CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Arctic  Sovereignty   –   Joint  Jurisdiction   –   Trilateral  Treaty   –   January  2009 Steerage and Stewardship  –  US, Canada, &  Denmark/Greenland should join Forces to Guard  the North American side of  the Arctic Dianne  DeMille  explores  the feasibility of a trilateral treaty  to  protect  our  Arctic  [1] Update:  On  09 January 2009,  outgoing  president,  George W. Bush,  issued  a  ' National Security  Presidential  Directive ' ( NSPD  66 )  –  laying  out  the  Arctic  Policy  for  the  US. It  is  important  for  Canadian citizens to understand  that  this  'Directive'  will  stand  until it is replaced by a new directive from  the  current  president.  Details in the  Bush  directive make it imperative for the Canadian  Government  to  implement  a  more  innovative  means to protect  our  northern  environment  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  ensure  the  unimpeded access  to  our  strategic  resources  in  the  region. A  Trilateral  Treaty  –   negotiated  with  two  of  our  closest  allies,  Denmark / Greenland and the United  States  –   makes  far  more  sense  than  leaving  the  control of  the region to  unilateral  initiatives,  such  as  this  ill - considered  Bush  directive,  or  worse,  to  the whims  of  over  a  hundred  distant  nations ,  which  have  little  or  no  incentive  to  take responsibility  for  the  long - term  stewardship  of  this  fragile  ecosystem. UN  Commission  on  the  Limits  of  the  Continental  Shelf  –  All  we  need  is  a  dotted  line The Arctic Ocean is bracketed by two continents: Eurasia and  North America.  The Arctic coastline of  Eurasia is dominated by Russia.  On the North American side there are three nation-states busily mapping the ocean floor to put their claims to the UN Commission  which will adjudicate  the 'Limits of the Continental Shelf '.  But the three countries on this side of the Arctic are intimate allies.  Take one example: our soldiers are fighting shoulder to shoulder in  Southern  Afghanistan. Our bilateral boundary disputes within our Arctic are minor as compared with  the expansionist claims of Russia. Would it not make more sense for the US, Canada, and Denmark/Greenland to join together, as soon as possible, to control shipping through the North American side of the Arctic and sort out the national control over the seabed  in  our  own  time.  All  we  need  from  the  UN  Law of  the Sea  Commission  is  the  dotted  line  that  will  tell  Russia:  ' This  far  and  no  further '. Northwest  Passage  –  International  waterway  or  a  series  of  controlled  shipping  lanes ? In the past, the United States has said that it wants to make the Northwest Passage  –  which Canada claims as an internal waterway  –  into a series of  ' international  straits '.  Fortunately, the  White House  and  the  State  Department  are  currently  giving  their  ' Arctic Policy ' a thorough  rethink.  The  new  policy  will  be  unveiled  in  the coming  weeks.  Perhaps  some astute  State  Department  official  has  realized  that  opening up  the  Northwest  Passage to 'unfettered'  international traffic is not the best way  to achieve the United States'  twin goals: US security in the Arctic,  and  the  free movement of  US  ships  –  commercial  and  military. There  is a  better  solution:  Joint  jurisdiction  over  all  shipping  through  the Arctic  of  the North American continent.  This  joint  jurisdiction  could  be  put  into  effect  by  a  trilateral treaty  among  the US,  Canada,  and Denmark/Greenland.  (Greenland is a semi-autonomous province of  Denmark,  exercising  ' Home  Rule '.)  There  is  already  an  agreement  in  place which  could  serve  as  a  nucleus for a  more far-reaching regime: the 1983 Canada-Denmark 'Agreement  for  Cooperation  relating  to  the  Marine  Environment'. Control over shipping in this section of the Arctic would fit the interests of all three nations An accord among the US, Canada, and Denmark/Greenland would allow the three nations to exercise rigorous control over shipping through North America's Arctic waters.  But it would do more.  It  would  address  the  security  concerns  of  the  United  States and allow the free passage  of  US  vessels  through  the  Arctic  Archipelago. At  the  same  time,  the  treaty  would  maintain  Canada's  claim  to  nominal  sovereignty over the  ' Northwest Passage '.  It  is  true  that  sharing  the  jurisdiction  over  shipping  through these  straits  would  somewhat  ' soften '  the  edges  of  our  claim  to  absolute  sovereignty.   However ,  granting  free  passage  to  two  of  Canada's  closest  allies  –  should  they  be willing  to  share  responsibility  for  policing  the  channels  of  the  Arctic  Archipelago  –  is far  preferable  to  opening  these  straits  to  ' unfettered '  traffic  from  all  over  the  world. International waterways usually end up as unsalvagable sewers. The spectre of  rusty-hulled ships,  flying flags-of-convenience,  steaming through a fragile Arctic environment unnerves the people who live in Canada's North. A body of water that belongs to everyone, belongs to no one. No one nation will take on the responsibility of  policing and clean-up, because there is no incentive to do so.  And no one nation  has  adequate  resources for massive clean-ups. Transit fees will provide revenue for policing,  search-and-rescue,  and inevitable clean-ups Which brings us to the money: transit fees. The US (Alaska) and Denmark (Greenland) control shipping  via the western and eastern approaches  to the channels of  the Arctic Archipelago. With sufficient revenues from pooled transit fees, the three nations would be able to monitor all ships using the narrow channels of the Arctic Archipelago.  Together, the three countries could maintain a contingency fund to carry out any clean up campaign. In 1970,  Canada passed  the  Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act  (AWPPA).  It  became Article 234 of the  United Nations  Convention of the  Law of the Sea.  This Article is referred to  as  the  ' Arctic  Exception '.  The  nickname  is  apt.  The  Arctic  Ocean  is  the  exception. And,  because it is an exception,  the stringent control over the channels of  the Archipelago need  not  be  taken  as  a  precedent  for  any  other  international  straits  around  the  globe. The Arctic Ocean is  not  equivalent to the Pacific or the Atlantic.  It is exceptional,  and we must make all efforts required to protect it.  Any voyage  through  an aquatic environment carries inherent risks.  Whenever  a  ship,  boat,  or  submarine  pushes  through  a  pristine waterway,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  ' innocent passage '. [1]  For  natural  resources,  see:  Interactive  Map   first  published  by   Spiegel  Online