Referring to newly released documents,
though not revealing what they were, a major Canadian press
wire service reported on May 26 that the government plans to
acquire a "family" of aerial drones over the next decade.[1]
The dispatch was only two paragraphs long and could easily be
overlooked, as one of the two intended purposes for expanding
Canada's reserve of military drones was for "failed or failing
states." Afghanistan is unquestionably one such deployment
zone and Ottawa sent its first Israeli-made Heron drones there
this January for NATO's war in South Asia.
Another likely target for "dull, dirty and dangerous" missions
suited for unmanned aircraft is Somalia, off the coast of
which the frigate HMCS Winnipeg, carrying a Sea King
helicopter it's had occasion to use, is engaged with the
Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1) in forced boarding and
other military operations. The use of unmanned aircraft
vehicles (UAVs) in a likely extension of military actions on
the Somali mainland would, unfortunately, not raise many
eyebrows.
The last sentence in the brief report, though, says that
"Senior commanders also foresee a growing role for drones in
Canada, especially along the country's coastlines and in the
Arctic."
To provide an indication of what Canada's Joint Unmanned
Surveillance Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS) has in mind
for future use in the Arctic, a likely prospect is the "Heron
TP, a 4,650-kilogram drone with the same wingspan as a Boeing
737," which can "can carry a 1,000-kilogram payload and stay
aloft for 36 hours at an altitude of about 15,000 metres" for
"long-range Arctic and maritime patrols." [2]
Project JUSTAS will "cost as much as $750 million and...give
the Canadian military a capability that only a handful of
other countries possess...." [3]
The day after the first news story mentioned above appeared
the same press source summarized comments by Canadian Minister
of National Defence Peter MacKay as affirming "The global
economic downturn won't prevent the Canadian Forces from
spending $60 billion on new equipment."
Although Canada's federal deficit is expected to rise to $50
billion this year from $34 billion in 2008, "MacKay said the
government's long-term defence strategy would grow this year's
$19-billion annual defence budget to $30 billion by 2027. Over
that time, that will mean close to $490 billion in defence
spending, including $60 billion on new equipment." [4]
It's doubtful that many Canadians are aware of either
development: Plans for advanced drones designed not only for
surveillance but for firing missiles to be used in the Arctic
and a major increase in the military budget of a nation that
has already doubled its defense spending over the last decade.
Of those who do know of them, the question should arise of why
a nation of 33 million which borders only one other country,
the United States, its senior partner in NORAD (North American
Aerospace Defense Command), NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization) and since 2006 increasingly the Pentagon's
Northern Command (NORTHCOM) would need to spend almost half a
trillion dollars for arms in the next eighteen years. And why
in addition to acquiring weapons for wars and other military
operations in Europe, Asia and Africa, Canada would deploy
some of its most state-of-the-art arms to the Arctic Circle.
A French writer of the 1800s wrote that cannon aren't forged
to be displayed in public parks. And the deployment of
missile-wielding drones to its far north are not, contrary to
frequent implications for domestic consumption by members of
the current Stephen Harper government, meant to defend the
nation's sovereignty in the region; only one state threatens
that sovereignty, the United States, and Ottawa has no desire
to defend its interests against its southern neighbor.
Recent unparalleled Canadian military exercises and build-up
in the Arctic, of which the proposed use of aerial drones is
but the latest example, are aimed exclusively at another
nation: Russia.
A document from 2007 posted on a website of the Canadian
Parliament states, "In recent years, Canada has been asserting
its nordicite (nordicity) with a louder voice and greater
emphasis than before. Such renewed focus on the Arctic is
largely linked to the anticipated effects of climate change in
the region, which are expected to be among the greatest
effects of any region on Earth. By making the region more
easily accessible, both threats and opportunities are
amplified and multiplied. Canada's claims over the Arctic are
thus likely to emerge as a more central dimension of our
foreign relations. Hence, it appears timely to highlight the
extent of Canada's sovereignty and jurisdiction over Arctic
waters and territory, and to identify issues that are
controversial." [5]
Canada's Arctic claims extend all the way to the North Pole,
as do Russia's and Denmark's, as long as Copenhagen retains
ownership of Greenland.
