

Currently released so far... 12478 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AU
ASEC
AE
AF
AORC
AEMR
AMGT
ABUD
AFFAIRS
APER
AS
AMED
AY
AG
AR
AJ
AL
AID
AM
AODE
ABLD
AMG
AFIN
ATRN
AGAO
AFU
AN
AA
ALOW
APECO
ADM
ARF
ASEAN
APEC
AMBASSADOR
AO
ASUP
AZ
AADP
ACOA
ANET
AMCHAMS
ACABQ
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APCS
AGMT
AINF
AIT
AORL
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ACBAQ
AFGHANISTAN
ADANA
ADPM
AX
ADCO
AECL
AMEX
ACAO
ASCH
AORG
AGR
AROC
ASIG
AND
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AC
AUC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
BL
BR
BO
BA
BD
BM
BK
BG
BU
BB
BH
BTIO
BY
BEXP
BP
BE
BRUSSELS
BF
BIDEN
BT
BX
BC
BILAT
BN
BBSR
BTIU
BWC
BMGT
CA
CASC
CVIS
CM
CH
CO
CU
CD
CWC
CI
CS
CY
CMGT
CF
CG
CR
CB
CV
CW
CE
CBW
CT
CPAS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CJAN
CODEL
CIDA
CDG
CDC
CIA
CTR
CNARC
CSW
CN
CONS
CLINTON
COE
CROS
CARICOM
CONDOLEEZZA
COUNTER
CL
COM
CICTE
CIS
CFED
COUNTRY
CJUS
CBSA
CEUDA
CLMT
CAC
COPUOS
CIC
CBE
CHR
CTM
CVR
CITEL
CLEARANCE
CACS
CAN
CITT
CARSON
CACM
CDB
CAPC
CKGR
CBC
EC
EG
EPET
ECON
ETRD
EFIN
EIND
EMIN
ENRG
EAID
EAGR
EUN
ETTC
EAIR
ENIV
ES
EU
EINV
ELAB
ECIN
EFIS
ELTN
EWWT
ECPS
ECONOMIC
ENGR
EN
EINT
EPA
ELN
ESA
EZ
ER
ET
EFTA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
EXTERNAL
EI
EUR
EK
ERNG
ENGY
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENERG
EINVEFIN
ENVR
ECA
ELECTIONS
ETC
EUREM
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EURN
ECINECONCS
EEPET
EXIM
ERD
ENVI
ETRC
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ETRO
EDU
ETRN
EAIG
ECONCS
ECONOMICS
EAP
ECONOMY
EINN
EIAR
EXBS
ECUN
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ESENV
ECONEFIN
ECIP
EFIM
EAIDS
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINVETC
IZ
IT
IR
IS
IN
IC
IAEA
IO
ICAO
IWC
ID
IV
ISRAEL
IAHRC
IQ
ICTR
IMF
IRS
IDP
IGAD
ICRC
ICTY
IMO
IL
INRA
INRO
ICJ
ITU
IBRD
INMARSAT
IIP
ITALY
IEFIN
IACI
ILO
INTELSAT
ILC
ITRA
IDA
INRB
IRC
INTERPOL
IA
IPR
IRAQI
ISRAELI
INTERNAL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
IBET
INR
IEA
IZPREL
IRAJ
ITF
IF
KDEM
KU
KPAL
KNNP
KCRM
KZ
KN
KS
KJUS
KTFN
KSCA
KV
KISL
KPAO
KPKO
KIRF
KTIA
KIPR
KFLO
KFRD
KTIP
KAWC
KSUM
KCOM
KAID
KE
KTDB
KMDR
KOMC
KWBG
KDRG
KVPR
KTEX
KGIC
KWMN
KSCI
KCOR
KACT
KDDG
KHLS
KSAF
KFLU
KSEO
KMRS
KSPR
KOLY
KSEP
KVIR
KGHG
KIRC
KUNR
KIFR
KCIP
KMCA
KMPI
KBCT
KHSA
KICC
KIDE
KCRS
KMFO
KRVC
KRGY
KR
KAWK
KG
KFIN
KHIV
KBIO
KOCI
KBTR
KNEI
KPOA
KCFE
KPLS
KSTC
KHDP
KPRP
KCRCM
KLIG
KCFC
KTER
KREC
KTBT
KPRV
KSTH
KRIM
KRAD
KWAC
KWMM
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KOMS
KX
KMIG
KRCM
KVRP
KBTS
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNAR
KPWR
KNPP
KDEMAF
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KGIT
KPAI
KTLA
KFSC
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KID
KOM
KMOC
KJUST
KGCC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KO
KNSD
KHUM
KSEC
KCMR
KCHG
KICA
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KCGC
KWWMN
KPAK
KWNM
KWMNCS
KRFD
MOPS
MCAP
MPOS
MARR
MO
MNUC
MX
MASS
MG
MY
MU
ML
MR
MILITARY
MTCRE
MT
MEPP
MA
MDC
MP
MAR
MASSMNUC
MARAD
MAPP
MZ
MD
MI
MEETINGS
MK
MCC
MEPN
MRCRE
MAS
MIL
MASC
MC
