5 ms·

Canada doesn't have the military resources to enforce this without a corresponding increase in military budgets. We will have no choice but to partner with the

by otoburb 13y ago

Canada doesn't have the military resources to enforce this without a corresponding increase in military budgets. We will have no choice but to partner with the very same folks who are eyeing these lucrative areas. I guess we'll get a taste of what it feels like to be a country where to protect our resources and land we'll be forced to give some (most?) rights away in exchange for military augmentation and favourable procurement prices.

jacquesm 13y ago
Canada does not have the resources to defend against any scenario. That does not mean that it should be walked over like this either.
- clarkmoody 13y ago
  When it comes to international trade, there simply is no substitute for a strong navy. Friendly relations and treaties with countries possessing strong navies can only go so far.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- otoburb 13y ago
  I agree with you that countries shouldn't be walked over like this. However, our territorial claims will be ignored if we don't boost funding in a navy fleet, coast guard fleet and/or ports to assist with patrolling. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done given our lack of appetite for even higher taxes which would probably come in the form of a GST hike. It seems our options are: 1) Raise funds to patrol or enforce our territory; 2) Partner with other countries and attempt to negotiate minerals, resources or access in exchange for adherence and continued international recognition of Canada's territorial claims; or 3) Do nothing.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Canada is simply too big. Infrastructure and defence are a function of the GDP divided by the area. Too small a GDP or too large an area and you can't properly wire, put roads in or defend a country. Even so, we have these borders that were agreed upon in the past, a change of the weather shouldn't cause such a border to be redrawn.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >a change of the weather shouldn't cause such a border to be redrawn. look at climate changes during last 2-3 thousand years and how whole empires/civilizations got appeared and disappeared as a result. On the [kind of] positive side [for high-tech industry i mean] Canada will become a big customer for air-, ground-, navy- and submarine drones :)
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Does this count as a protection racket if the US military provides support? :)
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        goodcanadian 13y ago
        The US is the prime opponent in this battle. They are the ones claiming the right to use the Northwest Passage as an international shipping lane. In my opinion, their position is weak as there is no historical tradition of the passage being used as such. Of course, I am Canadian, so I may be biased.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      At the close of WW II Canada had the world's second most powerful navy. It may not be able to take on Russia or the US, but there's no reason for the modern Canadian navy to be this weak.
    - 13y ago
- Semiapies 13y ago
  How is it being walked over? We're talking shipping that's not coming from or going to Canada. According to Canadians in this discussion, we're talking about that shipping going through remote, unsecured areas where the Canadian government struggles (or fails) to provide services like search and rescue. All fringe interest in banning shipping through these waters aside (as Canada will not actually do that), the Canadian claim here seems to be a naked grab for money. It can't provide services in that area and it can't meaningfully regulate shipping activities there. All it can do is sit at a few choke points and collect fees.
troymc 13y ago
I'm guessing what will happen is that various companies will propose building ports in the Canadian north, and Alaska. Then there will be debates about levels of investment and ownership and preventing oil spills and so on. Similar debates have happened with respect to developing Canada's oil and potash resources (in the interior). I don't see the need for the military to get involved.
- grecy 13y ago
  > arious companies will propose building ports in the Canadian north, and Alaska. I don't think so, because those ports won't be ice-free, and will therefore be of little use. Valdez (the end of the AK pipeline) is the most northerly year-round ice-free port, and it's not North at all, by AK/Northern Canada standards (I have to drive many hours South to get there...)
  - troymc 13y ago
    Canada already has an arctic port that's iced-in for much of the year: the Port of Churchill on Hudson Bay. Tourists go there to see polar bears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill
- otoburb 13y ago
  As far as I understand no foreign countries laid claim to Canada's oil and potash resources in the interior. The difference for the Canadian North is that we have a few countries disputing our territorial claims[1] such as Denmark (via Greenland), Russia and the US. Thankfully these disputes are contained within diplomatic channels. My point is not that we must go to war, but that if we expect other countries to obey our laws typically the best way of enforcement is an actual show of force via patrols. Ironically, as I read about the Canadian Coast Guard, it is one of the few coast guard services that has a strictly civilian mandate with no military nor law-enforcement responsibilities[3]. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/11/climatech... [2] http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-a-decisive-year-for-canadian-arctic-ambitions/ http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_role http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_r...
dhughes 13y ago
It's not so much the shipping that is upsetting it's the arrogant dismissive tone by certain countries deciding the water belongs to everyone because it's convenient for them. When your so-called friends ignore your sovereignty and we are so small population-wise what choices do we have for defence? I know the US wouldn't stand for it if the situation was reversed. Good luck with search and rescue too we have a tough time now finding ships and planes we know about let alone some unknown ship who knows where. The recent Coast Guard helicopter crash is a good example the ship that the helicopter came from knew where they were but still couldn't get to them before they occupants froze to death. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-die-in-canadian-coast-guard-helicopter-crash-in-northwest-territories/article14216223/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-die-in-ca... Prime Minister Harper is putting a push on lately to visit the north but it's more PR than anything but his party has spoken about building massive Coast Guard ships to patrol the arctic in the winter. I think they had giant tracked wheels on the front to help break ice; the bows of ice breaking ships ride up onto the ice they don't push through the ice.
- Semiapies 13y ago
  "Sovereignty" and "defense"? Good grief. I guess it's useful for Canadian politicians that they can wrap things like jockeying for a cut of international shipping in both the maple leaf flag and the Canadian inferiority complex. "Good luck with search and rescue too" Waters you can't secure, waters you can't patrol, waters you can't provide search and rescue for...You need to be able to at least give a decent pretense of doing those things in order to board ships and demand money without being called a pirate.
ianstallings 13y ago
Actually I would like to put forward a counter point that is does have the capabilities to enforce it. They could put the pressure on the US and EU through the WTO by threatening to cut off oil sand exports (which is already being disputed in public with the EU), Canadian wheat, and logging exports. Canada could bargain with the US and seek to get backing for their EE zones and counter any claims by EU states. Canada and the US already have a close military relationship and the trade between the two countries is larger than any other trade between nations at ~$300B USD thanks to NAFTA. Military warfare is a thing of the past when it comes to nations of our size and strength and what it would do to both. Economic warfare is the new way that Canada can fight. IMHO Canada has a lot to negotiate with.
- Semiapies 13y ago
  Canada could do that. It'd be profoundly stupid, as Canada would be hurt far more than the US and EU would be. (On the US/EU side, prices would go up, with eventual repercussions. On the CA side, no money would come in for those export industries, and you'd quickly have tons of people laid off and those companies clamoring for government assistance.) But yes, Canada could do that in hopes of getting a cut of potential future shipping money. Their politician probably aren't that foolish, though.

