Of friends and threats

Michael Byers covers the history and current status of the Northwest Passage in plenty of detail:

The changing ice conditions offer a sea route between Europe and Asia that is 7,000 kilometres shorter than the route through the Panama Canal. The Northwest Passage could also accommodate supertankers and container ships that are too large for the canal. International shipping companies are eyeing the fuel, time and canal-passage fees that could be saved; some are already building ice-strengthened vessels.

The cruise ship industry is also looking north; the Kapitan Khlebnikovi, a Russian-flagged converted ice-breaker, already offers luxury voyages through the Northwest Passage-at US $10,000 per person. The melting ice will facilitate access to Alaskan and northern Canada's vast stocks of oil, gas, diamonds and precious metals.

Also, Canada's Arctic waters could eventually become a valuable fishery as reduced ice cover and warmer waters enable plankton and fish species from more temperate latitudes to move north. Indeed, Pacific salmon and Atlantic cod are already invading Arctic waters, with likely dire consequences for smaller, slower-growing indigenous species.

Canadians should be alarmed.

Most of the article is simply a solid presentation of history and international law, and it's definitely worth a read. BUt the conclusion demands some further comment:

The uniqueness of the situation may help to explain why, in November 2004, then-US ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that U.S. national security might actually be enhanced if Washington were to recognize Ottawa's claim. "We are looking at everything through the terrorism prism," he said. "Our top priority is to stop the terrorists. So perhaps when this is brought to the table again, we may have to take another look." Invitations to negotiate do not come any clearer than that. It is time to show that Canada is willing and able to police its Arctic waters; to make the case-not just with words-that Canadian sovereignty can work for America too.

While I'd like to think that the U.S. would indeed be willing to talk, I have difficulty believing that Cellucci's comment (or the U.S.' general interest in dealing with terrorism) presents much of an opportunity for a resolution on favourable terms for Canada.

More likely, the talk of terrorists instead would be taken as reason for the U.S. to demand control over northern regions. After all, many in the the U.S. have been all to eager to ignore the facts in order to blame Canada for exposing the U.S. to terrorism, and there's no reason to think that a Canadian Arctic surveillance program would be viewed with any more trust.

Besides which, the U.S.' clear track record is one of using terrorism as a justification to seek other ends rather than one showing a history of taking the path most likely to end terrorism. And there's again no reason to grant the benefit of the doubt that the Northwest Passage will be treated any differently.

I'll readily agree with Byers that Canada needs to take immediate action to defend the Arctic. But in light of both the U.S.' history of trying to set precedents to drag the Northwest Passage into the international strait category, and David Wilkins' reminder that the Bushco doesn't want to listen to Canadian claims of sovereignty, any responsible position on Arctic defence has to recognize that the U.S. is part of the problem, not the solution.