside within one hour.Â* Each Thetis class carries one Westland Lynx maritime helicopter.
Thetis hulls are double-skinned Â*and ice-strengthened (Thetis class ships can move through 80cm of solid ice). Along with icebreaking bows,Â* ships’ fittings were designed to minimize ice buildup. Most equipment is mounted below deck or enclosed like the main mast and radar antenna. Even still, a Thetis class can safely accumulate 375t of ice.
At least one of the four Thetis are on active service in Greenland waters at any time. [b]It was F359 Vædderen which delivered KDM shore parties to disputed Hans Island.
Denmark's population is 5,432,335.
lynn
7 years ago
I think that is Harper's official definition of Arctic sovereignty.
And I think you're on to something...Here is a quote from David Bercuson during the recent Canadian federal election. Bercuson is a Calgary historian, Harper confidante, and yes, a proud member of the infamous Calgary School. (He defends Alberta regionalism over the rest of Canada and believes the sooner Quebec leaves Canada the better).
As Coyote so aptly writes:
The bootlick history of Harper is just too long, with too much evidence and history, and his Calgary U advisors, from the US themselves.
David Bercuson, one of those Calgary U advisors, (about Bush-bashing during our election), December, 2005:
There are major issues to be dealt with every day of the week," Mr. Bercuson says. Next spring, for example, there's likely to be an "emotionally charged" debate over the renewal of NORAD and its possible broadening to include land and sea components. "It's not really setting the ground very well for that, is it?"
Steve P
7 years ago
Lynn:
I'm sypathetic to what I think your intent is -- a Canada that need not depend on the United States. But in your rush to ensure Canadian sovereignty, I think you are the one who is narrowing the meaning of sovereignty. To put your argument on its head, is sovereignty only sovereignty when we do not cooperate with our neighbours? Under this definition, we would be unable to freely enter security agreements without giving up sovereignty.
This is a sticky point for Canadians. I read Desmond Morton's "Understanding Canadian Defence" recently, and he argues that the source of our long peace & relatively undefended border with the US is based upon our ability to secure their northern flank from common enemies. If we are unable or unwilling to do this, my concern is that the US will grumble & do it "for" us, but in a manner that reflects their agenda, leaving our claims to sovereignty damaged in the process.
redrivergirl
7 years ago
Ah, sovereignty, the definition of 'is'...
Coyote
7 years ago
Who's talking about not "co-operating" with our neighbour, certainly where we actually share a common interest? And that's not their rouge state empire adventures, or our feeling a sense of obligation to defend them from the world of enemies they have created for themselves. Nor does that include allowing them to rip, rape and run through our resources, as NAFTA provides, giving them as much right to them as ourselves.
And "security agreements" with the United States has a preponderance of weight to "their security" and our "giving up of it".
It's not a "co-operative" relationship we have with the United States, but a quasi-colonial, subservient one. There is a difference, and long past time we knew the difference and where to draw the line in the sand-, in as friendly but firm a way as we can.
Though they are pretty "thick" when it comes to what they perceive as their "entitlement".
While we are pretty wuzz-ass and kow-towing.
Coyote
7 years ago
rouge should be "rogue" of course.
maikeru
7 years ago
cyberfarer re:
The threat to Canada and the globe comes from climate change. Here we have Harper developing policy to counter a phenomenon he doesn't even acknowledge is real. And he gets good press for it even in the Tyee. Incredible.
An even greater threat to Canada and the globe is the curious belief that the climate will follow strict regulations imposed by men such as Maurice Petrocan Strong - and stop changing.
Fight climate change. Protect the ice and it will protect the North.
Human Shields NOW !!
lynn
7 years ago
Steve P, I take your point and it may be that I was unclear, especially in conveying the tone of my use of the word co-operative. I am definitely saying it with a strongly sardonic tone.
Co-operation will be wrung out of us, either diplomatically... or more forcefully if necessary. My hunch is it ( our co-operation) sadly will occur more with a whimper than a bang...since that has been Canada's rather wimpy stance of late..though who knows...unforeseen occurrences and courageous people and all who will stand up for this country...I hope we decide this is worth the clever fight it will have to be.
As for Canada securing the US's northern flank from its enemies...that really says a lot about the kind of friendship Amerika depends upon...the word "self-interested" comes to mind.
I'm afraid our sovereignty has already been dangerously infringed upon....between NAFTA, the advance of privatization et al.
We have much that the US wants... and that it greedily lusts for in the way of oil, water, land...a whole host of their very favourite things..the supply of which is running out in their own country.
So though it has not been said out loud, like an undeclared war between friends, The US is moving aggressively against Canada...they need no rumours of WMD's or nuclear arsenals for an excuse, they have a much friendlier means in the guise of many of our provincial premiers, in think tanks like the Calgary School and the Fraser Institute, in Harper... and in the Neo-conservative movement within Canada..and within the US itself.
They are on our shores already...and their traitorous representatives here in Canada are already doing it ( imposing their own agenda) "for" us. Our sovereignty is already damaged and being seriously threatened.
May Canada cleverly out fox them.
Peter Evanchuck
7 years ago
The proglem is that Harper seems to always be thinking one thing and doing another as time goes by - I wanna see what he really does when he really does something. Like a creature that changes according to the ground he sits on, Harper goes from blue to red to NDP orange.
grw
7 years ago
I salute Harper for his stand against the Americans. However, it also strikes me as a little unfair since all he did during the election was lambaste the Liberals for standing up to the Americans. If Martin had said the exact same thing, all these Conservative backers would have been all over him. All I ask for is a little consistency. I'm being consistent by giving him his due. His backers should be consistent by disagreeing with him.
Frank
7 years ago
Excellent point grw
I too am happy to see Harper say what he said but you're right, if Layton or Martin had said the same thing the righties would have been having fits.
Coyote
7 years ago
One of the fundamental characteristics of the neoconservative movement, here, in the US and around the world, which at least leaps out at me, characterized by Harper in this recent election, is the degree to which they are committed "shape-shifters'.
It is, if not the most outstanding feature of them, then certainly right up there near the top. Between shape-shifting, loyalty to the system ruling class, and in this country, the degree to which they apologize for and defend "Amerika"-, as in US imperialism-, to the point of the serious detriment of their own and our nation(s).
Frank
7 years ago
Yammer,
I got one too. The Palestinians need a country. The US wants its northern border secure against terrorists. How about we create a new Palestine up north? The Americans should be happy. Can you see any terrorist trying to sneak past millions of armed Palestinians? Well, they seem well armed on the news anyway.
Coyote, just imagine, if Harper goes drunk driving around Hawaii you can pretty much count on drunk driving being declared a fad that everybody should be doing by the Calgary Sun.
