Progressive Tory Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 "OTTAWA — In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U.S. military "sea power" over the oil-rich Arctic on Monday, in another forceful rebuttal of Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. The White House formally released the text of a sweeping new directive on the Arctic, two years in the making, just eight days before Barack Obama is to be sworn in as the 44th U.S. president. Key elements of Bush's policy challenge the ambitious Arctic sovereignty agenda put forth by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that includes bolstering Canada's military presence and fostering economic and social development. The Bush directive reiterates that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway — a rebuttal of Canada's claim of sovereignty over what is emerging as a major global shipping route because of the shrinking polar ice cap — and it highlights the boundary dispute in the resource-rich Beaufort Sea." http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Bush+ass...9847/story.html Do we really want to take on the US over this? So much for the budding Harper/Bush friendship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Do we really want to take on the US over this? So much for the budding Harper/Bush friendship. Harper and Bush are idealogically and fiscally aligned. The believed in the same wars, same economic strategies and both believe in large deficits. But Harper does believe in Canada's sovereignty in the artic along with all other Canadian Political parties. What Bush has done, is put the ball deep in our court and then passed it over to Obama. This won't be about Bush and Harper this will be about Harper and Obama. Which could be a political bonus for a Prime Minister not warmly received in Canada. It is the kind of game that plays to Harpers strengths and gives him a bogey man south of the border and one who isn't idealogically aligned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 "OTTAWA — In his final days in power, President George W. Bush asserted U.S. military "sea power" over the oil-rich Arctic on Monday, in another forceful rebuttal of Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. I see no sign Canada is willing or able to assert any kind of sovereignty over the Arctic. I see hot air coming from Harper but not much to back it up. We have no icebreakers, and no plans to build any. So the Americans can pretty much do whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I see no sign Canada is willing or able to assert any kind of sovereignty over the Arctic. I see hot air coming from Harper but not much to back it up. We have no icebreakers, and no plans to build any. So the Americans can pretty much do whatever they want. And that is the fundamental nature of sovereignty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Harper and Bush are idealogically and fiscally aligned. The believed in the same wars, same economic strategies and both believe in large deficits. But Harper does believe in Canada's sovereignty in the artic along with all other Canadian Political parties. What Bush has done, is put the ball deep in our court and then passed it over to Obama. This won't be about Bush and Harper this will be about Harper and Obama. Which could be a political bonus for a Prime Minister not warmly received in Canada. It is the kind of game that plays to Harpers strengths and gives him a bogey man south of the border and one who isn't idealogically aligned. Plays to his strengths? His only strengths are bullying and deceipt. Neither will work here. We need diplomatic strengths, so hopefully it will be about Obama and Ignatieff. Either way, we don't have the military to fight American 'sea power', nor do we have the backing of other countries who appear to side with the U.S., to dispute our claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) I see no sign Canada is willing or able to assert any kind of sovereignty over the Arctic. I see hot air coming from Harper but not much to back it up. We have no icebreakers, and no plans to build any. So the Americans can pretty much do whatever they want. We do have ice breakers and we have a plan for a new, much larger CCG icebreaker. I think the light military icebreakers are still in the plans as well. Sure, I'd like more, but we have to be realistic. We also have some upcoming plans for new air, water, and ground surveillance, some of which have been implemented. This would inclue unmanned drones on land, air, and water, as well as a possible augment to the Aurora fleet with the new Poseidon. The rangers are being expanded and re equipped. There is a rumor that a new SAR aircraft contract will soon be signed. Some of the aircraft will be going to Yellowknife. More than anything perhaps, regulation and exploration is being expanded in the arctic. We are building a presence in the north, but things can't happen over night, especially when you're trying to work within a budget (not that this government cares about such things). The truth is, if the Americans decide to ignore the legal stuff, it doesn't really matter what we have. Edited January 13, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 We do have ice breakers and we have a plan for a new, much larger CCG icebreaker. I think the light military icebreakers are still in the plans as well. Sure, I'd like more, but we have to be realistic. We also have some upcoming plans for new air, water, and ground surveillance, some of which have been implemented. This would inclue unmanned drones on land, air, and water, as well as a possible augment to the Aurora fleet with the new Poseidon. The rangers are being expanded and re equipped. There is a rumor that a new SAR aircraft contract will soon be signed. Some of the aircraft will be going to Yellowknife. More than anything perhaps, regulation and exploration is being expanded in the arctic. We are building a presence in the north, but things can't happen over night, especially when you're trying to work within a budget (not that this government cares about such things). The truth is, if the Americans decide to ignore the legal stuff, it doesn't really matter what we have. You've put your finger on it! The operative word is 'presence'! It doesn't have to be a military presence, although that would help and could also serve dual duty with search and rescue operations. Still, it has to be a real and substantial presence before our claim could have any hope of being diplomatically recognized. We don't have to fight Uncle Sam but it would help if we had a few real ports with REAL icebreakers of more than "summer weight" in the Arctic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 We don't have to fight Uncle Sam but it would help if we had a few real ports with REAL icebreakers of more than "summer weight" in the Arctic. And, we're working towards that. I would love to see more though. The sooner they get to upgrading the Port of Churchill (the money is committed, what's taking so long?) and building the other port in the north (Iqaluit), the better off we'll be. The same goes for the contract for the 6 - 8 midsize icebreakers and the the CCG heavy icebreaker. I think that the mapping and regulation that is being pushed forward will go a long way though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) And, we're working towards that. I would love to see more though. The sooner they get to upgrading the Port of Churchill (the money is committed, what's taking so long?) and building the other port in the north (Iqaluit), the better off we'll be. The same goes for the contract for the 6 - 8 midsize icebreakers and the the CCG heavy icebreaker. I think that the mapping and regulation that is being pushed forward will go a long way though. What's interesting is that when you read the same press release from Washington, we are given a different take. They don't even mention Canada as an obstacle. "President George W. Bush on Monday issued a directive spelling out the U.S. interest in the vast oil and natural gas resources held in the Arctic. The directive contradicts Russia's claim to a bigger chunk of the Arctic and its energy supplies, and says the United States wants to work with all countries that have territory in the region to settle disputes over boundaries. "When it comes to energy, the notion isn't a race to the Arctic to put our flags down," said Benjamin Chang, deputy spokesman for the National Security Council. http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=223560 So we could have icebreakers or icecream makers. They might wave and say 'hi', and that will be the extent of our involvement. We're not even given honourable mention. "In addition to Russia and the United States, the other countries that claim territory in the Arctic are Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland." Edited January 13, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Plays to his strengths? His only strengths are bullying and deceipt. Neither will work here. We need diplomatic strengths, so hopefully it will be about Obama and Ignatieff. Won't matter, because Obama is about to get a crash course in sea power a la Alfred Mahan. What may look like negotiations will still be business as usual, just as we did with impunity during the Cold War. Canada's policy was to save face by granting permission after the fact. Either way, we don't have the military to fight American 'sea power', nor do we have the backing of other countries who appear to side with the U.S., to dispute our claims. Correct....Canada is on weak moorings here, as the US and other nations will prevail for navigable passage, just like any other international waterway. Nobody "owns" the North Pole except Santa Claus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Nobody "owns" the North Pole except Santa Claus. FYI our CPC MP has already taken care of that loophole. Wednesday, December 24, 2008Santa Claus is a Canadian citizen Jason Kenney, minister of citizenship, immigration, and multiculturalism, has made Santa Claus a Canadian citizen: “The Government of Canada wishes Santa the very best in his Christmas Eve duties and wants to let him know that, as a Canadian citizen, he has the automatic right to re-enter Canada once his trip around the world is complete,” Kenney said in an official statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think we should probably consider backing the Americans on this one. To be honest with you, I'd sooner have the Yanks having effective control of the Northwest Passage than the Russians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think we should probably consider backing the Americans on this one. To be honest with you, I'd sooner have the Yanks having effective control of the Northwest Passage than the Russians. You don't just cave in on something which could become as valuable as the Panama Canal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) You don't just cave in on something which could become as valuable as the Panama Canal. But you already have.....the Americans make a point of challenging any such claims around the world, from the Bosphorus/Black Sea to the Straits of Magellan. Good luck, and may the best navy win! Edited January 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 You don't just cave in on something which could become as valuable as the Panama Canal. And how precisely are we going to maintain sovereignty over a waterway that we've pretty much never asserted anything other than nominal sovereignty before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 And how precisely are we going to maintain sovereignty over a waterway that we've pretty much never asserted anything other than nominal sovereignty before? Deputize the Harpie seals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 And how precisely are we going to maintain sovereignty over a waterway that we've pretty much never asserted anything other than nominal sovereignty before? Exactly. Harper is in Calgary this week so this may be an attempt to create a 'crisis' where there isn't one; hoping Canadians will say, 'but we can't change our PM now'. Glad to learn that Santa is a Canadian citizen. That was cute. Does this mean he needs a passport to travel outside of the country? Does he pay taxes? Is he a Socialist? I mean he does give stuff away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 John A. built a railroad. We should be building a road(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Exactly. Harper is in Calgary this week so this may be an attempt to create a 'crisis' where there isn't one; hoping Canadians will say, 'but we can't change our PM now' Hahaha. Harper is totally inside your head, he owns you..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hahaha.Harper is totally inside your head, he owns you..... I know. He's even been sending me secret messages in my sleep. I've called an exorcist but he says the forces of evil are too strong. I've tried playing his speeches backwards but they still come out the same. 'Everything I tell you is lie'. Oh well, he won't be around long so I'm not worried. Love his posturing over the Arctic though. Ha ha ha ha. I needed a good laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HistoryBuff44 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 And how precisely are we going to maintain sovereignty over a waterway that we've pretty much never asserted anything other than nominal sovereignty before? we cant back down. The US is deliberately trying to play down our claims and brush us aside. The thing to remember is its not personal, its politics; its all give and take. we cant back down on this, they're not going to invade us over it because we sell to them anyway. so let them know we wont get brushed aside and bargain for something we want, joint northern action, rights elsewhere, whatever we deem we need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 The U S will continue to lay claim on what ever they can as long as our buisness elite who are in league with the big boys fear them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 The U S will continue to lay claim on what ever they can as long as our buisness elite who are in league with the big boys fear them. The US isn't the only nation that laughs at Canada's claims.....navigable passage is required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ...which Canada ratified. Specifically: Archipelagic waters The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic Waters. The state has full sovereignty over these waters (like internal waters), but foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 The US isn't the only nation that laughs at Canada's claims.....navigable passage is required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) The Northwest Passage isn't necessarily navigable. There were many experts on today on political and news programs. They say this case is like no other. It might be an international waterway....or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 The Northwest Passage isn't necessarily navigable. There were many experts on today on political and news programs. They say this case is like no other. It might be an international waterway....or not. Sorry, I have sneaky experience to the contrary...involving under ice sonar and inertial navigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.