The basis of the dispute between Canada and Russia is the
Lomonosov Ridge which runs 1,800 kilometers from Russia's New
Siberian Islands through the center of the Arctic Ocean to
Canada's Ellesmere Island in the territory of Nunavut, part of
the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Russia maintains that the
Lomonosov Ridge and the related Mendeleyev Elevation are
extensions of its continental shelf. Russia filed a claim to
this effect in December of 2001 with the UN Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), renewing it in late
2007.
The answer to what is at stake with control of this vast
stretch of the Arctic Ocean and that to the earlier question
concerning Canada's military escalation and expansion into the
Arctic are both threefold.
Strategic Military Positioning For Nuclear War
Nine days before vacating the White House on January 20th, US
President Bush W. Bush issued National Security Presidential
Directive 66 on Arctic Region Policy. [6]
The document states that "The United States is an Arctic
nation, with varied and compelling interests in that region"
and "The United States has broad and fundamental national
security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to
operate either independently or in conjunction with other
states to safeguard these interests. These interests include
such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment
of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic
deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security
operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight."
[7]
US Arctic claims are based solely on its possession of Alaska,
separated from the rest of the continental US by 500 miles of
Canadian territory.
National Security Directive 66 exploits Alaska's position to
demand US rights to base both strategic military forces -
long-range bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons and
warships and submarines able to launch warheads - in the
Arctic within easy striking distance of Russia, both to the
latter's east and over the North Pole.
It also, as indicated above, reserves the right to station
so-called missile defense components in the area. The words
missile defense are not as innocuous as they may appear. In
the contemporary context they refer to plans by the United
States and its allies to construct an international
interceptor missile system connected with satellites and
eventually missiles in space to be able to paralyze other
nations' strategic (long-range and nuclear) military potential
and to prevent retaliation by said nations should they be the
victims of a first strike.
US and NATO interceptor missile silos and radar sites in
Poland, the Czech Republic, Norway and Britain to Russia's
West - already in place and planned - and an analogous
structure in Alaska, Japan and Australia to the east of both
Russia and China aim at the ability to target and destroy any
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and long-range
bombers left undamaged after a massive military first strike
from the US and allied nations.
The term interceptor missile is deceptive. As America's
so-called missile defense plans prepare for knocking out ICBMs
in not only the boost and terminal but the launch phases, it's
a single step from striking a missile as it's being launched
to doing so as it's being readied for launch and even as it is
still in the silo.
Although in theory both a first strike missile attack and an
interceptor missile response need not involve nuclear
warheads, they are almost certain to if aimed against a
nuclear power, which would be expected to retaliate with
nuclear weapons.
The third leg of a nation's nuclear triad, in addition to
long-range bombers and land-based missiles, are ballistic
missile submarines equipped with submarine-launched ballistic
missiles (SLBMs) capable of carrying nuclear warheads. These
could be tracked by space surveillance and in the future hit
by space-based missiles.
Russia is the only non-Western, non-NATO country with an
effective nuclear triad.
Under the above scenario there is one spot on the earth where
Russia could maintain a credible deterrent capability: Under
the Arctic polar ice cap.
A report in 2007 said that "Amid great secrecy, NATO naval
forces are trying to control the Arctic Ocean to continue the
military bloc's expansion to[ward] Russia, the newspaper
Military Industry Herald reported....
“Like in the tensest times of the Cold War, troops from the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization are trying to take control
of the Arctic route, said the newspaper....[T]he US Navy, in
conjunction with its British allies, is meeting the challenge
of displacing Russian submarines from the Arctic region.” [8]
The US and Britain held Operation Ice Exercise 2007 under the
polar cap and repeated the maneuvers earlier this year with
Ice Exercise 2009.
During the 2007 exercises a US Navy website revealed that "The
submarine force continues to use the Arctic Ocean as an
alternate route for shifting submarines between the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans....Submarines can reach the western Pacific
directly by transiting through international waters of the
Arctic rather than through the Panama Canal.” [9]
The subject of employing the Arctic, especially the
long-fabled and now practicable Northwest Passage, for both
civilian and military transit will be examined with the second
component in the battle for the Arctic.