One can only imagine what the response would be if Harper was caught dunping toxic chemicals into the Fraser. Every rightie would line up on the banks and pour their motor oil in. The Cato and Fraser Institutes would publish reports within a week declaring it all good for the environment.
Sometimes I think I live in Oceania.
allan
7 years ago
Lynn, interesting points about Aboriginal history and presence in the north.
However, I think if you were to talk to most who now live in the various strategic communities along the arctic passage, you would hear how they don't like to be where they are.
In fact most of the Inuit communities set up by the federal government in the 1950s and '60s, are where they are for strategic purposes and absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the people themselves.
That was Canada's plan to protect souverenty. Place thousands of Inuit as the eye and ears.
Unfortunately it has bee a major social dissaster with the highest suicide rate in the world, near complete dependancy on southern goods and technology and now not a prayer of ever returning to the world they lived for millenium.
The Inuit have become our mine canaries. They are the shock troops who will suffer the greatest the soonest.
I must say it does get disappointing when the little soldier boys who keep track of this boat or that gun or those new killing techniques, have to park and spill their military secrets on Tyee.
But what really irks me most is they have the nerve to come into a forum like this and pretend that global warming is but a theory.
I do wonder how they lie like that to their children though.
It's the same nerve a saw recently when the murderer Pinochet's eldest daughter opted to flee Chile rather than face charges that she was complicite in hiding taxable income.
She's back in a Chilian jail, thanks to the US government who caught her, which must make her father and other murderous dictators who used to be cottled by the US a wee bit nervous.
Good.
Grumpy, that British report states the seas could rise 7 metres in 100 years, not 1,000.
Far more serious, unless of course, you hope some military power will come to the rescue and ensure none of us get to die by drowning or by old age.
DPL
7 years ago
About 30 years ago I spent quite a lot of time flying around north of 60. A large number of military sites were full of American folks. Thee exceptions seemed to be Resolute, and Alert. Alert was air supplied throught Thule airbase run by the Americans in Greenland. So of course the Americans don't want to admit the area is part of Canada. Hell they have worked out of the places for all those years.
When the first american oil tankler went across the top flag we sort of watched. When they started having submarines popping up at the pole and other places, we watched. So what is going to change?
rjm
7 years ago
I would sure like to see Mr. Byers do a research of the history of the alaska panhandle.
I am of the understanding that the original deal with the russians didnt and couldnt award any right to the landmass, and the original contract only gave the americans the water rights to the high tide mark.
if that is the case, then the entire panhandle is, and always has been, part of british columbia.
tks,
rjm
Skip Tracer
7 years ago
Check the BBC. It *is* 1000, not 100...unless the Beeb got it wrong.
Colin
7 years ago
Frank and grw
I think it had more to do with how he said it. He kept it short and simple and did not slag them as Martin would have done for a few extra brownie points. For Canada the key is having a leader that can say no to the US without insulting them. To do so is plain stupid and pointless. Bush could have cared less about Canada and thinks far more about Mexico than us, now he just thinks we bunch of lying two faced wankers and won’t do squat or spend any political capital to help solve the trade issues.
Allan is quite right about the forced relocation of the Inuit, truly a shamefully part of our history and we are still paying for it as our they. Another case of the government doing something for the “public goodâ€.
Rjm
I think it has been highly researched, Canada claims that the extent of the original Russian territory ended at the southern tip of the panhandle and that is where the border is shown on our charts. If you look at a US chart you will see that the border is drawn approx halfway into the strait, which is how the US claims it lays. They are using the basis of the border projecting 12 miles out to sea if I remember correctly. This has been a big source of irritation for a while now.
Frank
7 years ago
Colin, I'm just happy he said it period. I have no intention of critisizing the guy until he actually does something I disagree with.
I know his record with the NCC but I'm still in wait and see mode. Doesn't mean I think the daycare problem will be fixed with his silly $100 a month idea or anything like that. I expect someone of a different ideology to do things I think are misguided. Part of the process when you lose an election.
My reference to Oceania was because of the reaction. When Campbell went drinking and driving every rightie on this board defended him. When Svend stole a ring I thought it was stupid of the NDP to let him run again under their banner.
I think if it was an NDPer or even a guy like Mel Hurtig back when he headed the National Party that had said that people would be asking why he had to do it at a news conference. Why couldn't he have just used proper channels to relay the message in private. Andrew Coyne, Ezra Levant and Mike Campbell would have written how it was yet another slap in the US face to do this in front of the cameras. Cheap anti-American politics etc.
Personally I'm happy he did it in front of the cameras with the media there. But I would have been happy if Martin, Layton or Hurtig had done it too. Staged or not.
lynn
7 years ago
Very true, and with disastrous results as you say.
No, what I was alluding to was the common bond we share with aboriginal people as the neo-conservatives attempt to entangle us so deeply into corporate culture that issues of sovereignty for both of us become hopelessly obscured and effectively blurred into non-existence.
Which, of course, is the plan of these attempts at so-called co-operation...which we see here in BC led by Campbell and his corporate friends in that same "co[/I[I]]-operative spirit" taking the form of economic wheeling and dealings with First Nations that are purposely light in the detail department to effectively obscure the land claim issues of First Nations.
Among all of us interested in preventing the privatization of the natural world, in the true, historic sense of what is defined as real wealth ( as exemplified by the cultural traditions of the Inuit)...among all of us, hopefully, there will be a common bond forged that will strongly oppose the artifical definition of wealth embodied in corporate culture.
lynn
7 years ago
yeeech... should read "artificial definition"..."co-operative spirit"..., nighty-night all.
maikeru
7 years ago
Allen re:
" I must say it does get disappointing when the little soldier boys who keep track of this boat or that gun or those new killing techniques, have to park and spill their military secrets on Tyee.
But what really irks me most is they have the nerve to come into a forum like this and pretend that global warming is but a theory.
I do wonder how they lie like that to their children though.
Heck, lying relies on the same techniques as brought the Kyoto protocol to center stage of world attention - and that is diverting attention from the truth.
It's a lot easier to just stick to the truth, and the truth is that global warming in a natural occurance - unsprung from human cause.
Your derogations of others for belief contrary to your own is despicable and uncalled for - but are common to those willing to swallow the proposition that creation of 'The Mother of All Bureaucracies' will directly effect climatactic events.
maikeru
7 years ago
Lynn re:
"Among all of us interested in preventing the privatization of the natural world, in the true, historic sense of what is defined as real wealth ( as exemplified by the cultural traditions of the Inuit)...among all of us, hopefully, there will be a common bond forged that will strongly oppose the artifical definition of wealth embodied in corporate culture.
It is the privatization of the natural world which, having absorbed lands occupied by the Inuit, has prevailed upon them to adapt to conditions visited upon every other society throughout the history of mankind.
It is not corporate culture which threatens the Inuit - it's human nature.
