CONTACT | SUBSCRIBE | ΝEWSLETTER - ΔΕΛΤΙΟ

• HELLENES ONLINE
• IDEAS & OPINION
• DEBATES @ PNYX
• TOPICS & ARTICLES
• INTERVENTIONS
• PEOPLE
• CALENDAR
• ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ

• Gold holds near $1,745, waiting on Greece
• World stocks rise as Greece debt deal appears near

• Archives
• Log in

You are here: > Double standards for Double jurisdiction?

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 | Classifieds | ABOUT

Double standards for Double jurisdiction?

Global warming is opening the Northwest Passage, a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that sailors sought 500 years ago. Climate change may also make some of the world’s biggest oil and gas reserves accessible under the polar sea, with Russia, the U.S., Canada, Norway and Denmark jockeying in moves that may result in clashing claims.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to double the country’s environmental jurisdiction in Arctic waters. He will seek to amend Canada’s Arctic environmental protection law to extend the range over which the country regulates shipping by an additional 500,000 square kilometers (193,100 square miles).

With the retreat of the polar ice pack, record numbers of ships are plying our northern waters. Canada must therefore move quickly to affirm and protect its sovereignty.

Prime Minister Harper, in Tyktoyaktuk, Arctic Ocean

The United States contends that the passage, which meanders through Canada’s Arctic Archipelago and may cut travel between Shanghai and New Jersey by 7,000 kilometers, runs through international waters.

Canada claims that some of the waters of the Northwest Passage are internal to Canada, giving Canada the right to bar transit through these waters.

In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through from Greenland to Alaska, the ship submitted to inspection by the Canadian Coast Guard before passing through. The United States government indicated that they did not legally ask permission as they were not really required to, causing Canada to make a public statement in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters.  The United States however, refused to recognize the Canadian claim. 

In 1988 Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, “Arctic Cooperation”, that resolved the practical issue without solving the sovereignty questions. Under the law of the sea, ships engaged in transit passage are not permitted to engage in research. The agreement states that all US Coast Guard vessels are engaged in research, and so they would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through.

In late 2005 U.S. nuclear submarines had travelled unannounced through Canadian Arctic waters (later, the U.S. Navy released photographs showing the USS Charlotte surfacing at the North Pole), sparking outrage in Canada. At the time, Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper contested a statement made by the U.S. Ambassador that Arctic waters were international, stating the Canadian government’s intention to enforce its sovereignty there.

On April 9, 2006, Canada’s Joint Task Force North declared that the Canadian military will no longer refer to the region as the Northwest Passage, but as the Canadian Internal Waters. The declaration came after the successful completion of Operation Nunalivut (Inuktitut for “the land is ours”), which was an expedition into the region by five military patrols.

On July 9, 2007 Prime Minister Harper announced the establishment of a deep-water port in the far North. In the government press release the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:

Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake; this Government intends to use it. Because Canada’s Arctic is central to our national identity as a northern nation. It is part of our history. And it represents the tremendous potential of our future.

Prime Minister Harper

On July 10, 2007, Rear Admiral Timothy McGee of the United States Navy, and Rear Admiral Brian Salerno of the United States Coast Guard announced that the United States would also be increasing its ability to patrol the Arctic.

On August 2, 2007, a Russian expedition called Arktika 2007 descended to the seabed below the North Pole planting the flag of Russia gathering evidence related to the Russian claim of the mineral riches of the Arctic, as well as to establish that a section of seabed known as the Lomonosov Ridge, is in fact an extension of Russia’s landmass.  Vladimir Putin made a speech on a nuclear ice-breaker, urging greater efforts to secure Russia’s “strategic, economic, scientific and defense interests” in the Arctic.

This is posturing. This is the true north strong and free, and they’re fooling themselves if they think dropping a flag on the ocean floor is going to change anything. There is no question over Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. We’ve made that very clear. We’ve established – a long time ago – that these are Canadian waters and this is Canadian property. You can’t go around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere. This isn’t the 14th or 15th century.

Peter MacKay, former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs

Recently, only days after Canada’s largest-ever military exercise in the region, Harper and his cabinet traveled to the Arctic and announced a plan to assert Canada’s jurisdiction over Arctic waters. The change would see Canada extend its coverage to the full limits of that zone.

How the other “contenders” are going to react, only the future will tell. The Prime Minister rightly went ahead with a “a new name” for the region to avoid confusion, with policy changes to ensure a legal framework is there, the building of a military base as well as the procurement of the necessary coast guard vessels, thus asserting the county’s “Historic Sovereignty” over the melting-ice-turning-into-archipelago-waters of the arctic north.

Sounds familiar? Canada’s approach is a good example for other countries that find themselves in a similar situation, such as Greece,  not with a melting borders issue, but with its northern region of historic Macedonia being contested by “friendly and other” neighbours.

It would be interesting to see how a fully prepared Canada could further react to having  its  ”Historic Sovereignty” over the Arctic Region being contested and disputed by friendly neighbours that could: 

• produce 14th or 15th century “irredentist” maps as evidence of their claims;
• commission “relevant” PhD reports and stories by “hired expertrs”;
• use the media for any action or reaction Canada might rightfully take;
• manufacture “historic evidence” that makes the Arctic North a full extension of Russia, the US or Denmark squeezing the country down to 150 miles north of its Historic US border;
• use a name such as “Republic of Quebec”, or “Republic of Canada” for their own part of the region;
• strike deals between themselves despite UN resolutions, using the “bilateral theme” scheme for …commercial purposes;
• “discover”  local Arctic ethnic minorities with allegedly suppressed rights and call all available Human Rights Monitors and other Activist organizations, funded by …Soros

Sounds familiar again?  The Harper government has selectively used double standards to address such an issue, one that applies to Canada  and the other to others: His decision circumvented UN resolutions and recognized on a “bilateral basis” the Former Yugoslav Republic with the name of the Greek northern region of Macedonia, as “Republic of Macedonia”, a name other than the one agreed to at the UN. That action by the Prime Minister of Canada has thus encouraged directly or indirectly the Former Yugoslav Republic to continue with:

• the falsification of 4000 years of Hellenic History;
• the systematic manufacture of a cultural identity and heritage;
• territorial ambitions against Greece;
• pursuing commercial and political self-interests of the Former Yugoslav Republic’s anachronistic leaders, as well as of their friends and allies of the day;

There is hope however. With Foreign Minister MacKay having gone biking leaving behind his Foreign Affairs portfolio – literally -, G.W Bush on his way down and out,  and Obama’s star on the rise, Prime Minister Harper should be reconsidering his approach towards Canada’s traditional friends, such as Greece, and rescind his decision on FYROM’s self chosen name, following not only Panama’ recent example, but setting a new one for the world community.

The first step towards that direction has already being taken at NATO’s Bucharest Summit.

After all, it is just a personal decision (Bush is going, going,..gone!) and a reputation we are talking about. The question is: what decision and whose reputation, because we are talking about Canada. And that’s important.