The Northwest Passage has always held a somewhat mysterious place in Canadian history from Martin Frobisher’s initial sighting of an ice-bound east-west passage in 1576 to the first Canadian traverse of the waterway in 1942 by the RCMP icebreaker, St. Roch. Now, however, due to global warming and increasing international interest in the Passage, Canadians are going to have to change their view of the fabled waterway.
When he became Canadian Prime Minister in January, 2006, Stephen Harper voiced his government’s intention to make the Northwest Passage a priority for Canadian sovereignty. He announced a plan to deploy military icebreakers to patrol the Passage and to defend it, if necessary. The plan did not sit well with American policy-makers, and the American Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, responded that “There’s no reason to create a problem that doesn’t exist.” Harper shot back that: “The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty. It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States.”
Harper’s pronouncement is true on a political level, but it does not take into account those factors that operate beyond the governmental sphere. The first one is the Northwest Passage, itself. Under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention the waterway is considered an international strait, along with over 100 other such passages. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention states that bodies of water joining two parts of the high seas, and used for navigation, are international and may be used by any nation. Length of time available or frequency of usage does not enter into the equation; unimpeded navigation is the determining factor. Neither the United States, nor Europe have accepted Canada’s claim to “sovereignty” over the Northwest Passage and, considering that use of the Passage will reduce the shipping route between Europe and Asia by almost half, they are unlikely to agree to the claim in the future.
The second question is confusion of what, exactly, constitutes Canada’s claim to sovereignty in the Arctic. In speech and action Canadians, including those in government, use the term as though it applies to both the Northwest Passage and the surrounding islands and land masses. A difference in law exits, however. Under International Law, the question of Arctic sovereignty applies only to those who can demonstrate that they have a greater title or control over the land- based Arctic than does Canada. This situation can change at any time. Canada’s claim to sovereignty of the Arctic landmasses, at this point, in not in dispute, though Hans Island, located between Ellesmere Island and Greenland has been the focal point of discussions between Denmark and Canada.
The largest factor in the mix is, obviously, climate change, and it is this dynamic and its effect on the Northwest Passage, that worries Michael Byers, the Canadian Research Chair in International Law and Politics at the University of British Columbia. His contention is that global warming will not only open the Northwest Passage to international shipping, but will also present Canadians with a great challenge to their sovereignty in the Arctic. Warmer waters will mean greater plankton, the invasion of fish species not normally found in Arctic waters, and the presence of fishing vessels. International shipping, in the form of increased tanker travel or tourist vessels could well mean a higher rate of accidents which could easily threaten fragile habitat or necessitate expensive rescue missions. Furthermore, an ice-free passage in the north could bring such traffic as drugs, guns, illegal immigrants, and perhaps criminals or terrorists. It is these latter groups that pose a security risk to Canada due to the vastness of the territory and the easy access to the heart of the continent that an ice-free conduit presents.
To keep control over such a vast and changing landscape, Canada must have the technical ability and manpower to oversee events. To date, the country has been remiss in asserting its use of the Arctic, which inhibits our awareness of what is happening in the area. In a region where usage and patrol dictate possession, Canada has neglected its presence in northern waters. The government has four summer-only icebreakers, and only one all-season ship, the Canadian Coast Guard vessel, Amundsen. Over-flights are carried out by a small fleet of aged, up-graded Aurora aircraft, but these trips are used mostly for fisheries protection. One or two actual sovereignty patrols are carried out each year: hardly enough to see what is going on in such a vast territory. Canada is trying to cover the surveillance gap by using Radarsat-2 satellite imaging, and the government has promised five new Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, but a great deal of work must take place to catch up with the reality that is on the ground.
Some steps in that direction may be coming. On July 9, 2007 Prime Minister Harper announced that a deep water port would be constructed in the Arctic with the intention of carrying out sea-borne surveillance and for the re-fuelling and re-supplying of patrol ships. These measures are a start, but if the Northwest Passage becomes permanently ice-free within the coming decades, the Arctic coastline must be considered, and treated, with the same strategic importance as our coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