Also in 2007 Barry L. Campbell, head of operations at the U.S.
Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory, in referring to joint NATO
war plans for the Arctic, said: "'We're a worldwide Navy and
the Navy's position is we should be able to operate in any
ocean in the world....When you go through the Arctic, no one
knows you're there....We expect all our subs to be able to
operate in the Arctic....Our strategic position is to be able
to operate anywhere in the world, and we see the Arctic as
part of that....[I]f we ever did have to fight a battle under
there it would be a joint operation.'" [10]
In a previous article in this series, NATO's, Pentagon's New
Strategic Battleground: The Arctic [11], it was observed that
"with US and NATO missile and satellite radar and interceptor
missile facilities around the world and in space, the only
place where Russia could retain a deterrence and/or
retaliatory capacity against a crushing nuclear first strike
is under the polar ice cap....[W]ithout this capability Russia
could be rendered completely defenseless in the event of a
first strike nuclear attack."
In 2006 a Russian military press source quoted Navy Commander
Admiral Vladimir Masorin commenting on the requirement for
Russian submarines to maintain a presence under the Arctic
polar ice cap: "[T]raining is needed to help strategic
submarines of the Russian Fleet head for the Arctic ice
region, which is the least vulnerable to an adversary's
monitoring, and prepare for a response to a ballistic missile
strike in the event of a nuclear conflict.
"In order to be able to fulfill this task – I mean the task of
preserving strategic submarines – it is necessary to train
Russian submariners to maneuver under the Arctic ice." [12]
Northwest Passage Could Transform Global Civilian,
Military Shipping: Canada Confronts Russia
In recent years a direct shipping route from the Atlantic
Ocean to the Pacific in the Northern Hemisphere through the
Northwest Passage has presented the prospect of cutting
thousands of kilometers and several days if not weeks for
ships - civilian and military - from the traditional routes
through the Panama and Suez canals and for larger vessels even
having to round the southern tips of Africa and South America.
Arctic melting has reduced the ice in the area to its lowest
level in the thirty three years satellite images have measured
it, with the Northwest Passage entirely open for the first
time in recorded history.
US National Security Presidential Directive 66 also includes
the intention to "Preserve the global mobility of United
States military and civilian vessels and aircraft throughout
the Arctic region" and to "Project a sovereign United States
maritime presence in the Arctic in support of essential United
States interests." [13]
Canada claims the Northwest Passage as its exclusive territory
but Washington insists that "The Northwest Passage is a strait
used for international navigation, and the Northern Sea Route
includes straits used for international navigation; the regime
of transit passage applies to passage through those straits.
Preserving the rights and duties relating to navigation and
overflight in the Arctic region supports our ability to
exercise these rights throughout the world, including through
strategic straits." [14]
That is, the US bluntly contests Canada's contentions about
the passage, which runs along the north of that nation and no
other, being its national territory and insists on
internationalizing it.
Notwithstanding which there is no evidence that any member of
the Canadian government, the ruling Conservative Party, its
Liberal Party opposition or even the New Democratic Party has
responded to the US National Security Directive, the first
major American statement on the issue in fifteen years, with
even a murmur of disapprobation.
Instead all concern and no little hostility has been directed
by Canadian authorities, particularly the federal government,
at a nation that doesn't assert the right to deploy warships
with long-range cruise missiles, nuclear submarines and Aegis
class destroyers equipped with interceptor missiles only miles
off the Canadian mainland in the wider Western extreme of the
Passage and other naval vessels between the mainland and its
northern islands: Russia.
The threats and bluster, insults and provocations staged by
top Canadian officials over the past three and a half months
have at times reached an hysterical pitch, not only rivaling
but exceeding the depths of the Cold War period.