Reliance on public servants to build towards a better future is foolish.
For example, home costs have skyrocketed since Canadian bureaucracies took up the quest to increase home energy efficiency above all other considerations.
How much money has been pissed away since UFFI was first foisted off on a public yearning to be led to the promised land of smokeless warmth ?
How many condominium structures have been stripped and repaired - when post-war apartment built immediately after WW2 remain solid ?
I'm quite tired of listening to the mantra that more regulations and bureaucracies are needed to tweak the system to perfection.
Less is more, imho. Way more.
BeagleBreath
7 years ago
Maikeru re:
Less is more, imho. Way more.
I'm afraid less is less and not more if it means leaving things to those whose mantra is money.
Those concerned with quarterly profits are concerned with quarterly profits. Fairly simple. Even more simple, your straw man bit on the leaky condos. Again, the builders were concerned with profits. Bureaucratic regs had little to do with leaks.
A careful perusal of your missive reveals the flawed argument.
maikeru
7 years ago
I'll trust those whose mantra is money, thanks.
Those who control how it's spent, when not engaged in the earning of it, and especially when unaccountable for failure, are far more likely to screw things up.
As for a builders' concern for profit v bureaucratic regs scenario - which one was absent when post-war apartments were constructed, and which one has increased most dramatically ?
Nowadays in Canada, $1 million dollar new homes abound. Aside from $70000 GST, and fat dividends accruing to municipal tax authorities, the gauntlet that must be run to create housing makes whatever profit remains after following all regulations are adhered is well and truly earned and deserved.
cyberfarer
7 years ago
"I'll trust those whose mantra is money, thanks."
No doubt. A blind adherence to those with whom you have no natural allegiance but more a slobbering type loyalty lacking any critical observance.
Kenneth Lay, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Judas, to name just a few, all chanted the mantra of money. You are in good company.
puppyg
7 years ago
Arctic sovereignty... after fifty years, why now? I smell some undercover deal-making.
Mr. Harper he needs distance from Mr. Bush to broaden his electoral appeal for next time. Mr. Bush needs support in rejecting results of the Palestinian election (the 25-minute phone-call?).
THE DEAL - Wilkins rattles a sabre over Arctic sovereignty so Harper can talk tough and impress all Canadians; Harper denounces the Hamas victory… It’s win-win (unless you are Palestinian or Canadian).
What is next? Mr.Harper needs $5 billion in softwood duties returned to fulfil a campaign pledge. Mr. Bush wants Canadians to buy in on missile defence (phoning? - I understand Brian Mulroney has called ahead).
THE DEAL? - Harper is hailed a hero who can make a deal. Mr. Bush gets his missiles in Nunavut… another win-win (unless you are Inuit or some other tax-paying Canadian).
One doesn’t have to be cynical to believe that the US had a hand in Mr. Harper’s makeover. The JFK haircut, the new smile,, the kid between the legs during the election speech... why, it's Camelot North!
I think that Canadians will never know the real cost of reshaping Mr. Harper's political viability, but it appears that transparency has been the first casualty.
Will we soon see more trade-offs... gun-control, gay rights, and abortion? Canadian soldiers in Iraq and Iran? It is not too soon to say goodbye to Kyoto and environmental protection and hello to water exports, pipelines and SE2 plants.
Mr. Harper, please prove me wrong!
Colin
7 years ago
Puppyg
I don’t know where you have been but Arctic sovereignty has been a boiling issue for the last 50 years, it only been the ice that allowed the politicians to ignore, helped by a media that is Southern based.
Your gun control hasn’t been so effective, despite the most stringent gun laws in the history of our nation, criminals can still get them easily, it’s only law abiding citizens that can’t.
Lynn
Don’t bet on the First Nations standing shoulder to shoulder with you, they are getting sick of people telling them what to do or think and are already telling various environmental groups to get off their land.
Coyote
7 years ago
We had that one figured out, shortly after you appeared on this board. Ron Erwin and his pals share the same view.
cyberfarer
7 years ago
"Your gun control hasn’t been so effective, despite the most stringent gun laws in the history of our nation, criminals can still get them easily"
Same goes for crack cocaine and child porn. What would be your point? That things difficult to control should simply not be?
Coyote
7 years ago
Good one, Cyberfarer. How e're much they shape-shift and make cooing sounds around here, who is what is confirmed quickly enough.
Under the pressure of ideas that really challenge their neoconservative "kiss ruling class ass" and "Defend Amerika" mantras, they are soon enough brought back into classic shape and character, by which we all know them so well by now.
Stump
7 years ago
Trusting those whose 'mantra is money' (a funny phrase as the idea of mantras couldn't be more removed from the idea of money-grubbing... but anyway) is not too smart maikeru. When push comes to shove you and your interests will always be sold out; for the very reasons you gave your support in the first place. Trust those who only want your money and you'll be left broke and mistrustful. One would think it's self -evident. One would think there's enough evidence of such behaviour by now that people would wise up a little. Unfortunately, you've demonstrated one would be wrong.
Stump
7 years ago
Oh, Maikeru, I'm sorry. I missed the post where you attributed global-warming to purely natural causes w/out human activity playing a role. I applaud your consistency of thought. Who needs a mantra when you can find bliss the other way, eh?
Yammer
7 years ago
Does sovereignty actually depend on residence? I can see that being a factor, but is it necessary? Surely this has been litigated before.
rob
7 years ago
Lots of good points being made from all angles and this shows how important issues never are dicsussed during elections.
Global warming is affecting the Arctic more then other regions and the receeding ice will allow increased shipping traffic through this sensitive eco-system.
The USA is a hostile power towards Canada's claims of Arctic sovereignty and the jury is stll out on whether Harper is another Brian Mulrooney. Most would lean towards saying he will toe the Bush line instead of trying to assert Canadian caims in the Arctic.
We need new strategic partners, in the Arctic, who can help us protect the environment and re-establish our sovereignty there. America is not that ally but Russia, Norway and the Pan Arctic Peoples Assciations might be. Canada and these others , should pull out of the Arctic Council which is paralysed and dominated by an intransigent USA. They should be founding members of a new organization, call it The POLAR MONITORING GROUP, that would work together for the sake of the Environment and the indigienous people of the north. This could also be good for the economy.
Mr. Harper wants to build 3 military icebreakers over 5 years at a cost of 2 billion. That is close to Mulrooney's promise to build a huge icebreaker to project our Arctic control in the face of USA challenges. Histroy shows it was all idle talk.
One way to judge, early , if Harper is for real is whether he agrees to BUY 3 military icebreakers, FROM RUSSIA, and then work with them to build 5 more... Why wait for five years until they are build? Buy them from the Russians and get state-of-the-art vessels that are somewhat used ( oh and you guys in Ottawa, check below the water line this time before you buy them... ).
