Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Remiel

Northwest Passage

Recommended Posts

From what I see, there are points along the Northwest Passage that are easily less than 50 miles from both shores, and while I have just started, an overview of the Law of the Sea mentions extensive economic rights over 200 miles... so, on what basis do the US and EU claim that we don't have jurisdiction over it?

Of course, it goes without saying that I believe those two groups should shove their propaganda, but we might as well beat them at their own game before we just do it arbitrarily, which will happen anyway... If their best argument is that we don't exert enough control... well, a clear passage will no longer keep us from patrolling our waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I see, there are points along the Northwest Passage that are easily less than 50 miles from both shores, and while I have just started, an overview of the Law of the Sea mentions extensive economic rights over 200 miles... so, on what basis do the US and EU claim that we don't have jurisdiction over it?

Of course, it goes without saying that I believe those two groups should shove their propaganda, but we might as well beat them at their own game before we just do it arbitrarily, which will happen anyway... If their best argument is that we don't exert enough control... well, a clear passage will no longer keep us from patrolling our waters.

I dont think the issue is using the waters for fishing etc (things that would be given to Canada since it would be part of our eez). I think it more about using it as a shipping lane. The yanks had sent submarines through the apssage without firste getting the consent of the Canadian govt...

from wikipedia:

"Territorial waters:

Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate any use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters."

from this passage I wonder if it is legal then to go through the passage?? Hopefully someone who as some knowledge of the law of the sea can give an asnwer.

Either way I dont think the American govt has ratified the agreement, so i doubt theyll follow it anyways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just about travelling through the passage. It is about oil.

Fish, oil or whatever is not the point.

It's about sovereignty.

Canada has not proven it has undisputed supremacy concerning travel through that passage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just about travelling through the passage. It is about oil.

Fish, oil or whatever is not the point.

It's about sovereignty.

Canada has not proven it has undisputed supremacy concerning travel through that passage.

It looks like that is going to change........Harper has signalled he will assert our sovereignty over the passage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fish, oil or whatever is not the point.

It's about sovereignty.

Canada has not proven it has undisputed supremacy concerning travel through that passage.

Perhaps we should invite China to drill for oil in the passage and see if the U.S. would prefer our sovereignty versus China within spitting distance of Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was looking at the Law of the Sea website, two things I found of interest were the term archipelagic waters, and innocent passage. In the section, it said that archipelagic waters are meant for countries that have a large number of small islands, like Indonesia and Malaysia... and waters " contained " by a line drawn around their territory at the normal distance is considered their territory, though others are allowed innocent passage through it, which I think means merchants, passengers, and anyone who generally isnt trying to screw around with the country, no criminals. So, while have more big islands with more area in between them, I would still contend on our side that they are archipelagic waters, drawing a line from somewhere by Cape Bathurst, up around Ellesmere Island, through the Nures Strait (sp?) and down to near Cape Chidley. According to the definition, others could make innocent passage through the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the big deal about letting others pass through?

The U.S. might want to be able to pass through and lay claim to resources within the passage but they certainly don't want China or India to do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the big deal about letting others pass through?

The U.S. might want to be able to pass through and lay claim to resources within the passage but they certainly don't want China or India to do the same thing.

Letting people pass through that claim we have no soveriegnty over the area may be interpreted as agreeing with them (weak argument but you know its something the Bush admin. would use)....

in the case of American subs passing through we can question their right to passage since they are military units (therefore maybe exempt from innocent passage?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think military stuff can pass through as well as long as they are not there for some insidious purpose. Sending warships through another territory to try and claim that they didn't have sovereignty I think might be past the razor edge seperating innocent passage from the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Develop it / defend it / or lose it.

Everyone thought Sewards folly was a horrible 7 million dollar purchase.

Now it appears like the real estate deal of the millenium.

Borg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Develop it / defend it / or lose it.

You gonna move up there?

BTW, we already have Canadians living in the north, they are Inuit and when asked, said they considered themselves Canadian. They benefit from being part of Canada and know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Develop it / defend it / or lose it.

You gonna move up there?

BTW, we already have Canadians living in the north, they are Inuit and when asked, said they considered themselves Canadian. They benefit from being part of Canada and know it.