The current campaign was adumbrated last August after the
five-day war between Georgia and Russia when Prime Minister
Stephen Harper "accused Russia of reverting to a 'Soviet-era
mentality'" [15] and Defence Affairs Minister Peter MacKay
said "When we see a Russian Bear [Tupolev Tu-95] approaching
Canadian air space, we meet them with an F-18" [16] and has
not let up since.
After then recently inaugurated US President Barack Obama make
his first trip outside the United States in mid-February to
the Canadian capital of Ottawa, Defence Minister MacKay stated
regarding an alleged interception of a Russian bomber over the
Arctic Ocean - in international, neutral airspace - shortly
before Obama's arrival:
"They met a Russian aircraft that was approaching Canadian
airspace, and as they have done in previous occasions they
sent very clear signals that are understood, that the aircraft
was to turnaround, turn tail, and head back to their airspace,
which it did.
"I'm not going to stand here and accuse the Russians of having
deliberately done this during the presidential visit, but it
was a strong coincidence." [17]
Russia has routinely flown such patrols over the Arctic Ocean,
the Barents and North Sea and off the coast of Alaska since
the autumn of 2007. Moreover, depending on where in the Arctic
the Russian bomber was at the time, it may well have been
6,000 kilometers from Ottawa, thereby posing no threat or
constituting no warning to either Obama or Canada.
Prime Minister Harper echoed MacKay's tirade with:
"I have expressed at various times the deep concern our
government has with increasingly aggressive Russian actions
around the globe and Russian intrusions into our airspace.
"We will defend our airspace, we also have obligations of
continental defence with the United States. We will fulfil
those obligations to defend our continental airspace, and we
will defend our sovereignty and we will respond every time the
Russians make any kind of intrusion on the sovereignty in
Canada's Arctic." [18]
After Russia announced that it planned to have a military
force available to defend its interests in the Arctic by 2020
- eleven years from now - Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence
Cannon followed the lead of his predecessor and current
Defence Minister MacKay and Prime Minister Harper and said,
"Let's be perfectly clear here. Canada will not be bullied.
"Sovereignty is part of that (Northern policy). We will not
waiver from that objective. Sovereignty is uppermost for us,
so we will not be swayed from that." [19]
Cannon left it unclear in which manner Russia had questioned
his country's sovereignty, except perhaps by not gratuitously
ceding it the Lomonosov Ridge, though if Cannon had bothered
to read US National Security Directive 66 he would have
received a blunt introduction to the genuine threat to
Canada's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It will be seen later how Canada has matched the action to the
word.
Control Of World Energy Resources And NATO's Drive
Into The Arctic
A U.S. Geological Survey of May of 2008 on the Arctic
"estimated the occurrence of undiscovered oil and gas in 33
geologic provinces thought to be prospective for petroleum.
The sum of the mean estimates for each province indicates that
90 billion barrels of oil, 1,669 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids may
remain to be found in the Arctic, of which approximately 84
percent is expected to occur in offshore areas." [20]
"The unexplored Arctic contains about one-fifth of the world's
undiscovered oil and nearly a third of the natural gas yet to
be found....The untapped reserves are beneath the seafloor in
geopolitically controversial areas above the Arctic Circle."
[21]
Four days ago Science magazine published a new US Geological
Survey study that "assessed the area north of the Arctic
Circle and concluded that about 30% of the world's
undiscovered gas and 13% of the world's undiscovered oil may
be found there, mostly offshore under less than 500 meters of
water. Undiscovered natural gas is three times more abundant
than oil in the Arctic and is largely concentrated in Russia."
[22]
The full report is only available to subscribers, but the
Canadian Globe and Mail provided this excerpt: "Although
substantial amounts as may be found in Alaska, Canada and
Greenland, the undiscovered gas resource is concentrated in
Russian territory, and its development would reinforce the
pre-eminent strategic position of that country." [23]
In addition to estimating that the Arctic Circle contains 30%
of the world's undiscovered natural gas, the survey increased
its figure for potential oil there from 90 billion barrels
last year to as many as 160 billion in this year's report.
A news report summarized the findings on the region's natural
gas potential by saying "The Arctic region may hold enough
natural gas to meet current global demand for 14 years and
most of it belongs to Russia...." [24]
A website report adds this perspective on the importance of
the new estimate: "The new discovery amounts to over 35 years
in US foreign oil imports or 5 years' worth of global oil
consumption.
"Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United
States, all of which border the Arctic Circle are racing to
compete for the untapped resource.
"The oil reserves could fetch a price of $10.6 trillion
dollars at current oil prices. Most of the reserves are in
shallow waters - less than 500 meters (about 1/3rd of a mile)
- making extraction relatively easy." [25]
And a Canadian newspaper offered this terse reminder: "The
updated estimates of the North's promising oil and gas
resources comes as Canada and its polar neighbours
aggressively pursue competing claims to vast areas of
continental shelf under the Arctic Ocean." [26]
Where vast, previously unexploited hydrocarbon reserves are
discovered or suspected NATO is never far behind, from the
Caspian Sea to Africa's Gulf Of Guinea to the Arctic Ocean. On
January 28-29 of this year the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization held a meeting on the Arctic in the capital of
Iceland entitled Seminar on Security Prospects in the High
North.
It was attended by the bloc's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer, NATO's two top military commanders and the Chairman
of the Military Committee “as well as many other
decision-makers and experts from Allied countries.” [27]
Scheffer's address was marked by a fairly uncharacteristic
degree of candor, at least when he said, “[T]he High North is
going to require even more of the Alliance's attention in the
coming years.
“As the ice-cap decreases, the possibility increases of
extracting the High North's mineral wealth and energy
deposits.
“At our Summit in Bucharest last year, we agreed a number of
guiding principles for NATO's role in energy security....
“NATO provides a forum where four of the Arctic coastal states
[Canada, Denmark, Norway, the United States] can inform,
discuss, and share, any concerns that they may have. And this
leads me directly onto the next issue, which is military
activity in the region.
“Clearly, the High North is a region that is of strategic
interest to the Alliance." [28]
Also addressing the meeting was NATO Supreme Allied Commander
and the Pentagon's European Command chief General Bantz John
Craddock, who "opined that NATO could contribute greatly to
facilitating cooperation in areas such as the development and
security of shipping routes, energy security, surveillance and
monitoring, search and rescue, resource exploration and
mining...." [29]
Craddock inherited his dual assignments from Marine General
James Jones, the architect of the new US African Command and
current National Security Adviser, who is certainly overseeing
the role of the US military and NATO in securing control of
world energy supplies.
Peaceful Multilateral Development Or War In The
Arctic?
US and NATO designs on the Arctic for strategic military
purposes, for the potential of the Northwest Passage to
redefine international shipping and naval commerce and for
gaining access to and domination over perhaps the largest
untapped oil and natural gas supplies in the world are hardly
disguised.
As with numerous energy transportation projects in the Caspian
Sea Basin, the Caucasus, the Black Sea region and the Balkans,
Iraq and Africa, for the West oil and gas extraction and
transit is a winner-take-all game dictated by the drive to
master others and share with none.
The recent US Geological Survey study suggests that the Arctic
Ocean may contain not only one-third of the world's
undiscovered natural gas but almost two-thirds as much oil as
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer, is conventionally
estimated to possess: 160 billion barrels to somewhere in the
neighborhood of 260 billion barrels.
That Russia might gain access to the lion's share of both is
not something that the US and its NATO allies will permit. The
latter have fought three wars since 1999 for lesser stakes.
Iraq, for example, has an estimated 115 billion barrels of
oil.
Last month Russian President Dmitry Medvedev approved his
nation's National Security Strategy until 2020 document which
says that "the main threat to Russia's national security is
the policy pursued by certain leading states, which is aimed
at attaining military superiority over Russia, in the first
place in strategic nuclear forces.
"The threats to military security are the policy by a number
of leading foreign states, aimed at attaining dominant
superiority in the military sphere, in the first place in
strategic nuclear forces, by developing high-precision,
information and other high-tech means of warfare, strategic
armaments with non-nuclear ordnance, the unilateral formation
of the global missile defense system and militarization of
outer space, which is capable of bringing about a new spiral
of the arms race, as well as the development of nuclear,
chemical and biological technologies, the production of
weapons of mass destruction or their components and delivery
vehicles." [30]
The strategy also, in the words of the Times of London,
"identified the intensifying battle for ownership of vast
untapped oil and gas fields around its borders as a source of
potential military conflict within a decade."
