

Currently released so far... 12404 / 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 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 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
ASEC
AE
AF
AM
AR
AJ
AU
AORC
AG
AEMR
AMGT
APER
AGMT
AL
AFIN
AO
AMED
ADCO
AS
ABUD
ABLD
ASUP
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APECO
AID
AND
AMBASSADOR
AN
ARM
AY
AODE
AMG
ASCH
AMCHAMS
ARF
APCS
APEC
ASEAN
AGAO
ANET
ADPM
ACOA
ACABQ
AORL
AFFAIRS
ATRN
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ADANA
ASIG
AA
AX
AUC
AC
AECL
AADP
AGRICULTURE
AMEX
ACAO
ACBAQ
AQ
AORG
ADM
AINF
AIT
ASEX
AGR
AROC
ATFN
AFGHANISTAN
AFU
AER
ALOW
AZ
AVERY
BA
BY
BU
BR
BE
BL
BO
BK
BM
BILAT
BH
BEXP
BF
BTIO
BC
BBSR
BMGT
BTIU
BG
BWC
BB
BD
BX
BP
BRUSSELS
BN
BIDEN
BT
CW
CH
CF
CD
CV
CVIS
CM
CE
CA
CJAN
CLINTON
CIA
CU
CASC
CI
CO
CACM
CDB
CN
CMGT
CS
CG
CBW
CIS
CR
CONDOLEEZZA
CPAS
CAN
CWC
CY
COUNTER
CDG
CL
CT
CIC
CIDA
CSW
CHR
CB
CODEL
COUNTERTERRORISM
CTR
COM
CICTE
CFED
CJUS
CKGR
CBSA
CEUDA
CARSON
CONS
CITEL
CLMT
CROS
CITT
CAC
CVR
CDC
CAPC
COPUOS
CBC
CBE
CARICOM
COE
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CACS
CTM
CNARC
ECON
EFIN
ETRD
EUN
EFIS
EG
ETTC
EZ
EPET
EAID
EAGR
ENRG
ECUN
EU
ELAB
ECPS
EAIR
EINV
ELTN
EWWT
EIND
EMIN
EI
ECIN
ENVR
ELECTIONS
EINVEFIN
EN
ES
ER
EC
EUC
EINT
EINVETC
ENGR
ET
EK
ENIV
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ECONOMY
EAP
EFTA
EUR
EUMEM
EXIM
ERD
ENERG
EUREM
ESA
ERNG
EXTERNAL
EPA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
ECONOMICS
ELN
EINN
EFINECONCS
ENNP
EEPET
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ENVI
ETRO
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ECONOMIC
EAIDS
EDU
ETRA
ETRN
EFIM
EIAR
ETRC
EAIG
EXBS
EURN
ECIP
EREL
ECA
ENGY
ECONCS
ECONEFIN
ETC
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINDETRD
IR
IZ
IS
IAEA
INRB
IRAJ
IQ
IN
IT
IMO
INTERPOL
ICAO
IO
IC
ITALY
ITALIAN
IRAQI
ICTY
ID
IPR
IWC
ILC
INTELSAT
IL
IBRD
IMF
IA
IRC
ICRC
ILO
ITU
ITRA
IV
IDA
IAHRC
ICJ
ISRAELI
IRS
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
IZPREL
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITF
IBET
IEFIN
INR
IACI
INTERNAL
IDP
IGAD
IEA
ICTR
IIP
INRA
INRO
IF
KJUS
KSCA
KNNP
KU
KCOR
KCRM
KDEM
KTFN
KHLS
KPAL
KWBG
KACT
KGHG
KPAO
KTIA
KIRF
KWMN
KS
KG
KZ
KN
KMDR
KISL
KSPR
KHIV
KPRP
KAWK
KR
KUNR
KDRG
KCIP
KGCC
KTIP
KSUM
KPKO
KVIR
KAWC
KPIN
KGIC
KRAD
KIPR
KOLY
KCFE
KMCA
KE
KV
KICC
KNPP
KBCT
KSEP
KFRD
KFLU
KVPR
KOCI
KBIO
KSTH
KMPI
KCRS
KOMC
KTBT
KPLS
KIRC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFLO
KBTS
KSTC
KTDB
KFSC
KX
KFTFN
KNEI
KIDE
KREC
KMRS
KICA
KPAONZ
