

Currently released so far... 12646 / 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
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
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
AORC
AF
AU
ASEC
AMGT
AS
APER
AR
AEMR
AG
ARF
AJ
AA
AINF
APECO
AODE
ABLD
AMG
ATPDEA
AE
AMED
AGAO
AFIN
AL
ASUP
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AID
ASCH
AM
AORL
ASEAN
APEC
ADM
AFSI
AFSN
ADCO
ABUD
AN
AY
AIT
ACOA
ASIG
AADP
AGR
ANET
ADPM
AMCHAMS
ATRN
ALOW
ACS
APCS
AFFAIRS
ADANA
AECL
ACAO
AORG
AROC
AO
ACABQ
AGMT
AX
AMEX
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AND
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
ACBAQ
AC
AUC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
AFU
BR
BTIO
BY
BO
BA
BU
BL
BN
BM
BF
BEXP
BK
BG
BB
BTIU
BBSR
BRUSSELS
BD
BIDEN
BE
BH
BILAT
BC
BT
BP
BX
BMGT
BWC
CS
CA
CH
CD
CO
CE
CU
CVIS
CASC
CJAN
CI
CPAS
CMGT
CDG
CIC
CAC
CBW
CWC
COUNTER
CW
CT
CR
CY
CNARC
CACM
CG
CB
CM
CV
CIDA
CLINTON
CHR
COE
CIS
CDC
CONS
CF
CFED
CODEL
CBSA
CEUDA
COM
CARSON
COPUOS
CIA
CL
CN
CROS
CAPC
CTR
CACS
CONDOLEEZZA
CICTE
COUNTRY
CBE
CKGR
CVR
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CLEARANCE
CARICOM
CSW
CITT
CDB
CJUS
CTM
CAN
CLMT
CBC
EAID
ECON
EFIS
ETRD
EC
ENRG
EINV
EFIN
EAGR
ETTC
ECPS
EINT
EPET
ES
EIND
EAIR
EU
EUN
EG
ELAB
EWWT
EMIN
ECIN
ESA
ER
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
EAIG
ET
ETRO
ELTN
EI
EN
EUR
EK
EUMEM
ENIV
EPA
ENGR
EXTERNAL
EUREM
ELN
EUC
ENERG
EZ
ERD
EFTA
ETRC
ETRN
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ENVR
ESENV
ENNP
ERNG
ENVI
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECINECONCS
EFINECONCS
EXIM
ELECTIONS
ECA
EINVEFIN
ETC
EAP
ECONOMY
EINN
ECONOMIC
EXBS
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
EIAR
EINDETRD
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
EFIM
EAIDS
EREL
EINVETC
ECONCS
ETRA
IC
IV
IAEA
IR
IT
IO
IN
IS
IZ
IMO
IPR
IWC
ICAO
ILO
ID
ICTY
ICJ
INMARSAT
INDO
IL
IMF
IRS
IQ
IA
ICRC
IDA
IAHRC
IBRD
ISLAMISTS
IDP
IGAD
ILC
ITRA
ICTR
ITU
IBET
ITF
INRA
INRO
INTELSAT
IEFIN
IRC
IRAQI
ITALY
ISRAELI
IIP
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
INTERNAL
INTERPOL
IEA
INRB
INR
IZPREL
IRAJ
IF
ITPHUM
ISRAEL
IACI
KBTR
KPAO
KOMC
KCRM
KDEM
KHIV
KBIO
KTIA
KMDR
KNNP
KSCA
KTIP
KWMN
KIPR
KCOR
KRVC
KFRD
KPAL
KWBG
KE
KTDB
KUNR
KSPR
KJUS
KGHG
KAWC
KCFE
KGCC
KOLY
KSUM
KACT
KISL
KTFN
KFLU
KSTH
KMPI
KHDP
KS
KHLS
KSEP
KMRS
KID
KN
KU
KAWK
KSAC
KCOM
KAID
KIRC
KWMNCS
KMCA
KNEI
KCRS
KPKO
KICC
KIRF
KPOA
KV
KDRG
KSEO
KVPR
KTER
KBCT
KFIN
KGIC
KCIP
KZ
