Should Canada strengthen its military presence in the Arctic?

Presence, yes, but why “military?” Where’s the threat? Fantasies like Peter MacKay’s Russian bomber runs, or Celluci’s Northwest Passage inbound terrorists? Give us a break.

Canada deserves an Arctic settlement presence, having only 2% of circumpolar population within the Circle of 2 million and 4% of Arctic regional settlement of 4 million. Russia and Norway have Circle cities (Murmansk, Norilsk, Tromso) bigger than Canada’s entire Arctic population, because they settled it. Our population is 50% indigenous, as opposed to 4% for Russia and 15% for Norway. They have connecting road and rail links – because they have Arctic activity.

Canadian Arctic economic activity is developing – example, Yellowknife diamonds – and so is international Arctic cooperation, no thanks to Canada, which has a third of the land mass. The way to validate our claim that the Northwest Passage is internal Canadian water is by negotiation, not a costly nonsensical military deployment.

Email

Share

To protect Canadian claims to territory, water passages and sea bed resources. Canada needs a larger presence in the Arctic through occupation and use. This means communities,economic development and scientific research among many activities. The military is only a part and not the highest priority.

Email

Share

Canada’s sovereignty over its Arctic territories is not in question and never has been. We have disputing claims with Russia over the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater mountain chain that runs from Ellemere Island to Siberia; with Denmark over Hans Island in the Nares Straits; and with the US over maritime boundaries in the Beaufort Sea and the legal status of the Northwest Passage.  But these disputes will be only be resolved by science, international law, and through the peaceful dispute settlement procedures of the United Nations. Displays of Gun Power may tell the world that we are concerned about the north. But we need lots of sharp pencils and legal smarts too.

Email

Share

The first question should be what do we want increased presence in the Arctic to do, not who should provide it. The primary indication of sovereignty is occupation of it by people who make their living and their home there and we should bolster that in any way we can. Increased use of Arctic waters will lead to the need for additional search and rescue resources. Additional resource development will add to that pressure. Increased transportation in the north will require more ice breakers and ice strengthened vessels as well as aircraft to deal with the huge distances. Military resources are a primary (but not the sole) component of search and rescue but ice breakers are best operated by the Coast Guard. The private sector can provide an important part of increased air services.

We should not default to military presence as the answer to increased presence in the north. The primary needs are most likely to be those indicated above, not military strength. A more nuanced, needs based approach to additional government resources in the north is called for.

Email

Share