[Nickel]

Why is allowing US shipping through the straits of the Canadian Arctic islands going to undermine Canada's sovereignty?

If they're "international", then it's not just the US, is it? And when the oil tankers break up, or the nuclear waste drums rupture, it's our land it's washing up on. That's why, if for no other reason. If it happens 100 miles out in the Pacific, that's one thing. If it happens five miles from Devon Island, it's another.

No one's talking about closing the Passage. It's about controlling the Passage, and what goes through it, and what can be done in it.

Waters 7 miles from the coast are considered international

It's 12, actually, not 7, which means shore-to-shore, it's 24 miles. And furthermore, those are nautical miles, not land miles.

[Nickel]

First of all, I wanted to make sure I flew MY flag here. Admire and be humble.

We all respect and honour the flag of Gay Ireland.

[Nickel]

I'll state it again, Canada cannot even defend itself

Well, you know what? We have only one border. Unless the people next door suddenly start behaving like c*nts...

Started? Did you sleep through the last decade?

Well, let me rephrase that... if they start acting like c*nts to us,...

[Maddog78]

On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to be arguing that critical sea passages are an exception to traditional maritime boundaries. ... I don't see how your nation can win this one.

Yeah, of course they are. They'd be saying the same thing about Galveston Bay if they thought it would let them get away with sucking half the oil of out Texas. That the US and EU are trying to claim exceptionalism just because it goes somewhere instead of just ending in a lake doesn't surprise me at all... but it doesn't make them right, just manipulative.

Convenience is not an argument. I have no doubt it's vastly inconvenient to the Russians that Turkey owns and controls the Bosporus. But that's just how it is.

There are places in the Passage where the land on both sides can be seen at the same time (territorial waters extend to 12 nautical miles; line of sight to the horizon is typically only 7 land miles; two adjacent national territories "meet" in the middle across 24 nautical miles). There's no way, NONE, that they can be construed as "international" -- other than exceptionalistic wishful thinking. You can't even see both sides of the Lake Michigan at the same time, but does that make it "international"? No? Why not? Because it's entirely enclosed within waters that are entirely territorial, just like the pinch points of the Northwest Passage. You can't see the land on either side of the most of the straits of the Hawaiian Islands, and passing through them will definitely take you somewhere, but the United States maintains they're territorial waters and has the right to control who, and what, passes through them. Pointing to cases like that is how we'll "win this one".

From what I gather, it seems that Canada is standing alone here saying "this is mine," and the rest of the world is insisting this remain an international passageway.

Russia, Denmark, and Norway have similar claims on Arctic straits, so no, we're not alone.

No sugarcoating. Sounds like we mean business. I predict Harper will shift gears quickly and press for cooperative use with the US.

Not on this one. No way. We're not talking about having our lumber taxed at the border here. We're talking about our right to our territorial sovereignty, our right to develop a part of our country, our right to control what passes through our territory (because we're the ones who have to clean it up when it washes up on our shores or blows up).

Frankly, the US attitude on this surprises me. It's like they're too stupid and blind to see where this leads us. If the Passage is international, that means the Chinese can float up there and start drilling for oil (and if here, why not a couple miles off Alaska? Why not in the "international" straits between the Aleutians?); it means the Russians can just slap down some sort of artificial island in the middle of a wider stretch and stuff it with IRBMs to vapourize Chicago that much faster... it's idiotic. If anything, the US should be backing our claim to the hilt, just to keep everyone else out of a choke point at that top of North America.

But, like I said, if we can't count on you, we're entirely capable of doing what we have to secure our own territory; if that means dropping out of the NNP and building the Big One, so be it. The only reason we haven't is there's been no need. If there is now, we'll do it. Don't even waste a second doubting it.

I like everything you have to say here and that doesn't happen often with your posts!
I'm not so sure of us building the big one though.
Of course we have or could have the capability in no time but would any of our leading parties really do it?
I really don't know.
The green party, peacenik types would go batty.

This is like saying Cuba shouldn't be concerned about the US embargo since, hey, Dubya is leaving office.

This however isn't a very good analogy.
Comparing something that has been in effect for over 40 yrs. to something that the U.S. is planning in the future?

[Sixstrings]

Maddog78 wrote:

Of course we have or could have the capability in no time but would any of our leading parties really do it?
I really don't know.
The green party, peacenik types would go batty.

Thank you for agreeing with my point, Maddog. All this tough talk is utter fantasyland. Like it or not, the vast majority of Canadians are left-wing and anti-war. It'll be a sunny day in Novia Scotia before Canada ever testfires an ICBM, lol.

[Blacksmith]

Like it or not, the vast majority of Canadians are left-wing and anti-war. It'll be a sunny day in Novia Scotia before Canada ever testfires an ICBM, lol.

There are crazy drug craized warmongers like Nickel who want to bomb the US, and who probably supported the the abolition of antipersonnel land mines. And then there are right wing facists like myself who believe you never fight a war unless you intend to fight to the bitter end with every means possible.

Now you as yourself who's the more dangerous.

[Maddog78]

That's why I LOLed at your 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 post.
Like any good joke there is some truth to it.



