Arctic sovereignty: the Navy is not the answer
From a hawk in answer to For the doves.
Some clearer thinking than the Conservatives have provided (full text not online).
...
...Mr. Harper will have to undo one of his election pledges.
This is the pledge, made Dec. 22, to defend Canada's Arctic sovereignty by military means. Specifically, Mr. Harper undertook to place anti-submarine sensors in the Northwest Passage, and to build and deploy three heavy, troop-carrying naval icebreakers to enforce Canada's exclusive jurisdiction in its Arctic waters...
...for the Prime Minister to persist in a mistaken naval defence of Arctic sovereignty would be worse than counterproductive for Canada-U.S. relations. Consider first what might happen when new naval icebreakers and sensors are in place.
A submarine is detected and the acoustic signature tells us whose it is. It's American. What then do we do? Have troops lean over the icebreaker rail and shake their fists at the sub as it passes by under the ice? Launch depth charges from an icebreaker onto a nuclear-powered submarine?
To avert any such insanity (and to save billions of dollars), the Prime Minister ought to cancel the naval icebreaker commitment...
Derek Burney, the man who has been leading the current transition in Ottawa for the Conservative government, negotiated an Arctic co-operation agreement with the United States in 1988. It saw both countries suspend their differences in law and, on this basis, co-operate in Coast Guard icebreaker operations in one another's Arctic waters without prejudice to whatever might be said and done if ever we went to court.
The 1988 agreement to disagree has worked well. The two Coast Guards collaborate smoothly. The framework could now be enlarged to authorize without-prejudice naval co-operation, including transits by U.S. submarines through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago...
...it's not the Navy but the Coast Guard and our law-enforcement agencies that are likely to be cost-effective in the exercise of sovereignty...
The Canadian Coast Guard certainly needs new icebreakers, which would be useful for asserting sovereignty in Arctic maritime passageways--and for many other purposes. Fund these.
Moreover the Canadian Forces have much more urgent needs (Hercules replacement for the Air Force) and more important needs (joint support ships and an amphibious ship for the Navy). The Forces badly need more funding and new equipment; these should not be frittered away on politically attractive but strategically very questionable activities.
See also: "Arctic sovereignty": It's not just the U.S. that's against us; it's almost all our friends and this article at Canadian American Strategic Review.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
Some clearer thinking than the Conservatives have provided (full text not online).
...
...Mr. Harper will have to undo one of his election pledges.
This is the pledge, made Dec. 22, to defend Canada's Arctic sovereignty by military means. Specifically, Mr. Harper undertook to place anti-submarine sensors in the Northwest Passage, and to build and deploy three heavy, troop-carrying naval icebreakers to enforce Canada's exclusive jurisdiction in its Arctic waters...
...for the Prime Minister to persist in a mistaken naval defence of Arctic sovereignty would be worse than counterproductive for Canada-U.S. relations. Consider first what might happen when new naval icebreakers and sensors are in place.
A submarine is detected and the acoustic signature tells us whose it is. It's American. What then do we do? Have troops lean over the icebreaker rail and shake their fists at the sub as it passes by under the ice? Launch depth charges from an icebreaker onto a nuclear-powered submarine?
To avert any such insanity (and to save billions of dollars), the Prime Minister ought to cancel the naval icebreaker commitment...
Derek Burney, the man who has been leading the current transition in Ottawa for the Conservative government, negotiated an Arctic co-operation agreement with the United States in 1988. It saw both countries suspend their differences in law and, on this basis, co-operate in Coast Guard icebreaker operations in one another's Arctic waters without prejudice to whatever might be said and done if ever we went to court.
The 1988 agreement to disagree has worked well. The two Coast Guards collaborate smoothly. The framework could now be enlarged to authorize without-prejudice naval co-operation, including transits by U.S. submarines through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago...
...it's not the Navy but the Coast Guard and our law-enforcement agencies that are likely to be cost-effective in the exercise of sovereignty...
The Canadian Coast Guard certainly needs new icebreakers, which would be useful for asserting sovereignty in Arctic maritime passageways--and for many other purposes. Fund these.
Moreover the Canadian Forces have much more urgent needs (Hercules replacement for the Air Force) and more important needs (joint support ships and an amphibious ship for the Navy). The Forces badly need more funding and new equipment; these should not be frittered away on politically attractive but strategically very questionable activities.
See also: "Arctic sovereignty": It's not just the U.S. that's against us; it's almost all our friends and this article at Canadian American Strategic Review.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 2:00 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home