<strong>Written By:</strong> Chris Harder
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-11-03 16:12:00
<a href="/article/141238312-the-true-north-strong-and-free">Article Link</a>

What appears to be at stake is Canada’s ability to oversee entry into these waters. This would give Canada the ability to refuse entry to vessels that don’t conform to certain environmental and construction standards – which is vital to the protection of the Arctic’s fragile ecosystem, where pollution or fuel spills could cause severe and long-lasting damage.

Because predictive climate models show the Arctic becoming entirely free of summer ice between 2050 and 2100, there currently exists a renewed urgency to establish unequivocal Canadian sovereignty in the region, and an equal urgency has been observed in the U.S. to dissolve any recognition of this sovereignty.

While the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, says that it would be a security risk to the U.S. if they did not support Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, the U.S. official line is that they intend to use the strait for international navigation, regardless of Canadian consent.

According to Cellucci, keeping the Northwest Passage open to international travel would jeopardize the continental security of the U.S. by allowing hostile countries, and countries with unsafe shipping practices, access to these waters. On this point the former ambassador diverges with his replacement, David Wilkins, who argues that “the Northwest Passage is a strait for international navigation and that’s been our position and continues to be our position.”

Legally territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles (22.2 kilometres) from land masses – such as the islands that make up the Arctic Archipelago. Canada has a legal case for its control over these islands, as the Arctic peoples, the Inuit, provide one of the primary qualifications for ownership of a land – habitation. The contention, however, is that the waters of the Arctic strait, which are more than 96.6 kilometres wide in some locations, do not fall under Canadian jurisdiction because they are not considered territorial waters.

Even if the U.S. recognized Canadian sovereignty of the Arctic, they would still be legally allowed nautical travel through the area – including territorial waters – as would other foreign ships (both military and civilian).

However, many Canadians believe that the U.S. does not want Canada to have sole access to the mineral and petroleum resources purported to exist under the thinning arctic ice. This is a vital point – one which underlines an often overlooked aspect of the Arctic disputes.

Story Link (with Hyperlinks): <a href="http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2699/The_True_North_Strong_and_Free">http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2699/The_True_North_Strong_and_Free</a>

   

Regardless their excuse, the Americans can and will take what they want. We have Harper to protect us.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

   

<blockquote> predictive climate models show the Arctic becoming entirely free of summer ice between 2050 </blockquote>Won't much matter then, will it? By 2050, we are supposed to run out of food...............<p>---<br>"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

   

I have yet to hear anyone in the media ever mention a point that must be in the back of all of our minds: namely, that Canada isn't too concerned about climate change because we stand to BENEFIT from it - an open Northwest Passage, a longer growing season, more pleasant winters, more immigration ...

If this idea were to be openly articulated, it would soon melt away along with the Arctic glaciers. Would we really benefit from a world in which much of the South has become arid and uninhabitable? In which there is massive death, dislocation, and environmental migration? If Canada were to become a highly desirable and fertile region, it would be swamped with refugees. And it would long since have been annexed anyway by a USA desperate for water.

Yeah, I think we need to be concerned about climate change. But have any of our politicians thought through a scenario like the above? Or are they operating on the unspoken assumption that warmer weather would be nice after all, so what me worry?

   

"Canada isn't too concerned about climate change because we stand to BENEFIT from it - an open Northwest Passage, a longer growing season, more pleasant winters, more immigration"
Anyone who thinks that Canada will benefit from it has their head in the sand.
I'm not assuming that's your point of view, I'm just saying...
Agriculture on the prairies is already stressed due to drought and it will likely get worse. If you've ever been to the North, you'll know that it will not become the next bread basket. It is nothing but muskeg up there and there are very few all-weather roads. Ice roads are the preferred method of transport up there and the milder winters have already shortened the transportation season for industry substantially. I was in camp south of Norman Wells last winter and we were seeing temps of +4 degrees and for an extended period of time. Weeks!
Then there's the threat of extreme weather. The frequency, severity and latitude of hurricanes is changing. They are hitting the E. coast of N.A. further north and if the trend continues, the East coast of Canada will see more and more and stronger storms even if they are only the "tail ends" of hurricanes. Then there's the water shortages in BC. The glaciers are melting and the winter snowpacks are way down, so the valleys run low on water before any significant rain fall comes, etc, etc. Then there is the NW Passage and that being open for shipping will not be a good thing for a weak nation.
No it won't be good for Canada.


---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

   

We could always grow hemp. Look at the problem the troops are having in Afghanistan..............<br />
<a href="http://www.hempnation.com/">http://www.hempnation.com/</a><p>---<br>"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."