Wednesday, February 22, 2006

For the doves

Babble on.

Alan from GenX at 40 is apparently writing under a pseudonym for the Globe and Mail these days:

To rely mainly on military means is to court disaster in the defence of sovereignty. We do, however, have a practical and inexpensive way of exercising Canadian jurisdiction in the Arctic waters we call our own. Strangely, it involves talking to Washington about matters of common concern.


I guess Professor Griffiths' case has merit if you're of the opinion that Canadian territorial boundaries should be determined by someone other than Canada.

OK, that's not fair. He uses the weasel-word "mainly" to qualify the statement, and I'd agree: relying mainly on military means to win our Arctic sovereignty disputes is poor policy. But relying entirely upon diplomacy with no military presence to speak of is equally foolhardy.

I say if we think it should be ours, we patrol it and control it. Negotiate if you must, but negotiate from a position of strength. It's not like we have nothing to lose.

Babble off.

5 Comments:

At 10:31 AM, Blogger GenX at 40 said...

One of the most respected and successful areas of international law and respect for the courts is the area about where to draw lines in water. I am just gonna say we need to know a lot more about the right to safe passage through straits under international law if we are to understand what is it we need in an Arctic Force in relation to the NW Passage. We are subject to it as a nation and our status among nations would be greatly undermined by taking a position against the high sea to high sea right of innocent passage.

This is distinct from the question of folks misusing our land masses (use jets and bombs I say) and also distinct from the issue of relative bang for the buck of Arctic Forces as opposed to, say, another 25,000 regular troops for international duty to pick an idea out of nowhere. It is also distinct from the right to regulate the passage.

Peace and love, dude.

 
At 10:56 AM, Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

Damian: See my post at the other Damian:

"Arctic sovereignty: the Navy is not the answer"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005832.html

Mark
Ottawa

 
At 6:25 PM, Blogger Tom, Calgary said...

I think the conservatives are dangling an Arrow here. If Canada accedes to american demands to increase defense spending, that should buy something in kind. Rather than a nice hat for a vice-chairman, perhaps actual command of region of mutual defense. I might be dreaming in techno here; but, an arctic capable navy may be more credible than sustaining an independent aero-space industry.

 
At 2:56 PM, Blogger TonyGuitar said...

Integration. worked beautifully while I was in the service and is an essential for any effective national defense of North America.

The recent *Rigid Liberal* attitude about the NW passage and Hans Island is just so stupid it makes one want to have Graham put in a straight jacket.

Our small population and economy makes it impossible for us to police the north properly.

The USA's cooperation is essential in order to do the job with any professionalism.

That means ownership of the Northern waterways must be 1/3 Canadian and 2/3rds American.

Without US help, our ownership of northern waterways is bound to be ZERO.

1/3rd is a whole lot better than nothing at all in my book.

PS, I have been in the north including Greenland and Ellsmere Island.

Maps tell you nothing. Flying in steps from Winnipeg to the pole make Ripley's believe it or not look like a piker. We can not do without our big partner the USA. TG

 
At 11:26 AM, Blogger TonyGuitar said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home