Icebreakers needed for Arctic, U.S. House told

[CHIMO]

Icebreakers needed for Arctic, U.S. House told
Last Updated: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 | 8:36 PM ET
CBC News

The U.S. House of Representatives heard calls on Wednesday for increased spending in the Arctic, partly to assess Canadian claims of sovereignty over the waters.

Scientist Mead Treadwell told the congressional committee that new icebreakers are needed to establish an American presence in the Arctic and assess future oil supplies.

"We're hearing a lot from Canada's prime minister about sovereignty issues in the North," said Treadwell, the chairman of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.

"Whether or not the U.S. accedes to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, we must conduct surveys of our nation's extended continental shelf in order to support our claims of sovereignty," he added.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/27/northwest-passage.html

[Kutjara]

1. Why not wait five years...

...and you'll be able to kayak all over the Arctic, in swimming trunks. By the time the icebreakers are ready to go, there won't be any ice to break.

[AnnieBW]

2. It's All Gonna Melt

Well, if we wait long enough, all of the ice in the Arctic will melt, and we won't need icebreakers. Problem solved! :rofl:

[jody]

3. Icebreakers? Wait a few decades and the ice will be gone. n/t

[nam78_two]

4. kick/nt

[BushOut06]

5. You folks are missing the issue here...

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it seems like it's a land-grab by the US - in this case, the land in question is under water. "our nation's extended continental shelf" - WTF? Why not just claim the entire Arctic belongs to the US, and drill wherever the fuck you want? This is what this is really about, isn't it? Securing oil rights for *'s buddies?

[razors edge]

6. There are some moneyed interests concerned

because they know that russia has a huge advantage over us with two "nucular" powered breakers already in operation and they will be first on the scene.

[IndianaGreen]

7. You are right, this is a land grab by US at Canada's expense

The Canadians are becoming quite concerned as to America's designs, particularly if global warming opens harbors and passageways that were frozen before.

[razors edge]

9. will the monroe doctrine

move north with the grain belt?:sarcasm:

[Xithras]

10. Umm, remember that part of that shelf DOES belong to the US.

Last I checked, Alaska extended to the Arctic sea and the continental shelf beyond that DOES fall under U.S. control. Unfortunately the U.S. and Canada have never finalized a treaty demarcating exactly where the boundary is located and how far out their territorial claims should extend. Canada claims that the existing BC/Alaska border should simply be extended straight out to sea, a claim that would give Canada control of more of the offshore seafloor. The U.S., on the other hand, wants a border aligned with the shoreline, which would split the Beaufort sea evenly between the two countries. Normally it would be a moot point since it's all frozen ocean, but the fact that it's thawing AND the amount of oil under the seafloor complicates things.

It's hard to believe that these things are still an issue in the 21st century, but there are still FIVE unresolved border disputes between the US and Canada. There's this issue with the Beaufort Sea, there's Seal Island, North Rock, Juan de Fuca, and the Dixon entrance (the seaway at the southern tip of Alaska).

As for the Northwest Passage, Canada screwed their own pooch on that one. They signed and ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty, which specifically grants passage to military vessles through "strategic navigational straits". While the ice blockage may preclude the passage from being "strategic" at the moment, many people have already realized that they are going to become a vital Asia/Europe trade route as the Arctic thaws. Canada has little hope of fending off a UN "strategic straits" designation once that happens (it will slash Asia/Europe shipping times, so both the European and Asian countries will push hard for the designation). And once that designation is granted, any nation in the world will gain the unfettered right to sail their warships through Canadian waters...including the US.

[BootinUp]

11. Very interesting...n/t

[SenorSanchez]

12. i agree

I would agree. The US does have some claim over the continental shelf and does have rights to drill there. In 25 years this country and this world is gonna need a lot of oil and if its there were gonna need every bit of it.

[Xithras]

13. I would hope that in 25 years we'd have found a better solution.

If we're still drilling 25 years from now, we will be very, very screwed.

[CHIMO]

14. From Texas North

Two Tory hopefuls prod oil industry

Tory leadership contenders Lyle Oberg and Jim Dinning vowed to press the oil industry to upgrade more of the oilsands' output in Alberta, rather than ship it to the U.S.

Industry representatives and analysts immediately warned such "punitive" measures could have cross-border implications that could escalate into a trade war.

During separate campaign stops Tuesday, Dinning and Oberg both signalled that future upgrading of tar-like bitumen must be done within the province, but differed on measures to ensure companies comply.