We cannot work in the Artic without allies and the USA is not a reliable ally. The Russian and Norwegians and the Pan Artic people have the equipment, the expertise and the self interest to work with Canada. Russia has made sectoral claims in the Arctic just like Canada but no one recognized their claims either.
If Canada and Russia recognized each others claims to the Arctic and had 15 year trade deals and plans to do joint patrols and if this was supported by the Inuit and other indigenous people; well then it would be a done deal. The first big IF is getting the equipment, fast and buying it from Russia would be a great way of doing that.
The Green Party of Canada has an interesting paper on it's Living Platform called CANADIAN SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY. One of the proposals is to double the INUIT RANGERS and start a massive inventment in equipment for the North.
The GREENS are not doing this to support the USA MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, we are proposing this because it meets our criteria of being good for the Economy, good for local Families and good for the Environment. You cannot monitor shipping compliance with Canadian laws if you cannot board the vessels at sea.
The honour system does not work on the oceans of the world.
Great discussion people.
unkari
7 years ago
Get a grip! Smuggling drugs, guns, illegals in through the northern approaches? Ten months of near darkness, fifty below, winds of >100kmh for weeks on end. Just the right conditions for nefarious activity. Ha. Our best defence in winter.
Coyote
7 years ago
Many very interesting points and contribution to the discussion, rob. You have given myself much food for thought.
I'm enjoying popping in here as can to read this discussion, about which I agree with rob, "Great discussion..."
I'm just going through a preoccupation period with other matters.
Not that there will be much mystery to my "essential" views on this and the related subjects.
And I will rob, I will look for that platform paper of the Greens. (If you can post a link here, that might be useful.)
Steve P
7 years ago
Although I think you are correct to distrust the USA's arctic agenda, I think it is unrealistic to hope for countries not to act in their perceived interests.
Here is an interesting snippet from a former Canadian ambassador to the USA, from the forward/summary of "Romanticism and Realism in Canada's Foreign Policy".
http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/benefactors_lecture_2004.pdf
(I know many of you aren't fans of the Howe Institute, but this paper is still worth skimming, even if to clarify points of disagreement)
I don't think we should look for "friendship" from the USA -- we should look for areas of mutual interest where we can cooperate, and identify alternatives in the national interest where we do not share common interest.
Steve P
7 years ago
Re: Alaskan panhandle
My understanding is that the British settled the Alaskan panhandle dispute in a manner most generous to Americans because the Brits knew that they would be unable to defend Canada from US annexation/occupation (which, at the time, I believe, was a real risk). They basically bought off the US in order to have a lasting peace.
Colin
7 years ago
Cyperfarer
Control for control sake is form of dictatorship I would rather not see in Canada. In fact the laws that the Allan Rock wanted for gun ownership mirrored the ones enacted by the Nazi’s and Stalin.
They spent between 1-2 billion dollars building a system that does not work and they have not been able to point to one incident where the registry has saved a life. Harper has promised to scrap the registry, but retain the portions of the Firearms Act that does work, which is the PAL requirement, storage and training. Those sections of the Act cost the least and have been responsible for any positive changes. Funny, Global last night used the example of the female police officer killed by the idiot in Quebec as a reason to keep the registry. To bad that he used an unregistered gun to kill her, I hope see didn’t rely on the registry to tell them it was safe.
If you want to save lives require all vehicles to have programmable speed governors and limit them to the max speed limit. At least then you could actually get some value for our money.
Rob
While the Russian icebreakers are good, they are not state of the art, actually the best icebreakers are built in Finland, who builds them Russia. The nuke breakers are nearing the end of their life and it is unclear if they will replace them. One of the problem of a nuke reactor is that free electrons/neutrons impact the metals around the reactor and knock off electrons, weakening the metal and causing failures. We do not have the capacity to build our maintain a nuke powered ship, plus you will be heavily restricted to which ports it can call on, that’s what killed the Merchant ship “Savannah†that was nuke powered.
Also best is subjective, as icebreakers come in many forms, some are meant for rivers, others for shallow water and some for heavy ice. To be honest I don’t know if the ability to build a major icebreaker still exists in Canada, the rebuild of the Louis St Laurent was over $250 million and suffered from some major technical errors. Likely the hull would be built overseas with finishing work here.
You are quite correct that a physical presence is required, otherwise we are condemned to hurling nasty letters at other countries and whining.
I have no problem with working with the Russians, but Putin will do what he pleases and their Northern environmental record is pretty bad. Mind you Canada should pursue some sort of Northern economic association in order to have some influence. Russian Far east ports will start opening also and Europe will be closer over the top.
Steve P.
You twigged my memory and looked it up. We got screwed by the yanks and the brits
http://hawk.fab2.albany.edu/fraid/fraid.htm
Also found this cool site (not dial up friendly)
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution/1912/1
cyberfarer
7 years ago
"Control for control sake is form of dictatorship"
If your aim is to control people rather than deadly weapons.
"They spent between 1-2 billion dollars building a system that does not work and they have not been able to point to one incident where the registry has saved a life."
I imagine we spend quite a few billions on the criminal justice system and prisons and yet no one can point to a single life being saved as a result of murder carrying a life sentence. Would you propose, then, we dismantle our criminal justice system because it is costly and has failed?
Eddy Haskel
7 years ago
Colin... I wasn't around in the 1930s so I don't know what those guys sounded like. If we are to evolve any further we will need to remove the entities that will cause our extinction. The military is such an entity. Of course, it's all prophesized in the Bible that we will all go to war so a military fits right in there for those who wish the bible to be true.
Colin
7 years ago
Cyberfarer
Guess what, they are lots of cases where someone who has a series of assaults, rapes and even murder/manslaughter have been given early parole and then gone out and killed, maimed someone and since statistically most of the crimes are done by a small percentage of the criminal population locking that group of people up longer will prevent crime.
You are correct that if you throw enough money at something, no matter how inefficient it will finally produce some sort of semi-favourable result. The problem lies in that if the saving of life is your primary goal, then this is a highly inefficient way of doing so. There is no real evidence that supports the registry, gun crimes where falling long before it was introduced. Proponent like to argue that suicide by gun is down, what they don’t tell you is that suicide numbers have not really changed, just the methodology.
So ask yourself do you want the to save lives or create paper trails for firearms?
If you are uncomfortable with firearms ask yourself why? The chances of being killed by a firearm in Canada is less than .0050 per 1,000 people and that number drops further if you are not involved in a criminal activity.
You are far more likely to be killed by someone driving over the speed limit or by a kid driving the car to fast, so why don’t you want the money to be spent there?
I have never seen a “dangerous gun†Do the suddenly jump off the table and start shooting people on their own? Do the bullets just creep out of their boxes into the chamber?
