Mark Collins – No Need For Hoo-Hah Over the Bear and Arctic Waters

And were not talking about the status of the polar type (more here)–further to this post,

Arctic Tensions Not Really About the Region but Relations With Russia

there’s a lot of good sense in this piece:

Canadian Arctic Security: Russia’s Not Coming
Canada’s Arctic is facing real security concerns, but the prospect of an incursion from Russia is far-fetched at best, argue Adam Lajeunesse and Whitney Lackenbauer. From our partners at Arctic Deeply.

The Arctic ice is melting, the Russians are coming and time is running out for Canada and the U.S. to reach an agreement on the status of the Northwest Passage. At least, that’s the sensationalist assessment published by political commentators Michael Byers [see “The Canadian Forces, or, The Byers Disarmament Plan“] and Scott Borgerson [more here] in the Wall Street Journal on March 8, 2016.

Over the past year, news magazines and websites have published splashy images of large military deployments across the Russian North, coupled with maps showing the locations of Russia’s new Arctic airbases. Throw in Moscow’s extensive claims to the Arctic continental shelf (which overlaps those of its circumpolar neighbors) and its recent activities in Ukraine and Syria, it’s no wonder comments warning of Russian warships charging into the Northwest Passage are feeding anxieties.

But Canada’s position in the Arctic is, however, not in peril. Over the past 10 years, studies of northern shipping routes and sea-ice dynamics have consistently shown that, regardless of how much ice is melting, the Canadian Arctic will not emerge as a safe or reliable sea route for the foreseeable future [see “Arctic: NW Passage Commercial Shipping Long Way Off/No Shell“]. Why Russia (or any country) would risk damaging a billion-dollar warship to sail through the passage is hard to understand.

A Russian “freedom-of-navigation” voyage through the Northwest Passage would be politically senseless and counterproductive. For 65 years, Russia has passively supported Canada’s position that the Northwest Passage constitutes internal waters. This reflects simple self-interest. Russia’s Arctic sea routes are claimed on a similar basis. To challenge Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage would weaken Russia’s jurisdiction over the various straits that make up the Northern Sea Route.

Despite these considerations, some scholars and analysts are advising Canada to prepare for an uninvited, and perhaps hostile, foreign naval incursion into its waters. Byers and Borgerson advocate immediate negotiations between the U.S. and Canada to resolve the 70-year-old bilateral dispute over the status of the Northwest Passage. If the U.S. could be brought to recognize Canadian sovereignty, they reason, both Canada and America would be safer from state-based and terrorist threats.

We’ve tried this approach before – many times, in fact. In 1963, Canadian negotiators travelled to Washington to warn their American colleagues of the threat posed by Soviet submarines, which intelligence showed were beginning to probe the North American Arctic. If Canada enjoyed undisputed sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, it could legally exclude the ships and strengthen continental defense. To the Canadians’ dismay, the U.S. State Department pointed out that America’s global interest in the freedom of the sea trumped – and would always trump – Arctic security concerns. Canadian officials used this security argument again in 1969-70 and 1985-88. But it foundered each time over U.S. fears that it would set a precedent in international law. If Canada could claim the Northwest Passage as its own, then other maritime states could make similar claims on far more important straits. The U.S. will not be cajoled into recognizing Canadian sovereignty today, when the military threat is insignificant compared to the existential crisis of the Cold War.

History shows that this lack of political consensus does not endanger Canadian or American security. For decades, our two countries have prudently managed our legal disagreements and preserved our respective positions while collaborating on continental defense. During the Cold War, American submarines patrolled Canada’s Arctic waters watching for Soviet submarine transits. Declassified American naval documents also suggest that the vessels were there with the knowledge and participation of the Canadian government. On a couple of occasions, they were even invited in by Ottawa.

Accordingly, the reality of Canada’s Arctic security is less worrying than sensational headlines make it out to be…

Quite. See earlier based on the same authors:

What Should Concern Canada in the North and Arctic– Hint: Not sovereignty

More on hoo-hah:

Arctic Sovereignty Hoo-Hah Letter to Editor Printed!

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute; he tweets @Mark3Ds


7 thoughts on “Mark Collins – No Need For Hoo-Hah Over the Bear and Arctic Waters”

    1. And note “long time”:

      ‘China reveals plans to ship cargo across Canada’s Northwest Passage

      The main Northwest Passage ship traffic is likely to be containers hauled from China to the eastern seaboard of North America, said Yin Jingbo, a maritime economics researcher at Shanghai Jiao Tong University

      An initial shipment could be made “pretty soon,” he said, and eventually build up to large volumes. Research suggests the Russian Northeast Passage, for example, could carry five million 20-foot equivalent containers per year, 40 per cent more than the annual movements through Port Metro Vancouver and “dozens of ships” per day, Prof. Yin said.

      But in Canadian waters, he said, “real commercial operations will have to wait a long time.”

      The Ministry of Transport pointed to a lengthy set of obstacles, including reliable infrastructure, hydrology data, telecommunications, rescue facilities and low efficiency. “Due to the many uncertainties of Arctic sailing, shipping times can’t be guaranteed, which is not good for container ships,” the ministry wrote…’

      Mark Collins

    2. This is more of the tit for tat of the Americans claiming FON in the South China sea ( or any body of water larger than a coffee cup ). If the Chinese really thought sending cargo ships through the Arctic was a great idea they wouldn’t be spending billions building a second canal in Central America.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s