New Canadian PM rebuffs US envoy (LOL he has a Mandate

[wakeme2008]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4652746.stm

New Canadian PM rebuffs US envoy
Canadian Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper has defended plans to send military ice-breakers to the Arctic in defiance of criticism from Washington.

US ambassador David Wilkins said on Wednesday that Washington opposed the plan and, like most other countries, did not recognise Canada's claims.

Mr Harper said his mandate was from the Canadian people, not Mr Wilkins.

..cut..

The Conservative plans include the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy ice-breaking ships and an underground network of listening posts

..more at link...

[applegrove]

1. Put them back in your pants boys.. it's cold up there.

[NYC Liberal]

2. I guess Bush's MAN DATE dumped him for Harper!

Ouch. :rofl:

[Vidar]

3. Good for Harper, even though a tory.

[applegrove]

4. Hard to know if the campaign is over. Tories have said for years that

elections are no time to talk about issues, that myth is fine. Is this pissing contest for real? Is the campaign over? Does it ever end untill they get a majority government? Who knows. Only time will tell.

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. It was a set-up. The US ambassador threw him the softest ball

he could to allow Harper to appear to be standing up to the US.

Arctic sovereignty, bah. Who cares?

Pure political BS manipulation of the public.

[Kagemusha]

5. Even if it's just for show...

For god's sakes, they're ICEBREAKERS. If that's the meanest and most frightening weapon in Canada's military arsenal I don't think it's a big deal exactly.

[Canuckistanian]

6. I agree with this

How would Wilkins feel if we sent our (one working) submarine prowling under the ice around the north coast of Alaska?

He'd be screaming "sovereignty" in a nanosecond.

[davepc]

7. We send out nuclear subs zooming all over the place up there all the time

Canada lays claim to it, but since they don't bother to patrol it, who's to recognize their claims?

Part of the problem is that Canada woefully under spends on its military. You need ships and planes and radar stations to maintain the integrity of your airspace and territorial waters.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

8. I agree with the CPC on this.

American oil companies have been mooching in our Arctic waters for a long time now, and they get away with it because we don't have the capacity to secure such a large area. That's probably why Washington is so upset about us having any additional firepower up there.

Unlike the US, our military is not bloated, but severely understaffed and underfunded. I may be a pacifist, but I understand the need for a strong military. I don't have any problem with expanding Canada's armed forces, so long as (a) they're not misused, and (b) the government has a good plan on how to pay for it.

[maddezmom]

9. kick

[Judi Lynn]

10. Canada issues warning to US over Arctic passage

Canada issues warning to US over Arctic passage
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 28 January 2006

Canada's Prime Minister- elect has issued a blunt "hands off" warning to the US over territorial rights in the Arctic - increasingly coveted now that global warming threatens to open up new waterways in the once solidly frozen far north.

Two days after his Conservative party ended 13 years of Liberal rule, Stephen Harper declared he would keep his campaign promises to step up Canada's military presence in the region, despite opposition from the US and various European countries.

The often edgy relations between Washington and Ottawa had been expected to improve under Mr Harper. But that was anything but the case on Thursday as the Prime Minister-elect used his first post-election press conference to take direct aim at David Wilkins, the US ambassador to Canada, who last week described the North-west Passage as "neutral waters".

Mr Harper was not asked by reporters about the ambassador's comment, but he refused to let it pass unchallenged.

"The United States defends its sovereignty, the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," he said. "It is the Canadian government we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
(snip/...)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article341518.ece

[TaleWgnDg]

11. Who is this *ss?

Who is this *ss? re: "David Wilkins, the US ambassador to Canada, who last week described the North-west Passage as 'neutral waters'."

Just what America *needs* is more Bush appointees making stupid non-diplomatic statements about foreign countries a la Bushims! Geezuz. It never ceases to amaze how pervasive is the arrogance and stupidity of this Bush Administration.
.

[EFerrari]

12. It's a requirement. They have to be arrogant AND stupid. n/t

[zann725]

15. Perhaps Harper is NOT the U.S. puppet he at first appeared.

You know I hadn't thought about that before, but perhaps there was a U.S. broader plan to allow global warming...opening of NEW water "passages" for world trade? If so, at WHAT expense indeed?! Though not at all out of the realm of acceptability of this Admin...where no rules apply.

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. Your reaction was the intended one.

It was a setup. Arctic sovereignty is a softball issue and the US purposely threw it at him.

Allows him to appear to be standing up to the USA. How impressive he is. :eyes:

Never forget what the Bush administration would love: a Conservative MAJORITY in Canada. Can you say "fastrack BMD!"?

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. self delete.

