U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan

[tuvor]

The United States opposes a plan by prime minister-designate Stephen Harper to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic in order to assert Canadian sovereignty, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," David Wilkins said Wednesday as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.

"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."

During the election campaign, which culminated with Harper's win this week, the Conservatives promised to spend $5.3 billion over five years to defend northern waters against the Americans, Russians and Danes.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

[MrPrax]

1. Big News...

"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."

Well just because the US doesn't like the Queen doesn't really count, but I digress...

This could go a couple of ways...

1) big bad Canada lubber Harper could do the Liberal thing and simply cave in
2) sign some co-operation pact that includes 'slight' recognition of Canada'a interests and a Big Honkin' missile defense shield that would provide jobs, jobs, jobs, for the far north...yippeee!!
3) or carry on and do what the gov't of Canada should have done years ago and establish a stronger presence...perhaps a 'trip wire'.

But it does seem strange that the US Ambassador would choose this issue to emphasize...maybe Harper's people have shown a less than co-operative note privately on this issue and the US wants Harper to publicly demonstrate his Yankee love.

Hard position to put their Harper boy in, so early in his--um--mandate.

[daleo]

7. I think they are just letting Harper know his place

The U.S. doesn't want a particularly independent Canadian military presence in the far north. Now that the election campaign is over, they are letting Harper know the score, just in case he was innocent enough to have thought otherwise.

[IntravenousDemilo]

12. My great hope...

...is that he'll act like Diefenbaker and royally piss Bush off. It's probably a vain hope.

[IntravenousDemilo]

2. I think he should go for it.

I strongly agreed with that plank in the Conservative platform. Any foreign watercraft that trespass into Canadian waters, including the internal waters of the Arctic archipelago, should be given one warning to turn back and if not heeded, unceremoniously blown out of the water. That includes US subs, of course.

[Monkeybumper]

3. I agree but what would we combat a US sub with ?

We could use the used subs that the liberals bought from the British , UMM maybe not

[IntravenousDemilo]

4. I guess we'll have to buy some from the Americans.

Their stuff is usually pretty lethal.

On the other hand, we could station people in fortresses on either side of every entrance to a passage through northern Canada, and when something breaches our sonar, we ask questions first and then start lobbing depth charges, with extreme prejudice.

[Monkeybumper]

5. No

That would not work . Border guards are not allowed to be armed.

[IntravenousDemilo]

6. Heh...

Nice joke.

Nah, them ain't Canada Customs officials I's talkin' about -- them's the Coast Guard! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! (glug glug glug). That, approximately, would be the sound the polar bears would hear, if we grew a pair of balls and asserted ourselves.

[MrPrax]

8. Yeah...

One of the only things I thought the Tories had a winner with.

Now...'oh, sorry, sir...we missed that email...won't happen again...you know, sir, the heat of a campaign...can I fluff your pillow, sir'

[Monkeybumper]

13. You missed Harpers response

Didn't you .

[JohnyCanuck]

14. I didn't miss it. I thought it was excellent.

I have to confess at being a bit shocked and pleasantly surprised he took a public swipe at the ambassador and told him he could stick it where the sun don't shine. I think I am warming to the guy already (and I voted for the NDP). LOL.

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper moved quickly today to dispel the notion he’ll be too cozy with the United States by using his first news conference as prime minister-designate to warn the Americans to stay out of Canada’s Arctic affairs.

Harper raised the issue without prompting this afternoon in his eagerness to stake his political turf.

He wasn’t asked about comments from U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins this week but offered a response anyway.

Wilkins warned that the waters around Canada’s Arctic are international territory and questioned Harper’s plan to place military icebreakers there.

Harper shrugged off the ambassador’s complaint.

“It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States,” he said.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1138276087456&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

[daleo]

16. Well, words are easy

Let's see what he actually does. I recall Mulroney talked about icebreakers and nuclear subs, but backed away from them. He claimed it was the deficit that stopped those plans, but I think the Americans also told him not to bother. They don't really want Canada to have that kind of mobility in the Arctic waters.

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. I think you're being a little naive.

First of all, standing up to American pressure was "anti-Americanism" a short while ago. Now it's admirable?

Secondly, this REEKS of mutual back-scratching. Bush and Co. realize that this kind of exchange will endear Harper to Canadians. They want a Conservative majority next election so they get cooperation on BMD. They get thier ambassador to make a couple of rankling comments which allows Harper to stand up and slap him down. Yeah, are great defender.

What a joke!

[MrPrax]

21. Bingo...

and for once we agree...

Someone pointed out Mulroney's stance...and I will note that Glen Clark was all gung-ho on the unannounced nuke sub visits off of Canada's non-arctic coasts...the Liberal Feds lean on him and oh well...it got Clark votes and street cred...

Good observations both...since there really isn't much of a dispute on this issue anyway.

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. Exactly. As if the USA cares about a Canadian base in the Arctic.

What are we going to do, stop them from sailing through when they want? ha!

