Hacker News Reader

Slightly more than 100,000 people in 3,867,271 km^2 of the 3 northern territories. (Just under half of Canada by area, bigger than India) It's going to be very hard to assert sovereignty when it's such a large area to monitor with so few people. For example a German weather station build in Labrador in 1943 wasn't found until the 1980s. Who knows what other countries are already doing in Canada's north.

Link for the intrigued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Station_Kurt

These days we have remote sensing satellites, plus sophisticated software to analyze their data, so it would be quite a bit more difficult to do something big and go unnoticed.

If you rely on non-visible spectrum, its even easier. People and running equipment are going to stand out.

There is a reason why Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were created in Canada back in the 1970.

Canada can be the next USA, they just need around 100 million people to start. How about handing out a few acres for the brave souls?:-)

Sure, come up here to the Yukon, the government still gives away land up here.

As a plus, -40 is fun.

Monitoring a couple of choke points is significantly easier than maintaining detailed surveys of all land masses.

And you could probably hide a weather station on a tanker for a while as well :)

As I understand it, the island ownership doesn't necessarily solve this; there would still be a dispute over what happens if a passage wider than 24 nautical miles opens up. Canada isn't an archipelagic state, so would not be able to make an argument for the same sort of broad internal waters that, say, the Philippines have, so any such passage would be outside of Canada's territorial waters.

There would still be exclusive rights to economically exploit, of course, but Canada would not be able to forbid international shipping through such a passage.

I didn't pick up on this subtlety. Really good point. Can I ask about the significance of 24 nautical miles? Assuming that's an international boundary condition between Canadian territorial waters vs. international waters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

Territorial waters extend 12nm from the coast. So if there's a path through that's more than 24nm wide, some part of it must lie outside of Canadian territorial waters, regardless of the status of the islands.

Yes but exclusive economic zones extend much farther and are how a country can claim parts of the sea. Canada's exclusive economic zone covers this part of the world currently: http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-pas...

Yes, which was why my original comment distinguished between the right to bar shipping and the right to economically exploit.

Even if Canada prevails on ownership of every single Arctic island, a passage more than 24nm wide would mean supertankers could come through, and Canada would not be able to forbid it.

But that's disputable given that Canada claims that some of the Northwest Passage is internal waters.

That's a claim which, from looking at a map, is unlikely to hold up; internal waters are lakes, rivers, and inlets which come further in than the baseline established by the coast.

The only exception I can find is for nations which are made up of an archipelago of islands, and Canada is not one. So again, so long as there's a wide enough route through the islands, it doesn't matter what country owns the islands -- the sea passage between them would be open to international shipping.

Just looking on google maps now, there is a chokepoint across the passage that has several islands - this makes a contiguous territorial water zone (as each island is within 20 google-map-miles), if Canada's claim to ownership of the islands is respected. I assume this is why the argument is on ownership of the islands rather than route of the path.

EEZs cannot stop shipping, only extraction of resources.

Yeap, that's 12 miles from each side.

How many islands (or what % of total land mass) does a nation need to be considered an archipelagic state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipelagic_state

24 miles? in 1995 the Canadian Navy opened fire and took a Spanish fishing boat that was farther away than the 200 nautical miles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

If the Mississippi river suddenly grew up to 25 miles wide, you can bet no foreign boats will be allowed to navigate on it as "international waters". Basically the limits are imposed by the respective naval forces.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Inland lakes and rivers are internal waters; the state they're within has absolute control over them.

Territorial waters end 12 nautical miles from the coast.

The exclusive economic zone ends 200 nautical miles from the coast.

The firing upon and seizure of a Spanish boat in international waters would, if they chose that course, have been legal justification for Spain to declare war.

I know very well the distinctions thanks, I just put forward an extreme example but the main point remains; if someone anchored a boat 201 miles off the coast of California and set up some casino or whatever activity is illegal in the US, the Navy would assault it. See also the incident with Israel attacking civilian/activist boat and killing people, including American.

Some people (like here the other day regarding the post about the guys who bought an island) think international waters are kind of sacred, the truth is that it depends on what the powerful nations want to do. Boats are routinely boarded and inspected in international waters.

So in the case of Canada actions would depend on the nationality of the ship; if it's not a nuclear power and Canada has the logistics you can bet it will be engaged regardless of 12 or 200 miles.

Saying that Canada is not an archipelago because there is a huge landmass in the southern part of the country does not change the fact that the northern part does in fact consist of an archipelago by definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arctic_Archipelago

"Canada does not have a single port along the Northwest Passage but that Russia, by comparison, has 16 deep water ports along its Arctic coastline."

The article seems to end by identifying Canada's first major problem. Then you move into things like ice breakers etc. where Russia leads, while Finland and Sweden are ahead of Canada/USA.

Here's a nice infograph on world's ice breakers. It tells you something about short-term capabilities / general knowhow in this area. http://news.usni.org/2013/07/23/u-s-coast-guards-2013-reivew...

"Presently, 60% of all diesel icebreakers are produced in Finland, 100% of all nuclear icebreakers are produced in Russia." Meaning Finland and Russia have a big head start here... http://barentsnova.com/node/1573

You can buy icebreakers easily. We would be happy to sell you as many as you want as the global shipbuilding industry is doing extremely badly. Just last week a whole dock was shut down in Rauma, Finland.

In the mean time, Canada is spending $300 million just to acquire the ability to build ice breakers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-...

Canada has icebreaking hovercraft - I remember seeing a documentary with footage of the driver doing spinouts in the giant machines. My first impression was that the demand for that job must be intense.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

>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 :)

Does this count as a protection racket if the US military provides support? :)

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.

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.

You don't need to patrol the entire length of the passage, just the egress points.

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.

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.

> 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...)

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

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/climatech... [2] http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_r...

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-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.

"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.

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.

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.

Given Canada's already claimed that area part of it's Exclusive Economic Zone: http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-pas...

I would think that any nation calling it "international waters" is going to cause a lot of problems. Now that doesn't mean they should tax anyone that passes through, but fishing and port rights will obviously be part of it and there will probably be an agreement made through organizations such as the G8 or WTO to counter any threats to that exclusivity.

Basically it's just going to be negotiation time and Canada will come out the winner. IMHO.

Edit: why on earth was I down voted? Err, whatever. Sorry for my fact-based opinion. Loons.

EEZs are for resource-extraction, not shipping.