By the way “deadly weapon†can be anything used to cause death, including cars, baseball bats and knives. All of these are responsible for the majority of deaths in Canada.
Eddy
Since I am actually Muslim I guess I should be checking the Koran, oh wait it tells me that since you are a unbeliever (unless you are a magician) I can let you live if you pay me a tax, talk about being progressive!
nightbloom
7 years ago
No - Competent and effective national militaries are necessary for the survival of any liberal democracy. They're a deterrent to external threats, a means of responding to incursions from outside, to challenges to our sovereignty and self-determination, and the last line of defence against internal breakdown in civil society as a result of unrest or disaster. The national military is also one of the few coins we have with which to buy our way in the international system.
It's a little silly to talk of the "military industrial complex" in reference to the Canadian military. Sure, the procurement system is the focus of industry lobbyists, sure it's not infrequently used as a vehicle for patronage, sure it must be monitored to safeguard against undue influence and unethical practices/conduct. But the Canadian military is pretty on-the-level. We can't complain. As for the arms lobby, the only thing that separates them from other nefarious consortiums (like the mulitinational pharmaceuticals) is the nature of their product. You think Glaxo-Welcome is any better for trying to make African governments pay through the nose for their anti-HIV medication? It's the nature of the beast.
Colin
7 years ago
"military industrial complex" in Canada that means Tim Hortons. Not to mention the 10 guys working in the shop in the praires that just got the sniper rifle contract. GM Dyanmics and Avro was the closest thing we had to the MIC, but we sold them off.
nightbloom
7 years ago
Good point.
And they really are cash-strapped. When I was in the military we were using old kit, and frequently went to military surplus stores to buy American kit (newer, sturdier and longer-lasting). Who thought of using plastic magazines for the C-7, which shatter & jam in sub-zero temperatures? The only thing we had over the Americans was that our winter kit was actually warm.
I think the situation has improved somewhat since that time, as the "Clothe the Soldier" project was a success, and the issue of kit deficiencies was widely recognized by planners.
The brain
7 years ago
Colin:
Just a tid bit of information I picked up recently. The Fed government was defrauded of 160 million bucks worth of national defence computer spending in 2003 - 04 by 3 civil servants, when Compaq merged with HP, with a story on it on cbc.ca a few days back. Compaq is cutting a cheque back to the government for 159 mil. This spending could have been a part of the 750 million spent on a computer system for the gun registry. So far, I'm not clear on it. Do you know anything about it yourself?
I did, by the way, appreciate your posts on icebreakers. They were quite informative and as usual, your expertise in this area enlightens this thread tremendously, as spending questions do need to be asked. We've got the money and the motive. Regardless of political posturing, the ice is melting. The big question is on how smartly we invest on opportunities created by the retreat of our artic ice pack. It appears as though you are ahead of all of us on this one.
jsinger & puppyg:
I'm in total agreement with you both. While it is interesting to speculate what Martin would have said or didn't say under the same circumstances, it is clear to me that these comments coming so soon after the election are quite scripted.
Nevertheless, the ice is melting, an international shipping lane is opening up, and Canadians need to be ready for it. The timing of Harper's announcement as Coyote has pointed out, is just his NCC presidential US bootlicking ways of saying that the US has requested Canadian funded and maintained icebreakers for ships from several nations to cross in the summers and he'll sell it to Canadians as defending soverignty. Sad part is, the majority of us will likely buy the patriotic spin over US control of their latest puppet plant.
Its all about getting the head to nod. We nod our heads in agreement that we need icebreakers and that global warming, as negative as it is, creates new trade routes and we need to be there for it, so we nod our heads. And, while were at it, build a couple bases and defend our North for the goood of Canada, we've got some bucks, why not spend a little, and we nod our heads. And, why not get some missle defence in there for those nuclear subs that could show up from the North and we nod our heads. And, since some of these shipping lanes are international lanes, does Canada really own this territory? Well, Alaska has ocean rights too, and we nod our heads. And, this goes on and on, and the end result is our nodding our heads at the slow disinigration of our countries ability to say "NO. We are our own nation, and we will exercise the right to make our own decisions that will benefit Canadians and the world!"
Instead, we'll have head nodders saying "there was nothing that we could do to prevent it." And we'll nod our heads.
I like Rob's comments on this thread. He's ahead of us in terms of what Canadians can do to toughen our claim to the North before the U.S. empire shemes to take it all over time.
Colin
7 years ago
Brain
Thank you, I to read about this fraud. I can’t answer your question about whether it is connected or not, but I may know where to get an answer. My new department wants to replace my Dell with a MIND computer. We had these pieces of crap during the Y2K fraud, oops I mean crisis. Almost all of them failed in a year and a number went up in smoke and few in flames.
One the biggest problems I see with government contracting is that the contracts are badly written and nobody is willing to go after a less than scrupulous supplier. Crown Assets was a another problem, but I hear they have been cleaned up for awhile.
I think this thread is the closest that the whole group of regular posters have come to agreeing on anything, quite amazing.
Coyote
7 years ago
I'm following with much interest these changes in the command structure currently going on within the Canadian Military-, all of a sudden being dropped/announced in full bloom, coinciding with the installation of the Harpo government. (A little odd in itself, both the suddeness and completeness, at first blush. I smell the Calgary (US) School all over this one.)
I suggest those unintimidate by the subject follow what is breaking here closely, in this rather radical restructuring of the Canadian Forces.
My early reaction, and just my early reaction, mind, is first in the creation of a distinction between the "home defence" command structure, wherein every second verbal characterization genuflects to "integration" and "cooperation" with the US dominated CENTCOM, US Homeland Defence, and other US dominant-Canada submissive "joint command" and "continental defence" elements, for one.
Second is this intriguing "Expeditionary Command" distinction to oversee the deployment of Canadian troops abroad, in the current US Empire dominant world, however much showing signs of coming unglued, meaning presumably, I would venture, "To areas of service to the Empire" as currently and future needed. (Having no Empire interests abroad ourselves.) And I'm specifically thinking here, currently of Afghanistan, with future need, say of not totally implausible likelihood or possibility, Iran-, or wherever Amerika sends us.)
In short, what is now occurring is the most significant reorganization of Canadian Military Forces, certainly since the end of the Cold War. And, like I say, strangely coincidental and in synch with the arrival of the neocon Conservatives to the Federal governance benches. And from the language and structure of what is early appearing, these are NOT changes, contrary to the appearance of new Canadian icebreaker patrol ships into the high Arctic, specifically directed towards our own "national security" or measure to strengthen the "independent" and specically "Canadian national interest", but more the "anti-terrorism" and "homeland" defence interests and needs of US imperialism, in which it is presumed we too "share" their interest AND enemies. (Presumed by the neoconservative ruling class and their minions that is, and foisted onto the rest of us.)