MV
MTCR
MIK
MUCN
MEDIA
MERCOSUR
MW
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTRE
MEPI
MQADHAFI
MAPS
NO
NATO
NL
NP
NZ
NSF
NI
NH
NG
NAFTA
NU
NASA
NR
NATOPREL
NSSP
NSG
NA
NT
NW
NK
NPT
NPA
NATIONAL
NPG
NSFO
NS
NSC
NE
NGO
NDP
NIPP
NRR
NEW
NZUS
NC
NAR
NV
NORAD
OTRA
OPCW
OVIP
OAS
OREP
OPIC
OIIP
OPRC
ODIP
OEXC
OPDC
OSCE
OIC
OSCI
OECD
OFDP
OFDA
OMIG
OPAD
OFFICIALS
OVP
OIE
OHUM
OCS
OBSP
OTR
OSAC
ON
OCII
OES
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PTER
PINS
PINR
PREF
PK
PROP
PA
PARM
PBTS
PMAR
PM
PGIV
PE
PRAM
PHUH
PHSA
PL
PNAT
PO
PLN
PAO
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PF
PEL
PBIO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PAS
POL
PREO
PAHO
PMIL
POGOV
POV
PAK
PNR
PRL
PG
PREFA
PSI
PINL
PU
PARMS
PRGOV
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POSTS
PROG
PORG
PTBS
PUNE
POLICY
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PP
PS
PY
PTERE
PGOF
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PRELP
PSEPC
PGOVE
PINF
PNG
PGOC
PFOR
PCUL
POLINT
PGGV
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PGOVLO
PHUS
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
RS
RU
RELATIONS
RW
RO
RM
RP
ROOD
RICE
RUPREL
RSO
RCMP
REACTION
REPORT
REGION
RIGHTS
RF
RFE
RSP
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
SU
SCUL
SNAR
SOCI
SF
SA
SHUM
SENV
SP
SR
SY
SANC
SC
SMIG
SZ
SARS
SW
SEVN
SO
SEN
SL
SNARCS
SNARN
SI
SG
SN
SH
SYR
SAARC
SPCE
SHI
SCRS
SENVKGHG
SYRIA
SWE
STEINBERG
SIPRS
ST
SNARIZ
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SIPDIS
SAN
TC
TI
TBIO
TH
TSPL
TRGY
TSPA
TPHY
TU
TW
TS
TAGS
TK
TX
TNGD
TZ
TF
TL
TV
TN
TD
TIP
TR
TP
TO
TT
TFIN
THPY
TERRORISM
TINT
TRSY
TURKEY
TBID
US
UK
UNGA
UP
UZ
UNMIK
USTR
UNO
UNSC
UN
UNESCO
UNAUS
UNHRC
UY
UG
UNHCR
UNCND
USOAS
USEU
UNICEF
UNEP
UV
UNPUOS
UNCSD
USUN
UNCHR
UNDC
USNC
UE
UNDP
UNC
USPS
USAID
UNVIE
UAE
UNFICYP
UNODC
UNCHS
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNCHC
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 06OTTAWA1904, Northwest Passage Conference in Ottawa Offers Bold
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #06OTTAWA1904.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
06OTTAWA1904 | 2006-06-19 21:46 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Embassy Ottawa |
VZCZCXRO3934
RR RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHQU RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #1904/01 1702146
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 192146Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2920
INFO RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RULSJGA/COMDT COGARD WASHDC//G-OPR//
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 2104
RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 OTTAWA 001904
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
WHA/CAN, WHA/EX, OES/OA (SMITH, BRANDEL), L/OES (ROACH),
IO/T, PM/PP, EB/TRA, EUR/RUS
DOD FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
COASTGUARD FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EWWT PREL PBTS MARR CA
SUBJECT: Northwest Passage Conference in Ottawa Offers Bold
Idea
¶1. Sensitive But Unclassified, not for distribution outside
USG channels.
