Poll vs pols, deep integration edition

In yesterday's Globe&Mail poll, 80% of 11,590 G&M respondants - at one vote per IP only - are not too keen on the whole deep integration "mutually beneficial public policy agenda" with the US thing. Yeah, us!

The poll was still open for voting , last time I looked.

And in a fortuitous coincidence, right across from that poll and linked on the same G&M page is an opinion piece from ubiquitous deep integration media darling Michael Hart and William Dymond, who proudly inform us they are "former officials involved in the negotiation first of the Canada-U.S. free-trade Agreement (FTA) and then of NAFTA".

You'll recall Michael Hart of Carleton U., a former official at Foreign Affairs and Int. Trade and sometime deep integration teacher at the North American University, from his February piece in the Natty Post : Canada blew it! :

"The crisis of Sept. 11, 2001, provided a perfect opportunity to seize the moment to re-imagine the border, but Canada blew it."

in which he bewailed the loss of this unique opportunity to implement "the structural and institutional changes of deep integration" because of "nationalist phobias". Silly us.

Perhaps you also recall his statement to the Int. Trade Committee on SPP in May last year :

"We have made a political choice that we wanted a more deeply integrated North American economy," Hart said. "That means a willingness on our part to, for example, strengthen the perimeter around North America in order to deal with security issues that are uppermost in American minds."

Good to know he was at least partly responsible for the NAFTA deal, huh?

In their new G&M piece, "The sabre-rattling on NAFTA is worrying, but take it as an opportunity", Hart and Dymond warn that "If our neighbours elect a Democratic president, Senate and House on Nov. 4, things could get ugly", but then take some comfort that, unlike Paul Martin whose relationship with the US was marked by "petulance and prickly self-righteousness", at least "the Harper government brought maturity and perspective".

Well ok then.

They then pose a number of questions to us, most notable for the facility with which they replace the word "Canada" with their preferred term, "North America" :

"What can we do together to promote our common interests in the security of the Arctic, the sustainable exploitation of Arctic energy supplies, and environmentally responsible navigation through Arctic waters?"

"What kind of legislative and other programs can we pursue in order to ensure long-term North American energy security?"

"What kind of institutional capacity do we need to have in place to facilitate and promote the governance of North American economic and security concerns and to ensure appropriate co-operation at the state/provincial and legislative levels?"

Gosh, Mike, Bill, I'm guessing your answer to the questions is whatever you quislings decide to call the next incarnation of the SPP, but our answer is right up there at the top in those G&M poll results.

Cross-posted at Creekside

The US and Canada should manage the Arctic together?

It may be facing the inevitable but does anybody else see anything wrong with that idea?

The United States and Canada should forget arguments over who owns the Northwest Passage and instead jointly manage Arctic waters, academics and former diplomats from both sides urge in a new report.

The group, which includes one-time American ambassador Paul Celluci, says the two countries should co-operate on everything from search and rescue to environmental management to building new icebreakers.

"Neither one of us want a big oil spill on our northern shores," said Scott Borgerson, one of 13 people who helped develop the report and a fellow at the influential U.S. Council on Foreign Relations.

Some form of agreement with the U.S. is both inevitable and desirable, said Rob Huebert of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

"We gain the ability to start planning in the North without worrying that the moment something happens the Americans are going to challenge us and create all the political difficulties for a Canadian decision-maker," he said.

Huebert would have a point if weren't for the fact that the U.S. has proved intransigent when it comes to other agreements. Softwood lumber stands out. The U.S. consistently ignored any and all rulings in Canada's favour, even after a NAFTA panel agreed that the U.S. had no case.

The group has sent a list of nine recommendations to the two governments. They include a suggestion that the U.S. and Canada jointly develop rules on stopping ships in northern waters and on environmental, navigation and safety standards. They also call on the two countries to co-operate on immigration, search and rescue, and surveillance.

Canadian and American authorities should also "maximize burden-sharing opportunities" in the construction of new icebreakers, as is done on the Great Lakes, the report says.

The group also recommends an Arctic navigation commission to address ongoing concerns over northern waters. It would be along the lines of the International Joint Commission, which oversees disputes over other boundary waters.

This would all be very nice if it weren't for one small fact. The United States has never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Without a ratified international treaty the U.S. is not in a position to support any claim and the claim they're going to make is for offshore mineral and petroleum rights in the Beaufort Sea.

"The problem for the Canadian leader is: how do you actually start talking to the Americans without immediately having accusations that you're selling out on Canadian sovereignty?" said Huebert.

Yeah. How do you do that?

Colbert on Arctic Sovereignty . . . .

Check Stephen Colbert's analysis of the race to the Arctic:



Pick the one you'd least like to spend the evening with . . . .

UPDATE: This just in via the Vancouver Sun

Note the last sentence: Wilkins also said he had no problems if Canada militarized its Arctic islands.

Of course he doesn't.

The US military machine will probably sell the arms to Canada . . . .


(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

You Can't Play In My Sandbox . . . .

Today's On Point radio program with Tom Ashbrook on NPR featured a story concerning global sovereignty. The current activity between Canada and Russia in the Arctic was the main topic. No doubt the US will soon enter the fray with the dwindling natural resources south of the as yet untapped area. (For some unknown reason the audio links on the site are inoperable. I'll update when available)

Global Resources Wars

By host Tom Ashbrook:

This hour On Point: flags and ice and the new resource scramble at the North Pole and around the world.

It was a quirky story in the US news media, and a national triumph in Moscow.

Last Thursday, in the frigid wake of a nuclear powered ice-breaker, Russia sent two mini-submarines 13,000 feet beneath the Arctic ice cap, and planted a titanium-encased Russian flag on the seabed of the North Pole.

"The Arctic," declared expedition leader Artur Chilingarov, "is ours." And with it, Moscow hopes, a huge share of the massive oil and gas reserves under the melting pole.




The US and Canada laughed, but not for long.

Fred Weir, Moscow Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor

Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and author of "Blood and Oil"

Michael Byers, Professor of International Law at the University of British Columbia

Eric Posner, Professor of Law at University of Chicago Law School

One of the panel discussion participants, Michael Byers, is a professor of international law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He cautions to not become hysterical at this point over the activity in the area. Hope he's right.

Ashbrook interviews a US Coast Guard lieutenant currently on the largest cutter in the fleet that is mapping the area for who-knows-what purposes?

The listener call-in comments are particularly interesting. Typical of the "us-or-them" US mentality is one caller who advocates setting up alliances with Russia as opposed to Canada in the battle to control resources. It would be interesting to get stevie harper and peter mackay's take on that type of attitude.

Now this headline from the CBC today:

Planned army base, port in North heat up Arctic quest

I wonder how all this figures in to the Deep Integration/SPP discussion?

How this plays out over the next few years should be quite a show. Get your popcorn and grab a seat . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)