So, as these command and operational changes are unfurled here, within the Canadian Military, I suggest we all, at least on the left, pay close and critical attention. It may well be the most clear signal yet to date, that the fascistic "Neoconization" of the "continent", into which we are being further drawn ourselves, is approaching a whole qualitatively new level.
And being under the stewardship of the Conservatives, given their statements of recent history, even though pre-election, and natural limp-wrist propensity towards bending the knee and "serving", "co-operating" and "integrating" into the PNAC ambitions of their Empire mentor, it is especially important that we pay close attention here. If they are truly about to take it up the old poop chute again, we are all doubtless destined to feel it and deal with the risk.
It's Closet Ronnie and His Pals' damned fascination with Harpo's "blue eyes" again.
Coyote
7 years ago
I thought I heard a "figure of intent" to increase the size of Canadian Forces by 14,000 today. I was distracted at the time though, and may have heard it wrong.
Anybody else here it?
Coyote
7 years ago
Which should be, "...hear it?" of course.
allan
7 years ago
[B]Yammer[/B], I don't think souverenty specifically requires human presence, but certainly if your people hunt, fish and whatever else they do out near the sea lanes it's a hell of a lot more legitimate to say this is our land than to fly in on a ski plane and plant a flag even if a Globe&Mail photog flies with you..
Maikero, I am curious what drew you to the Tyee.
Your celebration of war, obvious fear of a community-based agenda, willingness to toady to the dollar and your refusal to acknowledge the greatest crisis we have ever faced (man-made), suggests a mindset overwhelmed by the realities that seep in every so often.
Is there a Soldier of Fortune website or something more ventilating for you?
Lynn, I share your amazement in Gordo's conversion. Three years ago he held the most racist of referendums on First Nations rights and now he loves them all.
Lynn when Gordo got picked up in Hawaai for swerving all over the highway in a drunken stuppor, was he by any chance on the road to Damascus?
Elliot
7 years ago
excellent article. one thing we know for sure is that the liberals would never increase our military strength. not cool to the toronto intelligentsia. could you imagine the response from adrienne 'i'm adrienne clarkson, and you're not' clarkson and her phony pretentious fake intellectual husband?
TimL
7 years ago
In response to Byers, unkari writes:
"Get a grip! Smuggling drugs, guns, illegals in through the northern approaches? Ten months of near darkness, fifty below, winds of >100kmh for weeks on end. Just the right conditions for nefarious activity. Ha. Our best defence in winter."
Two words for you unkari: snow pants.
Besides the massive arsenals of nuclear weapons states (states who frown upon "first strikes" as though the 2nd through Nth strikes wouldn't be rough), nuclear terrorism is slowly but surely becoming more realistic. The Russian north is littered with all sorts of nuclear crap.
With the arctic opening up, one new "opportunity" Canada can look forward to will be to facilitate the trade in nuclear waste and worse. See the current trade routes here:
nci.org/nci-wm-sea.htm
Here's some news from 2001, that foreshadows what's to come:
"Russian marine experts have claimed that the 'Northern Sea Route' - the passage through northern Arctic coastal waters from Europe to the Pacific - is safer than using international non-Russian shipping routes. A report for the Russian Maritime Register says the likelihood of a vessel being lost was 10 times lower in Arctic waters compared to international waters. The report was produced in response to a proposal, which has apparently been under discussion for a year, for shipments of nuclear waste and plutonium fuel from Europe to Japan along the Russian Arctic coast."
n-base.org.uk/public/latest_links/latest2/stories/feb1_2001.html
Norway's response (2001):
"The Norwegian government is proposing to extend its territorial limits by eight nautical miles because of concerns over a proposal to ship nuclear waste to Russia and between Europe and Japan using the northern Arctic route. The new Russian law which allows the importing of thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste and spent fuel, approved by President Putin earlier this month, has added to the concerns over the proposal to use the northern Arctic route for shipments of spent fuel and high-level wastes to and from Europe and Japan."
http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/pdf/genmoxbrief.pdf
Japan (2001):
"It has recently been disclosed that the Japanese nuclear industry is investigating a new route via the Arctic Ocean north of Russia... Japanese officials have admitted that this route is being investigated because of the growing world wide opposition to the existing routes."
Many countries have lamented the "democratic deficit" that exists with regard to international disarmament matters (parliamentarians are hardly involved, not to even get started about citizens). Yet talk on climate change is thriving. The nuclear industry is riding this tide. Bush almost included Plutonium Reprocessing in his throne speech, but for some details. (planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34743/story.htm)
Let's see if Harper's climate change plan will follow suit – perhaps nuclear powered oil sands extraction? Then we'll HAVE to excort shipments through the arctic cuz Canadians are team players.
Colin
7 years ago
Coyote
These changes were formulated under the Liberal leadership and no doubt timed to give a platform for the new Liberal government that was supposed to be in place. Even the Liberals have now realized that they sucked the military dry and then defence minister Bill Graham was actually getting good marks from the rank and file for starting the rebuilding and getting some new equipment. The CPC is benefiting from this work which likely took 5 years+ to get to this point, in fact Hiller is actually concerned that the CPC will introduce new priorities that would upset the current timetable.
There is a plan to increase the forces by 14,000. It has become apparent that at current levels that we are incapable of sustaining a force such as the one in Afghanistan for any length of time and that more troops are needed.
Although it has been good that we bought new vehicles for the guys in Afghanistan, buying penny pockets of equipment costs far more than buying a sufficient number to equip both the people here in Canada and overseas, which reduces training times and ensures enough spare parts.
Colin
7 years ago
I did like the generals response when asked why he did not increase the military by 8,000 as promised by the Liberals, he replied: “they never gave me the money†He also commented on the ad, calling it an insult. I am sure he was glad to see the back of the Liberals.
Coyote
7 years ago
Colin,
Unless we and the world can find some other way of getting The Empire off our backs and out of our home yards, bullying themselves into and ripping off all our stuff out of our sandboxes, you and I share an agreement on the need to grow the Canadian Military. Which is where our agreement ends however, the character of everything changes, and is the cleavage line between the right and left in this country, on this subject, in my view.
You, the Liberal and Conservative governments... (As near as I can determine, the NDP and Greens not so, at least in their policy statements.) ...adopt the classic chickenshit reaction to the bully in the yard, where in the absence of a Mommy or Daddy to come to your rescue, not only suck up to the bully, but invite him in to play with your favourite toys, and, "Yeah, if you want. You can have that, that and that. Yeah, that too if ya want. Here, I'll carry it over to your yard for you."