KCGC
KSAF
KRGY
KCMR
KRVC
KVRP
KSEO
KCOM
KAID
KTEX
KNUC
KNAR
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KLIG
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCRCM
KHDP
KGIT
KNSD
KOMS
KWMM
KPAI
KHSA
KTLA
KO
KMFO
KRCM
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KPWR
KID
KWNM
KRIM
KPOA
KCHG
KOM
KSCI
KFIN
KMOC
KESS
KWAC
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KPRV
KBTR
KERG
KTER
KDDG
KPAK
KRFD
KHUM
KDEV
KCFC
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KJUST
MARR
MOPS
MU
MTCRE
MNUC
MY
MASS
MCAP
MOPPS
MAR
MPOS
MO
ML
MR
MASC
MX
MD
MP
MA
MTRE
MIL
MCC
MZ
MK
MDC
MRCRE
MAPS
MV
MI
MEPN
MAPP
MEETINGS
MAS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTCR
MG
MC
MARAD
MIK
MILITARY
MEDIA
MEPI
MUCN
MEPP
MT
MERCOSUR
MW
MASSMNUC
MQADHAFI
NZ
NATO
NG
NI
NO
NATIONAL
NU
NPT
NIPP
NL
NPG
NS
NA
NGO
NP
NSG
NDP
NAFTA
NR
NC
NH
NE
NSF
NPA
NK
NSSP
NRR
NATOPREL
NSC
NT
NW
NORAD
NEW
NV
NSFO
NAR
NASA
NZUS
OTRA
OVIP
OPRC
OPDC
OSCE
OAS
ODIP
OIIP
OFDP
OVP
OREP
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OIC
OFDA
OSCI
OPIC
OBSP
OECD
ON
OCII
OHUM
OES
OCS
OMIG
OPAD
OTR
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PSOE
PINS
PARM
PK
PBTS
PEPR
PM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PREF
PBIO
PROP
PA
PSI
PINT
PO
PKFK
PL
PAK
PE
POLITICS
PINL
POL
PHSA
PU
PF
POV
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PARMS
PRGOV
PNAT
POLINT
PRAM
PMAR
PG
PAO
PROG
PRELP
PPA
PCUL
PSEPC
PSA
PREO
PAHO
PGIV
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POSTS
PTBS
PGOVLO
PORG
PGOVE
PLN
PINF
PAS
PUNE
POLICY
PDEM
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PHUMPGOV
PMIL
PNG
PP
PS
PHUH
PECON
POGOV
PY
PHUMPREL
PHUS
PRL
PGOC
PNR
PGGV
PROV
PTERE
PGOF
PHUMBA
PEL
RS
RU
RW
REGION
RP
RICE
ROBERT
RSP
RUPREL
RM
RO
RCMP
RSO
RELATIONS
REACTION
REPORT
RIGHTS
ROOD
RF
RFE
RIGHTSPOLMIL
SP
SA
SY
SF
SYR
SENV
SCUL
SOCI
SNAR
SO
SU
SG
STEINBERG
SHUM
SW
SMIG
SR
SZ
SIPRS
SI
SAARC
SPCE
SARS
SN
SYRIA
SANC
SL
SCRS
SC
SENVKGHG
SAN
SNARCS
SHI
SWE
SNARIZ
SIPDIS
SEN
SNARN
SPCVIS
SEVN
SSA
SH
SOFA
SK
ST
TPHY
TU
TRGY
TI
TX
TS
TW
TC
TFIN
TD
TSPA
TH
TT
TIP
TBIO
TSPL
TZ
TERRORISM
TRSY
TN
THPY
TINT
TF
TL
TV
TK
TO
TP
TURKEY
TNGD
TBID
TAGS
TR
UP
US
UNSC
UK
UZ
UE
UNESCO
UV
UNGA
UN
UNMIK
UNO
UY
UAE
UNEP
UG
UNHCR
UNHRC
USUN
UNAUS
USTR
USNC
USOAS
UNCHR
UNCSD
UNDP
USEU
USPS
UNDC
UNDESCO
UNCHC
UNFICYP
UNC
UNODC
UNPUOS
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCHS
UNVIE
USAID
UNIDROIT
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 21:09 | 2011-04-28 00:12 | 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