Our ability to meet our commitments will expand. For example, currently Canada has no heavy airlift, so we are entirely dependent on the U.S. to move us around. A Harper government promised to, among other things, restore Canada’s heavy airlift capability.
Whether we become involved in more situations really depends. The Liberals were not shy about committing Canadian troops, you know. They just committed them without proper equipment.
The Sovereignty of the Northwest Passage is a big deal for Canada. The U.S. has rejected Canada’s claim, calling them ‘neutral waters’. Harper plans on defending that territory, which is the right thing to do, IMO.
It will stay the same. All major political parties approve of Canada’s assisting in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, but realistically, we do not have the capacity to do much more than we are right now. Sending troops to Iraq would be politically impossible.
It’s a smart move by anyone’s standards, on a number of levels. As Sam points out, it deflects criticism that Harper will be Bush’s lapdog.
It also defends our sovereignty; with all due respect, the Arctic archapelago belongs to us, and neither the USA nor any other country has the right to send military forces into our territory without our permission. A state that does not protect its sovereignty doesn’t deserve it.
And with the globe apparently warming up, that land may soon become more valuable.
Even though Canada has no practical use for the Northwest Passage, and U.S. ships passing through it does not detract from Canadian interests in any conceivable respect?!
That’s the silliest thing I’ve heard since Moammar Gaddafi proclaimed his “Line of Death” in the Gulf of Sidra!
Au contraire, mon ami. The northwest passage is thousands of miles shorter than going through the Panama canal. And by controlling the ships that use those waters, Canadians also control any pollution that may be dumped, or overfishing that may occur.
And whoever controls the passage also controls whatever natural resources lie under the ocean floor, like <glug glug glug> oil.
What pollution? Has there been any? And don’t try to tell me Canada or the U.S. has been suffering from any shortage of Arctic fish!
The U.S. sending Navy ships through the Passage does not represent any claim on mineral rights. And anyway, is there any oil there? I mean, even during the Carboniferous Period, it was a wasteland, wasn’t it?
You know, the United States is not the only country in the world entitled to protect its own territory. And as I mentioned, the fact that the Northwest Passage is becoming less and less icebound makes it increasingly likely that it will, in fact, yield economic value.
One wonders how you’d react if a foreign country decided to conduct airborne troop exercises in the Mojave desert. I mean, it’s not like you’re using it for anything.
Heavy airlift usually means flying tanks, helicopters and other combat vehicles to remote locations. Canada has a few Hercules C-130s in operation, configured for troops or cargo, but those date back to the 1960s. And we don’t have enough. Canada depends on hitching rides with other military forces.
Going through the Northwest Passage is shorter for just about every route from Asia to the Atlantic - ie Europe and the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. You also don’t have to worry about hurricane season so much.
As for pollution, mineral rights and fishing, you can be sure those are all things which will develop as the NWP is developed, and the U.S. ambassador said Canada has no rights to anything found in northern waters.
Well, yes, of course. Moving a given size of unit from one place to another requires carrying a lot of stuff. Soldiers do not just pack two peices of luggage and a carry-on, and the larger the unit in question, the greater the ratio of cargo weight to personnel. “Heavy airlift capability” simply means the ability to transport units complete with a minimum amount of equipment necesary to do their jobs. Canada has essentially none at all, at least on an international scale.
If war broke out somewhere and Canada wanted to deploy an entire brigade, that’s four, five thousand troops. You could send the people on 757s, but you’re going to have one heck of a time fitting the armored personnel carriers into the overhead luggage bin. So in effect, Canada cannot do this.
Canada’s army is, on paper, a division in strength (a division consists of 10000-20000 troops, comprised of brigades or regiments, and possessing multiple support capabilities, such as its own artillery, armor, logistics, anti-air, helicopters, electronic warfare, etc; divisions are generally assumed to be the point at which a unit is entirely self-capable of sustained warfare.) But that division cannot, in any cohesive fashion, be deployed to fight as such, because we do not possess the capability to move it anywhere in less than a couple of months.
I realize Americans think Canada’s sovereignty is kind of a joke, but it’s not to us. It’s our country. We’re entitled to defend it. The Arctic may not be primo waterfront property, but it still belongs to us - if you don’t believe me, look at a globe and see what colour they painted Banks Island, or just ask the Central Intelligence Agency - and certainly the potential exists for it to be valuable; who knows what minerals await discovery? If the ice clears, fisheries could spring up. Why’re we not allowed to protect this?
Currently, the North is useless as a shipping route. However, it’s thought that with global warming, it may well open up the North West Passage to regular shipping. If Canada is to regulate that shipping, we must have control of the North.
As Rysto said, the main point of contention here isn’t the present, it’s in the future. If receding Arctic ice packs open up the Northwest Passage, even for a month or two a year, it becomes a viable shipping route, and I, for one, would like to see the Canadian government able to have some level of control over the use of that route. After all, as far as I know, with the exception of Hans Island, no one is disputing Canadian sovereignty over the land up there, just the waters. So if, for example, 20 years from now you’ve got oil tankers going through the Northwest Passage every July and August and one of them runs aground, Canada’s got a problem.
I guess, but if you go through the Panama Canal, people actually have to do stuff to let you through (e.g. controlling the locks.) You’re paying for a service. Not so with the NWP.