For over 300 years, the Northwest Passage between Asia and Europe remained what Pierre Berton called the "Arctic Grail" in his 1988 book by that title. Even by the mid- twentieth century, only a handful of ships had wormed their way through the icy strait, and although heroic, their efforts did little to blaze the way to commercial viability. Ironically for those generations of intrepid explorers, today it seems that global warming, not navigational know-how, may turn their once elusive dream into a major marine highway. And while this may sound alluring after the long wait, for Canada it could prove to be the ultimate test of her tenuous claim to Arctic Sea sovereignty.
How Sovereign is Sovereign?
Being an Arctic country is embedded in the Canadian psyche and is a source of national pride – we're true north strong and free, after all. So when Stephen Harper announced on July 9 that Ottawa would spend $3.1 billion on six to eight Polar Class 5 Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and even more for a deep water port to service them, he was really echoing the words of many of his predecessors: "Hey world, the Arctic waters belong to Canada."
But is Canada able to back up its claim with more than just sentimentality?
Sovereignty as a concept is inherently dynamic. As Harper rightly pointed out during his spending announcement, "Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic: we either use it or lose it." Unless a country exercises its sovereignty, it withers away by default.
In practice, this means that a nation must actively patrol its territory, and have some capacity to deter aggressors and ensure peace and security in the region. For sovereignty to exist it must also be recognized by other governments. These are the twin standards that Canada must meet in order to assert its sovereignty over the Arctic, argues University of Ottawa law professor Donald McRae in a 1995 issue of Northern Perspectives.
In terms of land claims, it is an accepted geopolitical fact that the British ceded the 36,500 plus island Arctic Archipelago to Canada in 1880. Our claim to maritime sovereignty, however, is more shaky.
The United States has never admitted Canada's authority over the Northwest Passage and for years the neighbours have played a game of cat and mouse over the issue with no clear victor. For example, if the U.S. sends in a vessel unannounced, Canada promptly grants unsolicited permission. In the 1988 Arctic Cooperation Agreement, the U.S. agreed that its icebreakers need Canadian approval to sail in the disputed waters; Canada agreed to always give approval. Paradoxically, the treaty also includes a clause stating that nothing in the agreement alters each government's historic stance on the issue of sovereignty.
When it comes to maintaining a physical presence in the north, Canada has never had an easy time given that the archipelago covers 40 percent of her territory and is extremely inhospitable and costly to oversee.
A National Defence document dated July 10 states that Canada's Navy currently does not have the capability to patrol the Arctic Ocean and "can only operate in northern waters for a short period of time, and only when there is no ice." There isn't even a permanent search and rescue operation in the far north, let alone meaningful security forces.
Generally speaking, none of this has mattered much. But as global warming alters the Arctic reality, Canada will have to demonstrate leadership in deed, not just rhetoric.
Global Warming Makes Arctic Sovereignty a Hot Topic
International climate change experts now predict that due to melting polar icecaps, in the not too distant future ships will be able to traverse the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans via a route 7,000 km shorter than the current one through the Panama Canal.
"By the end of this century, the length of the navigation season (the period with sea ice concentrations below 50 per cent) along the Northern Sea Route is projected to increase to about 120 days from the current 20-30 days," concludes the 2004 Arctic Council study entitled "The Impacts of a Warming Arctic."
American submarine data reveal a 40 percent decrease in arctic sea ice volume. This was reported at the U.S. Navy 2001 strategic symposium entitled eerily, "Naval Operations in an Ice-fee Arctic."
If the Northwest Passage opens as expected, Canada will only be able to maintain its claim to sovereignty with a dramatic increase in its operations in the Arctic This is the logical extension of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which says that ships and aircraft have right of passage through any "international strait." An international strait is defined as a waterway used for international navigation between two parts of the high seas or exclusive economic zones.
Up till now, the Northern Sea Route hasn't been regularly used for navigation so it's not by definition an international strait. But as soon as it becomes one, Canada won't have the right to try to keep ships out. And if it can't keep ships out, it must exert control over whatever is allowed in. And if it can't do that, then it forfeits sovereignty.
"What the melting ice does is increase the possibility of ships sailing through without asking permission. If Canada fails to prevent such non-consensual transits, they will undermine its claim [to sovereignty over Arctic waters]," says Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
The surge in activity won't be limited to the merchant marine either. The pressure will mount as offshore oil and gas becomes more accessible, if new fisheries like cod or mackerel open up, and cruise lines exploit the fresh opportunity.
Most importantly, Canada would have to prove it can manage the threat from terrorism lest we give rogue states or terrorists an easy avenue to transport a dirty bomb into North America. Professor Byers thinks that this element could be Ottawa's best bargaining chip. In the post-9/11 world, he feels that "the most important thing the Canadian government could do is to persuade the American government that Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage would be good for the United States too."
This may be a good idea, but what if the U.S. goes for it? Will a few billion dollars and a handful of ice-strengthened ships cut it? Unless Ottawa is ready to significantly up the ante, Canada's claim to Arctic sovereignty is standing on thin ice.
Feeds