"The United States, Norway, Canada and Denmark are challenging
Russia's claim to a section of the Arctic shelf, the size of
Western Europe, which is believed to contain billions of
tonnes of oil and gas." [31]
In a foreign ministers session of the Arctic Council in late
April Russia again warned against plans to militarize the
Arctic. Its plea fell on deaf ears in the West.
On May 28 the Norwegian ambassador to NATO took his British,
Danish, German, Estonian and Romanian counterparts on a "High
North study trip" near the Arctic Circle where the Norwegian
foreign minister "emphasised the importance of NATO attention
to security issues of the High North." [32]
Three days earlier the same nation's State Secretary, Espen
Barth Eide, addressed the Defence and Security Committee of
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Oslo and said, "Russia has
shown an increased willingness to engage in political rhetoric
and even use of military force....NATO has a very important
role to play and Norway has argued the case for a long time.
The Alliance is at the core of the security and defence
strategies of all but one Arctic Ocean state.
"NATO already has a certain presence and plays a role in the
High North today, primarily through the Integrated Air Defence
System, including fighters on alert and AWACS surveillance
flights. Some exercise activity under the NATO flag also takes
place in Norway and Iceland....We would like to see NATO raise
its profile in the High North." [33]
Canada: West's Front Line, Battering Ram And Sacrificial
Offering
As tensions mount in the Arctic, especially should they
develop into a crisis and the military option be employed,
Norway will play its appointed role as a loyal NATO cohort, as
will its neighbors Denmark, Finland and Sweden, the last two
rapidly becoming NATO states in every manner but formally.
Yet the battle will be joined where three of the four NATO
states with Arctic territorial claims - the United States,
Canada and Denmark - base them, in the northernmost part of
the Western Hemisphere.
And having by far the largest border with the Arctic and the
most sizeable portion of its territory, Canada is the shock
brigade to be used in any planned provocation and open
confrontation.
Nine days ago it was reported that "Canada's mapping of the
Arctic is pushing into territory claimed by Russia in the
high-stakes drive by countries to establish clear title to the
polar region and its seabed riches.
"Survey flights Ottawa conducted in late winter and early
spring went beyond the North Pole and into an area where
Russia has staked claims, a Department of Natural Resources
official said Sunday."
The account continued by stating, "If Canada eventually files
a claim that extends past the North Pole, it could find itself
in conflict with Russia.
"Canada and Russia have both committed to a peaceful
resolution of conflicts over claims submitted under the
international process, a pledge [that] will be put to the test
if Ottawa and Moscow submit overlapping stakes.
"Canadian scientists contend that the underwater Lomonosov
Ridge is an extension of the North American continental shelf.
"It is estimated that a quarter of the world's undiscovered
oil and gas lies under the Arctic." [34]
Canadian military and civilian leaders have been laying the
groundwork for this confrontation since the advent of the
Harper administration.
In August of 2007 the prime minister "announced plans to build
a new army training centre in the Far North at Resolute Bay
[east end of the Northwest Passage] and to outfit a deep-water
port for both military and civilian use at the northern tip of
Baffin Island.
"His trip to the Arctic earlier this month was accompanied by
the biggest military exercise in the region in years, with 600
soldiers, sailors and air crew participating.” [35]
A year later the Harper and Bush governments laid aside a
long-standing dispute in the Arctic's Beaufort Sea "in the
name of defending against Russia's Arctic claims, which clash
with those of the US, Canada, Denmark and Norway.” [36]
In the same month Canada conducted what it called the first of
several military sovereignty exercises in the Arctic, a full
spectrum affair including "In addition to the army, navy and
air force, several federal agencies and departments are
participating, including the Coast Guard, RCMP, CSIS, Canada
Border Services Agency, Transport Canada and Health Canada.
