Vanishing ice risks Canadian sovereignty

Vanishing ice puts Canadian sovereignty in the far north at serious risk
Oct. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM
MICHAEL BYERS

"Where has all the ice gone?" Joe Immaroitok asked me on Tuesday. "It never used to be like this."

The 43 year-old member of the hamlet council of Igloolik, Nunavut, was staring at Foxe Basin. A shallow expanse of ocean the size of Lake Superior, the Basin usually freezes over by early October, enabling Inuit hunters to travel across to Baffin Island in pursuit of caribou. On Monday, I'd sailed through Bellot Strait on board the Amundsen, Canada's research icebreaker. We were 2,500 kilometres north of Winnipeg and there was absolutely no ice.

The next morning, we passed through Fury and Hecla Straits. All we saw were some chunks of "multiyear ice" — ice that has survived at least one melt season — that had floated down from higher latitudes and were easily avoided. The scientists on board the Amundsen are acutely aware of climate change, which is having a profound effect on the ecosystems they study. They're disturbed by the near absence of sea-ice because it suggests the changes are accelerating. Even the disappearing ice constitutes a "feedback loop," because the water it exposes absorbs more solar energy than ice, and the warming water then melts more ice, and so on.

The disappearing ice also has consequences for sovereignty.

The straits we crossed constitute choke points in the Northwest Passage. There has almost always been ice in them, even in summer, and it was the ice, in combination with strong currents and relatively narrow channels, that kept foreign vessels away. With the ice gone, the other hazards pose less of a problem, so that an experienced sailor could now take a large tanker through. The Canadian government is aware of this. The briefing book given to Gordon O'Connor when he became defence minister states: "If the current rate of ice thinning continues, the Northwest Passage could be open to more regular navigation by 2015."

A navigable Northwest Passage offers a route between Tokyo and New York that is 7,000 km shorter than the route through the Panama Canal, thus saving on time, fuel and transit fees. In the short term, uncertainties concerning the weather, availability of search and rescue, and the movement of multiyear ice will dissuade reputable shipping companies. But less reputable outfits might risk it. There are more than a few rusty tankers with Liberian flags and disgruntled creditors. International shipping in the Arctic entails serious environmental risks. An oil spill would cause catastrophic damage.

Then there are the security concerns. Ships carrying illicit cargoes could be attracted by the relative absence of a police or military presence. Smugglers, illegal migrants, even terrorist groups could regard an ice-free Arctic as an open back-door to Canada and the U.S. Canada's claim to the Northwest Passage is based upon "straight baselines" drawn between the outer headlands of our Arctic archipelago in 1986. Under international law, straits and channels within properly drawn baselines constitute internal waters subject to the full force of the coastal state's laws.

The baselines are consolidated by historic usage, including the occupation of the sea-ice by the Inuit. The United States insists the Northwest Passage is an "international strait," a waterway that connects two expanses of high seas and is used for international navigation. Although the coastal state owns the water within an international strait, it may not prevent foreign vessels from passing through.

The crux of the dispute concerns the requirement that the strait must be used for international navigation. Only two vessels have overtly transited the Northwest Passage without requesting Canada's permission: a U.S.-owned ice-strengthened supertanker in 1969 and a U.S. Coastguard icebreaker in 1985. Ottawa argues that two transits cannot create an international strait. Washington points to a judgment of the International Court of Justice, in a case concerning the Corfu Channel, which suggests that the actual volume of traffic is irrelevant.

Canadians should be concerned about the prospect of additional unauthorized transits, for they could destroy our claim. Yet Ottawa is poorly equipped to prevent this from happening. Most of Canada's military presence in the Arctic is provided by the Rangers, 1,400 part-time volunteers, many of them Inuit. The Rangers are not trained or equipped for stopping ocean-going vessels.

The Canadian Coast Guard's icebreakers are incapable of operating in the Northwest Passage in winter. And they are growing old; the largest, the Louis St. Laurent, was built in 1969.

If Canada is to control the Northwest Passage, it needs ships that can go anywhere, at any time. In November 2005, Stephen Harper promised "three new armed naval heavy ice breakers." Now, the Prime Minister is hesitating. The icebreakers were not mentioned in the budget, nor did they feature in the $17.1 billion of defence purchases announced in June.

Ideally, the new vessels would be supplied to the Coast Guard, which uses its icebreakers to clear paths for other ships, provide search and rescue, support research scientists, and help in the enforcement of fisheries, environmental, customs and criminal laws. With the addition of light armament and a few RCMP or Canadian Forces personnel, they could fulfill an enhanced security role. Harper's indecisiveness is all the more unfortunate because U.S. interests have changed.

During the Cold War, the U.S. was focused on maintaining open access for its navy, and especially its submarines. Today, Washington is more concerned about terrorists sneaking into North America, or rogue states using the oceans to transport WMD. It cannot benefit the U.S. to have foreign vessels shielded from reasonable regulations and scrutiny by maintaining that the Northwest Passage is an international strait.

Canada should propose that the U.S. recognize its claim, in return for Canada committing to provide open access for all U.S. government vessels, facilitate shipping by reputable companies, and invest in the equipment necessary to police the Northwest Passage on a year-round basis.

But with the ice disappearing, time is running out.

Le source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 1899442217

___________

What we are not given, we take. Canada would do well to get out of our way.

Piece be up on you,

W.

That map... Burned my retina's....

Take it away... before I puke...

*walks away, woozy, mumbling slurs*

Oh thats harsh Ziggy....you leave Brooks outta this....they got enough shit on thier hands as is.

Edit....and the whole Northern issue will come down to the Contenintal Shelf in which case I will say the States are royaly fucked. But don't worry much....if you want to use it we'll let you.....we'll just make you say please first. :wink:

Hmm, this explains why the Northwest Passage has been in the news.

http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... sc&start=0

I think the question comes down to, does ice count as land? I would say no since land which has benn overtaken by water is essentially lost by the mother country. That I could take a blowdryer and destroy the country bit by bit

Ice all gone heh.......

It's those ice fishermen....we should implement a catch and return policy.

Where's Brian Tobin when ya need em? PDT_Armataz_01_35

So.....

What is "Brooks?"

I am not Canadian, goddamnit! I do not know these things.

LOL....dont tell him Ziggy.

Douchebag. Brooks is a podunk craphole of 13,000 wastes of flesh and oxygen to the north west of Medicine Hat.

I have a ranch in Crawford, Texas. Texas kicks ass. Texas alone is way better than all of Canada.

Heh,

W.

And I love this map we have here....Who knew St. John's is in International Waters

.....never did like them bloody townies. :lol:

Hell the whole Avalon Peninsula is in International Waters according to that stupid map.