The Northwest Passage in Canadian Policy

Abstract

Over the past decade there has been an Arctic revival of sorts in Canadian politics. Recent events have boosted the region's visibility on the political landscape and the north has found a new prominence in government policy. The media's reaction to the dispute with Denmark over tiny Hans Island, the aggressive Russian claims to the continental shelf, and the increasing concern generated by global warming's melting of the Arctic icecap have all contributed to the Arctic's return to national prominence.At the centre of the Canadian government's new northern policies is a concern for the status of the Northwest Passage. Of the many issues that fall into the category of Arctic sovereignty, the status of the waters and ice that make up the passage remains by far the most visible and the most important. From the federal election campaign of 2005 to the present, when the government has spoken of Arctic sovereignty, it has usually been to those waters it was referring.The philosophy underlying the current government's policy has always been straightforward. It assumes sovereignty to be a matter of physical control, won and maintained through the exercise of force. And in large measure it is correct, since without a certain measure of control no state can properly claim the exercise of sovereignty. To this end the government has announced a number of major Arctic projects, from patrol craft and icebreakers to a deepwater port, all intended to increase the Canadian presence in the region and make clear to foreign states that Canada is serious about defending its sovereignty.This increased presence is indeed a necessary step towards repairing Canada's declining capabilities in the region. Ottawa's ability to exercise authority over the northern waters is declining and, unless some action is taken, may soon fall below the point at which Canada can legitimately claim effective occupation. Yet, while the need for new patrol ships, a deepwater port, and most of the other items promised by the government is apparent, the focus and the underlying philosophy ofthe Harper government needs to be questioned.Any practical attempt to defend Arctic sovereignty should focus on two objectives: improving Canada's ability to exercise its jurisdiction in the region - namely enforcing pollution- control regulations and Canadian law while carrying out the everyday duties of a sovereign power; and improving (or at the very least maintaining) Canada's legal position - essentially ensuring that nothing transpires in the Arctic that might set a precedent damaging to Canadian claims. These are two intertwined yet distinct objectives. A policy that achieves these aims, without having to gamble Canadian sovereignty at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), is what is required to defend Canadian sovereignty in the 21st century.The government's plans for the Arctic seem designed to achieve neither of these objectives effectively. Some ofthe most expensive elements ofthe new policy are generally ill suited to the everyday tasks of exercising jurisdiction. Nor would they be the most cost-effective means of improving Canada's legal position. If used too aggressively, some elements could even prove counterproductive.The Conservative policy is primarily based on projecting power into the Arctic. Yet Arctic sovereignty cannot rest on military strength alone. What is required is a plan that avoids the confrontational approach the government seems intent upon pursuing. Canada needs a long-term policy that provides practical solutions in cooperation with, rather than in opposition to, the United States and the rest ofthe world. Most of all, Canada requires an Arctic policy that, rather than attempting to force foreign governments to accept Canadian sovereignty, brings them to do so out of self-interest.THE NORTHWEST PASSAGEFor decades the effects of global warming have been steadily eroding the sea ice in the north. …