[KainNero]

13. re: Canada is the 2nd largest

Country in the world in terms of land. Before, no one showed an interest in the North and maps show it is Canadian territory. Now thanks to the melting North, we do have to patrol the area now.

Though I do not like these "Tories" I do like the stance of more stronger Canadian military to fend off other nations who butt into our area without an invite.

[JohnyCanuck]

14. Here is an explanation for the legal case on both sides.

Check out this link for a paper explaining the Canada and US positions on the North West Passage.

Canada, the United States and the Northwest Passage: Sovereignty to the Side

Andrea Charron, Royal Military College, Canada

<snip>

The Passage is synonymous with Canada/US tension. Although the Passage has a much wider audience of concern, including the other circumpolar states and the Canadian Inuit, there is a particular conflict between Canada and the US concerning the extent of legal control Canada possesses vis-à-vis the Passage. This has created a legal impasse.

This impasse has come starkly to focus because of a number of studies on global warming that suggest the Passage will become ice-free or freer or ice and will do so much more quickly than anyone imagined previously. This opens the possibility for the Passage to become an international commercial shipping channel as it represents a seven thousand kilometer (7,000 km) shorter route between Europe and Asia than the currently preferred route through the Panama Canal.

The difficulty for Canada is that its citizens have a romantic connection to the Arctic and to the Passage which are part of the Canadian identity. This attachment makes government officials more inclined to use emotional rather than pragmatic language in discussion with the US. Use of this emotional language can be counter-productive. Instead, Canada should adopt more business-like language and continue to focus on other important issues such as the protection of the environment, security, research and protection of resources and shipping issues. The US is not insensitive to Canada’s attachment to the Arctic but they are interested in settling issues of concern to them such as unfettered access to the Passage.

This paper will begin by outlining both Canada’s and the US’s legal positions vis-à-vis the Passage and then look at what could be done, if anything, to move beyond the legal impasse. Both Canada and the US have legal arguments that are supported in cases from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). All indications are that a strictly legal solution is unlikely. Therefore, I propose that we put the legal issue “to the side” and focus on tackling other, more pressing issues associated with the Passage.(1) But first, to understand the complexity of the legal impasse, we must review the legal cases of both states.
The Legal Positions

https://www.westga.edu/~canconf/Charron.htm

[DavidDvorkin]

16. Time for Canada to join the EU

Oh, I know that won't happen. It's just this little pipe dream I have -- of a new entity, the Northern Union, including Canada. It would combine Canada's huge spaces and natural resources with Europe's huge population and increasingly huge numbers of Euros.

No one -- the U.S, Russia, or anyone else -- would contest who owned those northern areas then. The NU could be a mighty force for good in the world.

But I know it's a pipe dream. (And I stopped smoking a pipe decades ago!)

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. THIS IS NOT AS IT SEEMS. Always remember the reality of Stephen Harper...

...he was VERY supportive of Bush over Iraq.

And he has stated in the past that he believes Canada is involved in Ballistic Missile Defence already because of NORAD.

Do not be fooled by this purposely thrown softball from the US ambassador or by Stephen Harpers response.

Arctic sovereignty is absolutely the best issue that could have been handed to Harper for him to "stand up" to. Canadians like America, but naturally we respond favorably to our leaders "standing up" when being pushed around. That's not anti-Americanism, as our Liberals were constantly accused of.

ALWAYS REMEMBER BUSH WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY GOVERNMENT IN CANADA
instead of the minority Harper now has. If a majority could be attained in 12-18 months it would be full steam ahead on Ballistic Missile Defense.

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. kick n/t

[kitty1]

22. there has to be an international concensus...

on what establishes legal boundaries vis a vis the passage. There are differing formulas on what constitutes territorial waters, and if this doesn't become defined soon globally, there will be some major points of contention in years to come. This is something that the international law of the sea or another regulatory body has to address.
The NorthWest passage is a strait which is surrounded in close proximity to land masses belonging unequivically to Canada. It's not a wide open body of water.
Of course we all know that if it weren't for the oil, gas and other mineral resources available up there, other countries wouldn't give a rat's ass about our arctic. Because of global warming and shipping lanes opening up in future, the stakes are quite different now.
All (non-terrorist) countries should be allowed passage thru there but still under Canada's monitoring and jurisdiction. That includes any shipping permits required.

[whosinpower]

23. This canuck's take on the matter

Is that it is just posturing - without any real teeth.

Harper can't "seem" to be in bed with the GOP - so isn't it coincidence that the ambassador would say something stupid and sure enough to rile up most canadians....and Harper valiently defends us by saying his mandate is from Canadians - not the American administration.....

It is ear candy - nothing more.

If Harper came out strong and asked the ambassader when Canada can expect its 5 billion dollar refund for the softwood lumber dispute - then perhaps I would sit up and take notice.