The Geopolitical Debate between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage in the Arctic, Caused by Climate Changes
We all have observed changes in the weather conditions here in Quebec but also around the world. Christmas 2006 has been one without snow for most areas here in the province of Quebec and the first official snow storm has been registrated on January 15, 2007 (Le Devoir, 01/16/07). These observations brought me to ask myself in what way Canada is touched by this concern. Therefore, my researches led me to the Northwest Passage, a potential shipping route in the Arctic. If the ice keeps on melting at this speed, the navigation season could become longer and then it could be a strategic passage for vessels. Even if the Northwest Passage is on Canadian territory, the United States claim it should be considered as an international strait. My research paper will bring an original viewpoint on the issue by examining and analyzing the geopolitical debate itself and by giving both the Canadian and American arguments. By choosing this topic, I will provide my audience information on an issue that is getting a significantly increasing interest from the Canadian government and that will surely be brought to our attention by the media in the future.
lundi 16 avril 2007
samedi 7 avril 2007
Outline
The Geopolitical Debate between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage in the Arctic, Caused by Climate Changes
I will examine international laws, studies and scholarly articles and analyze the debate, brought by new climate changes, about Canada's sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, which is being questioned by the United States.
I. The scientifically proved meltdown of the Northwest Passage
A. The causes of the melting
B. When will the Passage be open for shipping?
C. How much shorter will it be than the Panama Canal?
D. What is at stake?
1. Commercial possibilities
2. The actual jurisdiction
II. The debate between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage
A. Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage
1. Increasing interest of the government for this region
2. Internal waters
3. Environmental and traditional security
B. The United States call the Northwest Passage an international strait
1. What does an international strait mean?
2. American interests regarding the Northwest Passage
3. Why do the United States not accept Canada’s claim?
4. The diplomatic incidents caused by the United States
III. Strategic possibilities of a consensus
A. What do journalists think about the issue?
B. What do Canadian political parties think about it?
1. Liberal
2. Conservative
I will examine international laws, studies and scholarly articles and analyze the debate, brought by new climate changes, about Canada's sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, which is being questioned by the United States.
I. The scientifically proved meltdown of the Northwest Passage
A. The causes of the melting
B. When will the Passage be open for shipping?
C. How much shorter will it be than the Panama Canal?
D. What is at stake?
1. Commercial possibilities
2. The actual jurisdiction
II. The debate between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage
A. Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage
1. Increasing interest of the government for this region
2. Internal waters
3. Environmental and traditional security
B. The United States call the Northwest Passage an international strait
1. What does an international strait mean?
2. American interests regarding the Northwest Passage
3. Why do the United States not accept Canada’s claim?
4. The diplomatic incidents caused by the United States
III. Strategic possibilities of a consensus
A. What do journalists think about the issue?
B. What do Canadian political parties think about it?
1. Liberal
2. Conservative
vendredi 16 mars 2007
Review of the literature
The new climate changes are bringing deep transformations in the Canadian Arctic. The thinning ice in the northern area leads many scholars and scientists to take a closer look to the Northwest Passage, a very narrow strait that could become a shipping route with the meltdown of the ice caps. Being on Canada’s territory, this passage could bring commercial and economical opportunities to the country. However, some states are revoking the fact that the Northwest Passage is under Canada’s jurisdiction and would meet major interests in the fact of having this strategic road named international. What will keep our attention here is the literature published concerning the Canadian and American viewpoints when it comes to the Northwest Passage. The goal is to find out why Canada’s sovereignty is being questioned when the Northwest Passage is recognized by both parties as Canadian territory.
Quite a few scholarly articles and head news have been written up to now about the disagreement between Canada and the United States. By taking an overall look to what has been produced on that matter, one can observe that there has been a recrudescence of the publications concerning the issue since 2002. The fact that the melt has accelerated since then according to John Falkingham as we can find in Rebecca Dube’s As Ice Melts, Debate over the Northwest Passage Heats (2006), is certainly a cause of the comeback of the debate. Moreover, in 2002, Rob Huebert published Northern Interests and Canadian Foreign Policy a determinant article about Canada’s attempt to keep sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Over 60% of my works cited refer to Huebert’s research which demonstrates that his work is not to be neglected. In addition to the articles found, important laws are included in the present review of the literature and will be used to enhance both actors’ opinions. These legislation texts are namely the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention () and The Northern Dimension of Canada’s Foreign Policy (2000).
