Dion gets off a good one

stewacide, I too wish we were a major world power with a military option, but we aren’t. It’s time to put away the Axis & Allies board and promise your Mom you’ll stop playing it by yourself.

stewacide, it’s not militaristic and paranoid, it’s laughably unrealistic.

Ok, take out your Axis & Allies board again. Now take one frigate, one infantryman, and one fighter plane and put them on “Canada” (or, if you prefer, “Nunavut” – you may have to write these names on the board in crayon).

Now take about 20 ships, 100 infantry, and 30 fighter planes and put them on “Russia.” I know the board doesn’t cover the north pole but we’ll just have to pretend.

What I’m saying, acerbically, is that the whole rest of the world claims the NWP as an international waterway, like the St. Lawrence, the English Channel, the Malta Channel, etc.; we rather wish it were ours, like the Suez Canal & the Panama Canal.

If we start sinking Russian, Danish, or Polynesian vessels that “violate” our “claim,” no one else in the entire world will back us up, because they don’t share our Suez Canal view of what is, admittedly, a natural waterway. They will not leap to our defense, sending in the Indian or Greek navies to Triumph for the Cause of Justice. In particular, the Americans would certainly have told us, before any “incident” were allowed to develop, that they have no interest in starting a war with Russia on our behalf!

So it would be just our brave sailors and airmen vs. Russia (or whoever – let’s say Russia because if they sniffed a conflict they might try and get in on the game so as to screw us). And, you know, as good as the CF is man for man and plane for plane, there are a hell of a lot more Russian planes and Russian missiles. Not to forget, incidentally, that the Russians have a very large number of nuclear weapons.

So, stewacide, I fear that, lesson learned, it’s time to pack up the board again, wipe away the tears, and turn on that Eddie Murphy movie again.

You’re not thinking realistically about how such a situation would develop.

Lets say the Chinese or Russians or whoever decide to test out claim, and we board their vessel and turn it around or even sink it… what can they do? Sure, they can protest, and they can send more ships with the same outcome, but that gets them nowhere.

Think about the game-theory of it. If the world is convinced of Canada’s ability to block passage (any knowledgeable observer would agree Canada easily can) they simply won’t test the claim, because they can’t win doing so.

Moreover, if anyone was so foolish as to try and had their vessel boarded/sunk, it makes absolutely no sense for them to double-down on a losing bet: again, game theory predicts they seek to de-escalate the situation.

If any non-US country ‘declared war’ over such a minor provocation (which they never would), it would be a completely phoney war since neither side can actually strike the other.

Again, the idea that bocking a ships passage would results in all-out war is completely ridiculous, but…

The problem is fighter cover. Without it Russian bombers (overwhelmingly ancient tupolov turboprops) and surface ships (rusting and decades out of date technologically) would be sitting ducks. Russian fighters simply could not challenge Canadian fighters in the area immediately around Canada, so anything else is a complete non-starter.

And the ‘game’ outlined couldn’t be much simpler: Canada, if it has the will to do so, can stop any and all transit through the Passage. Therefore it makes completely no sense for any country to test our resolve. Foreign governments understand that kind of simple math, particularly when they don’t really care about the Passage! (without getting into the arcane game theory of it, the value Canada places on controlling the passage being so vastly larger than any one countries desire to have it open works greatly to our advantage).

Again, the point of all that being there’s only one country that matters: the United States. If the US decides to force the issue then all bets are off. But if Canada makes its resolve clear, I’m sure an agreement would be worked out with the US, at which point it’s a settled issue as far as the world can do or say anything about it.

And, the comparison of the Northwest Passage (a route that is bordered by Canada on both sides) to the English Channel or Malta Channel (which have multiple soveriegnities) is not in any way accurate.

The best comparison is to the Straits of Java, bordered by Indonesia on both sides. Indonesia and some countries claim that they are sovereign waterways, whilst the US and many others say that they are not because they provide a passage between two oceans.

In point of fact, the US ony (presently) opposes Canada’s claims to the NW Passage because it does not want to hurt its claims in Java.

And I agree with Stew – we have to be able to claim that we CAN control access to the NWP. that is the fundamental test of any sovereignty. I am not talking about starting a war, but being able to say that we can prevent unauthorised access is a must.

Principally we gain the right to deny access when and where it suits us. For one, oil tankers in the high arctic are a disaster in the making. And we definitely do not want Chinese or Russian or whatever unfriendly nations military vessels taking ‘innocent passage’ thousands of miles through Canadian territory. There’s also the issue of covering our costs in policing the NWP (through tolls), and giving the local population a say. We may also want to have experienced Canadian pilots at the helm of all ships making the transit (so they don’t hit a rock and cause a huge expensive mess).

The Americans are naturally inclined to see things our way on all accounts (on the security question, on the environmental question, on the local-sovereignty question), hence doing a deal with them would be a no-brainer for a PM with some foresight and balls. The issue will – correctly – be settled diplomatically with the Americans; but it will be settled with the rest of the world unilaterally and militarily.

There is ***ZERO*** prospect of Canada retaining sovereignty if we aren’t prepared to enforce it. NADA. NONE. That’s not the way it works.

as a fomer northerner I think the best way to keep the arctic canadian is to make the sure the people who live up there, work up there, use the land, and make the north something already ((and who will into the future with any luck and goodwill), want to be canadian.

you’ll disgruntle more than a few by ignoring northerners, save for patrolling the passage with gunboats.

maybe thats what the increased militarization will be used for… as it thaws out uncontrollably due to inaction, cultures and people, and yes even industries already, that depend on the ice will get even more crunched, and some people might be very p-o-ed… but hey i’m a cynic.

I do not believe Mssr. Dion was stating any disregard over our sovereignty in his comment. He was indicating the limited military resources Mr. Harper was making available for Arctic sovereignty would not significantly impact a concerted military challenge from a superpower. Diplomacy, science and the support of local populations will have a far greater role in supporting our claims in the Arctic.
If you are looking to bash the guy, there are lots of opportunities – this is not one of them.