Maclean’s Article on the Arctic Propagates Sovereignty Misunderstandings
This week’s issue of Macleans’s runs an interview with historian Shelagh Grant titled “Do we really own the Arctic? Why we can’t protect our far north”. Sigh. Brian Bethune quotes Grant as saying that the future in the Arctic is “unstable” and that she believes Canada will “suffer a major de facto loss of Arctic sovereignty” unless the government invests in armed patrol ships, icebreakers and a deep sea port.
I don’t disagree with Grant there – the Harper government promised in 2007 a new icebreaker (they even named it already – the John G. Diefenbaker), announced the construction of 6-8 new ice-capable patrol vessel (for up to 1 metre thick ice), and the reconstruction of an old mining port in Nanisivik, Nunavut to serve as a refuelling dock for Coast Guard and naval vessels (so we don’t have to rely on Greenland any more.) But the icebreaker and patrol vessels projects have been shelved indefinitely. They are expensive things, but we need them; not to promote some empty concept of sovereignty but to ensure we can maintain basic law and order in Arctic waters as shipping, tourism and drilling in the area increases. Basically, if the Harper government just does what they have already committed to doing we should be in pretty good shape up there. But that is a big if.
Where I respectfully disagree with Grant is on the subject of instability in the Arctic. She alludes to a rising China as a potential problem, and points out a number of ‘events’ in the past few months that indicate their intent to be a major player. Among these are plans to construct a new polar research icebreaker – only their second; their request for observer status in the Arctic Council, which actually occurred in early 2008; and the release of a report on China and the Arctic from SIPRI – it’s a very interesting report, but hardly a Chinese initiative! In fact, the report outlines how China is going to pains not to rock the boat in the Arctic, conscious as it is of the fact that any rumblings would make the Arctic states uneasy. In its few official statements on the Arctic, it has iterated its respect for the full sovereignty of the Arctic nations. Of course it wants to have a say in shipping governance and a stake in potential drilling projects. But this isn’t to be feared – it’s to be sought. When they buy up shares of the Albertan oil sands, it’s applauded, but for some reason in the Arctic it’s surrendering our sovereignty. And Iceland has actively been courting China to set up transshipment ports for Chinese goods on their fair island if and when new Arctic routes open up.
The great problem with such thinking is that it sets up Arctic sovereignty as an end in itself – a goal to be achieved. But sovereignty is a means, not an end. It is only useful inasmuch as it allows us to better protect our environment, develop economic opportunities, and promote the well-being of Northerners in particular and Canadians in general. If this can be done in cooperation with other states such as China, and under international (versus domestic) regulations, then great. In fact, it’s hard to see how it would occur otherwise. We can be the angry neighbour that puts a ‘keep out’ sign up, or we can be the constructive leader that seeks to develop the Arctic in a sustainable and cooperative manner. It is not a zero sum game.