In my fifteen sources, it has been possible to highlights the major Canadian claims as to its sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. In Rob Huebert’s Northern Interests and Canadian Foreign Policy (2002), in Ron Mcnab’s Canada’s Arctic Waterways: Future Shipping Crossroads? (2004) as well as in Matthew Carnaghan and Allison Gody’s Canadian Arctic Sovereignty (2006), the paramount claim defended by Canada is that the Northwest Passage is “historical internal waters” and therefore, it is under its jurisdiction and control. Moreover, Andrea Charron writes in The Northwest Passage in Context (2006) that Canada denies that the right of navigation exists for foreigners on that territory. In relation to that statement, the first “illegal” voyage of the Manhattan became a watershed for the declaration of Canada’s sovereignty over the northern route as Franklyn Griffiths explains in his article Pathetic Fallacy: That Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty is on Thinning Ice (2004). Canadian vital interests of having jurisdiction on the Arctic region are the protection of the environment as well as the northern communities, keeping its identity and nonetheless promoting bilateral relations with the United States. (Charron, 2006)
When it comes to the United States’ opinion on Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, once again the scholars converge to the same main claim: the United Sates consider the Northwest Passage as an international strait using to its advantage the UN Law of the Sea Convention. In Charron’s (2006) article, it is clearly said that the United States do not want to concede to Canada sovereignty over the Northwest Passage because of the various economical and commercial interests it defends such as saving time and money by this shorter route and being close to any mineral exploitation. In Matthew Carnaghan and Allison Goody’s Canadian Arctic Sovereignty (2006), we can find a quotation from a U.S foreign relation document which demonstrates well the whole point of my thesis statement: “We cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada […]. Such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.”
Now that the most important points of each side’s claims are given, proving that there is a real debate ongoing between Canada and the United States, there is still some divergence in the scholars’ sayings. For example, the great majority of them bring that the melting of the ice is a verified fact. However, they do not prevail the same information as to the speed it is melting. In Rebecca Dube’s article (2006), it is written that there could be an extended summertime shipping season by the end of the century but we can find it Rob Huebert’s (2002) work that the shipping season would be extended in the same manner as said in Dube’s research, within 15 to 40 years. Adding to that the substantial difference between the numbers given by some scholars, when it comes to the number of miles saved by someone who travels by the Northwest Passage as opposed to one who would go trough the Panama Canal. In Mike Blanchfield’s editorial Canada’s Artic Sovereignty Claim ‘Tenuous’, Pentagon Adviser Argues (2007), the Northwest Passage route would be 9 000 kilometres shorter, Dube (2006) claims it would be 4 600 miles shorter whereas Charron (2004) writes it is 7 000 kilometres shorter. In addition to that Huebert provides good information on what is still unknown by the scientists. Among these uncertainties comes the fact that there is a debate when it comes to the precise cause of the diminished ice cover and whether it is or not part of a long or short term metamorphosis. He adds that, according to him, “the impact of a warmer climate is not fully understood”. Finally, since the Northwest Passage is not yet a shipping route, some scholars, like Ron Macnab (2004), doubt the capacity of Canada to provide services and facilities as well as security in the area.
The emergence of this debate on the Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage shows that research on the matter is only beginning. However, there are still voluminous reports on the viewpoints and the claims from both Canada and the United States in that battle. The sources used for this review are diversified and recent enough to lead to a original research paper that would examine and analyze new angles of the issue such as the laws used and the measurements process.