¶2. (SBU) Summary: Panelists at an Ottawa conference on
Canada's arctic waters called for Canada and the U.S. to
open talks on the Arctic route because the increasing melt
rate of Arctic sea ice could allow significant summer
navigation through the Northwest Passage (NWP) as soon as 14
years from now. In their opinion a well-thought out
governance structure to manage shipping and other activities
and to address environmental concerns is imperative. The
thesis presented by the organizers of the event was that a
bilateral agreement, similar in intent to the 1988 Canada-
United States Agreement on Arctic Cooperation (regarding
government ice-breakers), could be crafted in which the
United States "agrees" to Canada's claim of sovereignty over
the waters of the Northwest Passage (essentially allowing
Canada to claim the passage as Internal waters) and Canada
would, in return, agree to unfettered access by the U.S. for
transit of the passage. The Russian Deputy Chief of Mission
in Ottawa, who participated in the conference, supported
this notion. According to this thesis, the U.S. by acceding
to Canada's desire for the NWP to be internal waters, could
collaborate with Canada to control and safeguard the passage
and secure the North American continent from security
threats in the far north. The conference prompted Canadian
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
(DFAIT) officials in attendance to approach Embassy officers
to explore the idea of government-to-government arctic
discussions. End Summary.
Legal Scholars, Political Scientists and Real Scientists
Discuss NWP
¶3. (U) Michael Byers, Professor of Global Politics and Law
at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and
Suzanne Lalonde, Professor of Law at the University of
Montreal organized a one-day program on June 14 in Ottawa to
discuss the subject of "Canada's Arctic Waters in Law and
Diplomacy". Byers and Lalonde argue that the end of the
Cold War and the rise of global terrorism have changed the
world situation such that the Canadian position regarding
the NWP (that it is Canadian internal waters subject to full
Canadian law) actually coincides with U.S. security
interests. As a result, they assert, the two countries have
a unique opportunity to resolve a long-standing dispute and
to concurrently improve the security of the continent's
citizens and environment. The day long event featured five
panel discussions, four of which included American
participants; three that represented universities while one
was from the United States Artic Research Commission.
Embassy ESTH Counselor and Specialist, as well as the Naval
Attach, attended the program.
¶4. (U) The first panel addressed the matter of "Law"; the
American participant was Professor Bernard Oxman of the
University of Miami's faculty of Law, a world renowned
expert on matters of maritime law and the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The other two panelists were a
Belgian (Erik Franckxx, Free University of Brussels) and an
Australian (Donald Rothwell of the University of Sydney).
The panelists each presented arguments for about 10 minutes,
concerning the validity and utility of Canada's maritime
claims in the arctic followed by a roughly 60 minute
Qclaims in the arctic followed by a roughly 60 minute
question and answer session. Franckxx provided a legal
history of the Canadian claim. Rothwell argued that Canada
cannot claim the NWP as historic waters since it has been so
little used; but he was the first speaker of the day to
suggest that the entire argument could be bypassed if Canada
and the United States were to negotiate a bilateral
cooperative agreement regarding use of the NWP. He
suggested also that the Antarctic experience may illuminate
solutions.
