Arctic claims chillier than free trade tiffs

More than free trade irritants, the greatest likelihood of a rift in Canada-U.S. relations over the next few years involves sovereignty over Arctic waterways.

Regardless of Russian incursions, including the planting of a flag on the seabed under the North Pole, the more pivotal concern is how Washington and Ottawa deal with their conflicting view over the status of the fabled Northwest Passage.

At a mid-August summit of the U.S., Canadian and Mexican leaders, President George W. Bush said the U.S. “does not question Canada’s sovereignty over its Arctic islands,” without specifying which islands.

But he left no doubt that he was not persuaded by Ottawa’s assertion of sovereignty over the passage, despite that claim receiving backing last month from Paul Cellucci, the former US ambassador to Canada.

Cellucci, who was appointed by Bush, said it is in Washington’s interest for the passage to be part of Canada.

That drew a stinging rebuff from his successor, David Wilkins, who said Cellucci “no longer speaks for the U.S. government.”

Wilkins told reporters at the leaders’ summit that if melting Arctic ice makes the passage navigable the U.S. will consider it international waters.

Canada insists the passage is an inland sea. However, so long as the U.S. refuses to sign the United Nations Law of the Sea, those differences are mere debating points.

Bush, adopting a diplomatic stance, praised Canada’s recent commitment to increase its military presence in the Arctic, then added “we’ll manage the differences, because there are differences on the Northwest Passage.”

Dan Fisk, senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, reinforced that tone by telling reporters that Bush has a “far better understanding of Canada’s position” on Arctic sovereignty.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, with an eye on the Arctic’s immense petroleum and mineral riches, replied that Canada intends to “strengthen our sovereignty in the Arctic area,” but stopped short of saying how the passage would play into that commitment.

The best hope is that reason will prevail and the two governments — with a watchful eye on the Russians — will develop a common approach before harm is done to their natural alliance.

—Gary Park