Quite a few scholarly articles and head news have been written up to now about the disagreement between Canada and the United States. By taking an overall look to what has been produced on that matter, one can observe that there has been a recrudescence of the publications concerning the issue since 2002. The fact that the melt has accelerated since then according to John Falkingham as we can find in Rebecca Dube’s As Ice Melts, Debate over the Northwest Passage Heats (2006), is certainly a cause of the comeback of the debate. Moreover, in 2002, Rob Huebert published Northern Interests and Canadian Foreign Policy a determinant article about Canada’s attempt to keep sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Over 60% of my works cited refer to Huebert’s research which demonstrates that his work is not to be neglected. In addition to the articles found, important laws are included in the present review of the literature and will be used to enhance both actors’ opinions. These legislation texts are namely the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention () and The Northern Dimension of Canada’s Foreign Policy (2000).
In my fifteen sources, it has been possible to highlights the major Canadian claims as to its sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. In Rob Huebert’s Northern Interests and Canadian Foreign Policy (2002), in Ron Mcnab’s Canada’s Arctic Waterways: Future Shipping Crossroads? (2004) as well as in Matthew Carnaghan and Allison Gody’s Canadian Arctic Sovereignty (2006), the paramount claim defended by Canada is that the Northwest Passage is “historical internal waters” and therefore, it is under its jurisdiction and control. Moreover, Andrea Charron writes in The Northwest Passage in Context (2006) that Canada denies that the right of navigation exists for foreigners on that territory. In relation to that statement, the first “illegal” voyage of the Manhattan became a watershed for the declaration of Canada’s sovereignty over the northern route as Franklyn Griffiths explains in his article Pathetic Fallacy: That Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty is on Thinning Ice (2004). Canadian vital interests of having jurisdiction on the Arctic region are the protection of the environment as well as the northern communities, keeping its identity and nonetheless promoting bilateral relations with the United States. (Charron, 2006)
When it comes to the United States’ opinion on Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, once again the scholars converge to the same main claim: the United Sates consider the Northwest Passage as an international strait using to its advantage the UN Law of the Sea Convention. In Charron’s (2006) article, it is clearly said that the United States do not want to concede to Canada sovereignty over the Northwest Passage because of the various economical and commercial interests it defends such as saving time and money by this shorter route and being close to any mineral exploitation. In Matthew Carnaghan and Allison Goody’s Canadian Arctic Sovereignty (2006), we can find a quotation from a U.S foreign relation document which demonstrates well the whole point of my thesis statement: “We cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada […]. Such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.”
Now that the most important points of each side’s claims are given, proving that there is a real debate ongoing between Canada and the United States, there is still some divergence in the scholars’ sayings. For example, the great majority of them bring that the melting of the ice is a verified fact. However, they do not prevail the same information as to the speed it is melting. In Rebecca Dube’s article (2006), it is written that there could be an extended summertime shipping season by the end of the century but we can find it Rob Huebert’s (2002) work that the shipping season would be extended in the same manner as said in Dube’s research, within 15 to 40 years. Adding to that the substantial difference between the numbers given by some scholars, when it comes to the number of miles saved by someone who travels by the Northwest Passage as opposed to one who would go trough the Panama Canal. In Mike Blanchfield’s editorial Canada’s Artic Sovereignty Claim ‘Tenuous’, Pentagon Adviser Argues (2007), the Northwest Passage route would be 9 000 kilometres shorter, Dube (2006) claims it would be 4 600 miles shorter whereas Charron (2004) writes it is 7 000 kilometres shorter. In addition to that Huebert provides good information on what is still unknown by the scientists. Among these uncertainties comes the fact that there is a debate when it comes to the precise cause of the diminished ice cover and whether it is or not part of a long or short term metamorphosis. He adds that, according to him, “the impact of a warmer climate is not fully understood”. Finally, since the Northwest Passage is not yet a shipping route, some scholars, like Ron Macnab (2004), doubt the capacity of Canada to provide services and facilities as well as security in the area.
