Harper defends Arctic sovereignty

Written By: jensonj
Date: 2006-01-27 12:20:00
<a href="/article/72009563-harper-defends-arctic-sovereignty">Article Link</a>

The issue of jurisdiction over the frozen archipelago and iceberg-cluttered waterways is clearly heating up in Ottawa and Washington.

An expert in Arctic defence and sovereignty predicted that the issue will become a sore point in relations between the Bush administration and the newly elected Harper government - which had campaigned in part on a warmer rapport with Washington.

"The sovereignty of the Northwest Passage is a red button issue for Canadian political leaders and for the Canadian public," said Rob Heubert of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

<a href="http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/01/26/pf-1412977.html">http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/01/26/pf-1412977.html</a>

[Editor's note: For more detail on the disagreement and both sides of the story, see: <a href="https://www.westga.edu/~canconf/Charron.htm">https://www.westga.edu/~canconf/Charron.htm</a> submitted by Brother Johnathan a couple weeks ago. A very informative link!! Dr C]

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on January 29, 2006]

Harper is absolutely right. Imagine if the Northwest Passage is in the US waters, will the Americans tolerate other countries' ships passing it freely?

I for one was astonished that Harper stood his ground with the Americans. Could I have been mistaken about him? Typical attitude of the American, to suggest Canadas sovereignty is unimportant and the Americans choose to ignore Canadian boundries. Perhaps the USA is telling Martin to get on line with the missile defence or they'll set up a perimeter themselves.

Ouch, it is painful to say but " Bravo! Mr. Harper"

Sure, sounds good, but I don`t believe him. I think Harper is trying to build for a majority in 18 months. Besides, what does Canadian sovereignty really mean in an integrated North America? Harper has been cautious to conceal his true colours- for the moment.

---
Dave Ruston

Harper defends Arctic sovereignty. <a href="http://barkingmadly.blogspot.com/2006/01/yer-daily-paranoia.html">Again?</a> <a href="http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/01/arctic-controversy-rovian-maneouvre.html">CAVEAT EMPTOR!</A> The conclusion of the author linked to above is: This has been a classic Rovian maneuver. I smell more than a rat in all this; I smell a very rotten red herring. We’re being had.

I'll repeat it here since it relates to the article:

This pseudo claim that Harper wants to beef-up the Arctic is really a setup for a future conflict between Canada and the USA to give them a reason to invade us. Harper is pro-American. It is known. It has been published. He has not changed. You will see an international "incident" in the Artic sometime before the next elections (US and Canadian). That will trigger everything or push towards the control of our army by the US Army. Are we too stupid to not see him through?

My two cents sez...
We maynot have the "Play-Book" we expect the play
for the reasons stated.
The question now is...what,if anythinng can be done to preventit?

---
"There is no reason good can't triumph over evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the mafia."
Kurt Vonnegut

I agree with the posters above, it smells bad! Could this be to diffuse any doubts that he will stand for Canada, disarm those that think he will not....and cause a little fight, then concede something to show us how diplomatic he can be???? Oh no I don't like the looks of this one, I think this new gov will require very close watching, just as the Liberals did, not all will go on in Parliament and actually the most important issues probably will not...if we want democracy in Canada the people will have to get involved...this is going to take work by all Canadians.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Canadian Arctic sovereignity has been an established fact for about 62 years, proven by the voyages of the government owned and manned ship, the St.Roch.

There were no official protests against that claim either before, or at the time, either by the USA, or any other country. This sets the legal precedents, even by American standards, based on their own constitutional claim for "property rights", now planned for Canada by Harper. Whatever that idiocy is supposed to mean.

There are no such claims against Canadian sovereignity by any other country, which shows that the US claim is a simple power grab.

Russia doesn't quite have the same conglomeration of arctic islands as Canada, but the geographical locations and sovereignity claims are the same.

I haven't heard the US claiming international status over the waters North of Russia, so why against Canada?

"Defending" those waters with Canadian military is nothing but a bad joke and propaganda for more spending.

Mr.Harper is a would be quisling and has the well established and open papertrail to prove it.

Ed Deak.

Regardless of all of the suspicions above, the fact of the matter is unless Canada can defend our Artic waters no one will respect our border claims there. Given the fact that there is thought to be energy resources there and that this may in fact become a viable trade route in the future, it sounds like a good investment for Canada to make presently. Quite unlikely that Canada would actually be able to stop the Americans from sailing the subs under the ice even if we had the sub capability to monitor and follow them but our presence there would at least better establish our claim.

We count on you Catherine and CAP to keep an eye (and the good one) on Harper and his party. And as you know very well, it is not what is going on in Ottawa that needs to be looked at, my guess is that the real power is in Alberta. Keep an eye on those corporates and all the (ex) Alliance/Reform members.

Agreed. If we can't even be present in a place, how are we to claim sovereignty over it? We don't even have a helicopter north of 60. But I suppose anything that Harper does will either be seen as a sign of his evil friendship with Bush/Alberta corporations, or evidence of a conspiracy (i.e. a specifically staged event to support the secret agenda). Either way the result is the same. Harper is "scaaaaary". lol.

As for secret US sub missions being used as the basis for claim, I am not too concerned. I agree it would be helpful to monitor, but for other reasons. Soviets also patrolled our arctic during the cold war. Apparently NAZI u-boats were in Halifax harbour - they even had a massive underwater gate to prevent such activities. But I would doubt the credibility of any German claim over Point Pleasant Park, because they slipped one past the goalie. In fact I would be interested to see any evidence of a country claiming sovereignty of a land mass or waterway because of classified military missions carried out at some time in the past.

Hey - truth or fiction, important or not. I applaude anyone and everyone that takes the time to challenge Wilkins. Ambassador Wilkins does a very good job making Paul Cellucci seem like a reasonable and intellegent person.