For centuries, explorers yearned to discover the fabled Northwest Passage—a sea route through the Canadian artic that would cut thousands of kilometres worth of travel time on the journey to the Pacific Ocean and open more expedient trade channels to East Asia. Hundreds have perished attempting to navigate the artic archipelago, and thick ice made the trip all but impossible.
But all that is changing now. As global warming is redefining the geography of Canada's harsh and sparsely-populated north, the ice is now getting thinner and slowly disappearing. Some recent studies suggest that 50-60 percent of Arctic ice could disappear by the end of the century; others estimate that by 2070—or sooner—the Arctic may be so warm as to be ice-free in summer.
Beside profound environmental effects, thinner ice means more shipping through the Arctic, and with that comes more problems than Canada may not be ready to deal with.
Even with the Panama Canal serving as a link from the Atlantic to Pacific Oceans, an Arctic route would still shave roughly 4000 km off current shipping routes from Europe to Asia. That means that as the Arctic ice rapidly disappears we could see an explosion of nautical traffic through the very sensitive Arctic ecology. In addition to species like the polar bear, which is facing extinction as its habitat melts away, other Arctic species could also be challenged by foreign species introduced by passing boat traffic and increased pollution.
Added to that, a more passable Arctic means that oil reserves in the far north—which, by some estimates, account for as much as a quarter of the world's remaining oil supply—could be opened for business.
The resulting increased interest in the Arctic came to international attention last summer, when then-Canadian Defence Minister Bill Graham set foot on the tiny Hans Island, which is claimed by both Denmark and Canada. Denmark launched a protest, and both countries argued fiercely for control of the football field-sized, uninhabited island.
It is understandable, then, that Stephen Harper made asserting Arctic sovereignty a key issue in his election campaign. Following his election as Prime Minister, Harper vowed to increase spending to give Canada a military presence in the Arctic. The plan would include the construction of three armed icebreakers, which would be stationed near Iqaluit, at no small cost.
But there's a problem: while Canada claims the Northwest passage is internal waters over which it should exercise sovereignty and be able to control who comes and goes, the United States and much of Europe maintains that the Arctic waters are an international navigation route through which there should be free passage, and scoffs at Canada's military posturing in the north.
"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters. Most other countries do not recognize their claim," said U.S. Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, in January.
Wilkins also referred to the passageway as "neutral water," a claim Stephen Harper strongly rebuked. The term implies not only that Canada has no right to exercise control over the area, but also that resources such as fish and oil are fair game to any country, a position even the U.S. doesn't take. According to Macleans magazine, a senior U.S. official later corrected Wilkins' comments, saying, "he used the word neutral which is not the correct term."
And while the United States, along with countries like Russia and Britain, aren't actually making any challenges to Canada's claims to the resources, they are insisting that they shouldn't need to ask permission to traverse the passage, nor be subject to the full breadth of Canadian law. On their end, submitting to Canada's claims over the passageway would set a potentially disastrous precedent, leading other countries to assert territorial claims over important shipping routes.
And Canada's ability to control the passage as internal water way may be slipping away ship by ship, says Dr. Yann Huei Song, a research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies in Taiwan and currently a Fulbright visiting scholar at Stanford University.
Song says that the greatest threat to Canada's sovereignty claims is "the practice of foreign countries passing through the Northwest Passage (counting more than 200) without obtaining permission from the Canadian authorities."
UBC international law expert Michael Byers also believes that unregulated traffic through the Northwest Passage could set precedents that make it impossible for Canada to reclaim control over the area.
In a speech to the Vancouver Institute last January, Byers said that, as the ice melts, "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. 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."
This is one of the reasons why Canada has insisted on granting ships permission to traverse the strait even when they had already begun to do so without permission. Byers recalled one instance that took place in 1969 when an American oil tanker, working closely with the U.S. government, went on a test voyage through the passage and "made a point of not seeking permission from Canada."
"Ottawa insisted on granting permission nevertheless, and even sent an icebreaker to assist, and subsequently argued that granting the unsolicited permission prevented the voyage from undermining Canada's claim. A more convincing defence of sovereignty came from an unexpected source. As the SS Manhattan ploughed through the ice near Resolute Bay, two Inuit hunters drove their dogsleds into its path. The vessel ground to a halt, until the hunters-having made their point-moved aside."
Both Dr. Song and Byers are in agreement on the legal threat posed by foreign vessels passing through the passageway without permission, but differ on ideas about how Canada should deal with it. Where Byers supports increased military capacity in the Arctic, Song thinks any attempt to use military means to stop traffic through the strait could "create a diplomatic problem for Canada."
"A noble call in terms of protecting the integrity of Arctic region for the common heritage of mankind will be more welcomed by members of the international community and has a bigger chance to be accepted by the concerned Arctic countries," says Song.
Song believes the best ways to assert Arctic sovereignty are to take a leading role in navigational safety, maritime security and "preserving the fragile marine and ecological environment."
"Realistically speaking, an incremental approach and long-term policy planning should be considered by the Canadian government. By so doing, the international relations between Canada and the countries concerned will be less affected."
Additional reporting by Omid Ghoreishi in Edmonton and with files from The Tyee magazine