While few countries support Canada’s claim that the Northwest Passage constitutes internal waters, many do support its attempt to promote national sovereignty over its seas. On July 1, Canada made formerly voluntary registration with NORDREG mandatory for all ships 300 tonnes or more passing through its Arctic waters. If a ship is found in the enforced area without having registered, the ship will be detained at the next port of call. Those responsible are liable to pay up to CAN$100,000 or face one year in jail. Canadian officials believe that the new regulations will boost safety in the dangerous, icy waters of the Arctic, since search and rescue might be made easier with better tracking of vessels.

However, many of the world’s major shipping companies disagree with this move. The Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), an independent international shipping organization representing two-thirds of the world’s shippers, has sent a letter to Canada objecting to the new shipping rules. In the letter, BIMCO states, “This could be seen as effectively interfering with the right to innocent passage.” The NGO worries that if a ship were denied registration, it would not be allowed to pass. Furthermore, BIMCO disagrees with Canada’s extension of environmental protections through its Exclusive Economic Zone, extending 200 nautical miles from the coast, and calls the measure “drastic.”

The group wants Canada to obtain approval from the International Maritime Organization before enforcing the new rules. Mélanie Quesnel, media relations advisor to Transport Canada, was quoted by maritime newspaper Lloyd’s List as claiming, “These regulations do not require approval by the International Maritime Organization and are consistent with international law. The waters in question are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Canada and there is no legal obligation to seek approval from the IMO.”

Indeed, there might not be any real legal pressure from BIMCO, as it is a non-governmental organization. However, University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying,

“In international law, it doesn’t matter what BIMCO thinks, since only nation-states — acting collectively — can make or change the rules. But industry pressure can influence the positions taken by the major shipping states, including the U.S., Panama, Germany, South Korea, China and Japan.”

So if shipping companies decide to reroute their vessels to avoid Canada’s tracking system, and thus Canadian ports of call, then Ottawa might respond. Of course, the Northwest Passage is still quite difficult to navigate, and most ships going from the Far East to Europe go north of Siberia along Russia’s Northern Sea Route rather than plying through Canada’s largely frozen waters.

News links

“New Northwest Passage rules violate international law, shippers say,” Globe & Mail

“Marine shippers pan tough new Arctic vessel regulations,” Vancouver Sun

“New Northwest Passage rules may violate international law,” CTV.ca

“Canada to get tough with Arctic rules offenders,” Lloyd’s List

The Boston Globe has an editorial by Derrick Z. Jackson highlighting the growing role of the U.S. Navy in the Arctic, entitled, “As the world’s ice melts, the Navy’s role grows.” Admiral Gary Roughead sat down with the op-ed board of the newspaper, commenting on issues such as overfishing and melting sea ice - both of which, he believes, are increasing the importance of the Navy. He favors U.S. ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty “so we have a seat at the table. The Arctic makes it imperative.’’  Roughead further explained that by signing the treaty, the U.S. would be able to “expand its sovereign rights to the increasingly accessible outer continental shelf areas of the resource-rich environment of the Arctic.’’

In the past, the Navy had icebreakers, but now only the Coast Guard operates them while the Navy uses submarines in the Arctic. Yet the Navy is charting out its future in the world’s northermost region, as evidenced by the “Arctic Roadmap” issued by the Navy’s Task Force Climate Change in November 2009.

Rear Admiral Dave Titley said in a press release,

“As the Arctic Ocean continues to show a long-term trend in sea ice decline, the potential for increased human access and activity in the region will some day likely require a greater Navy presence there to protect national interests.”

Indeed, as part of that roadmap, the Navy will be evaluating its capabilities in the Arctic in the coming years. It will also look at the continuation of exercises in the Arctic and joint operations with the Coast Guard. One of the stated objectives of the roadmap is to “provide weapon, platform, sensor and C4ISR* capability, and installations and facilities required to implement Navy, DOD, and National policy regarding the changing Arctic region.”

C4ISR* = Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

The Xue Long icebreaker. © Xinhua/Zhang Jiansong

Summer is the season for scientific expeditions in the Arctic, as the ice is finally thin and sparse enough that light icebreakers can ply the circumpolar waters. Yet while both of America’s heavy icebreakers are sidelined and Canada laments its lack of icebreakers, China will soon be sending an icebreaker to the Arctic and constructing a new one.

The Xue Long (Snow Dragon), a scientific research vessel, will be on its 4th expedition to the circumpolar region. According to Whats On Xiamen, The purpose of the current mission, which begins on July 1, is to study the atmosphere, sea ice, and melting in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, the Canada Basin, and the Mendeleev Sea Ridge. 122 people are on board, including scientists, support staff, reporters, crew, and several researchers from other countries like the U.S., South Korea, and Estonia. There is even one scientist from Taiwan, marking the second-ever time in which a Taiwanese scientist has joined a Chinese polar expedition. The Xue Long will stay in the Arctic for 85 days before returning to port in Shanghai.

