With geriatric fleets of icebreakers on both sides, the dispute between Canada and the United States over the status of the Northwest Passage could fall to the U.S. side by default despite tough words from Ottawa, says an expert on the issue.
The fabled Northwest Passage—a sea route through Canada's ice-ridden Arctic Archipelago—is quickly becoming a key navigation route as global warming breaks the hold Arctic ice has long had on the northern waters. Experts believe that before the end of the century, the Canadian Arctic may be completely ice free in the summer.
With less ice comes more ships hoping to cash in on a trip that shaves thousands of miles off the current route from Asia to Europe through the Panama Canal.
Last month, the Canadian Coast Guard's research icebreaker sailed through the Bellot, Fury, and Helca Straits, which make up some of the various routes the passage can take. Never before has the ice allowed a ship to sail those straits at this time of year, said scientists on board the vessel. Furthermore, they said they encountered no ice at all.
Canada and the United States have disagreed for decades over the status of the Northwest Passage. The United States maintains that although the Northwest Passage falls under Canadian territory, it is also an international navigation route which should be open to all marine traffic.
Canada, however, is adamant that the passage is within Canadian internal waters and should thus be subject to the full breadth of Canadian law. For decades, the Canadian government has required ships passing through the Arctic to seek permission from Canadian authorities. Several countries—including the United States—often fail to heed the Canadians' request.
The dispute was highlighted recently when Paul Cellucci, former U.S ambassador to Canada, backed the Canadian position that the waterway would be best policed as internal waters of Canada.
"It is in the security interests of the United States that it be under the control of Canada," he said at a conference in Ottawa. His comments point to the irony of the U.S. stance: If the Northwest Passage is open to all marine traffic, it would have to include traffic from countries that could potentially pose a security threat to North America.
But Cellucci's position is at odds with that of current U.S. ambassador David Wilkins, who promptly restated the U.S. position that the Northwest Passage is an international strait.
Regardless of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's current hard line on asserting Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic, the passageway is at risk of becoming an international strait by default, says Michael Byers, an international law expert at the University of British Columbia.
"The principal threats in the Arctic are from outside North America and it would be in the interest of both countries for the U.S. to formally recognize [the passage as internal waters of Canada]," Byers said in an interview last Friday from Ottawa.
In exchange, he said Canada could agree to step up its commitments to police the waters for smuggling, environmental abuses, and terrorism.
Currently, Canada is in a stronger position than the United States to physically patrol the passage with a larger, better-maintained fleet of icebreakers.
"Generally, the fleet is in very good condition, but the fleet is getting older," said Canada's fleets director general, Gary Sidock, in an interview from Ottawa.
Canada currently has two heavy icebreakers, three medium icebreakers, and seven other vessels with limited ice-breaking capability. During the last election campaign, Harper promised to build three more armed icebreakers.
Until Canada can properly police the arctic and assert legal control of the area, however, other nations' ships continue to travel unfettered through the archipelago. And that, says Byers, may be setting a precedent that's impossible to reverse.
"More foreign vessels could attempt to use the Northwest Passage without seeking permission—as they might do in order to evade Canada's environmental laws," he said earlier this year at a speech in Vancouver. "Canada's legal argument could soon collapse under the weight of a few precedents, leaving us with little basis on which to regulate foreign vessels."
Feeds