¶5. (U) The American legal scholar, Dr. Oxman, (who was one
of the senior U.S. negotiators for UNCLOS III) noted that
freedom of navigation in arctic waters is one principle that
supports the global freedom of navigation and of over flight
(innocent passage and /or transit passage). His statement
OTTAWA 00001904 002 OF 004
suggested that any acknowledgement by the United States, or
other governments, that the NWP is internal waters would
erode the global principle, and therefore is to be avoided.
Oxman did also note that UNCLOS Article 234 (the ice-covered
area clause) allows Canada, within its exclusive economic
zone, to exercise effective measures, specific to the harsh
arctic realm, to prevent, reduce and control marine
pollution from vessels. Incidentally, Oxman also related his
recollection of the Canadian position during the UNCLOS III
negotiations that "Canada has no international straits"; a
choice of phrase he attributed to a careful diplomatic
attempt to not be forced to argue the matter of
inviolability of International Straits.
¶6. (U) The second panel addressed "Science". The American
panelist was George Newton, Chair of the U.S. Arctic
Research Commission. Professor David Barber of the
University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and John Falkingham of
Environment Canada's Marine and Ice Services Division
rounded out the panel. The panelists concerned themselves
with describing ice conditions, i.e., the physical geography
and climatology of the Arctic Ocean region with Barber
articulating the position that ice cover is rapidly
diminishing, that this process is irreversible and that
possibly as early as 2020-2050 the NWP will be a true
navigable waterway. On the other hand, Falkingham stressed
the uncertainty of our knowledge noting that for as long as
we have had records, the ice cover has been highly variable
from year to year. Falkingham also said that in recent
years the sea ice throughout the NWP and Canada's Arctic
Archipelago has actually increased in thickness. In fact,
he thinks that the NWP will be the last passage (after the
Russian Northern Route and the Murmansk to Churchill route)
to become navigable; his time frame is 2070 to 2100. He
also reminded the audience that in the arctic winter there
will always still be ice in the NWP, rendering it un-
navigable during that part of the year.
¶7. (U) George Newton of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission,
like Falkingham, explained to the audience that our
scientific knowledge of the arctic is very, very modest. He
characterized forthcoming exploration and research during
the 2007-2008 International Polar Year (IPY) as a voyage of
discovery comparable to that of Christopher Columbus.
¶8. (U) The third panel addressed "Security and Policing";
the American participant was Professor Elizabeth Elliot-
Meisel of Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.
Professor Rob Huebert of the Center for Military and
Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary in Alberta,
and the former Commander of the Canadian Forces Northern
Area, Colonel Pierre Leblanc (CF ret.), were the Canadian
panelists. Elliott-Meisel described the current situation
as similar to the period leading to the 1988 Canada-U.S.
Arctic Cooperation Agreement, characterized by acknowledged
interdependence and close POTUS-Canadian PM links. She
asserted that "cooperation may not compromise sovereignty,
but lack of cooperation will mean less security." She
proposed that the United States, within a bilateral
agreement, should recognize Canadian sovereignty over the
NWP, and Canada and the U.S. would then work collaboratively
to ensure appropriate capabilities are brought to bear to
Qto ensure appropriate capabilities are brought to bear to
ensure security of Canada's arctic maritime domain.
¶9. (U) Both Colonel Leblanc and Professor Huebert decried
the lack of Canadian military capability in Canada's arctic
regions. Leblanc emphasized that one test of sovereignty is
to "know what is going on in your territory," and Canada, in
his opinion, cannot meet this test in the arctic. Leblanc
also mentioned that the unchallenged transit of submarines
through the NWP bolsters the claim that it is an
international strait. Finally, Leblanc agreed with previous
panelists that U.S. recognition of Canadian sovereignty
would serve to strengthen overall North American security.
Professsor Huebert did not explicitly support a Canada-U.S.
agreement on the NWP, suggesting instead that the
sovereignty debate is a red herring. In his opinion, the
critical issue is security, and a shared Canada-U.S.
approach to security would achieve the greatest benefit for
North America. In contrast to the Cold War, however, when
OTTAWA 00001904 003 OF 004
the threat was a military one posed by the Soviet Union (and
which the United States addressed throughout Canada's arctic
via the DEW Line, subs under arctic ice, etc.) the new
threats are somewhat ill-defined and may include
environmental threats (oil spills), threats to cultures
(traditional Inuit mode of life) and economic threats
(illegal fishing) as well as traditional military and
criminal threats. The challenge is for government leaders
to identify and prioritize the threats, and that effort
will, in turn, precipitate policy solutions. He noted that
so far the political authorities are "all talk and no
action" on taking arctic security seriously.