The Xue Long has a rather colorful history in the Arctic stretching back at least a decade, demonstrating that China’s interest in the region is not completely new. In 1999, the icebreaker arrived unexpectedly in Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, Canada. Though the vessel had notified Canadian authorities that it was coming, the message was somehow disregarded, leaving the government and port officials unprepared. This incident prompted concerns over Canada’s ability to defend its Arctic coastlines, as expressed during a hearing in 2005 in the Parliament’s Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Dr. Rob Huebert, who at the time was a Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary and the Associate Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, said,

“What we need is the capability of knowing, and then responding. For example, when the Chinese research vessel Xue Long shows up in Tuktoyaktuk and somebody gets it wrong in the Canadian embassy so that we are totally unprepared, we actually have the capability from a combination of air and space assets that we have the necessary RCMP, customs, health officials waiting at Tuk[toyaktuk] to do the necessary clearance.” [1]

Five years later, after numerous hearings, pronouncements, and bullet point lists designed to enhance Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, it still seems like there are many gaps to fill. The same committee has just issued a report on Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.  It makes 17 recommendations for how Canada can defend its northern waters and territory, but this could be just another exercise in list-making without follow-up. One of the seventeen recommendations is “that the government expedite the building of the promised John G. Diefenbaker icebreaker to ensure delivery within 15 years,” yet at the same time, the report makes it apparent that plans to construct a new icebreaker are in jeopardy, since “the status of the project is not entirely clear.” The status of the program to build  six to eight armed Polar Class 5 Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, has also been unclear ever since the procurement process was terminated in the summer of 2008 due to proposals from contractors which exceeded the government’s budget. Meanwhile, China is busy building what will probably be the world’s largest icebreaker.

Perhaps more interesting than the recommendations are the committee’s concerns, described in detail here. One of the countries which Canada would like to use as a model Arctic state is Norway, of which the report writes:

“Like us, the Norwegians prefer and pursue a policy of cooperation. However, ‘… even if Norwegian officials do not see an immediate military threat in the North they are spending as if they are expecting one to develop.’ “

Norway, along with the other Nordic Arctic countries, has been developing significant Arctic capabilities while Canada has faltered.  Its North American neighbor to the south, which Huerbert calls the “reluctant Arctic power,” is also at a disadvantage in terms of icebreakers because the U.S. Coast Guard’s Polar Sea has just broken down. Five of its six engines are broken, and the vessel will not be able to be used until at least January 2011. The ship will not be able to deploy for its fall Arctic patrol nor participate in Operation Deep Freeze, which supports the U.S. Antarctic Program and the National Science Foundation. The U.S. may have to rely on other nations like China to assist in any disasters in the Arctic come winter, since it will not have any heavy-duty icebreakers. The only other icebreaker it has, the Healy, is not certified for thick ice.

At least the Healy is operational. NASA today posted an entry on its blog about the ICESCAPE Arctic expedition onboard the U.S. Coast Guard’s research icebreaker, the Healy, describing how an icebreaker works. Ice has weak tension but strong compression, so it must be crushed from above rather than being rammed from the side. The Healy set sail June 25 from Dutch Harbor, Alaska. ICESCAPE’s main research question is similar to what the Chinese are studying: “What is the impact of climate change (natural and anthropogenic) on the biogeochemistry and ecology of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas?””

News links

[1]  The Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defense, Canadian Parliament.

“Icebreaker Polar Sea sidelined by engine troubles,” U.S. Coast Guard

“America’s heavy icebreakers are both broken down,” Dot Earth Blog

“Troubled Waters,” The Globe and Mail

“Arctic security improvements are recommended,” CBC News

The Umiavut near Resolute Bay, Canada

Beginning July 1, Canada will enforce the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services (NORDREG) policy in its Arctic waters. Vessel tracking will be mandatory for cargo ships, cruise liners, ships over 300 tons, and those carrying hazardous material traveling through Canada’s Arctic waters up to 200 miles out from shoreline (the full extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone), an area known as the Arctic Canada Tracking Zone. These waters include the Northwest Passage, which Canada regards as internal waters, while the U.S. views them as international straits.

NORDREG is operated by the Marine Communications and Traffic Services, part of the Canadian Coast Guard. Previously, it had been optional for ships sailing around Canada’s Arctic archipelago to report to the Coast Guard, but it will now be mandatory for certain ships to report their identity, position, and destination. The service is free, and in return, ships can also get information regarding ice conditions and even potentially icebreaker assistance. The Coast Guard’s website has the NORDREG requirements from 2008 explained in more detail.

