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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110500286_pf.
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on November 17, 2006]
Note: http://www.washingtonpo...
Dispute Over NW Passage Revived
Posted on Thursday, November 16 at 10:23 by jensonjContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
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?
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.
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,