The emergence of this debate on the Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage shows that research on the matter is only beginning. However, there are still voluminous reports on the viewpoints and the claims from both Canada and the United States in that battle. The sources used for this review are diversified and recent enough to lead to a original research paper that would examine and analyze new angles of the issue such as the laws used and the measurements process.
lundi 12 mars 2007
Outline
I. The scientifically proved meltdown of the Northwest Passage
A. Review of the literature on what is known and unknown
1. The causes of the melting
2. When will the Passage be open for shipping?
3. How much shorter will it be than the Panama Canal?
B. What is at stake?
1. Commercial possibilities
2. The actual jurisdiction
II. The debate between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage
A. Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage
1. Increasing interest of the government for this region
2. Internal waters
3. Environmental and traditional security
4. Strategic possibilities
B. The United States call the Northwest Passage an international strait
1. What it intends to be international?
2. American interests regarding the Northwest Passage
3. Why the United States do not accept Canada’s claim?
4. The diplomatic incidents caused by the United States
A. Review of the literature on what is known and unknown
1. The causes of the melting
2. When will the Passage be open for shipping?
3. How much shorter will it be than the Panama Canal?
B. What is at stake?
1. Commercial possibilities
2. The actual jurisdiction
II. The debate between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage
A. Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage
1. Increasing interest of the government for this region
2. Internal waters
3. Environmental and traditional security
4. Strategic possibilities
B. The United States call the Northwest Passage an international strait
1. What it intends to be international?
2. American interests regarding the Northwest Passage
3. Why the United States do not accept Canada’s claim?
4. The diplomatic incidents caused by the United States
samedi 17 février 2007
Notes: Review of the Literature
Source (1): Dube, Rebecca. “As Ice Melts, Debate over Northwest Passage Heats.” UsaToday 4 Apr. 2006. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-03-nwpassage-debate_x.htm>.
Debate: "The United States calls the passage an international strait, open to all. Canada claims control because it considers the passage an internal waterway, like the Mississippi River."
Advantages to the NW Passage: (a) 4,700 nautical miles shorter than via the Panama Canal. "That would save hundreds of thousands of dollars for shipping companies. (b) "It would be a very attractive way to move Alaskan oil to the East Coast."
Historical data: Canada claimed the passage as an internal waterway in 1973. "For Canada, the NW Passage is a symbol of national sovereignty, which Canadians guard fiercely. (National anthem says: "True North, strong and free".
Quotation of U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, in 2006: "We don't recognize Canada's claims to the waters."
Quotation of PM Stephen Harper: "We have significant plans for national defense and for defense of our sovereignty, including Arctic sovereignty."
Political fact(paraphrasing): Harper promised in his election campaign an 5,3 billion dollars investment in northern defense.
*This source includes great facts and potential quotations. Moreover, this article has been reused by the University of Western Ontario which confirms it is serious and authoritative. (4.5/5)
Source (2): Charron, Andrea. “The Northwest Passage in Context.” Canadian Military Journal (2005-2006): 41-48.
Purpose of the text: Clarify and context the NW Passage debate, according to the law standpoint.
Quotation of the author: "All indications are that a strictly legal solution to the impasse is unlikely."(41)
Definition of the word sovereignty (concept): "Supreme authority within a territory."(41)
Oposition between Canada and U.S.: "The US has consistenly said "yes", a right of navigation exists, while Canada says "no", such a right does not exist, especially with respect to the Passage."(42)
Important historical data: In 1969, an american vessel, the Manhattan, traversed the NW Passage on two occasions without asking permission and it became "a watershed for the formal declaration of Canada's right of ownership of the Passage". Then, the Canadian government passed a pollution legislation aiming to protect the Arctic.(43)
The "Straight Baseline Method" is explained in this article. It is the method used by Canada to legally defend its sovereignty over the NW Passage.
U.S. viewpoint: "Naval interests of the United States around the world, according to the Canadian Arctic Ressources Committee, prevent the US government from conceding to Canada on the Passage."(45)
Fact: Canada's Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act (AWPPA) is an act that makes Canada able to exercise jurisdiction over commerce in the Arctic. "Canada argued that this legislation was necessary because of the danger posed by oil-laden tankers that could spill their contents, thus permanently damaging the fragile Arcic environment."
