U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan

[__Kratos__]

Thats what others think... until Canada starts shooting to defend these waters. That'll quickly make them realise that those are not international waters.

Most any other country would most likely shoot back... does Canada really want that? If that was even the case, then why hasn't the Canadians shot the Danes yet?

[Thanato]

Because, They plant a flag, we take it down and Plant a flag. They come back and take down ours and plant a new one, and the cycle continues. And that island is a disputed area. But when a Forieng Military ship entres Canadian Territory it will have to be impounded and its crew detained. And Warning shots are the best thing.

~Thanato

[Stellar]

Most any other country would most likely shoot back... does Canada really want that?

Personally, if it was important enough to me or the people to keep make people recognise that that is part of Canada, my goal would be to prevent them from shooting back. If they shot back, then they'd quickly find themselves outnumbered and, although they could cause a bit of damage, they wouldnt succeed. That would probably put the end to it. Whoever was making the incursions wouldnt risk a war over some 1.3 km piece of land.

If that was even the case, then why hasn't the Canadians shot the Danes yet?

I guess its not important enough to them. If it was, they first would have warned that they will use force to defend it, and then if the Danes or whoever persisted, that force would need to be used.

I dont see why it is so important in the first place, but if its of vital strategic importance, we should protect it. If our passive protection doesnt stop them, then we need to move on and take measures that will.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Stellar

[Ghidorah]

Well i have read a little on the subject and i have came to this conclusion.

Canada should defined the Hans island for 3 reasons.

1. Location. Hans island is located right where further shipping locations might be located if the climate keeps warming up. And this means that Hans island could eventually be used as a fuel Depot to refuel passing ships.

2. sovereign. The sovereign of Canada is at risk here. If Canada lets the Danes (or any country for that matter) just roll over it. Canada could risk even further incursions of it's soil.

3. For respect. Now respect might not seem like much, but Canada can't allow it's self to be run over by the Danes and lose respect from around the world. But Canada can stand up and confront the situation and gain respect from the rest of the world. And this respect will allow Canada more leverage when dealing with world politics.

Also i found a reason for Americans to support our Canadians friends in this little situation.

We could make a little money off of it. By selling the Canadians some of our LA-Class attack submarines ( which we are phasing out for the Virginia-class), because as it is right now i do think the( but am not sure) Danes have a much stronger navy then the Canadians and way to build it's navy up would be to buy some subs from the United States. We could make a few billion and the Canadians will have some better subs then what they have in there fleet now. and god knows with our huge deficit we need to make some money somehow.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Ghidorah

[Xyfer]

MURRAY BREWSTER

Fri Jan 27, 9:30 AM ET

OTTAWA (CP) - U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins clearly struck a nerve with prime minister-designate Stephen Harper when he criticized the Conservative plan to bolster Canada's presence in the Arctic.

"I want to address one other question before I go," Harper said Thursday in response to an unasked question as a lengthy session with reporters wound down.

"I've been very clear in the campaign that we have significant plans for national defence and for defence of our sovereignty, including Arctic sovereignty. It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the U.S. ambassador."

The issue of jurisdiction over the frozen archipelago and iceberg-cluttered waterways is clearly heating up in Ottawa and Washington.

An expert in Arctic defence and sovereignty predicted that the issue will become a sore point in relations between the Bush administration and the newly elected Harper government - which had campaigned in part on a warmer rapport with Washington.

"The sovereignty of the Northwest Passage is a red button issue for Canadian political leaders and for the Canadian public," said Rob Huebert of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

Harper said he'll stick to his plan to station armed icebreakers, remote-controlled aerial drones and troops in Canada's Arctic, as well as establish a deep-water submarine base in the far North.

On Wednesday, Wilkins criticized Harper's proposals, calling them unnecessary and adding that the United States "doesn't recognize Canada's claims to those waters."

He described the increasingly ice-free channels, such as the Hudson and Barrow straits, as "neutral waters."

Wilkins said most other countries don't recognize Ottawa's claim either, but ended by saying that the U.S. administration has "agreed to disagree" with Canada over the matter.

"The United States defends its sovereignty, Canada will defend its sovereignty," Harper tersely responded on Thursday.

Canada's dominion over the frozen north has been routinely challenged over the years, but it has happened with increasing frequency as global warming has made the once ice-clogged passageways easier to traverse.

With growing interest in northern resources such as as oil and gas, and Harper's determined stand, Huebert said he's worried the spat could get worse.

"We've got a dilemma and it could deteriote," he said. "It would be against both Canadian and American interests if it were to escalate."

During the election campaign, there were reports a U.S. submarine had patrolled all the way to the North Pole, likely passing through Canadian waters without notifying Ottawa.

Last summer, the Liberal government engaged in an international tug-of-war with Denmark over Hans Island, a tiny outcrop of rock between Ellesmere Island and Greenland often dwarfed by passing icebergs. In September, the two countries declared a truce without formally resolving the dispute, saying they would notify one another before visiting the island.

In 1985, the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea traversed the Northwest Passage without Ottawa's permission, sparking an international incident.

Washington eventually signed an agreement with Ottawa stating it would seek permission before navigating the passage again, but the issue was never formally resolved.

By not mounting regular patrols or maintaining a continuous presence, Canada is demonstrating it's not serious about its northern sovereignty, say critics.

While a beefed-up Arctic presence is laudable, a defence analyst says, the nuts and bolts of Harper's northern policy needs to be reconsidered.