by otoburb 13y ago

jacquesm 13y ago

Canada does not have the resources to defend against any scenario. That does not mean that it should be walked over like this either.

clarkmoody 13y ago
When it comes to international trade, there simply is no substitute for a strong navy. Friendly relations and treaties with countries possessing strong navies can only go so far.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
otoburb 13y ago
I agree with you that countries shouldn't be walked over like this. However, our territorial claims will be ignored if we don't boost funding in a navy fleet, coast guard fleet and/or ports to assist with patrolling. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done given our lack of appetite for even higher taxes which would probably come in the form of a GST hike. It seems our options are: 1) Raise funds to patrol or enforce our territory; 2) Partner with other countries and attempt to negotiate minerals, resources or access in exchange for adherence and continued international recognition of Canada's territorial claims; or 3) Do nothing.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Canada is simply too big. Infrastructure and defence are a function of the GDP divided by the area. Too small a GDP or too large an area and you can't properly wire, put roads in or defend a country. Even so, we have these borders that were agreed upon in the past, a change of the weather shouldn't cause such a border to be redrawn.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >a change of the weather shouldn't cause such a border to be redrawn. look at climate changes during last 2-3 thousand years and how whole empires/civilizations got appeared and disappeared as a result. On the [kind of] positive side [for high-tech industry i mean] Canada will become a big customer for air-, ground-, navy- and submarine drones :)
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      Does this count as a protection racket if the US military provides support? :)
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - goodcanadian 13y ago
        The US is the prime opponent in this battle. They are the ones claiming the right to use the Northwest Passage as an international shipping lane. In my opinion, their position is weak as there is no historical tradition of the passage being used as such. Of course, I am Canadian, so I may be biased.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    At the close of WW II Canada had the world's second most powerful navy. It may not be able to take on Russia or the US, but there's no reason for the modern Canadian navy to be this weak.
  - 13y ago
Semiapies 13y ago
How is it being walked over? We're talking shipping that's not coming from or going to Canada. According to Canadians in this discussion, we're talking about that shipping going through remote, unsecured areas where the Canadian government struggles (or fails) to provide services like search and rescue. All fringe interest in banning shipping through these waters aside (as Canada will not actually do that), the Canadian claim here seems to be a naked grab for money. It can't provide services in that area and it can't meaningfully regulate shipping activities there. All it can do is sit at a few choke points and collect fees.

