U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan

[Conquistador]

Apparently, the US considers it wrong for Canadians to assert our soverignty in the Far North.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan
Last Updated Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:09:54 EST
CBC News

The United States opposes a plan by prime minister-designate Stephen Harper to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic in order to assert Canadian sovereignty, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," David Wilkins said Wednesday as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.
U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins. (CP file photo)

"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."

During the election campaign, which culminated with Harper's win this week, the Conservatives promised to spend $5.3 billion over five years to defend northern waters against the Americans, Russians and Danes.

"Sovereignty is something, you use it or you lose it," Harper said at the pre-Christmas announcement in Winnipeg.

    * FROM DEC. 22, 2005: Tories plan to bolster Arctic defence

His plan included the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy icebreaking ships, as well as the eventual construction of a $2-billion deepwater port in Iqaluit and an underwater network of "listening posts."

Harper wouldn't say whether he would order military action if the ships or port detected an unauthorized submarine in Arctic waters.

In an interview, Wilkins said he doesn't think that kind of military buildup is necessary in the Far North.

"We are simply having a disagreement on this," he said. "We have agreed to disagree, and there's no reason ... to say, 'There's a problem that's occurring and we gotta do something about it.'"

Wilkins also said he expects less anti-American sentiment from Harper's new minority government, and added that he called Harper to offer congratulations on his election victory.

 

[Recce41]

Apparently, the US considers it wrong for Canadians to assert our soverignty in the Far North.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

I say mine it and cut it off. Or we could just not reconize the Mississippi.

 

[Recce41]

I hope Harper has a spine. And deploy units more, and take a hard stand.

 

[karl28]

Man just when I start to like the US Gov I and reading an article like this sheesh . I hope that Harper will stick with his plan to increase military presence in the North I don't know how you can do it but I think the military ice breaker's would sound like a good start .

 

[Fraser.g]

We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters...


...tough!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
I say mine it and cut it
:rofl: ....oh please....get a grip.

I'm all for more presence in the North also, however lets not get stupid here. All I want is acknowledgement and to inform us of their passages.......

Quote,
Man just when I start to like the US Gov I and reading an article like this sheesh

Well I guess you dislike most countries that own ships then.....who do we attack first? :

 

[Recce41]

Quote,
I say mine it and cut it
:rofl: ....oh please....get a grip.

I'm all for more presence in the North also, however lets not get stupid here. All I want is acknowledgement and to inform us of their passages.......

Quote,
Man just when I start to like the US Gov I and reading an article like this sheesh

Well I guess you dislike most countries that own ships then.....who do we attack first? :

Bruce
It's a lil off the wall, joke. So slow down fella.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

OOP'S.....its hard knowing how you feel about the US.

 

[Bobbyoreo]

Shit....I just shipped you the mines!!!! Damn it!!!

 

[Recce41]

crap....I just shipped you the mines!!!! Damn it!!!

SSSSSSS, You have to be covert here. :tsktsk: :rofl:

 

[Bobbyoreo]

Dont worry....the label says gifts for bush!!!! :threat:

 

[karl28]

Quote,
1st part/Man just when I start to like the US Gov I and reading an article like this sheesh

this what you said in your reply to my post
2nd/Well I guess you dislike most countries that own ships then.....who do we attack first?

    Bruce I don't know you that well. I think you miss under stood what I said in my last post the first part was a joke maby I should of put LOL in front of that for that I apologize.  I would like to know where did you get the second part from I never said anything about attacking any one I just wanted Harper to increase military presence as a show of force not a declaration of war. Hope that this helps clear any missunderstanding OK?

 

[Bobbyoreo]

Look up..it is from a different post!!!

 

[karl28]

Oops my bad got you on that one

 

[Armymatters]

We could lay a naval minefield in the straits to block the Americans from entering the Arctic  The Ottawa Treaty does not prohibit naval mines.

 

[UberCree]

International shippers (Like Martin) save ~ 8,000 km's of travel by going through the NW passage vs. Panama.  Why on earth would they in any way encourage Canada to protect its own waters there when it can be a free ride.  I say let anyone through, but tax them.

 

 

[a_majoor]

The Ambassador is correct to say that few nations recognize our claims to the waterways of the high arctic. Of course, since we have had effectively zero presence there, making claims about our territorial waters is simply talking through our hats. What were we doing from the 1950s to the end of the Cold War when Soviet, American, British, French and who knows, Chinese nuclear subs were transiting at will? Should the North West Passage become navigable by ordinary shipping, the situation will likely get worse.

Don't forget the reason the Territorial limit was 3 miles from shore for hundreds of years is because that was the range of a cannon shot. In other words, as far as was possible to effectively control the waters, given the technology of the day. The 200 mile limit reflects the enhanced ability to control the waters, but if we are not out there, guess what, someone else is going to be. And since we effectively relinquished control of our Arctic waters for half a century, it will be a tough fight to get it back. Indeed a similar case can be made regarding all our coastlines, the Navy and Coast Guard have little effective ability to enforce our sovereignty due to lack of equipment and manning.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Harper couldn’t have asked for anything better if he had planted this story himself.

Having a dispute with the USA is always popular in Canada.

Our Arctic claims are weak but we really must pursue them.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Test number one.

I guess this is as good of a test as any ex specially with the NORAD agreement up for re-signing.  And now they want NORAD to sea-borne as well.  This should be interesting.  Will Harper stick to his guns and to promises he made to Canadians?  Or will he attempt to appease the USA by backing down on Canada's Artic claim. 

Either way this should be a good litmus test to see where and how Harper and his policies will sit with both Canadians and Americans.

 

[Kirkhill]

Prediction:

Harper will stick to his guns - for the reasons that Edward suggested and also because it serves the US interests.  Not perhaps the interests of the Navy but certainly US commercial interests and the interests of Homeland Security.  The US wanted a perimeter fence so as to prevent the need for a border fence.  Fine.  We're just doing our bit by building a fence around the back 40.

Secondly, shippers would save money if the passage was open.  But the passage isn't open and it is not safe. Ice-breakers wil be required for a significant period to ensure safe passage.  Consider the ice-breakers and the Iqaluit port to be our version of the locks on the Panama Canal.  And do what the Panamanian do.  Charge for the service.  Of course we would have to legislate compliance, ie "you can't come through unless you are escorted by our pollution prevention and safety assistance vessel".

Build the ice-breakers without the deck gun but with a hole in the deck where the deck-gun can be dropped in. The Danes have used this system for their Flex vessels.  Assign it, if necessary to the Coast Guard but with an auxilliary military role, including supplying an operating base for RCMP, DFO and the CF in the same way the Kiwis have designed their Multi-Purpose Vessel.  Keep it in the Navy or Naval Reserve if you want to play hardball.