And then when he wants to go over to the yard a block or two down, and pressures you to come along and help him kick some other poor kids azz and rip off his stuff, you get your brothers and sister together to go off and help him-, rather than build up your defences in your own yard, and gather up your own friends and family who have likewise all been victims of this same bully. You're just overwhelmed by the prospects or even the thought that you may have to take this azzhole on, let alone consider there might actually be a way to do so-, had y'all the guts and the will.
And that's more of what we have evolving here in our Canadian homeyard military policy-, in which not only are we going to the expense and bother improving our ability to follow this motherf...... in his regular rampages throughout the neighbourhood (our known world), but we're agreed to stand down anytime he wants to come into our yard, to defacate and urinate his scent around it as he pleases, and take whatever he wants of our stuff.
Continued next post...
Coyote
7 years ago
From previous post...
Now that's essentially what we have evolving here in our military policy relationship with The Empire. It's a course we have been on too long already, such that he is slowly (?) cleaning out our yard of "our stuff", and beginning to eye elsewhere like the garage and other places where we may have other stuff stashed. (Think the high Arctic.) It's a military plan for chickenshits, who are scared so yellow they have never even actally sat down to develop a strategic plan to deal with the Bully Power and keep him out of our yard and away from "our stuff" in the first place. We are continuing to surrender ourselves ever more fully to The Bully's diktats.
This period is approaching a place where we can seriously begin to actually consider changing our kizz-ass situation. The Bully is increasingly getting bogged down in other kids yards, where they have been getting themselves together to defend themselves, and they're actually kicking bully ass. The Bully is starting to look a little more and more bruised and battered all the time, and getting a pretty haunted, thousand yard stare look in his own eyes, like he can maybe even see his own imminent defeat coming at him. His old swagger is looking just a little more cautious.
Time for this country, its citizens and the left to hunker down, get serious and start to move, and take this issue up instead of running away from it. (The day The Empire goes down, and comes hustling its azz out of Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, is the day these neoconservatives suddenly lose all credibility. They's toast.)
It's the classic cleavage line between right and left Colin. We look at the same phenomenon, have a similar read of what has to be done and is occcurring there, but serving quite different ends and masters-, everthing is diametrically opposed and made enemies between us. We have everything and nothing in common.
Get Our Troops Out of Afghanistan and Our Fleet Out of The Gulf. End Support for US Imperialism. Defend Our Own Nation From The Empire. (Is about it in a nutshell.)
Frank
7 years ago
I want to see the military beefed up too. Force levels similar to 1967, and a large increase in reserves. Bases reactivated and where a domestic deployment due to an ice-storm doesn't stretch the army.
But DND is a sinkhole for cash. The amount of money spent on the military compared to what we get back at the pointy end makes Indian Affairs look efficient.
Spend the money, but put it into actual Cdn defence, not useless tag-along expeditions to the Silk Road where all we get back is kids losing their dads while a lot of people rub their chins and say its the price of freedom.
Coyote
7 years ago
Colin is clearly not a totally stupid man. But that he can't get the "simple" national interest realities around this issue just boggles me. The only issue that I can make out it has to be, given his other intuitive enough grasp of many things, is the social class view from which he looks at the problem. He either chooses to do so from a working class "wannabe" position, a common enough "envy" phenomena amongst some working class strata, or he is from a more privileged social class strata that actually profits/benefits, or feels it does, from the "colonial" character nature of the nation's relationship with US imperialism.
It's really not that complicated, but a simple matter of where and how you perceive your interests, and the Master you choose to serve or not. Colin is rooted in the status quo, for whatever background or intellectual reasons-, the servant role of the Canadian nation to The Empire.
In another time and place, and of a different skin colour perhaps, he would be known by his own kind as, an Uncle Tom-, happily serving his Masah.
maikeru
7 years ago
You're just plain nuts, imho.
maikeru
7 years ago
Frank re:
I want to see the military beefed up too. Force levels similar to 1967, and a large increase in reserves. Bases reactivated and where a domestic deployment due to an ice-storm doesn't stretch the army.
But DND is a sinkhole for cash. The amount of money spent on the military compared to what we get back at the pointy end makes Indian Affairs look efficient.
You're quite right there - the military is a cash sinkhole. It has to be run as efficiently as possible, and therefore needs to attract bright minds and proud people.
There is a sea-change underway, so to speak, and the return of the Canadian Airborne Regiment to their proper place of respect cannot come soon enough.
Coyote
7 years ago
Which is a total crock too. It's going to take more than X more troops, a return of the discredited "swastika" mentality types of the Airborne (and we need a small commando level/integrated airborne for home defence), and some more heavy armour suited to the kind of "foreign" wars of Empire tha US Imperialism seeks to sucker us into, so that we can die for them and in their place, friendly fire or otherwise. This is just a somewhat quanitatively ramped up same old, same old.
The sea change comes when there is a complete change in our military direction, reflecting the changed needs that arise out of a strategic change in political and economic direction-, when we tell The Empire to fight its own enemies and wars, on its own and without us wiping their asses or running interference for them. And then we take the steps and prepare the way for the rapid creation of quite a different kind of combat force and backup ready reserves, the entire population armed, geared to dealing with our greatest threat, much closer to home.
Which true enough, makes sense only if we are embarked upon a course of husbanding and securing our own natural resources, and the degree to which we do use them, to build up and run them through our own industries for processing , primary and secondary manufacturing-, to meet our own needs. Amerika is over developed and over populated and driven by an economic and ruling class system that eats its own babies in a never ending greed cycle of endless growth and consumption, and we cannot, nor should not attempt to supply them with everything they are demanding from us. They'll suck us dry too in relatively short order, as they are their own home resource base.
Once that becomes the national and social objective of our nation, then we instantly have real need of and can begin to talk seriously about a "sea change" in strategic military direction and policy to secure it.
Until then, it's all just so much more vacuous neocon hot air-, smokescreen talk to hide the fact of their and the military's betrayal of the nation and the real national interest.
Coyote
7 years ago
Mind you, that said above in my last paragraph, theoretically at least, the military merely does as it's told by the civilian/political leadership. So fundamentally, the problem with the strategical direction of our military, and that its officer corp is much integrated and subject to the US military command system, such as there is legitimately much question about whom it serves and to whom it is beholden, is the fault with the civilian/political leadership.
It also makes available to the US military leadership and command structure, intimate knowledge of the nation's state of readiness, strategic and tactical assumptions and capabilities; a dangerous advantage that befalls to our most likely potential enemy, given the historical record and current practical realities.
The brain
7 years ago
Coyote:
You continue to remind us how high the stakes really are. The US will at some point eye up this country in its entirety within this century, I think, and they've had sucesss already considering the fact that they already own quite a bit of us. U.S. corporate ownership of this country is the new battleground. Why go through the expense of building a military with money, when enough money can buy you a country?