"Military officials say this year's exercise involves the most
number of departments and agencies ever." [37]
Later in August of 2008 Harper and Defence Secretary MacKay
visited the Northwest Territories to inspect "four CF18
Canadian military jets sent to Inuvik in response to what
officials said was an unidentified aircraft that had neared
Canadian air space." [38]
Last September the Canadian Defence Ministry launched
"Operation NANOOK 2008, a sovereignty operation in Canada's
eastern Arctic. Not only that, but Harper also voiced support
for plans to build a military port and a military base beyond
the Polar Circle."
This at a time when "The United States has joined the race,
too, teaming up with Canada to map the unexplored Arctic sea
floor." [39]
On September 19th Harper was paraphrased as saying "Canada is
stepping up its military alertness along its northern frontier
in response to Russia's 'testing' of its boundaries and recent
Arctic grab.
"We are concerned about not just Russia's claims through the
international process, but Russia's testing of Canadian
airspace and other indications...(of) some desire to work
outside of the international framework. That is obviously why
we are taking a range of measures, including military
measures, to strengthen our sovereignty in the North." [40]
In December of last year defence chief MacKay "singled out
possible naval encroachments from Russia and China, saying,
'We have to be diligent.'" [41]
This March MacKay "announced...the locations of the two
satellite reception ground stations for the $60 million Polar
Epsilon project designed to provide space-based, day and night
surveillance of Canada's Arctic and its ocean approaches. [42]
In April Canada held Operation Nunalivut 2009, the first of
three "sovereignty operations" scheduled in the Arctic this
year.
MacKay said of the exercises, “Operation Nunalivut is but one
example of how the Government of Canada actively and routinely
exercises its sovereignty in the North. The Canadian Forces
play an important role in achieving our goals in the North,
which is why the Government of Canada is making sure they have
the tools they need to carry out a full range of tasks in the
Arctic, including surveillance, sovereignty, and
search-and-rescue operations.”
Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden, Commander of Canada Command,
added:
"In keeping with the Canada First Defence Strategy, we are
placing greater emphasis on our northern operations, including
in the High Arctic. This operation underscores the value of
the Canadian Rangers, our eyes and ears in the North, which at
the direction of the Government are growing to 5,000 in
strength."
Brigadier-General David Millar, the Commander of Joint Task
Force North, contributed this:
"This operation is a golden opportunity to expand our
capabilities to operate in Canada's Arctic. In addition to air
and ground patrols, this operation calls on a range of
supporting military capabilities–communications, intelligence,
mapping, and satellite imaging.” [43]
The Commander of Greenland Command, Danish Rear-Admiral Henrik
Kudsk, attended the exercises to "discuss military
collaboration in the North." [44]
To further demonstrate NATO unity in the face of a common
enemy, Russia, "A Canadian research aircraft is expected to
fly over 90 North this month as part of a joint Canada-Denmark
mission to strengthen the countries' claims over the
potentially oil-rich Lomonosov Ridge." [45]
In the same month, April, this time in a show of bipartisan
unity, a Liberal Party gathering in Vancouver discussed "a
tough Arctic policy that calls on the government to 'actively
and aggressively' enforce Canada's sovereignty in the North,
including expanding its military role." [46]
A major Canadian daily revealed information on the Canadian
Department of National Defence's Polar Breeze program,
referring to it as a $138 million "military project so cloaked
in secrecy the Department of National Defence at first
categorically denied it even existed.
