Posted on 01/26/2006 3:31:23 PM PST by AntiGuv
No problem, and the Canucks have their own unique views on the subject so maybe her paper got an A in Canada.
If she is right, I have a law school professor that participated in drafting the most recent law of the sea treaty and some superiors in the Navy JAG Corps that are going to be in for quite a shock.
Canada has forgotten one little problem with their control of the Northwest Passage, a little state called Alaska, unless they are claiming that as well.
The first time a Canadian military vessel fires on an American ship or sub, Canada will learn what it is like to be bitch-slapped by the US, and then quietly go drown their sorrows in a bottle of Moosehead.
Actually, her paper was more to the effect that we were right. Oddly enough, she was pretty liberal too.
1) The navies of both countries have worked closely together in the interests of continental defence for over 60 years.
2) The USA and Canada haven't fought a naval battle for over 190 years.
I don't think one will be starting any time soon.
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.
During the cold war, the Russians actually damaged a couple of our ships transiting the Bosphorus straights in a freedom of Navigation dispute. Our ship's still freely go in and out of those straights.
Canada is "Sovereign" only on U.S. sufferance.
Jumping the gun there a little, aren't you? It's fiction to think it would come to that. Besides, we may be feisty ... but not stupid. : )
The two mile limit would acutally be more favorable to the U.S. in the dispute. It just doesn't match up with what I've been learned and I actually get paid to deal with this issue every now and then.
In any case I think this whole thing pales compared to some real bilateral problems like softwood lumber (LOL). Sorry, I have to laugh a bit, I don't live in British Columbia.
Seriously, this "dispute" is a godsend for PM Harper. He gets to kick off his administration by standing up to the big bad Americans, thereby innoculating himself against the charge that he is an American puppet. Meanwhile, he had a very warm, productive phone call with President Bush, undoubtedly planning a trip to the ranch soon.
2) Canada has a history of claiming their sovereignty extends across the whole passage, despite it's width at any given time or condition. This is not supported by international law and cannot be enforced by Canada might.
3) Canada attempted to pull this same act with the first President Bush. His response was to deploy a U.S. Coast Guard Polar Class icebreaker to transit the Northwest Passage. Canada threw a temper tantrum but were powerless to prevent the unarmed icebreaker from transiting the passage.
4) Canada, who has up till now been very reluctant to take North American security seriously, is now outraged and willing to commit significant resources to defending international waters from possible incursions by unarmed U.S. icebreakers carrying scientists.
5) This is what passes for "conservatism" in Canada, declaring war on the U.S. over a stretch of cold water...how Canadian.
Harper has not said whether he would order military action if the ships or port detected an unauthorized submarine in Arctic waters.
---
lol, the reporter has to throw this in for effect.
You have the perfect right to protect your borders. Too bad the weenie politicians down here can't seem to grasp that fact.
Best regards.
Technically speaking, although the notion is rather silly, if the U.S. and Canada did become mortal foes then most likely Canada would just build a bunch of 'the great equalizer' and that'd be that. Those Canuck border guards would finally get armed, we'd build a lot of walls, and barb wire stocks would spike up, and there we'd be!
Them with their ice floes and us attending to actually important matters. :)
By the way, could you please send more than three? Twelve would be nice. Eighteen would be a little better. Twenty-four is a lot to ask for, but hey; it is your arctic! You have to start somewhere.
The gal I was dating explained that the 2 naut. mile boundary was established long ago, and was based on the range that a cannon could fire. I tried googling, but came up with little.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I was just misinformed :-)
Like they might detect a US submarine. Unauthorized? We might remind them that vessels disappear in those areas on a very regular basis. The arctic is dangerous.
Does anyone actually live in the area that Canada is claiming? Is it used by anyone?
Canada currently does contribute in a large way to our intelligence gathering. Since we are not permitted to listen in on U.S. citizens and their cellular telephone traffic, our Canadian Cousins obligingly share their eavesdropping on our citizens with us.
We have to keep it all nice and legal, don't we?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.