Connect to share and comment
Part 3: The Arctic melt
In the run-up to the 2006 Canadian elections, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to defend Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. The next year, he announced he would be building eight new Arctic patrol ships and a new army training center in Resolute Bay, north of Baffin Island. Nearby, just inside the eastern entrance to the Northwest Passage, a deepwater port in Nanisivik would be refurbished for docking and refueling.
“Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic,” he said. “We can either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this government intends to use it.”
Canada’s most important clash is not with Denmark over Hans Island, but with the United States.
As with Russia and Norway in the Barents Sea, the two countries are at odds over how to draw the border between Alaska and Yukon into the water. More pressing, given the speed with which the ice is melting, is a disagreement over the status of the Northwest Passage, which Canada claims as internal waters and the United States argues is an international strait.
The treaty under which Arctic countries will most likely press their claims is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, an international agreement on how to divide up, manage and protect the world’s oceans, which the United States has not ratified.
Washington argues that the passage fits the legal definition of an international strait, which would prohibit Canada from blocking shipping. Canada argues that provisions for ice-covered waters will allow it to impose safety and environmental regulations.
The Inuit, Ottawa points out, have long used the frozen straits the way other nations use land.
Beginning in the 1960s, the United States has sent three ships through the passage to test Canada’s claims. After the most recent, a 1985 trip by the USCGC icebreaker Polar Sea, the two sides came to an agreement. The United States would stop sending icebreakers without its northern neighbor’s consent if Canada would agree never to withhold it.
As long as ice clogged the passage, the point was not considered worth pressing. But now that it seems increasingly viable, Washington is holding up the three trips as proof the passage was historically used as an international strait. Canada's response is that three is not enough.
“It’s almost like, How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” said Robert Huebert, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. “How many non-permissions make it an international strait? International law is very unclear on this. What happens if the ice melts for half the year? Two thirds of the year? Do you count when you had the ice cover in terms of when the agreement was reached?”
Forecast: The global consequences of climate change
(Stephan Faris is the GlobalPost environment correspondent. His new book is "Forecast: The Consequences of Climate Change, from the Amazon to the Arctic, from Darfur to Napa Valley.")