"If you mine it here, you upgrade it here," Dinning said shortly after unveiling his innovation platform in Edmonton. "It concerns me when I hear companies planning to ship more of our raw resources for refining in the United States."

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=5390af07-09e8-474f-9da8-96901e9de4d3&k=36051

[BushOut06]

19. How far out does the US have rights?

I was always under the assumption that territorial waters extended 12 miles from shore.

[Xithras]

21. 200 miles under LOS

Exclusive economic zones and all that.

Of course, we haven't ratified it yet, but LOS is in force since most nations HAVE, and it recognizes a 200 mile exclusive zone.

[kitty1]

15. Of course the U.S. has rights off of Alaska's shelf.....

That's a given. But like you say, the Beaufort Sea could be a big point of contention, especially since it is rich in oil and gas.
As far as the passage goes, I really don't think that Canada has a problem with military ships going thru.
Obviously, this brings up the whole issues re: security and the terrorism issue. Not just with military vessels. This would be costly of course. If the passage is considered international waters, who would oversee inspections of ships. Would obvious red flag countries such as Iran be considered high risk to North America, and therefore their passage restricted.
A lot of points to be considered.
If we're talking about cargo ships, then that is something more complicated to deal with, and international definitions through the law of the sea and other means will have to be looked at.
I can say though with certainty, that if the U.S. was in Canada's place geographically, your government would let the world know in no uncertain terms that the passage belonged to you sovereignly and the hell with anyone who tried to state otherwise.
We'll see where the cards fall in time.

[kitty1]

16. It's resource ownership rather than claiming passage rights.....

that is the biggest concern for Canada. We just want to make sure we don't get totally screwed over by other nations vying for their claim.

[CHIMO]

18. Arctic Sovereignty: Drawing a line in the water

Arctic Sovereignty: Drawing a line in the water

CBC News Online | February 9, 2006

Canadians have always tended to regard the northernmost reaches of their land as an integral, if isolated, part of the country. The vast and frozen Arctic archipelago even gets its own reference in the country's national anthem: "The true north strong and free."

But how much of Canada's north is Canada's? Just about everyone agrees that the many islands that dot the Arctic to the north of Canada's mainland belong to Canada. But what about the water between them? Who, if anyone, has jurisdiction over the waters separating Somerset Island from Devon Island, or Melville Island from Banks Island?

The Canadian government says the jurisdiction is clear – they're Canadian waters. But the U.S. and some other countries don't agree. They see the Northwest Passage as an international strait that any ship should be free to transit.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/arctic.html

[CHIMO]

17. Military Ships

The fallout from the presence of a U.S. Coast Guard vessel in the waters led to the Arctic Co-operation Agreement, signed in 1988 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

The document stated that the U.S. would refrain from sending icebreakers through the Northwest Passage without Canada's consent, but the issue of whether the waters were international or Canadian was not resolved.

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

[Xithras]

20. That's actually why the US hasn't ratified it.

It's good, on one hand, because it extends the recognized area of influence to 200 miles and establishes exclusive economic zones (the reasons Canada signed it). The reality though is that it has a downside. By signing the treaty, nations do sacrifice some sovereignty to their territorial waters in a handful of cases. This effects the US in many areas including the greater Hawaiian islands, the Aleutians, the waters off southern Florida, and a few others. The US doesn't want to sacrifice its sovereignty in those areas, which is a large part of why we haven't ratified it yet.

Those points you bring up, with terrorism, hostile nations, and inspections would no longer be under Canada's jurisdiction if the Northwest Passage were designated a vital seaway. Iran could send nuclear missile bearing ships through the passage every day, and Canada would be powerless to do anything about it without violating international law. That's the downside to LOS. And if Canada backs out? Your 200 mile exclusive economic zone would no longer be recognized and would be fair game to any nation that wanted to exploit it.

Personally, I tend to be ambivalent about the treaty. It has its upsides, but I'd be really pissed if I were a Canadian and the UN told me that I had no choice but to let foreign nuclear vessles cross my national waters.

[kitty1]

8. I hope Harper stays on top of this, things could get ugly...

down the road with this. The sooner the international boundaries are chartered and recognized, the better.
Oh wait, I forgot. The U.S. government doesn't abide by international laws.
I hope Harper starts to establish more of a Canadian presence up there such as the deep water port he wants built soon.
At least Harper realizes the possible ramifications of all this and will pay attention to the situation closely.

[OneBlueSky]

22. it's all about the money . . . nothing else matters . . .

all they have to do is wait a few years and there will be no ice to break . . .

the rush is all about establishing first exploitation rights over whatever natural resources are uncovered as the earth is destroyed . . .