¶10. (U) The fourth panel addressed "Diplomacy." The
American participant was Christopher Joyner, Professor and
Director of International Law and Politics at Georgetown
University. The other two panelists were Sergey Petrov,
Deputy Chief of Mission at the Russian Embassy in Ottawa and
conference organizer Professor Byers. Petrov told the
conference that his government would support a negotiated
deal between Canada and the United States that would see
those countries decide on how to regulate the Arctic waters
of the Northwest Passage. He noted that development of the
NWP, and the reinvigoration of the Russian northern route as
well, will only be possible with a huge influx of financial
resources and that that will require multinational
cooperation on governance and regulation. "I'm quite
comfortable having Canada and the U.S. decide how to ensure
this future seaway is available for international sailing"
he said to the press after speaking at the conference.
¶11. (U) Joyner discussed modes of governance for ensuring
safe passage through the NWP and he asked, "Is resolution of
sovereignty a prerequisite for establishing a regime for NWP
navigation?" His answer was maybe, but not necessarily.
Professor Joyner described how the IMO'S Polar Code could
eventually become customary international law, but that
process will be long and slow. Alternatively the Turkish
approach in 1998 of unilaterally implementing regulations on
all vessels transiting the Turkish straits (Bosporus and
Dardanelles) is another, more controversial, approach.
Byers, reiterating the notion put forth in his conference
discussion paper, proposed negotiations aimed at achieving
U.S. recognition of Canada's claim, i.e., that the full
force of Canada's domestic law applies in the passage,
balanced off by a firm commitment to open access for all
U.S. vessels, active promotion and support for international
shipping, and immediate investments in equipment and
personnel necessary to monitor and police the passage on a
rigorous, year-round, basis.
¶12. (U) The final panel provided the "Inuit Perspective."
There was no American participant on this panel. Ms. Aaju
Peter, a young Inuit lawyer, provided several thoughtful
observations. She noted that travel by dog sled over frozen
passages in the arctic should be as valid as passage by
ships on open water, or subs under the ice to establish
historic use and sovereignty. She also noted that Article
15 of the Canada-Nunavut Land Claim authorizes a "Marine
Council" to establish Inuit involvement in the development
of the arctic maritime regime and that its efforts should
feed into the Arctic Council's 2008 report on "Arctic Marine
Qfeed into the Arctic Council's 2008 report on "Arctic Marine
Shipping Assessment". That Arctic Council report will, in
turn, feed the broader policy debate on sovereignty,
security, and environmental and cultural protection. Ms.
Peter also made the bold suggestion that local human
capital, rather than imported southerners, should be trained
and employed as the aircraft and ship pilots, the Search and
Rescue technicians, the police and military staff required
to manage increased ship and aircraft traffic in the arctic
region.
¶13. (SBU) Comment: The discussion paper put forward by the
symposium's organizers, Michael Byers and Suzanne Lalonde,
which was prepared to encourage debate at the conference,
was entitled "Who Controls the Northwest Passage." Their
choice of the word "control" rather than ownership is
significant. The majority of opinion offered by panelists
suggested that some form bilateral agreement between Canada
OTTAWA 00001904 004 OF 004
and the United States would allow effective shared control
by the two countries of the NWP, balancing Canada's
"sovereignty" need with America's security and transit
imperatives. The conference discussion was notable for the
relative balance of the presentations and the general lack
of anti-U.S. rhetoric that has often characterized media
reporting on this issue. There were a number of GOC
officials with responsibility for arctic issues in
attendance at the conference. Our private conservations
with them tended to reflect an interest in discussion with
the U.S. on the NWP, the bilateral dispute over border
claims in the Beaufort Sea and other arctic issues. End
Comment.
WILKINS