A bit off topic but have any of you been following the letters in the National Post about our military?
I'll sum it up quickly. They did a full spread when the 100th soldier died with all of their pictures.
The next day a woman wrote in commenting on the fact that there appeared to be only 1 of the 100 who appeared to be a non - white Canadian and questioned whether "new" Canadians would actually take up arms to defend the country.
Of course this lead to a shit storm of letters in the next few days both backing her and slamming her.
Are there really enough Canadians now in our multi-cultural non-melting pot, human rights tribunal society who really would seriously defend the Arctic?
It's not the same country as it was in 1938 when the boys didn't think twice about going off to kick Hitler's ass.
I really don't know.

[Cid_Yama]

<i>Are there really enough Canadians now in our multi-cultural non-melting pot, human rights tribunal society who really would seriously defend the Arctic?</i>

http://www.financialpost.com/todays_pap ... id=1143911

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/edmont ... id=1175184

link
<i>(In case you are not aware of the case, the wells are releasing deadly hydrogen sulphide. The resistance has been targeting metering stations and have hurt no one.

The area has been the scene of considerable friction between energy companies and residents fighting the expansion of sour gas wells in the area.)</i>

Any resistance against the overwhelming military might of the US will be a guerrilla action.

And guess what, most Canadians look just like US citizens. They speak the same language, except more politely, and actually care about their country.(Unlike the US, Canadian highways are not long trails of litter.)

You'll have to change your thinking 180 degrees as the people you will need to look out for will be the nice, clean cut, well mannered types, eh?. Good luck with that.

[Nickel]

This is like saying Cuba shouldn't be concerned about the US embargo since, hey, Dubya is leaving office.

This however isn't a very good analogy.
Comparing something that has been in effect for over 40 yrs. to something that the U.S. is planning in the future?

It's really hard to get through to you... THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR AT LEAST 40 YEARS. It was an issue back in 1969 when the Manhattan went through without permission. God, for a guy who can personally remember when the Red Ensign was the flag, you're not much for remembering national history.

[Nickel]

Thank you for agreeing with my point, Maddog. All this tough talk is utter fantasyland. Like it or not, the vast majority of Canadians are left-wing and anti-war.

Like I said, the country itself hasn't been directly threatened in nearly two hundred years. You don't have any concept, clearly, of how visceral a matter this is here.

[Cid_Yama]

<i>the vast majority of Canadians are left-wing and anti-war.</i>

No, the vast majority of the country are like Jimmy Stewart in <i>Mr. Smith goes to Washington</i> and will fight to their last breath for what is right and just.

[Blacksmith]

I have links to The Alberta Tri-Service Institute.

[Cid_Yama]

<i>I have links to The Alberta Tri-Service Institute.</i>

And you have your secret decoder ring and everything?

[Maddog78]

This is like saying Cuba shouldn't be concerned about the US embargo since, hey, Dubya is leaving office.

This however isn't a very good analogy.
Comparing something that has been in effect for over 40 yrs. to something that the U.S. is planning in the future?

It's really hard to get through to you... THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR AT LEAST 40 YEARS. It was an issue back in 1969 when the Manhattan went through without permission. God, for a guy who can personally remember when the Red Ensign was the flag, you're not much for remembering national history.

Go smoke another one and read the thread again.
I said I was aware it has been an issue for a long time.
An issue cannot be compared to an act of legislation actually embargoing an entire nation for 40 yrs.
It sure is hard to get through to you eastern lefties.

[Cid_Yama]

Maddog,

Are you an Albertan neocon? You guys aren't even Canadian.

[Blacksmith]

Thank you for recognizing that.

[Maddog78]

LOL.


Cid_Yama, Sort of but not really.
I was born and raised in Alberta but I've lived in a few different places internationally and I've now lived in B.C. for the past 20 yrs.
I'm not a very good neocon though.
I'm an atheist and I've never voted for the Conservative party.
I've never voted for the Liberals or NDP either though.

[fletch_961]

There are places in the Passage where the land on both sides can be seen at the same time (territorial waters extend to 12 nautical miles; line of sight to the horizon is typically only 7 land miles; two adjacent national territories "meet" in the middle across 24 nautical miles). There's no way, NONE, that they can be construed as "international" -- other than exceptionalistic wishful thinking.

Nobody is trying to say the water is international. Canada ratified UNCLOS though.

Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate 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. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

They left out research. Research is not considered innocent and any ship conducting research must seek permission.

But Canada is not claiming that the water is territorial. They are claiming that it is "internal water". Which is where the disagreement lies.

Article 8. Internal waters

1. Except as provided in Part IV, waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the state.

2. Where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such, a right of innocent passage as provided in this Convention shall exist in those waters.

The US and other nations never considered the area as internal water, so they have a case that it shouldn't be now. Besides article 7 doesn't provide any mechanism in which the area could be considered internal waters.

Article 7. Straight baselines

1. In localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

The islands are a little bit more than a fringe. I guess Canada could always withdraw from UNCLOS or just break the treaty, if they don't like it. Maybe you have good lawyers and can find a loophole.
UNCLOS

[toast]

The outcry for Canadian sovereignty certainly rings hollow. The Canadian government saw nothing unethical in joining Buch's war on terror, invading and pillaging other sovereign nations. Look, you know and I know, sovereignty is a joke! The superpowers run the world as a racket, as such, there are no international laws to constrain a tyrant.

[Nickel]

An issue cannot be compared to an act of legislation actually embargoing an entire nation for 40 yrs.

Yes, it can, and I did. This affects our country. But if it's such a wee, funny joke to you then this is the tat you should be getting: