Canada Reasserts Arctic Sovereignty

Associated Press ^ | January 26, 2006 | Beth Duff-Brown

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Is it used by anyone?

It depends upon the definition of "used". It is water and ice. Some vehicles traverse the area. Nobody grows crops there.

[middie]

OK

[ARealMothersSonForever]

llss

[AntiGuv]

I don't argue with your first paragraph. However, I think you picked a poor example in the Bosphorus. Are they not controlled completely by Turkey?

No. The 1936 Montreux Convention proclaims that the Bosporus and Dardanelles are an international passage. Turkey may only close the Straits to naval vessels of hostile powers when at war, and merchant ships are guaranteed free passage at all times, unless flying the flag of nation at war with Turkey.

The Soviets and Russians have consistently refused to acknowledge any Turkish authority over the Straits, refusing even the complimentary pilot guides during passage.

[CWOJackson]

Exceprt from: "The Question of Sovereignty"

The following is excerpted from Independence and Internationalism, chapter 10, "A Northern Dimension for Canada's Foreign Policy", pp. 127-135, 1986.

The deficiencies in backing up Canada's claim to sovereignty were highlighted by last summer's voyage (1985) through the Northwest Passage by the Polar Sea, a U.S. coast guard ice- breaker. Whatever the motive-a challenge to Canada's claim to the Passage or, as U. S. authorities maintained, a quick and inexpensive way to get the Polar Sea from Greenland to Alaska-the U.S. government was careful not to make a request for permission to make the crossing and thereby imply in any way recognition of Canada's claim to the strait. Instead, the United States made clear that the voyage was without prejudice to the legal position of the other side.

As in 1969, when the Manhattan sailed through the Passage, the voyage of the Polar Sea caused a rush of popular anxiety in Canada. Pressure built quickly, and on September 10, 1985, the government responded in a statement in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Mr. Clark announced a number of measures intended to strengthen Canada's claim, including notification that Canada was drawing straight baselines around the arctic archipelago to delineate its claim, the removal of the 1970 reservation to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,* increased aerial surveillance, naval activities in Canada's eastern arctic waters, and construction of a class 8 polar icebreaker.

[Zack Nguyen]

Thanks - so practically speaking, ships may sail ther but that is it. According to our Ambassador, most countries don't recognize the area either. They are not threatened by our movement, and we aren't there to apy on them. Seems like much ado about nothing.

[-=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-]

"Seems like much ado about nothing."


lol.

Bush: "Hey Stephen, I'll get the Ambassador to say something against your arctic plan and you can respond back, okay?"

Read: (I'll lob a nice underhand and you hit it out of the park.)

[dennisw]

The bottom line with me is that we, Canada, establish some presence in the area to protect our interests and ultimately contribute to the protection and intelligence gathering of North America.

Swear in the polar bears as Canadian citizens and you'll have your presence

[NorthOf45]

Fair enough ... further intelligence gathering.

[Ciexyz]

Let's all go to war over a block of snow. Snow, beautiful snow, just what we all need more of.

[Polybius]

There are probably parts of the passage that Canada can claim soverignty over, however, there is still the principal known as "innocent passage" If necesscary to pass between two bodies of international waters, a foreign nation's shipping, including warships can transit as long as they are just transiting. They can't stop and do manuvers, exercises etc. It is like an international easment. If a foreign ship is doing more than "innocent passage" the nation with the territorial claim can order them to leave or take action if they don't. However, one of the fundamental principals of innocent passage is that you don't have to get permission as long as you comply with the law.

As examples of the principle that NavyVet outlined, even during the Cold War, Soviet warships had the right of innocent passage through the Dardanelles which were in the sovereign territory of Turkey, a NATO-member, and Israel went to war in 1967 against Egypt when Egypt blocked the innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran.

[Soul Seeker]

The discussion of the subject is academic. Power to people wishing to hatch out the intricacies, but the flexing of nationalistic hostilities isn't warranted in this instance.

Harper is being tagged a Bush puppet. Not moments after election a supposed dispute with heated rhetoric arises over something very few care a wit about. At least here in the U.S.

See what is before your eyes. The U.S. admin & Harper have a winking deal to allow this "dispute" so he can claim independence from America among his constituents and world opinion.

Certainly they aren't a puppet hand in hand with us on everything, I'm not making that claim, but I do believe there is tacit approval for this stunt between Harper's administration and ours. It's probably the same thing with Merkel making a big deal over GITMO, though admittedly the GITMO remarks from Merkel I'm less pleased about given McCain uses that to craft legislation for terrorists.

This issue with Harper isn't even on our radar, though I suppose it means something to local politics in Canada? Wouldn't know, but I'm guessing it's of some interest or he wouldn't have chosen this platform.

I'm more than willing to toss ungrateful "allied" countries overboard when deserved, I've tosee canada during the height of hostilities over Iraq, but this doesn't even make a dent because it lacks genuine hostility It's a play on a national stage. It's not real. Save the anger for Chirac, Castro, Chavez, Fox....

[CWOJackson]

Canada is between an iceberg and a cold place in this effort. Canada claims that their sovereignty extends not just to the 12 mile limit, but also encompasses a straight-line block of water between the mainland of Canada and some of the larger (uninhabited) northern islands...otherwise known as international waters.

This claim, which would restrict open navigation of "international waters" is not supported by international law, treaty or military force.

[Sam Gamgee]

I have to admit I am not sure what to think about this. And I'm rather surprised that Harper is making a big deal out of something seemingly unimportant. I guess it would be polite for the US to notify Canada when it enters our waters. I take issue with the assertion in the article that global warming is the cause of the ice breaking up.

[Sam Gamgee]

That came to my mind as well.

[Sam Gamgee]

That came to my mind as well.

[CWOJackson]

"I guess it would be polite for the US to notify Canada when it enters our waters."

Actually the U.S. doesn't just notify Canada, it asks their permission before entering "Canadian waters". What is in dispute is Canada claims waters that are defined as free and open for navigation by international law. This issue has been an on again-off again burning issue "in Canada" since the 1930s.

[MplsSteve]

Glares and scowls?

I was thinking you may get a stern letter if you cross them.

[BlueNgold]

It is the Canadian people that we get our mandate from...

A respectable sentiment - answering to your own country first and foremost - perhaps some of our esteemed SCOTUS justices could take note of this, it is after all a precedent set by a foreign government.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

The single most important duty of the federal government is to protect and defend our national sovereignty,"

This Canadian guy should write Bush's State of the Union speech.

Why can't OUR leaders protect OUR national sovereignty?