ADVANTAGE IN TIMES OF CHAOS

 

Canada's claim to exercise sovereignty over the North-West passage has always been disputed, not least by the United States of America. The technical merits of our claim, based as they are on complex legal arguments relating to our historic relationship with Great Britain and its assertions of ownership as well as more recent treaties signed with the indigenous population of the land areas surrounding the passage have always foundered on the position of the great naval powers that international waterways must be regarded as part of the global commons. 

 

In the past this was essentially a theoretical problem. As long as the passage was ice bound for all or most of the year and not usable for commercial problems it was an issue for lawyers and academics. The effects of global warming have changed that calculation. 

Traditionally great naval powers are thalassocracies which assert dominion over seas rather than controlling large inland territories, they rely on powerful navies to maintain trade networks and are trade-oriented, controlling resource-rich sea lanes and commanding maritime trade routes, often acting as merchant republics or colonial powers. 

These maritime powers almost invariably maintain a "freedom of the seas" policy with free trade as a stated goal, with the ability to interpret these policies in a manner which best suits their interests.

Control of the seas, and with it the ability to maintain freedom of the seas, for all its costs,  has always been seen as a security guarantor given the almost unsurmountable advantage it gives the possessor in times of war.

But times change. In the current U.S.-Israeli war with Iran the status of the Straits of Hormuz, normally seen as an international waterway given its importance to global commerce, is being treated by the United States as negotiable. The position of the United States, as identified by President Trump, on this status has changed on an almost weekly basis. At one point it was suggested that the U.S. and Iran could exercise joint control over the straits in return for the U.S. receiving some of the revenue that could be extracted from ships passing through that choke point.

This new doctrine could just as easily be applied to the North-West passage. If the United States has determined that it's best interests lie not in fulfilling the traditional role of being the leading maritime power but rather by monetizing its ability to provide security then new methods of dealing with the issue of Canadian sovereignty over the arctic become available.

Instead of treating that northern passage as an international trade route it could be seen as an internal corridor, similar to the Suez or Panama canals. In return for providing search and rescue resourced, aids to navigation and security Canada, and the United States could exact tolls, just as they do now for the St. Lawrence Seaway. 

Every ship, and every country whose flag those ships carried, which paid those tolls  would be making legal recognition of Canadian sovereignty over those areas which Canada claims.

It seems likely that the new world (dis) order upon which we are all now embarked will bring more harm than good. That does not mean that Canada can not wring some benefit from the relative chaos to come. The time has come to accept what must be accepted and to start dealing with the world not as we would like it to be, but rather as it is. A policy of enlightened self-interest suggests that it we must look for advantage in changing times.