U.S. vs Canada: Case of the Northwest Passage
Melting Arctic ice opens remarkable economic prospects that will make it possible to implement new projects in resources extraction and in the transport sector. But new opportunities often bring new challenges and revive old frictions. One of such issues which will be definitely discussed sooner or later is freedom of navigation through the Northwest Passage (NWP). Nominally, this is U.S. – Canada bilateral discrepancy but America’s point of view has a wide support among numerous non-Arctic actors. And first country to be mentioned is China which is interested in a free access to new shipping routes.
The U.S. insists that the NWP has to be considered as ‘international waters’, so ships and planes from all countries have the right to transit the passage in accordance with the Law of the Sea. We regard as an inappropriate any efforts which limit the U.S. maritime economic activities as well as our Navy strategic mobility.
As for Canadian perspective, the passage has to be referred to ‘internal waters’ so any ship, which wants to pass it, has to notice the Canadian authorities. Moreover, the NWP status is a quite sensitive issue for Canadians, who see it through the prism of the national sovereignty over their Arctic territories. That’s why after a controversial transit of the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker CGS Polar Sea in 1986, U.S. showed respect, made an exception and assured Canada that such voyages in the future would be undertaken with the consent of the Canadian authorities.
However, sovereignty over any territory implies, among other things, socio-economic development, security and environmental protection. And his is a big issue for Canada which today doesn’t enjoy full control over its enormous Arctic wilderness. Furthermore, the scarce Canadian Coast Guard SAR capabilities as well as the lack of precise charts of the passage make navigation risky.
What will be my suggestion to our respectful neighbors? To demonstrate your sovereignty over the NWP you should invest more in the Arctic territories’ infrastructure, build up SAR capabilities, and secure the route. At the same time, any restrictive measures just heighten the contradictions which wouldn’t benefit to any side.
And another question rises, whether we need to left the situation as it is or should an active negotiation process be initiated?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Interesting topic. Huge geographic changes. Obviously this must be an issue in Canada right now (getting petroleum out?), but I imagine we all agree the less these current destructive scary-clowns are involved with anything, the better. I've read that commercial prospects aren't that good currently, though, as opposed to after 20-30 years more of arctic thaw, when this would all be of huge import?
We're so fortunate in our neighbors, and seems obvious to me that of course we should help develop.. But you naturally want it to be "internal waters" and the rest of the planet, including us, wants international passage with free navigation. Is the sentiment in Canada that Russia should also be able to own the developing 10,000 northern sea route from Atlantic to Pacific?
If thaw makes all this strongly viable, both routes will be of great planetary import of course. We all belong to the Arctic Council and UN. Isn't there a pack of planning and negotiating happening/at least expected? After all, 20 years is nothing.
I went and grabbed this map, which shows the current UN agreement. That EEZ is exclusive economic zone up to 200 miles offshore, but I don't know what that really means. I do notice the world gets a lot smaller up there. All of Russia's right across the water, sort of.
seeming so far away. This thread made me realize it isn't. Everyone I've every known has felt a strong alliance with Canada and satisfaction from it. A lot of us are also very fond of our southern one that we're currently kicking in the teeth. The Three Amigos.
Of course you're right that with far more people than Canada, who also have far less choice, Russia could build 10,000 miles of arctic passage on its own.
I'm guessing we'd be more than happy to ally with Canada to build this thing. But it might not be doable to ignore the UN and other international maritime consortiums and treaties to make our own agreements that cut them out. Guessing we're going to need to work with them to check Russia also. I wasn't joking about Russia becoming the new gorilla on our block. And, of course, when the day comes when the entire planet has a compelling interest in these new geographic realities, opportunities, and threats...