Historical data: 1988's Agreement on Arctic Cooperation faciliate the transit of US vessels. It reminds that a close relationship is of first importance between the Canadian PM and the President of the U.S. in order to perpetuate the status quo.
*This article will help me understand well the legal dispositions that both part have taken or want to take. It will strenghten my analysis. (4/5)
Source (3): Birchall, Jeff. “Canadian Sovereignty: Climate Change and Politics in the Arctic.” Arctic 59.2 (2006): 3-4.
Intriguing idea: "[...] melting ice does not mean no ice, nor does it mean increased shipping."
Quotations: "Often those who predict an ice-reduced or an ice-free Northwest Passage tend to oversimplify the nature of the ice regimes in the archipelago, thus exaggerating the potential for increased shipping and the implied threat to Canadian sovereignty."
"Given the importance of security in a post-9/11 environment, however, it's unlikely that the United States would want to agtate relations with Canada by challenging her sovereignty status in the Northwest Passage."
*This editorial gives original and exclusive opinions on the debate. Those viewpoints could help me to enhance my analysis. (3.5/5)
Source (4): “Americans Disagree over Canada’s Claim to Historic Northwest Passage.” Editorial. Office of External Relations of the University of Alberta 1 Nov. 2006. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=52223>.
Fact: There is increasing interest in oil and natural gas development.
Canadian government wants to improve its strategy to assure the country's military action in the Arctic area by constructing armed icebreakers.
*This article is weaker. It does not provide a lot of new information and it often refers to Rob Huebert's research, which is one of my important sources in my review of the literature. Therefeore, I would rather concentrate on Huebert's article itself. (1.5/5)
Source (5): Blanchfield, Mike. “Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty Claim ‘tenuous,’ Pentagon Adviser Argues.” Canada.com 15 Feb. 2007. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.canada.com/ components/print.aspx?id=b1ce8bb6-a088-4954-a610-ee6a5e3f1>.
Paraphrasing: The Oceans Policy Adviser to the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, James Kraska, claims that Canada's defense for her sovereignty over the NW Passage is "tenuous" and "excessive" and that Canada should improve its security and environmental issues trough the United Nations. (UN Law of the Sea).
Quotation from James Kraska: "[...] the question is unlikely to cause significant friction between Ottawa and Washington because both countries share a mutual respect for the rule of law and are NATO allies."
Comparison with a similar case: Malaysia vs. Indonesia.
Quotation: "Most military observers agree Canada's ability to defend its vast Arctic is limited."
*Interesting article because it is very recent (15 Feb. 2007). Plus, it brings good quotations. But still it does not provide a complete overall look at the issue. (3/5)
Source(6): “Canada Needs to Stand on Guard.” Editorial. Canada.com 15 Aug. 2006. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=502e6951-0000-4909-ac83-9b7cbec0>.
Collective knowledge: "Canadian control over the Arctic Ocean on our northern approach is a given for Canadians."
Quotation: "Legal rights to sovereignty can rest on exercising them."
*This source is poor. It is too short to contain intriguing ideas. Plus it is anonymous which lessens its authoritativeness. (1/5)
Source(7) : Griffiths, Franklyn. “Pathetic Fallacy: that Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty is on Thin Ice.” Canadian Foreign Policy 11.3 (2004): 1-16. Proquest Research Library Feb. 2007>.
The issue itself: "[...] the undoubted thinning of sea ice in the various waterways that make up the Passage will produce not only an increase in intercontinental shipping, but a shipping-based challenge to Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic warters."
The author's viewpoint: The real problem for Canada is not to prevail its sovereignty as far as commercial navigation is concerned but to get prepared to fight for security and environmental challenges that may come up because of the global warming.
Debate: "The United States calls the passage an international strait, open to all. Canada claims control because it considers the passage an internal waterway, like the Mississippi River."
