Defence of Canadian Sovereignty or Support for the U.S. War on Terror?

Much has been made in the media of comments by the U.S. ambassador to Canada on Canada’s claim to the Arctic and the response of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. On January 25, Ambassador Wilkins, speaking at a forum at the University of Western Ontario, said that his government opposed the part of the Conservative campaign platform about deploying military icebreakers to the Arctic to assert Canadian sovereignty. He described the proposal as an attempt to “create a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Harper was quick to respond, telling reporters that his government gets its mandate from Canadians, not the U.S. ambassador. Commentators later described this response as an attempt to refute suggestions that the Bush administration welcomed the Conservatives’ win and to try and prove he is not in the Americans’ pocket.

Disputes over Canadian sovereignty in Arctic waters, particularly the waters of the Northwest Passage, are not new. There have been a number of incidents since the passage was first navigated by ship 70 years ago. The issue has now become pressing once again as the shrinking polar ice cap has led many to speculate that within a few decades the Northwest Passage could become one of the most important shipping routes between Asia and Europe. This route is 7,000 km shorter than the passage currently used through the Panama Canal.

Canada has long maintained that these waters are internal to Canada, arguing that the Inuit people have inhabited the islands of the Arctic and used the waters for thousands of years. Canada received official support from the Inuit for Canadian sovereignty claims as part of the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

The most recent disagreement between Canadians and Americans over the Northwest Passage came in 1985 when the U.S. sent an icebreaker, the Polar Sea, through the passage without first asking permission from the Canadian government. The Americans claimed that using the passage was simply the most cost effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and declared that they did not need to get permission to travel in “international waters”.

Following the Polar Sea incident, in 1986 the Canadian government issued a reaffirmation of Canadian rights to the waters, a declaration which the U.S., European Union and Japan have all refused to recognize. They argue that while the Arctic islands belong to Canada, the waters more than 12 miles around the islands are international.

However, comments made by U.S. officials since the September 11, 2001 attacks suggest that the Americans are now willing to recognize Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic if Canada agrees to beef up its military presence in the area as part of a coordinated effort to help out with the “war on terrorism”. Speaking in late 2004, then-U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci suggested the Americans could “take another look” at the issue, stating: "We are looking at everything through the terrorism prism. 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.”

Similar comments have been made by senior military officials in the U.S. who have urged Canada to increase its patrols in the Arctic by acquiring several new ice-cutting ships – exactly what the Harper government has committed to doing.

Back to Modern Communism