[Streaker]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Streaker Streaker:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

I really hope I'm wrong, but Harper will wuss out.

I'm really excited about his arctic plan myself. Why not keep an open mind instead of immediately dismissing him?

Better to approach these things with some healthy scepticism, but we'll see. Harper has been given a golden opportunity to demonstrate that he won't always kowtow to the Americans. I still suspect that he will back down from them but if I'm wrong I'll happily eat a plate of crow.

He may be dealing with a tit for tat situation, I think he will carry out his plan.

Now would you prefer, "four and twenty Blackbirds baked in a pie"

Get back to me when Stevie follows through with his plan, Pluggy.

The people at CASR raise some doubts about Harper's proposal:
[web]http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-harper1-1.htm[/web]

[Wullu]

Avro Avro:

Drunk Canuck Drunk Canuck:

Harper tells U.S. to butt out when it comes to plans for defending Canada's Arctic

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper says he won't take advice from the U.S. ambassador on how to protect Canadian sovereignty in the North.

Harper says he will stick to his campaign promise to station icebreakers and military personnel in Canada's Arctic. U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins had criticized Harper's plan, claiming the Arctic passage as "neutral waters."

But Harper, in his first news conference as the incoming prime minister today, said Canadians gave him a mandate to protect Canada's sovereign interests in the North.

And Harper said he'll listen to Canadians on such issues, not the American ambassador.

Harper pledged during the election campaign to build three armed icebreakers to protect against possible American submarine incursions into Arctic waters.

Bravo to Harper.....I guess all the cons will come here and call him anti-American.......right?

Now begins the hypocrisy.

Ahh but you see Avro, Harper disagreed with a US stance without being insulting. It is possible, too bad the soon to be previous govt never figured that out.

[Ruxpercnd]

Seems to me that Canada's claims are counter to international law and to United States policy of maintaining freedom of the seas.

America has and will continue to send ships through the channel to maintain rights of passage.

So is Canada going to fire on a U.S. ship? Any ship fired upon has a right to fire back. Good luck!

[Tman1]

Ruxpercnd Ruxpercnd:

Seems to me that Canada's claims are counter to international law and to United States policy of maintaining freedom of the seas.

America has and will continue to send ships through the channel to maintain rights of passage.

So is Canada going to fire on a U.S. ship? Any ship fired upon has a right to fire back. Good luck!

$1:

Seems to me that Canada's claims are counter to international law and to United States policy of maintaining freedom of the seas.

Quick, somebody name all the times the US has countered and ignored the laws of the international community. Canada has the right to defend themselves, even in the North. Now that we have somebody who actually wants to, the complaints file in? Canada is actually defending itself? The horror.

$1:

America has and will continue to send ships through the channel to maintain rights of passage.

You're arguing that Canada has no right to defend the passage because of international law yet you just said the US will continue to send ships to "maintain the right"? Isn't that a double standard? Gee, describe how they will "maintain the right", I'm curious.

$1:

So is Canada going to fire on a U.S. ship? Any ship fired upon has a right to fire back. Good luck!

I think there would be a little thing called dialogue first.

[Bigboy]

Ruxpercnd Ruxpercnd:

Seems to me that Canada's claims are counter to international law and to United States policy of maintaining freedom of the seas.

America has and will continue to send ships through the channel to maintain rights of passage.

So is Canada going to fire on a U.S. ship? Any ship fired upon has a right to fire back. Good luck!

no idiot more for these reasons

Canada has a uncontested sovereignty dispute with Denmark over Hans Island in the Kennedy Channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, they have been sending military ships there..

[Ruxpercnd]

Bigboy Bigboy:

Ruxpercnd Ruxpercnd:

Seems to me that Canada's claims are counter to international law and to United States policy of maintaining freedom of the seas.

America has and will continue to send ships through the channel to maintain rights of passage.

So is Canada going to fire on a U.S. ship? Any ship fired upon has a right to fire back. Good luck!

no idiot more for these reasons

Canada has a uncontested sovereignty dispute with Denmark over Hans Island in the Kennedy Channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, they have been sending military ships there..

...an uncontested sovereignty dispute? Canada has a dispute with Denmark. These problems are pretty tricky, with no clear answer. there are many island disputes in the world oceans that will take a lot of talking, not shooting.

[Rev_Blair]

This has been an ongoing dispute since at least the 1970's. Harper isn't to solve it with a few ice breakers. He sure as hell isn't going to sink any American ships. Why the little statement from Wilkins? Why now? Why did Harper have to bring it up himself at the press conference? No reporter asked about it, and it wasn't in his original statement. Instead he brought it up himself after he quit taking questions. Very odd.