The idea of armed navy icebreakers is questionable, given that the "trespassers in our northern waters are usually our allies," said David Rudd, of the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

Rudd said the Conservatives should consider expanding the NORAD agreement with the U.S. on air defence to include guarding maritime approaches to North America - thereby guaranteeing American co-operation.

Go Harper you tell them

[jeceris]

pffffuttttttt!

harper. the mouse that roared.

smoke and mirrors.

i told you in my post on the other thread about the tory win, that they'd find a boondoggle to throw our money at.

well there it is, super fantastic extremely expensive icebreakers, depots and listening posts.

just like bush, he makes it sound like there's some big threat to get us all to back him in the spending of billions.

it just isn't necessary.

[Xyfer]

pffffuttttttt!

harper. the mouse that roared.

smoke and mirrors.

i told you in my post on the other thread about the tory win, that they'd find a boondoggle to throw our money at.

well there it is, super fantastic extremely expensive icebreakers, depots and listening posts.

just like bush, he makes it sound like there's some big threat to get us all to back him in the spending of billions.

it just isn't necessary.

I disagree completely.. money are for spending and why not spend it on making our presence stronger in the north and increasing our defence? I don't understand at all how you could call that something that is not necessary. Why shouldn't we have expensive icebreakers and listening posts? Why should Canada be behind in these things from the rest of the world?

[Celumnaz]

From past posts, I thought Canada had no enemies, and no need for a military other than peace keeping operations?

[__Kratos__]

Canada's dominion over the frozen north has been routinely challenged over the years, but it has happened with increasing frequency as global warming has made the once ice-clogged passageways easier to traverse.

That would be also why Canada is getting so uppity over it. They also see opportunity in those waters.

I'm still working on my flag design too... hehe

[Thanato]

Well with ships making the run through there more often we will need to put a pressence up there.

~Thanato

[Xyfer]

From past posts, I thought Canada had no enemies, and no need for a military other than peace keeping operations?

Everyone has enemies its just a matter of time until they decide to surface.. any tiny disagreement could bring us deep into something and why shouldn't we have a strong military presence? As peaceful a country as we are I think everyone needs a strong military.

[jeceris]

I disagree completely.. money are for spending and why not spend it on making our presence stronger in the north and increasing our defence? I don't understand at all how you could call that something that is not necessary. Why shouldn't we have expensive icebreakers and listening posts? Why should Canada be behind in these things from the rest of the world?

because it really is a waste of money.

go big or go home.

if we want to patrol the acrtic, we need a entire fleet of up to daye submarines, not second hand crap from the british.

understand, 3 icebreakers and listening posts are not going to stop all the submarine traffic that is currently going on, they wouldn't be able to keep up to the subs once they found one.

it is a waste of money, it's been fine for half a century.

why is it suddenly a problem?????

it isn't. but it is a place for the tories to spend.

build up our defence properly, but three icebreakers and listening posts, is a half assed way of doing it, and in the end, a waste of time and money.

[Xyfer]

it's been fine for half a century.

why is it suddenly a problem?????

Because more and more boats are running through there and we need to establish that part as ours before its too late.

build up our defence properly, but three icebreakers and listening posts, is a half assed way of doing it, and in the end, a waste of time and money.

Its still a start. You have to start somewhere.. If you think hard about all the money you spend everytime then most likely you will be missing out in the long run and in time of need.

[__Kratos__]

Well with ships making the run through there more often we will need to put a pressence up there.

~Thanato

Wouldn't that cause problems with the searching, seizing and arresting of those going through the waters? Everything could be brought up by challenge to the U.N.

And the flag you will all see one day on that island...

[attachmentid=22799]

[jeceris]

Wouldn't that cause problems with the searching, seizing and arresting of those going through the waters? Everything could be brought up by challenge to the U.N.

And the flag you will all see one day on that island...

[attachmentid=22799]

you're welcome to it kratos.

although, it's so cold, and barren you'd have a hard time keeping the flames going.

when there's nothing left to burn, you have to set yourself on fire.

[The Silver Thong]

ahhh Kratos great flag man love it.

jeceris I hate to say this but have no idea what your talking about! If we let the Dane's take a small piece then whats to stop anybody else from pilfering more land from Canada?, it would send a message to other nations that theres a land grab in Canada. You want that?

As far as a waste of money don't be so silly To spend oh say 6 billion now to protect our land will turn into a oh lets say 500 billion + in the near future when we actualy decide to drill for Oil and let me tell you there is lots up there.

Thanato I agree the next time a war ship from another nation decides to take a little cruz through OUR waters damn rights flood the tubes and fire away.

Edited January 27, 2006 by The Silver Thong

[Elfstone810]

You know, instead of building armed fleets to chase away all the submarine traffic, maybe you should build big floating souvenir shops and sell them stuff as they go by.

I also have a plan to settle the Hans Island dispute. It keeps saying that the island is about the size of a football pitch, sooo . . . why not play football for it? Not for keeps, though. It could be like a stationary travelling trophy. Every six months or so Canada and Greenland would have the Hans Island test match and whichever side wins gets to fly their flag there until the next match.

[Thanato]

European Football or Canadian FootBall?

~Thanato

[PLO]

i wonder what poverty stricken inner city areas could do with 2 billion dollars. I wonder how many new hospitals, schools, universtitys, police and fire servicemen, teachers could be trained with that kinda money.

damn those sneaky inuit fish mongers and their evil polar bear overlords. Damn them to hell i say

[Elfstone810]

European Football or Canadian FootBall?

~Thanato

See! No sooner do I come up with a solution than you think of something ELSE to go to war abou!

Alternate. Canadian football one time, European the next. Flip a coin to see which one comes first.

[Xyfer]

^^^

Haha