Author Topic Options


Posts: 1
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:23 am

<strong>Written By:</strong> jensonj
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-11-16 10:23:01
<a href="/article/82301654-dispute-over-nw-passage-revived">Article Link</a>

Canada counters that it has sole jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage and wants to enforce its own laws on ships in the Arctic waters. Canadian officials argue that their authority over the myriad channels and straits that make up the legendary route from the Atlantic to the Pacific is the best way to minimize unsafe ships and accidental spills in the pristine North.

The issue has suddenly come alive because climate change is reducing the Arctic ice pack that prevents regular shipping through the passage.

In an unusual twist last week, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, was quoted in Canadian newspapers as saying that he agreed with the Canadian position. "It is in the security interests of the United States that it be under the control of Canada," he said at a conference in Ottawa.

<a href=""></a>.

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on November 17, 2006]


Active Member
User avatar
Posts: 445
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:15 pm

"Usually, however, the two countries have ignored their differences, agreeing that icebreakers do not need permission to pass and refusing to acknowledge the regular traffic of undersea nuclear submarines that use the passage."

What would happen if a Russian icebreaker approaches the Northwest Passage? I guess there are two scenarios:

(a) If it would approach from the Bering Strait side (en route from Vladivostok to Archangel), would the US opine that it would cross waters under the jurisdiction of the US on the north side of Alaska - and deny access to proceed, evebn before an application to Canada?

(b) If it would approach from the Labrador Sea side (either Davies Strait + Lancaster Sound or Hudson Strait), would Canada grant access to proceed through before approaching the area north of Alaska, where there is more than 6 miles (or is it 200 miles) of open water?

Or does the quote above only apply to Canadian and US icebreakers?



Forum Elite

Posts: 1325
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:54 pm

Were there any comments, protests, or counterclaims when the St.Roch navigated the passage both ways over 60 years ago?
I haven't heard of any.

So, if they didn't scream then, what right do they have now ?

I remember, when in the postwar years Stalin demanded the return of Alaska to the USSR, claiming the czar didn't have the right to sell it to the USA.

The American refusal should set a good legal precedent.

Ed Deak.


Junior Member

Posts: 52
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:41 pm

The US has proven time and time again that they are nothing but cheap thugs and bullies.


Forum Super Elite

Posts: 2234
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:23 am

<i>"The US has proven time and time again that they are nothing but cheap thugs and bullies."</i> Surely you mean "prudent businessmen".......?<p>---<br>"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me


Forum Elite

Posts: 1325
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:51 am

The currently taught and used definition of economic efficiency is " The biggest profits for the least monetary inputs"

Which means the legalization of all forms of crime, endorsed by all our politicians and parties, afraid to speak out against the "scriptures".

Ed Deak,

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Powered by © phpBB.