troymc 13y ago

I'm guessing what will happen is that various companies will propose building ports in the Canadian north, and Alaska. Then there will be debates about levels of investment and ownership and preventing oil spills and so on. Similar debates have happened with respect to developing Canada's oil and potash resources (in the interior). I don't see the need for the military to get involved.

grecy 13y ago
> arious companies will propose building ports in the Canadian north, and Alaska. I don't think so, because those ports won't be ice-free, and will therefore be of little use. Valdez (the end of the AK pipeline) is the most northerly year-round ice-free port, and it's not North at all, by AK/Northern Canada standards (I have to drive many hours South to get there...)
- troymc 13y ago
  Canada already has an arctic port that's iced-in for much of the year: the Port of Churchill on Hudson Bay. Tourists go there to see polar bears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill
otoburb 13y ago
As far as I understand no foreign countries laid claim to Canada's oil and potash resources in the interior. The difference for the Canadian North is that we have a few countries disputing our territorial claims[1] such as Denmark (via Greenland), Russia and the US. Thankfully these disputes are contained within diplomatic channels. My point is not that we must go to war, but that if we expect other countries to obey our laws typically the best way of enforcement is an actual show of force via patrols. Ironically, as I read about the Canadian Coast Guard, it is one of the few coast guard services that has a strictly civilian mandate with no military nor law-enforcement responsibilities[3]. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/11/climatech... [2] http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-a-decisive-year-for-canadian-arctic-ambitions/ http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_role http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_r...

dhughes 13y ago

It's not so much the shipping that is upsetting it's the arrogant dismissive tone by certain countries deciding the water belongs to everyone because it's convenient for them. When your so-called friends ignore your sovereignty and we are so small population-wise what choices do we have for defence? I know the US wouldn't stand for it if the situation was reversed. Good luck with search and rescue too we have a tough time now finding ships and planes we know about let alone some unknown ship who knows where. The recent Coast Guard helicopter crash is a good example the ship that the helicopter came from knew where they were but still couldn't get to them before they occupants froze to death. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-die-in-canadian-coast-guard-helicopter-crash-in-northwest-territories/article14216223/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-die-in-ca... Prime Minister Harper is putting a push on lately to visit the north but it's more PR than anything but his party has spoken about building massive Coast Guard ships to patrol the arctic in the winter. I think they had giant tracked wheels on the front to help break ice; the bows of ice breaking ships ride up onto the ice they don't push through the ice.

Semiapies 13y ago
"Sovereignty" and "defense"? Good grief. I guess it's useful for Canadian politicians that they can wrap things like jockeying for a cut of international shipping in both the maple leaf flag and the Canadian inferiority complex. "Good luck with search and rescue too" Waters you can't secure, waters you can't patrol, waters you can't provide search and rescue for...You need to be able to at least give a decent pretense of doing those things in order to board ships and demand money without being called a pirate.

ianstallings 13y ago

Actually I would like to put forward a counter point that is does have the capabilities to enforce it. They could put the pressure on the US and EU through the WTO by threatening to cut off oil sand exports (which is already being disputed in public with the EU), Canadian wheat, and logging exports. Canada could bargain with the US and seek to get backing for their EE zones and counter any claims by EU states. Canada and the US already have a close military relationship and the trade between the two countries is larger than any other trade between nations at ~$300B USD thanks to NAFTA. Military warfare is a thing of the past when it comes to nations of our size and strength and what it would do to both. Economic warfare is the new way that Canada can fight. IMHO Canada has a lot to negotiate with.

Semiapies 13y ago
Canada could do that. It'd be profoundly stupid, as Canada would be hurt far more than the US and EU would be. (On the US/EU side, prices would go up, with eventual repercussions. On the CA side, no money would come in for those export industries, and you'd quickly have tons of people laid off and those companies clamoring for government assistance.) But yes, Canada could do that in hopes of getting a cut of potential future shipping money. Their politician probably aren't that foolish, though.