You know what else is odd? These speeches are usually given in the press room. When things happen in the press room, the press gets to decide who asks the questions and when. Harper chose a venue of his own though, a place where his people decided who got to ask questions. The implication is that he controls media access to the stories and if somebody goes after him too hard they lose access. It's a game that Mulroney played up here and Reagan and Bush have played in the US.

I don't think that trying to control the press in that way is a sign of a government that's trying to be fair and open. At least he's not down to planting reporters to toss him softballs yet. He's likely waiting until next week for that.

[Ruxpercnd]

The Right of Passage that I refer to is somewhat established in international law and practice. It can be a pretty deep subject to try to describe this law and practice but here is little reference:

http://www.answers.com/topic/territorial-waters

$1:

.....Merchant ships of all flags have the right of “innocent passage” in a nation's territorial waters; the rights of nonbelligerent foreign warships in this zone, and the extent of the jurisdiction of the coastal nation's courts over ships passing through and incidents in the zone, have long been matters of debate.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... of_the_Sea

$1:

The Third United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) .....The convention set the limit of territorial waters to 12 nautical miles (22 km), in which area the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate any use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. Beyond the 12 nautical mile (22 km) limit there was a further 12 nautical mile (22 km) or 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the territorial sea baselines limit, the "contiguous zone", in which area a state could continue to enforce laws regarding activities such as smuggling or illegal immigration.

And yes, the United States Navy vigorously defends rights of passage by routinely routing ships through certain areas, such as the Bosphorus Straights and into the Black Sea, even during the height of the Cold War. When the U.S. Navy asserted it's right to transit the Gulf of Sidra, Gadaffi was stupid enough to send out a couple of war planes for a challenge. As you remember America won that little air war and maintained the right of passage. Remember, this issue was America's first foreign policy test, i.e. the battle against the Barbary Pirates. America came out slugging and has never turned back.

http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/2004/30723.htm

$1:

....The Convention carefully balances the interests of States in controlling activities off their own coasts with those of all States in protecting the freedom to use ocean spaces without undue interference. It specifically preserves and elaborates the rights of military and commercial navigation and overflight in areas under coastal State jurisdiction and on the high seas beyond. It protects the right of passage for all ships and aircraft through, under, and over straits used for international navigation and archipelagos. It protects the high seas freedoms of navigation, overflight, and the laying and maintenance of submarine cables and pipelines, as well as other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to those freedoms, consistent with the other provisions of the Convention. U.S. Armed Forces rely on these navigation and overflight rights daily, and their protection is of paramount importance to U.S. national security.

I don't want to go too far in arguing law, just want to make the concept available to you.

[Canuck938]

This is so obviously a set up it is hard to actually believe that people are falling for this. Harper gets elected, american ambassador says artic not Canada's, Harper says I will protect arctic. Who benefits from this. Right.. Harper.... So now it begins... the neo-cons start their game. This one was obviously planned over the phone. This is just the beginning...expect more lies and deceit. Thank god this is a minority government... otherwise we could see civil war. That may happen if Harper goes too far.

[Arctic_Menace]

I don't know what to think on this issue, I hope Harper follows through with it, because those water sure as hell aren't neutral........








I still find it funny how Harper, a Conservative, wants to decentralise the government, when it was originally a Conservative motion (John A. MacDonald) to make a centralised government.

[fatbasturd]

Streaker Streaker:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

I really hope I'm wrong, but Harper will wuss out.

I'm really excited about his arctic plan myself. Why not keep an open mind instead of immediately dismissing him?

Better to approach these things with some healthy scepticism, but we'll see. Harper has been given a golden opportunity to demonstrate that he won't always kowtow to the Americans. I still suspect that he will back down from them but if I'm wrong I'll happily eat a plate of crow.

As will I...I am not a big Harper fan myself...but if he actually does follow through with this,then I will have to give him his due.

[Almighty1]

It will be very interesting to see how his plan unfolds, if it does at all. The conservative defence plans are what I voted for. It is high time we took responsibility for our own Arctic waters. I sincerely hope this governement does what it has been elected to do. The CASR plan to create a third tier of the coast guard is a good one, giving our coast guard the means to "guard" us.

If they don't stick to the elected plan then out with them in the next election. Bolstering our military and defence is, in my opinion, the best damn plan to come along in a long, long time and I support those plans 100%.

Kick ass CANADA!

[Ruxpercnd]

Just want to clarify... Even if Canada's territorial claims are defended and recognized.... international law still provides for rights of passage.

Even though the subject channels have normally been locked up with ice, the U.S. has still made passages on a regular basis. These passages do nothing to harm Canada. So, cool off guys! You have a lot of other problems to attend to without having to make up more.