Advantages to the NW Passage: (a) 4,700 nautical miles shorter than via the Panama Canal. "That would save hundreds of thousands of dollars for shipping companies. (b) "It would be a very attractive way to move Alaskan oil to the East Coast."
Historical data: Canada claimed the passage as an internal waterway in 1973. "For Canada, the NW Passage is a symbol of national sovereignty, which Canadians guard fiercely. (National anthem says: "True North, strong and free".
Quotation of U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, in 2006: "We don't recognize Canada's claims to the waters."
Quotation of PM Stephen Harper: "We have significant plans for national defense and for defense of our sovereignty, including Arctic sovereignty."
Political fact(paraphrasing): Harper promised in his election campaign an 5,3 billion dollars investment in northern defense.
*This source includes great facts and potential quotations. Moreover, this article has been reused by the University of Western Ontario which confirms it is serious and authoritative. (4.5/5)
Source (2): Charron, Andrea. “The Northwest Passage in Context.” Canadian Military Journal (2005-2006): 41-48.
Purpose of the text: Clarify and context the NW Passage debate, according to the law standpoint.
Quotation of the author: "All indications are that a strictly legal solution to the impasse is unlikely."(41)
Definition of the word sovereignty (concept): "Supreme authority within a territory."(41)
Oposition between Canada and U.S.: "The US has consistenly said "yes", a right of navigation exists, while Canada says "no", such a right does not exist, especially with respect to the Passage."(42)
Important historical data: In 1969, an american vessel, the Manhattan, traversed the NW Passage on two occasions without asking permission and it became "a watershed for the formal declaration of Canada's right of ownership of the Passage". Then, the Canadian government passed a pollution legislation aiming to protect the Arctic.(43)
The "Straight Baseline Method" is explained in this article. It is the method used by Canada to legally defend its sovereignty over the NW Passage.
U.S. viewpoint: "Naval interests of the United States around the world, according to the Canadian Arctic Ressources Committee, prevent the US government from conceding to Canada on the Passage."(45)
Fact: Canada's Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act (AWPPA) is an act that makes Canada able to exercise jurisdiction over commerce in the Arctic. "Canada argued that this legislation was necessary because of the danger posed by oil-laden tankers that could spill their contents, thus permanently damaging the fragile Arcic environment."
Historical data: 1988's Agreement on Arctic Cooperation faciliate the transit of US vessels. It reminds that a close relationship is of first importance between the Canadian PM and the President of the U.S. in order to perpetuate the status quo.
*This article will help me understand well the legal dispositions that both part have taken or want to take. It will strenghten my analysis. (4/5)
Source (3): Birchall, Jeff. “Canadian Sovereignty: Climate Change and Politics in the Arctic.” Arctic 59.2 (2006): 3-4.
Intriguing idea: "[...] melting ice does not mean no ice, nor does it mean increased shipping."
Quotations: "Often those who predict an ice-reduced or an ice-free Northwest Passage tend to oversimplify the nature of the ice regimes in the archipelago, thus exaggerating the potential for increased shipping and the implied threat to Canadian sovereignty."
"Given the importance of security in a post-9/11 environment, however, it's unlikely that the United States would want to agtate relations with Canada by challenging her sovereignty status in the Northwest Passage."
*This editorial gives original and exclusive opinions on the debate. Those viewpoints could help me to enhance my analysis. (3.5/5)
Source (4): “Americans Disagree over Canada’s Claim to Historic Northwest Passage.” Editorial. Office of External Relations of the University of Alberta 1 Nov. 2006. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=52223>.
Fact: There is increasing interest in oil and natural gas development.
Canadian government wants to improve its strategy to assure the country's military action in the Arctic area by constructing armed icebreakers.
*This article is weaker. It does not provide a lot of new information and it often refers to Rob Huebert's research, which is one of my important sources in my review of the literature. Therefeore, I would rather concentrate on Huebert's article itself. (1.5/5)
Source (5): Blanchfield, Mike. “Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty Claim ‘tenuous,’ Pentagon Adviser Argues.” Canada.com 15 Feb. 2007. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.canada.com/ components/print.aspx?id=b1ce8bb6-a088-4954-a610-ee6a5e3f1>.
