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?

Ah, REAL Journalism Does Exist . . . .

CBC's On The Map series with Avi Lewis has been mentioned before in MTV for it's excellence in journalism.

With the recent release of Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine it seems appropriate to mention the show again. You see, Ms. Klein is the partner of Avi Lewis. One can see one reason they have hooked up: They are both more than capable journalists.

While perusing the archives of the show, I came across two clips relating to the Iraq oil law and how the profits will be "divided" amongst the principals. The lead up to Avi's interview with John Bolton is located here and it gives a great synopsis of the process involved in formulating the final oil program.

The Bolton interview, in which Avi more than holds his own with the fuzzy-faced Bolton follows in it's entirety:

Monday Afternoon in Vancouver . . . .

Monday was the Vancouver version of the SPP - I prefer to refer to it as Deep Integration - protest rally. Although unable to attend as I am in Florida, here is a link to a pretty good recap of the event thanks to Alison (one "l") at "Creekside": http://creekside1.blogspot.com/. (No, I'm not going to link to her as on occasion when I do, government entities start looking over our blog shoulder. She's way more radical than "drf" and I! :) )

At any rate, "drf" was in the city and I suggested he trek down to Canada Place and check out the festivities.

He had never had the pleasure of meeting Alison - I had at the First Annual Bloggerpalooza back in April - and knowing that she was going to be in attendance, I gave him a description of her and "drf" proceeded to scan the crowd for a likely facsimile of one Alison.

Spying an attractive woman with long dark hair, striking beauty, impeccably dressed, immaculately manicured and toting a sign that read: "Bowen Babes for Beheading Bush" he just knew it had to be Alison and proceeds to tap her on the shoulder.

Alas, as the woman turned around with a look of death in her eye, she assumed "drf" was attempting to hit on her. Little did she know - and you'd think she could have figured it out as you'll see in a bit - this was no woman-hungry pick-up attempt since "drf" is of the homosexual persuasion as am I. (Nice how that works out, eh?) The woman promptly proceeds to pummel poor "drf" with her sign and the expensive Gucci bag she toted.

"drf" - now shocked beyond belief - turns to run and escape this mad woman. Unfortunately, not knowing the protest rally was to include a march through downtown Vancouver, he had not chosen the most appropriate footwear for the event. Rather than comfortable walking shoes or sneakers, he opted to dress-to-impress with his new sexy, sling-back, "Come F_ck Me" pumps he had purchased at the Army & Navy Store's annual women's shoe event. As he begins to run off in terror, he promptly trips over one of the rally attendees. This one looked suspiciously like one of the poor souls in the lanes off of East Hastings that are a featured part of the "Sins of the City" tour sponsored by the police museum. Actually, he doesn't trip over the poor soul, but his sign that read: "I Will Protest for Smack".

Ankle severely twisted from the unfamiliar walking attire, "drf" is currently resting comfortably in room #314 of St. Paul's Hospital. Benevolent nurses and orderlies are keeping him supplied with Timbits and Double Doubles from the "Tim's To Go" at the corner of Burrard and Davie.

He is accepting visitors if you're in the area . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

We've always been here Steve. Where have you been?

Scott picked up on this Halifax Daily News editorial from yesterday, repeated in the Star, which questions the angle offered by Harper that somehow Canada is back on the world stage as a major player.

Stephen Harper conveyed a robust and somewhat self-congratulatory message to the country during his Canada Day address on Sunday.

"The news is spreading throughout the world: Canada's back," the Prime Minister said on Parliament Hill. "Canada's back as a vital player on the global stage."

Really? When did we ever go away?

It's not as though the missions in Afghanistan and Haiti began during the watch of Harper's Conservative government. The Conservatives inherited those deployments from the Liberals.

In short, Harper is taking credit for something he didn't do. He is also suggesting that Canada has not been present, or had lost its credibility, in international affairs.

That, of course, is an outright falsehood. What he describes as being a "vital player on the global stage" is, in fact, a sucking up to the worst US presidential administration in history.

Harper's view of being present on the global stage is myopic. He limits the scope of global effectiveness to having troops deployed, (and being killed), and acting as a water-carrier for US foreign policy, the likes of which the majority of that country's own population disagrees with.

Canada, the international player, had developed a strong reputation as an honest broker on the global stage with no interventionist agenda and no imperialist tendencies. Harper's rhetoric diminishes that standing and ignores the occasions in which Canada played a major role in critical diplomatic events.

Pulling one of those events out at random, the change of sovereignty of Hong Kong was almost derailed over the issue of a Court of Final Appeal in that former British colony. Had it not been for the direct actions of the Canadian High Commissioner at the time, Garrett Lambert, the entire process of returning Hong Kong to the Chinese, something both Britain and China wanted, was destined to go sideways. At issue was the establishment of protection and 50 years worth of insulation of Hong Kongese from the politically influenced Supreme Court of China. Lambert saved the day, although he never sought credit for his actions and, until recently, no one has ever asked about it.

Lambert was a senior diplomat, who turned down a posting as ambassador to Australia in 1994 in favour of the more junior post of high commissioner to Hong Kong. He knew it would be the centre of world attention until July 1, 1997 when China took over and that's where he wanted to be.

To understand how Lambert was able to salvage an independent high court for Hong Kong, one has to recall the immense influence Canada wielded at the time in the former British colony.

This is the world stage from which Harper suggests Canada was absent.

In fact, Harper may have it exactly backward. Given that he believes and promotes the concept that global recognition comes only when Canada has a presence on foreign soil with troops staring down rifle sights, and to support any number of unpopular Bush administration foreign policy flops, Canada may actually have a long row to hoe to regain a position of respect among world players. Harper has hitched his wagon exclusively to the globally maligned Bush star.

We will have to work hard to crawl out from under that pile.