It's a non-issue that allowed Harper to do some posturing.

What amazes me was how a short time ago it was called "gratuitous anti-Americanism" and now it's called "standing up". My local paper called it "talking tough" and "firm face". sigh.

[MrPrax]

24. Yuppers...

Harper still has a couple of hot potatoes in softwood lumber and beef as well as the wheat board lawsuits...all big western base issues. We'll see what he does with the 'talking tough' and 'firm face'.

Hey if he can swing the best deal for..more power to him. But it will probably hit him in the base hard if he sells the proverbial farm or simply flounder like the Liberals.

I am just glad this little dickhead has a minority--the US disputes in trade is a toughie for a guy and party that bragged that they knew how to deal with it. Go for it, jerks.

Western farmers in particular are a grumpy bunch. Harper will please no one, but corporate shills that were not really hurting under Martin anyway

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. Now the US ambassador is talking about getting softwood

settled within the year.

They are going to throw Harper bone after bone after bone. This could be a problem.

[Spazito]

22. Harper's 'swipe' is pre-planned and pre-approved by the bush

admin. This is to help him look tough with the US over an issue Canadians are not at all concerned about in the first place so that when he caves on the REAL issues they can use this crap to say Harper's response to the US is 'balanced based on the issues'.

[ClusterFreak]

9. Yeah we're going to blow an American ship or sub out of the water.

Then, we'll go burn down the White House.
Let's party like it's 1812.

[glarius]

10. I'll get my musket and be right with you.....LOL

:)

[IntravenousDemilo]

11. I'll bring the matches. Let's hope he's home.

Don't forget the marshmallows. Mind you, they probably have some in the kitchen, next to the pretzels.

[pbca]

15. This is one of the few issues I agree with Harper on

I hope he goes ahead with the sub base, and while I don't see sinking anyone - I wouldn't mind seeing them detain a few subs, impound them and (eventually) deport the crews.

[Manix]

17. Maybe I'm too cynical, but has anyone considered

this was a setup?

The Bush admin lobs a softball they know Harper can easily hit out of the park and curry instant
favour with the Canadian public. (I'm no Bush toady!) The timing of this is just too perfect.

If some here are open to a "phony" solution on softwood coming up, why wouldn't this be a possibility?

The US ambassador would never publicly challenge a Canadian government policy without direct approval from the White House.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[ClusterFreak]

19. It struck me too...

I didn't want to believe the possibility, for fear of sounding paranoid. But why isn't it possible? The timing was a little too convenient, wasn't it.;-)

[Harper_is_Bush]

30. Yes, that is EXACTLY what this is. A softball...lobbed at Harper by

a Bush admin anxious to see him win a majority next time.

[glarius]

20. It sounds like the kind of thing Karl Rove would dream up, doesn't it?

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I must wonder about it. We've heard of similar tactics Rove pulled in the past, and we know that Harper has been in contact with the right winger groups in the U.S.A.....In fact Ralph Reed was up here on CTS the religious channel, lecturing a right wing religious group on how to achieve victory for Harper. (I saw Reed myself, when channel surfing.) He was telling them that if they would follow the directions he would give them, they would have victory.

[ConcernedCanuk]

25. I read all the previous posters comments - so consider this

.
.
.

Us Canuks do not have short memories,

Harper will have to follow through or his party is toast

And I believe that this greatly disturbs the Murikkkan WarMachine

for I suspect that there are already American nuclear armed subs lurking around up there that don't want to be discovered

After all this fuss bout Iraq and the ME's oil - Canada provides a heck of alot of energy resources to the US including oil, natural gas and hydro-electricity -

Heck - the US has been trying to suck the WATER out of our country for decades - creating a channel through Manitoba out of our James Bay (small part of Hudson Bay) directly into the States -

so I don't buy this as a "ploy" to make Harper "look good" -

I believe that the American Administration is greatly concerned that we are paying more attention to protecting our coastal waters - -

and why do we want to do this?

Because, in my opinion, at this point in history, the USA is the greatest threat to our sovereignty . . .

[IntravenousDemilo]

28. Y'know, James Bay is many hundreds of miles away from Manitoba.

Any channel from there would have to go through an awful lot of northern Ontario first.

But there's a lot to be concerned about with such a plan, not just the possible resultant scarcity of water, but what might happen if waterlife from one ecosystem gets into another ecosystem that has no way to handle it. Think: zebra mussels that we now have in the Great Lakes, and that didn't even come from water diversion, but from ballast water. And then there's the whole ongoing situation about the Devil's Lake diversion project in one of the Dakotas, and how water introduced into the Red River would affect the lakes in Manitoba.

The problem is capitalism. Capitalists don't care about anything except money, and the rest of us can all go to hell as far as they're concerned.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Which Arctic waterways is this about?

Melvile Sound, Lancaster Sound?

[IntravenousDemilo]

29. All of them.

All the passages between our islands. They're ours, and trespassers should be eliminated (after a nice Canadian warning shot).