Another perspective

Mark tends to be the one with strong opinions on Canada's arctic sovereignty around here. He certainly has a much stronger professional background in that area of expertise than I do.

Having said that, I'm not sure I'm entirely in agreement with his position that successive Canadian governments, especially the Harper Conservatives, have simply been banging the nationalist drum when there's no real issue with Canadian claims in the north.

Before I get into those, this article at Jane's (subscription required) is worth reading:

Russia is planning an exercise involving paratroopers at the North Pole in April 2010, Moscow has announced.

Lieutenant General Vladimir Shamanov, commander of the Russian Airborne Forces, insisted on 28 July that the mission would not raise tensions in the region, which has become an increasing area of focus for neighbouring countries.

The exercise, which marks the 60th anniversary of the first polar parachute landing, will be organised in co-ordination with Russia's working group on protecting national interests in the region, headed by President Dmitry Medvedev's Special Representative for Arctic Affairs, Artur Chilingarov.

Despite charges of seeking to militarise the area, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, at an Arctic Council meeting on 29 April 2009 argued that the High North should be preserved as "a zone of peace and co-operation" and promised that Russia would be a reliable, transparent and predictable partner in the region and had no plans to enhance its military presence.

In March it was revealed in a policy document entitled 'Review of Russian Politics in the Arctic to 2020', that the Kremlin is planning to establish an independent "multipurpose military force for Arctic operations", and to give additional powers and responsibilities in the Northern Region to the Federal Security Service; "for optimisation of the control system in the Arctic".

The Icelandic authorities have also claimed that Russian Northern Fleet submarines conducted extensive operations in national waters around Norway's Jan Mayen Island; Iceland; the Faroes and Svalbard in June. The activities are thought to be in connection with seabed surveys for oil and gas resources.

This highlights a couple of points for me:

• The arctic is unlike any other naval issue, because unlike just about every other place on earth, you can conduct "land" operations on it through much of the year. As such, it requires a unique approach and innovative, 'outside the box' solutions.


• While shaping the legal battlefield and exerting a strong civilian presence is undoubtedly essential (I especially agree that the CCG's heavy icebreaker capabilities desperately need upgrading), a military capability should also be a key aspect of our expression of sovereignty up there.


• The legal and civilian aspects of arctic sovereignty are only trump cards if every nation - most notably including the Russians - agrees they are. As was the case throughout history, if a strong player says 'I'm taking it because I can' then the only response is superior strength. Russia has a long history of backing their foreign policy up with military muscle - leading with their fists.

I'm not saying Russia wants to fight a war with us on the artic ice, and we'd better arm up. I'm simply saying there may be other aspects to this than have been expressed to date on these pages.