David Jones: Canada's claim to the Northwest Passage

August 15, 2008
David Jones . Don’t kid yourselves, Canada
Citizen Special
Sometimes one wonders why a politician marches into a swamp clearly marked, “Here lie alligators.” Is it hubris — the conviction that water walking is not confined to Biblical characters? Is it an effort to float a lead balloon by someone confused as to whether lead floats or declines that option? Is it an effort to see whether kicking the immobile canine will prove that the dog is actually dead (while assuming that if sleeping it will only snarl at you, but not tear off a foot)?
It is with such thoughts in mind that one can examine the blithe observations by Senator William Rompkey in his mid-July excursion into comment and opinion regarding the Arctic and the Northwest Passage (“Russian flags aren’t the real threat to Arctic sovereignty” July 17).
Senator Rompkey made one accurate point. Energy exploration and control over areas in the Arctic beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone are thoroughly scripted; they will be handled by duelling mapping agencies, seismic studies, and probably, ultimately by jurisprudence, but not by duelling gun boats. A number of states are engaged in preparing such claims (and oddly Senator Rompkey noted Denmark but fails to list the United States). But be that as it may.
From that point Senator Rompkey immediately goes astray with his affirmation that the Northwest Passage is Canadian internal waters. He offers the opinion of a Canadian law professor that “Canada at present had a good claim to the Northwest Passage as internal waters.”
However, that claim, as Senator Rompkey admits, is hardly universally accepted. In fact, it is not accepted at all. No seafaring nation accepts such a Canadian claim. Certainly not any EU state, Russia — or the United States.
And here Senator Rompkey waxes disingenuous. He approvingly cites another expert in the field to the effect that the United States would not contest Canada setting up rules and regulations regarding control of the Northwest Passage. The expert hypothesizes that the U.S. would not publicly agree with Canadian action but would allow such measures as mandatory notification for all vessels entering the Northwest Passage — as a device for building the case for Canadian sovereignty over the strait.
Senator Rompkey and Canadians pursuing this logic are, to put it politely, kidding themselves.
They may have forgotten a revealing element of U.S. bureaucratic history. That is, for most of the life of the American republic, there were two separate, independent military-related institutions: a War Department and a Navy Department. And anyone who assumes that the Navy was the subordinate department would be mistaken. While all U.S. military services are now incorporated into the Defense Department, as long as there is a United States Navy, U.S. government policy will insist on maintaining international waterways as international.
This position is not bloody-minded U.S. arrogance. It is simply the pragmatic approach of a major naval power defending its international interests. It is not that Washington doesn’t love and trust Ottawa’s benign willingness to permit U.S. naval vessels innocent transit of the Northwest Passage (we don’t, but that is another story). It is that the collegial nature of Canadian sovereignty would not necessarily be matched by other states when addressing waterways they would like to control — read Iran concerning the Straits of Hormuz or Indonesia, regarding the Malacca Straits.
Immediately following the 2006 election and prior to becoming prime minister, Stephen Harper emphasized Canada’s claim to the Arctic. Subsequently, the Canada First defense strategy has been sold at least partly as necessary for defence of Arctic sovereignty. Subsequent to Mr. Harper’s statement, the State Department’s press spokesman was prodded on the status of the Northwest Passage and the need for the U.S. to request permission to transit the strait. The response was direct and definitive, “We believe it is an international strait. It’s a longstanding policy of the United States.”
Currently, there is a workable regime in operation in the Arctic. The hypotheses regarding continued melting ice in the region remain hypotheses. They do not require dramatic action in the near term; indeed, they may never require such action, and it is borrowing trouble to press for such.
And there it stands; Washington is not looking for trouble. We are willing to agree on disagreement. But if Canada continues pushing this hot button, it will prompt an unpleasant and unnecessary electric jolt.