KG
KWAC
KRAD
KPRP
KTEX
KNAR
KPLS
KPAK
KSTC
KFLO
KSCI
KIDE
KO
KOMS
KHSA
KSAF
KPWR
KVRP
KENV
KNSD
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCGC
KVIR
KFSC
KDDG
KPRV
KTBT
KWMM
KX
KMFO
KR
KMOC
KRIM
KCRCM
KBTS
KOCI
KGIT
KNUP
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KTLA
KCSY
KTRD
KNPP
KJUST
KCMR
KRCM
KCFC
KCHG
KREL
KFTFN
KLIG
KDEMAF
KPAI
KICA
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KHUM
KREC
KSEC
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KWWMN
KOM
KWNM
KRFD
KMIG
KRGY
KIFR
MARR
MOPS
MASS
MX
MNUC
MCAP
MO
MR
MEPP
MTCRE
MAPP
MEPN
MZ
MT
ML
MA
MY
MIL
MD
MASSMNUC
MU
MK
MTCR
MUCN
MAS
MEDIA
MAR
MC
MI
MQADHAFI
MPOS
MARAD
MG
MTRE
MASC
MW
MRCRE
MP
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MEPI
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MCC
MIK
MAPS
MV
MILITARY
MDC
NATO
NZ
NL
NO
NK
NU
NPT
NI
NG
NEW
NSF
NA
NPG
NSG
NE
NSSP
NS
NDP
NSC
NAFTA
NH
NV
NP
NPA
NSFO
NT
NW
NASA
NORAD
NGO
NR
NATIONAL
NIPP
NZUS
NC
NRR
NAR
NATOPREL
OEXC
OTRA
OPRC
OVIP
OAS
OECD
OIIP
OSCE
OREP
OPIC
OFDP
OMIG
ODIP
OVP
OSCI
OIC
OIE
OPDC
ON
OCII
OPAD
OBSP
OFFICIALS
OPCW
OHUM
OES
OCS
OTR
OSAC
OFDA
PGOV
PREL
PM
PHUM
PTER
PINR
PINS
PREF
PARM
PL
PK
PU
PBTS
PBIO
PHSA
PE
PO
PROP
PA
PNAT
POL
PLN
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PCUL
PAK
PGGV
PAO
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PAS
PGIV
PHUMPREL
PDOV
PHUMPGOV
PCI
PTBS
PEL
PG
POLITICS
POLICY
PINL
POGOV
POV
PRAM
PP
PREO
PAHO
PBT
PREFA
PSI
PAIGH
POSTS
PMIL
PALESTINIAN
PARMS
PROG
PTERE
PRGOV
PORG
PS
PGOF
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PINF
PNG
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PGOC
PY
PHUH
PF
PRL
PHUS
RU
RS
RO
RW
RP
RFE
REGION
REACTION
REPORT
RCMP
RM
RSO
ROBERT
RICE
RSP
RF
ROOD
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
RUPREL
RELATIONS
SENV
SU
SCUL
SOCI
SNAR
SL
SW
SMIG
SP
SY
SA
SHUM
SZ
SYRIA
SF
SR
SO
SPCE
SARS
SN
SC
SIPRS
SI
SYR
SEVN
SNARCS
SH
SAARC
STEINBERG
SG
SCRS
SENVKGHG
SAN
ST
SIPDIS
SNARIZ
SNARN
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SANC
SWE
SHI
SEN
TW
TU
TBIO
TSPL
TPHY
TRGY
TC
TT
TSPA
TINT
TERRORISM
TX
TR
TS
TN
TD
TH
TIP
TNGD
TI
TZ
TF
THPY
TP
TBID
TL
TV
TK
TO
TRSY
TURKEY
TFIN
TAGS
UN
UK
UNSC
UNGA
US
UNESCO
UP
UNHRC
UNAUS
USTR
UNDP
UNEP
UNMIK
UY
UNCHR
UNO
UG
UZ
UNPUOS
USEU
UNDC
UNICEF
UV
UNHCR
UNCND
UNCHC
UNCSD
USUN
USOAS
UNFCYP
USNC
UNIDROIT
USPS
USAID
UE
UNVIE
UAE
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNDESCO
UNC
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