Paraphrasing: The Oceans Policy Adviser to the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, James Kraska, claims that Canada's defense for her sovereignty over the NW Passage is "tenuous" and "excessive" and that Canada should improve its security and environmental issues trough the United Nations. (UN Law of the Sea).
Quotation from James Kraska: "[...] the question is unlikely to cause significant friction between Ottawa and Washington because both countries share a mutual respect for the rule of law and are NATO allies."
Comparison with a similar case: Malaysia vs. Indonesia.
Quotation: "Most military observers agree Canada's ability to defend its vast Arctic is limited."
*Interesting article because it is very recent (15 Feb. 2007). Plus, it brings good quotations. But still it does not provide a complete overall look at the issue. (3/5)
Source(6): “Canada Needs to Stand on Guard.” Editorial. Canada.com 15 Aug. 2006. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=502e6951-0000-4909-ac83-9b7cbec0>.
Collective knowledge: "Canadian control over the Arctic Ocean on our northern approach is a given for Canadians."
Quotation: "Legal rights to sovereignty can rest on exercising them."
*This source is poor. It is too short to contain intriguing ideas. Plus it is anonymous which lessens its authoritativeness. (1/5)
Source(7) : Griffiths, Franklyn. “Pathetic Fallacy: that Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty is on Thin Ice.” Canadian Foreign Policy 11.3 (2004): 1-16. Proquest Research Library Feb. 2007
The issue itself: "[...] the undoubted thinning of sea ice in the various waterways that make up the Passage will produce not only an increase in intercontinental shipping, but a shipping-based challenge to Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic warters."
The author's viewpoint: The real problem for Canada is not to prevail its sovereignty as far as commercial navigation is concerned but to get prepared to fight for security and environmental challenges that may come up because of the global warming.
lundi 12 février 2007
Thesis statement
The Geopolitical Debate between Canada and the United States over the Northwest Passage in the Arctic, Caused by Climate Changes
According to international laws. sudies and scholarly articles, I will examine and analyze the debate, brought by new climate changes, about Canada's sovereingnty over the Northwest passage, which is being questionned by the United States.
lundi 5 février 2007
Notes:Review of the literature
Since the research proposal, I have been doing some deeper research in the literature and found out that there was too little information about the Burkina Faso part of my research. Therefore, I have chosen to rethink the angle used in my research paper and finally (if approved by the professor), my thesis statement will be: global warming is primarily due to human activities.
I have found plenty of scholarly articles and I have read most of them and here are the general notes I have taken:
Some of the greatest searchers in the world in the environmental field think that the global warming is due to greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions. In other words they say it is due to humn activities. (See http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=35&did=924580481&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1170697264&clientId=9268)
On the other hand, an inportant minority is claiming that the global warming had already started before any presence of massive CO2 emissions as we see nowadays. (See http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=14&did=1079636811&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1170696513&clientId=9268#fulltext)
I will have to finf out more about the "hockey stick" graph and other major publications like Al Gore's documentary.
I will give you an update soon on my notes of literature. Before I do, I will make sure my new "topic" is approuved. I still would like to make a quick link with my experience in Africa if possible.
I have found plenty of scholarly articles and I have read most of them and here are the general notes I have taken:
Some of the greatest searchers in the world in the environmental field think that the global warming is due to greenhouse effect and CO2 emissions. In other words they say it is due to humn activities. (See http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=35&did=924580481&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1170697264&clientId=9268)
On the other hand, an inportant minority is claiming that the global warming had already started before any presence of massive CO2 emissions as we see nowadays. (See http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=14&did=1079636811&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1170696513&clientId=9268#fulltext)
I will have to finf out more about the "hockey stick" graph and other major publications like Al Gore's documentary.
I will give you an update soon on my notes of literature. Before I do, I will make sure my new "topic" is approuved. I still would like to make a quick link with my experience in Africa if possible.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