Slack assed answer. You happen to live in B.C. - this answer could be expected - planning a trip to the arctic in the near future?

By the way, Resolute Bay is beautiful when the ice goes out.

Fact is - develop it / defend it / or lose it.

You might not like it but there are many who would gladly use / exploit this land this land.

Inuit are not numerous enough and there is not enough development there to hold this land. They are but a tiny piece of froth on a small wave in the ocean. And there is a vast land that stretches far, far between any settlements. They could easily be converted to Danish, Russion or American and there is nothing any of us could do at this time.

The Inuit are not numerous enough to fight their way out of a wet paper bag - for that matter the entire population of the arctic could not.

What is the solution?

Develop it / defend it / or lose it.

Period.

Borg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Develop it / defend it / or lose it.

Canada should buld a highway to the north.

The highway to the north already extends to Inuvik.

There is a lot of water further north. Then comes the islands that others will take.

Borg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The highway to the north already extends to Inuvik.

There is a lot of water further north. Then comes the islands that others will take.

I was referring to a highway to Nunavut through Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The highway to the north already extends to Inuvik.

There is a lot of water further north. Then comes the islands that others will take.

I was referring to a highway to Nunavut through Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

I suppose I would have to respond with the same words. There is a lot of water further north. Then come the islands that others will take.

Borg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose I would have to respond with the same words. There is a lot of water further north. Then come the islands that others will take.

The further north that a highway goes, the better access to communuties, resources and asserting sovereignty. Better to supply a navy station in the north too.

The United States is going to lay claim to all of Canada's northern waters soon.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/27/n...st-passage.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way I dont think the American govt has ratified the agreement, so i doubt theyll follow it anyways

You're quite right that the US hasn't ratified. One of Reagan's first acts was to withdraw the treaty from Senate consideration.

I don't think the US sub trip was that big of a deal. I don't see Canada dropping a depth charge on a US submarine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just today in the news - nope do not remember which one - the U.S. stated yet again they do not recognize Canada's claims to the arctic. Seems to me there was also some discussion about how Canada building ice breakers would only fuel the debate as to who owns it.

Populate it / develop it / defend it - or lose it.

If it goes to world courts the vote will likely go against us as well - I am being negative - we are the weaklings and to the strong will go the spoils.

We lost the Alaskan panhandle because the Brits voted against us and we were to weak to do anything then.

Same thing now - just a few generations later. Logic and legal argument will not prevail - strength alone will determine the out come.

Presence is strength. Canada is a weakling at this time.

Borg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Presence is strength. Canada is a weakling at this time.

Perhaps the Americans will buy if we sell Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon to the Americans. We don't really need it and it would be nice to have some money in our pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presence is strength. Canada is a weakling at this time.

Perhaps the Americans will buy if we sell Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon to the Americans. We don't really need it and it would be nice to have some money in our pockets.

Do you want a wraparound country surrounding you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Canadians persist in believing that the US would treat us any differently than all the other countries they have taken over? We are pretty niave aren't we. We allow their propoganda machines to come in and control our information. Our Prime Minister is a good example of their do boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In simple terms use it or lose it. After Alberta seperates from Canada in 2015 (!) a movement will begin to annex the rest of Western Canada, the Northern Territories and Alaska.

Sound funny? Think of it this way, all of these locations believe that the federal counterparts treat them unfairly. Once Alberta draws the line in the sand it will get a lot of people thinking. Depending on how an independent Alberta is set up other may or may not choose the same path of independence. Alaska has much in common with Northwest Canda, far more than it does with the lower 48. Consider the resource wealth of such a combined nation! Do the math people, no other nation on earth has that much wealth. Ha ha..... go figure!

A nation like that would have sufficient means of feeding itself with praire wheat and Alberta beef, not to mention the greenhouses of BC. There is fish galore in the northern lakes and the two giant bodies of water in Manitoba, let alone the Arctic fishery which is currently undervalued or even marginally developed. There is oil and gas, uranium and coal, and even hydro power within the borders of such a country. There is even diamonds and gold. There is a hell of a lot more resources that are not developed.

Just a thought......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...