To think that we could stand a chance at defending our borders... Occupation would be a hard thing for any country to do in Canada considering the size of this country... but as we know, we don't have much of a military to begin with and what we do have, the U.S. knows everything about.
It is far easier to get rid of the Canadian identity, like the CBC and media hallmarks that can remind us Canadians of who we really are. Easier to control the media, easier to buy our resources through the markets, easier to set the trade rules and control our economy through union busting, privatization, changes in the law, division of provinces, things like that through traitors like Harper, then it is to roll the tanks. Its easier and its cheaper.
In 2003, the U.S. Empire consumed 1.540 billion tonnes of oil. In the same year, the U.S. empire produced 1.7118 billion tonnes of oil. A quarter of this oil was produced in the States. The rest of the oil produced was from other countries that the U.S. declared corporate income from producing. It was countries like Canada, Mexico, Africa, and until recently, all of South America including Brasil.
The big questions is... how much time is the empire willing to give to take us over from the inside? Are Canadians dumb enough to allow it to happen? And if we aren't dumb enough... what are our alternatives?
Shifts in military thinking from support for empirical causes to defending our nation from such causes, are the actual effect of Canadians realizing the need to defend our borders in all respects, from the media and markets, to laws and environmental concerns that keep our countries identity distinct in its own right, a country that has the balls to stand up for the citizens that make this country what it is.
Unfortunately, to do this, Canadians have to have their shit together, and we don't. Look at the NEP program and why it failed. It took more than the Harpers National Citizens Coalition to break it. The entire program created East West conflict, as the West was under the brainwashed propaganda of the US oil companies backing organizations like the NCC back then, and the West wasn't in the position to buy their resouces. The whole thing was seen as an Eastern takeover for Quebec profit, and in some ways, it was. In some ways, this country would have benefited from Alberta in a way Alberta didn't like and Alberta's solution was? Listen to the NCC's propaganda instead.
In some ways, Canadians just aren't that smart. In every way, the Feds should have encouraged Alberta ownership of their own resources, and tax the profits thereof, but they didn't, and the concept of the NEP, however ideologically superior it was to todays Emperical ownership of our oil instead, was dead.
Emperical takeovers happen on many fronts. The idea is to own and control. Its high time we woke up to what the interests of the US empire really are, and what their gameplan is to accomplish it. A good look at Harpers last 20 years in politics is a treatise on how the US has tried and succeeded in controlling the very government that we trust to protect and serve our country at present.
Coyote
7 years ago
A good piece of analysis, Brain.
As you point out elsewhere in this piece, defence of the nation and resistance to "absorption" by market stealth, with the co-opting of our own economic ruling elites, taking them onboard so that their interest lie, like our current military leadership, with The Empire in deep integration, if it is to be done and successful, is going to indeed ivolve a broad strategy that reaches beyond the military aspect in and of itself. We are going to need to fight for and win outright withdrawl from NAFTA, and yes, successfully defend our public institutions such as the CBC and our public health care system from "privatizing interests", largely emanating out of the US. And we are going to have to admit, over the narrow regional interest of Alberta, that Trudeau actually got it right with the National Energy Policy and the creation of a national public policy serving Petro-Canada. And we are going to have to move to severely limit, at the very least, opportunitites for foreign ownership of all Canadian economic elements. My view is foreign ownership would be better eliminated all together. (As it stands now, the game is rigged against the Canadian national interest and in favour of US global corporate capitalist interests. There need to be major rule changes that allow for capital flight to "out of country" enterprizes in the form of profit, and other forms of money transfer.)
Indeed, all of this and more is really the greater and more important part of the struggle that has to be waged to defend the nation successfully. The military component is merely that part of it which has to be put in place to back up the authority and our right to do so, in our own national interest. It is part of the assertion mechanism that this all, on this side of the 49th is ours.(And over extended history, I understand that Canadians and US citizens are destined to be close and cooperative. We should want friendly, not a submissive relationship with them. But what has to change before such can truly flourish is this current aggressive and demanding relationship on their part, and their expectation that we are here merely for their benefit and Empire purpose.)
Colin
7 years ago
It also makes available to the US military leadership and command structure, intimate knowledge of the nation's state of readiness, strategic and tactical assumptions and capabilities; a dangerous advantage that befalls to our most likely potential enemy, given the historical record and current practical realities.
Coyote
There are two reasons way we have such close ties with the US. One was WWII and into the cold war, our common survival was at stake and it made sense to work together. In fact up to WWII the US was eyed with a certain amount of suspicion by our military and the British. The cooperation in NORAD and with the US navy was a way for Canada to contribute to the defense of North America and fulfill it’s NATO obligations.
The other reason was that Canadians are to cheap to want to pay for our protection and despite the whining about the US, have been happy to let the US pay the bills. Sovereignty is expensive, Canadians are cheap, you do the math.
Regarding your comment about the Nazi’s in the Airborne, it was common knowledge that the Airborne was messed up and not ready for a oversea deployment. Part of the problem lay in the constant rotation of Commanding Officers on their way to becoming Generals, they all swept problems under the carpet. The airborne became the dumping ground for problem cases for the army. By the time the Airborne was disbanded, the current CO had cleaned house and had the regiment back on it’s feet again. I can tell you all most every soldier I knew back then was disgusted with what happened. I was proud of the doctor that reported the incident. The good news is the army has learned from the incident and hopefully will not be repeated.
As for gaining intelligence, all the US would have to do is buy a few Military Information magazines, Jane’s defense series and some roadmaps. the biggest obstacle would be the presence of a heavily armed British tank regtiment in Suffield, Alberta
gman
7 years ago
There is a very economical way of increasing Canada's security against an eventual fulfillment of America's "Manifest Destiny", (One Continent, One Flag-American), which to date has never been revoked by them and that is a Canada with sole control of tactical/mobile nuclear weapons on it's soil.
Canada must begin to accept the very real threat to their sovereignty from the U.S. beyond a passive economical and cultural assimilation. The current political landscape in the U.S. insists that Canadian soverignty in the Artic is no longer a given and past agreements just like as in softwood lumber can be renegotiated when it suits them. America is now saying that the purchase of water from the great lakes should be a negotiable commodity by Canada
I've lived in the U.S. for the past seven years and trust me the political and social psyche here now is, sell it to me or I'l take it and if Canadians don't see that, then just try turning off the electrical power grid down the Eastern corridor. America is squandering it's resources at alarming rates and I sense it as a desperate society with no sense of self-control.
Nuke's have been and will continue to be too those nations that have them, a political leverage and the one thing feared/respected most by the States, is nuclear nations. Canada has valid security reasons for possessing nuclear weapons with long range delivery systems, vis-a-vis North Korea, but I'm betting the biggest pay-off would be a greater respect of Canadian soverignty south of the border...Who knows, Americans might even learn where Canada is on the map. :((