The Americas

Americas view

Arctic politics

An icy tone from the Great White North

Feb 20th 2011, 0:00 by M.D. | OTTAWA

THE race for sovereignty over the Arctic first grabbed the world’s attention in 2007, when a Russian submarine planted a titanium flag on the ocean floor at the North Pole. Yet according to a poll of the eight Arctic countries released last month, the most assertive nation in the region when it comes to ownership of resources and border issues is Canada. Slightly over 40% of Canadian respondents said their government “should pursue a firm line in defending its sections of the Arctic”. The only other countries that exceeded 10% were Iceland (36%) and Russia (34%). Similarly, about 10% of Canadians said the area should be made an international territory comparable to Antarctica, the lowest figure in the survey. In contrast, 48% of Swedes supported that idea. “We seemed to have morphed a bit,” says Frank Graves, a pollster in Ottawa whose company, EKOS Research Associates, co-ordinated the research project. “It’s my way or the highway on many issues.”

The first explanation for this hard line is Canadians’ perennial antipathy towards Americans: the superpower to the south can’t be allowed to get too greedy in the north. Whereas the United States was the only country to choose Canada as its preferred partner for dealing with Arctic issues, Canadians—whom the report’s authors called “rather churlish”—rated the Americans on the same level as Russians. “We may well ask who is the American now?”, they noted.

A more recent cause is the militant posture taken by Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister. During his 2005-06 campaign, he promised to build heavily armed icebreakers and a network of underwater listening posts. Following his victory, he used his first news conference to warn the world that “the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty” over the Northwest Passage. In office, he has travelled north every year to observe military exercises, where he makes sure to appear in carefully staged photos on naval frigates and submarines, with the obligatory icebergs in the background. Part of his government’s rationale for its controversial C$16 billion ($16.1 billion) purchase of F-35 fighter jets is that they are needed to fend off Russian flights, which have not, but just might, enter Canadian airspace.

This bellicose rhetoric may have helped shore up support for Mr Harper’s minority government. But it does not bode well for resolving problems that will inevitably arise as the polar icecap recedes, opening the region to more shipping and resource exploration. Canada has a dispute with Denmark over ownership of barren Hans Island, which separates its Ellesmere Island from Greenland; one with the United States over the maritime boundary extending into Beaufort Sea from the border between the Yukon Territory and Alaska; and one with just about every country but China over whether the Northwest Passage is an international strait or sovereign Canadian waters. Further potential battles could be brewing regarding the continental shelf and the resources that lie beneath the Arctic Ocean.

There was some common ground to be found among the Arctic countries, however. China has applied for observer status at the Arctic Council. But every country in the poll save Russia listed China as their least preferred partner when it comes to the Arctic. Russia reserved top spot in the unpopularity stakes for its old Cold War adversary, the United States.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-3 of 3
Didomyk wrote:
Feb 21st 2011 2:58 GMT

An interesting and timely commentary that would have been more useful with some careful and pertinent research. Take for example the following statement about Canada's PM Steven Harper:

"...he has travelled north every year to observe military exercises, where he makes sure to appear in carefully staged photos on naval frigates and submarines, with the obligatory icebergs in the background."

'Military exercises' involving a few Ranger patrols on skis testing their search and rescue capabilities ? Come-on, let's get serious. Canada doesn't have even a single naval vessel capable of sailing in these Arctic waters without an icebreaker ! Submarines ? Which submarines ? What is this, a fiction story ?

OK, another example: " Part of his government’s rationale for its controversial C$16 billion ($16.1 billion) purchase of F-35 fighter jets is that they are needed to fend off Russian flights..."

The last time I recall reading a comment on that subject the F-35 jets rationale was based on Canada's NATO and NORAD commitments. That includes defending ALL of North America, not just Canadian Arctic territory. And Russia keeps testing Norad alert capabilities. The fact is no one can defend the NAmerican continent with just a dozen or so of Canada geese !

Looks like The Economist's contributor should take a three months long winter holidays in the Canadian Arctic !

jamattei wrote:
Feb 24th 2011 7:52 GMT

I like being called churlish! - it's a pleasant change from being variously ignored, dismissed or, most often, referred to as a "polite" American. So, in keeping with the refreshing characterization that allows me to be at least as direct in public as I am in private, I give you this:

"The World" (comprised of N. Europe, Russia & Alaska) was more than content to dismiss Arctic Canada as a wasteland of no value to anyone for several hundred years. Because of this, only Canadians are present in that region. Only Canadians maintain any services, businesses, institutions or support facilities.

Only the Canadian Coast Guard, Armed Forces and RCMP have EVER maintained sustained operations in Arctic Canada. CANADA has been responsible for defending its own sovreignty since Confederation (in 1867). Much more recently, Canada also meets NATO and NORAD commitments in Arctic Canada.

Here's the churlish bit - Canadians are probably the only people on earth, besides the Russians, who can and will do so. Disparaging the current Prime Minister's demonstration of commitment to the region is just about what I expect to hear from this contributor - a fashion commentary from somebody who never steps foot out of the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle.

I am with the 40% in favouring a firm policy of maintaining Canada's sovreignty over Arctic Canada. If we don't defend it, we'll be left paying the bill to rescue idiots and clean up the environmental and social damage done by greedy resource-rapists.

valwayne wrote:
Feb 26th 2011 8:00 GMT

Its odd that Canadians would take such a dim, even hostile, view toward the U.S. when it comes to issues in the artic. When push comes to shove they will need the U.S. to support any disputed claims they have with other nations, especially a nation like Russia that is being so aggressive in the artic. Unless, of course, they really think they can prevail over a nation like Russia in a dispute without U.S. support?

1-3 of 3

About Americas view

In this blog, our correspondents provide reporting, analysis and opinion on politics, economics, society and culture in Latin America, the Caribbean and Canada.

Follow us on Twitter @EconAmericas

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT

Kabuki comes home
From Asia view - 1 hrs 55 mins ago
Link exchange
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:42
An abundance of activity
From Multimedia - March 2nd, 21:14
About that Goldman estimate
From Free exchange - March 2nd, 21:10
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.

Advertisement