"Today - apart from backtracking on their denial - the
military is refusing to answer any questions on the project
that experts believe has a role to play in protecting Canada's
Arctic sovereignty and security." [47]
The newspaper also said that the project "involves the
Canadian Forces' secretive directorate of space development,
computer networks and geospatial intelligence - data gathered
by satellite" and that it "could have farther ranging
functions including sharing sensitive military intelligence
across the various branches of the Canadian Forces and with
key allies." [48]
In early May the Canadian Senate issued a report demanding
that "Canada should arm its coast guard icebreakers and turn
the North's Rangers into better-trained units that could fight
if necessary." [49]
Slightly later in a news report called "After Russian talk of
conflict, Tories say military is prepared," Foreign Affairs
Minister Lawrence Cannon said the "government's defence
strategy will help the military 'take action in exercising
Canadian sovereignty in the North,' and highlighted plans for
a fleet of Arctic patrol ships, a deepwater docking facility
at Baffin Island, an Arctic military training centre and the
expansion of the Canadian Rangers...." [50]
The repeated, incessant references to Russia and to no other
nation while Canada boosts military cooperation with fellow
NATO Arctic claimants leave no room for doubt regarding which
nation Canadian military expansion in its north is aimed
against. Recent deployments and new and upgraded installations
cannot be used to fight a conventional conflict with any
modern military adversary. But they are indicative of an
intensifying campaign to portray Russia as a threat - as the
threat - to Canada.
Piotr Dutkiewicz, director of Carleton University's Institute
of European and Russian Studies, is quoted in a Canadian
online publication recently as worrying that "There is a very
strange rhetoric that is coming in recent months as to portray
Russia as a potential enemy...." [51]
The rhetoric is backed up by action and it isn't strange but
perfectly understandable.
Canada is primed for a role much like that of Georgia in the
South Caucasus has been for the past several years, as a
comparatively small (in terms of population) nation close to
Russia which will be employed to play a part on behalf of far
more powerful actors. And should Russia respond in any way to
attempted Canadian efforts to "stand tall" against it, from
scrambling jets to shooting down a bomber - bravado can always
go awry - the US and NATO will be compelled to offer support
and assistance, including military action, under the
provisions of NATO's Article 5. In fact that may be exactly
what Washington and Brussels have planned.
Rather than continuing to lend Georgia diplomatic and military
support, it would behoove Canadians to borrow a lesson from
last August's war in the Caucasus: A war can be launched on an
aggressor's terms but end on someone else's.
1) CanWest News Service. May 26, 2009
2) Canwest News Service, December 11, 2008
3) Ibid
4) Canwest News Service, May 27, 2009
5) Library of Parliament, December 7, 2007
6) National Security Presidential Directive 66 on Arctic
Region Policy http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm
7) Ibid
8) Prensa Latina, March 29, 2007
9) Navy NewsStand, March 20, 2007
10) Navy NewsStand, March 29, 2007
11) Stop NATO, February 2, 2009
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/37104
12) Interfax-Military, September 26, 2006
13) National Security Presidential Directive, January 9, 2009
14) Ibid
15) Canwest News Service, August 19, 2008
16) Canwest News Service, September 12, 2008
17) CBC, February 27, 2009
18) Ibid
19) Vancouver Sun, March 27, 2009
20) U.S. Geological Survey, May, 2008
http://geology.com/usgs/arctic-oil-and-gas-report.shtml
21) Live Science, July 24, 2008
22) Science, May 29, 2009
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5931/1175]
23) Globe and Mail, May 28, 2009
24) Bloomberg, May 29, 2009
25) Daily Tech, June, 1, 2009
26) Globe and Mail, May 28, 2009
27) NATO International, January 29, 2009
28) Ibid
29) NATO International, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers
Europe,
January 29, 2009
30) Itar-Tass, May 13, 2009
31) The Times, May 14, 2009
32) Barents Observer, May 28, 2009
33) Defense Professionals, May 25, 2009
34) Globe and Mail, May 24, 2009
35) Canadian Press, August 19, 2007
36) Financial Times, August 18, 2008
37) Canwest News Service, August 19, 2008
38) Reuters, August 28, 2008
39) RosBusinessConsulting, September 18, 2008
40) Agence France-Presse, September 19, 2008
41) Canwest News Service, December 15, 2008
42) Daily Gleaner (New Brunswick), April 22, 2009
43) Department of National Defence, Canada Command, April 2,
2009
44) Ibid
45) Canwest News Service, April 5, 2009
46) Edmonton Sun, April 13, 2009
47) Globe and Mail, April 27, 2009
48) Ibid
49) Canadian Press, May 7, 2009
50) Canwest News Service, May 15, 2009
51) Embassy, April 29, 2009
Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.