Canadian Arctic Sovereignty: a Glacial Response to Rapidly Changing Environment

CANADIAN ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY: A GLACIAL RESPONSE TO RAPIDLY CHANGING ENVIRONMENT Maj K.L. Ciesielski JCSP 41 PCEMI 41 Exercise Solo Flight Exercice Solo Flight Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs do not represent Department of National Defence or et ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used Ministère de la Défense nationale ou des Forces without written permission. canadiennes. Ce papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2015. le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2015. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 41 – PCEMI 41 2014 – 2015 EXERCISE SOLO FLIGHT – EXERCICE SOLO FLIGHT CANADIAN ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY: A GLACIAL RESPONSE TO RAPIDLY CHANGING ENVIRONMENT Maj K.L. Ciesielski “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfilment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is a exigences du cours. L'étude est un scholastic document, and thus contains document qui se rapporte au cours et facts and opinions, which the author contient donc des faits et des opinions alone considered appropriate and que seul l'auteur considère appropriés et correct for the subject. It does not convenables au sujet. Elle ne reflète pas necessarily reflect the policy or the nécessairement la politique ou l'opinion opinion of any agency, including the d'un organisme quelconque, y compris le Government of Canada and the gouvernement du Canada et le ministère Canadian Department of National de la Défense nationale du Canada. Il est Defence. This paper may not be défendu de diffuser, de citer ou de released, quoted or copied, except with reproduire cette étude sans la permission the express permission of the Canadian expresse du ministère de la Défense Department of National Defence.” nationale.” Word Count: 4764 Compte de mots : 4764 1 CANADIAN ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY: A GLACIAL RESPONSE TO A RAPIDLY CHANGING ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION The search for the Northwest Passage went on long before Canada was a country. The earliest expeditions were conducted by the Royal Navy in the 1800s in an attempt to find this fabled route. None were as famous as Sir John Franklin’s lost expedition of 1845, a mystery that would not be solved until 169 years later when the HMS Erebus was found in 2014. Norway’s Roald Amundsen completed the first successful voyage of the Northwest Passage in 1907, but it was not until Canada’s closest ally and neighbour attempted to navigate the passage in 1969 that Canada realized that this long sought after route through Canada’s Arctic was not only a potential source of economic benefit, but could also be a challenge to Canada’s sovereignty. When it comes to Canada, “sovereignty” is a contested term. For international lawyers, the threat to Canadian sovereignty is limited to a dispute with Denmark over Hans Island, with the United States over the Beaufort Sea, and with the international community (and the US in particular) over the status of the Northwest Passage.1 But for many others, the issue of Arctic sovereignty does not end with the resolution of the legal status of these areas. Rob Huebert, for example, rejects the standard legal definition that would limit sovereignty to the legal status of land and water within a region; he argues that sovereignty must include the ability to defend and protect national interests and 1 The Globe and Mail, “The Myth of Arctic Sovereignty: Do we really need to defend the North?,” last modified January 24, 2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/the-myth-of- arctic-sovereignty-do-we-really-need-to-defend-the-north/article16444454/?page=all. 2 values within the region for which the state has jurisdiction.2 Huebert defines the main elements of sovereignty as “a defined territory; an existing governance system; and a people within the defined territory.”3 Canada’s foreign policy is concerned with both the legal status of its Arctic territory, as well as its jurisdiction in terms of control of the use of the Arctic. For the purpose of this paper, Arctic sovereignty includes the definition of international borders and the protection of Canadian interests and values within those borders.4 The first of Canada’s six core missions listed in the Canada First Defence Strategy is to “conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD.”5 This paper shows that while the threat to Arctic sovereignty has increased in the last decade, Canada’s commitment to assert Arctic sovereignty has stifled, leaving Canada incapable of responding to a sovereignty threat in the Arctic. This paper will first examine the legal status of international boundaries, the resolution to Canada’s claims, and Canadian policy and effort to assert sovereignty through governance and control over its Arctic regions. Second, it will discuss the threats posed by the opening of the Northwest Passage and the legal status of the passage. Third, it will examine the bi-national role of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) with respect to its mission and capabilities to respond to traditional security 2 The Globe and Mail, “The Myth of Arctic Sovereignty... 3 Rob Huebert, "Canadian Arctic Sovereignty and Security in a Transforming Circumpolar World," in Canada and the Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Security, and Stewardship (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2011), 14. 4 Ibid. 5 Government of Canada, “Canada First Defence Strategy,” accessed April 19, 2015, http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/canada-first-defence-strategy.page. 3 threats to North America, and threats to Canadian sovereignty. Finally, it will examine Canada’s ability to monitor and respond to threats against Canadian sovereignty. DEFINING TERRITORY To address one of the aspects of Huebert’s elements of sovereignty, the people within the territory, Canada has gone through extreme measures to lay more obvious claim to part of the Arctic region. Military facilities as well as other government agencies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Environment Canada had outposts or research stations scattered throughout the Arctic, but large portions of the Arctic did not have a civilian population. In the 1950s, the Canadian government relocated Inuit families to create the communities of Resolute Bay on Cornwallis Island and Grise Fiord on Ellesmere Island. Legitimate human rights issues aside, the creation of communities on these uninhabited islands strengthened Canadian sovereignty claims to even more remote regions of the Arctic. Indeed, the continued Inuit presence in the Arctic is the essence of Canada’s sovereignty claim.6 Today, the Arctic land mass, with the exception of Hans Island, is not in dispute due to the continued use of Canadian government agencies and the Inuit population. To address another element of Huebert’s sovereignty definition, Canada has used diplomacy and international law to resolve disputes of international boundaries in the Arctic in order to define its territory. In 1973, Canada and Denmark agreed upon Arctic boundaries except for Hans Island, an uninhabited island of only 1.3 square kilometres 6 Paul Okalik, "Arctic Priorities: A Northern Perspective," in Behind the Headlines (Toronto: Canadian International Council, 2008), 4. 4 which lies between Greenland and Ellesmere Island.7 There are no known natural resources near this island and there is little to be gained or lost by either state in this dispute. Still, Canada and Denmark both claim Hans Island as their own, but there is no threat to sovereignty or security over the status of Hans Island. Canada and the US dispute control of the territorial water of the Beaufort Sea adjacent to the Yukon/Alaska border. Canada’s claim refers to the 1825 Treaty of St. Petersburg, which places the maritime border at the 141st meridian, where the US claim extends the maritime border perpendicular to the shoreline northeastward from the 141st meridian.8 Oil and gas resources are known to be in this region and any further exploration and development has thus far been deferred. Although the US is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the US is likely to accept the decision of UNCLOS9, therefore there is no threat to sovereignty or security over this dispute. The Northwest Passage is more contentious. In 1969, the SS Manhattan completed its first voyage through the Northwest Passage, in what was considered a direct challenge to Canadian sovereignty. The ice-hardened oil tanker was a test platform for a US oil company to determine the feasibility of transporting oil from the Alaskan 7 Kim Mackrael, "Canada, Denmark Closer to Settling Border Dispute," last modified November 30, 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-denmark-closer-to-settling-border- dispute/article5831571/?page=all. 8 P. Whitney Lackenbauer, "From Polar Race to Polar Saga: An Integrated Strategy for Canada and the Circumpolar World," in Canada and the Changing Arctic: Sovereignty, Security, and Stewardship (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2011), 125. 9 Michael Byers, "Cold Peace: Arctic Cooperation and Canadian Foreign Policy," in The Arctic Contested (Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang S.A., 2014), 112. 5 coast through the Northwest Passage.10 A de-classified internal memo from the US Department of State dated March 12, 1970 stated that the US could not accept Canada’s claim that the passage was internal waters.11 The US concern over the status of the Northwest Passage has little to do with the Arctic, however; instead, it is a precedence setting position that would limit movement through straits world-wide.

Load more