The new rules were announced by Fisheries Minister Gail Shea at a news conference in Ottawa. The Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans is in charge of the Canadian Coast Guard. The new rules are designed to prevent terrorist activity, improve search and rescue capabilities, and make it easier to respond to disasters in the Arctic like oil spills or shipwrecks. Interestingly, however, the first sentence in a press release from Transport Canada emphasized how the measure will enhance Canadian Arctic sovereignty, reading,

“Today the Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Minister responsible for the Canadian Coast Guard, and Senator Claude Carignan announced another important measure to protect and defend Canada’s northern sovereignty.”

According to the Coast Guard’s website, NORDREG’s goals are:

1. To enhance the safe and efficient movement of maritime transportation in Arctic waters by establishing an interface between the Canadian Coast Guard and maritime transportation.
2. To prevent pollution of Arctic waters by establishing a method of screening vessels in Arctic waters to ensure their compliance with regulations made pursuant to the Arctic Waters Pollution Act and
   Part XV of the Canada Shipping Act.
3. To strengthen Canadian sovereignty in Arctic waters.

Since NORDREG covers the disputed Northwest Passage, is has predictably struck a nerve with American policymakers. An article in Nunatsiaq Online reported that the U.S. has “mixed feelings” regarding the new regulations. As quoted by the article, a senior official from Transport Canada said,

“The U.S. has sort of a mixed view of it. They recognize for the purposes of pollution prevention and safety of navigation, that such measures are a good idea. On the other hand, they do like to maintain the freedom to navigate. They’re keen about that — they have a large navy.”

Indeed, in 2006, it was revealed that U.S. Navy nuclear submarines had traveled unannounced through Canada’s Arctic waters, raising quite a few hairs in Ottawa. Now, Canada should be better able to keep track of all the vessels in its northern waters - while ostensibly preventing parka-wearing terrorists in the Arctic as well.

News links

“Canada will track ships sailing Arctic waters,”Vancouver Sun

“Ottawa’s new Arctic shipping rules kick in July 1,” Nunutsiaq Online

“Government of Canada takes action to protect Canadian Arctic Waters,” Press Release from the Department of Transportation

Last April, Russia and Norway came to an agreement on the delimitation of the maritime border between their two countries in the Barents Sea, ending a forty year dispute. Now at this year’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the two countries’ main gas producers, Gazprom and Statoil, have signed a science and technology agreement to cooperate in the Barents Sea. Gazprom is the largest natural gas producer in the world while Statoil is  the largest offshore oil company in the world, making for a powerful combination.

A press release on Statoil’s website states that the two companies will cooperate in the following areas:

• Geological exploration and development of hydrocarbon fields
• Hydrocarbons production and treatment before transportation
• Technologies and equipment for the hydrocarbons transportation
• Environmental protection of the Northern seas and territories
• Health, Safety and Environment issues under northern condition
• Energy saving and renewable energy sources
• Gas processing
• Project management and corporate governance

It’s nice to see that environmental protection has made the list, but let’s hope that both companies make a real commitment to this issue so that a repeat of the Deepwater disaster doesn’t happen in the Arctic.

This science and technology agreement builds on the memorandum of understanding signed between the two entities in July 2009. Gazprom and Statoil are partners in developing the Shtokman Field in the Barents Sea, which holds an estimated 3.8 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 37 million tons of gas condensate.

The Barents Observer notes that this agreement between Gazprom and Statoil finally makes good on a wish expressed by USSR Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in a speech given in Murmansk, still the Arctic’s largest city, in October 1987 as the Cold War was coming to a close. He said,

“The Soviet Union attaches much importance to peaceful cooperation in developing the resources of the North, the Arctic. Here an exchange of experience and knowledge is extremely important. Through joint efforts it could be possible to work out an overall concept of rational development of northern areas. We propose, for instance, reaching agreement on drafting an integral energy programme for the north of Europe. According to existing data, the reserves there of such energy sources as oil and gas are truly boundless. But their extraction entails immense difficulties and the need to create unique technical installations capable of withstanding the Polar elements. It would be more reasonable to pool efforts in this endeavour, which would cut both material and other outlays. We have an interest in inviting, for instance, Canada and Norway to form mixed firms and enterprises for developing oil and gas deposits of the shelf of our northern seas. We are prepared for relevant talks with other states as well.“

Perhaps this agreement can be a lesson for other countries still disputing their maritime borders, such as some of the Southeast Asian nations around the resource-rich Spratly Islands like China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. When borders are delimited, countries can finally begin reaping the economic benefits of the sea, and do so through bilateral or multilateral cooperation.

News links

“Statoil and Gazprom sign technology agreement,” Barents Observer

Canadian author and photographer Ed Struzik, who has written about the Arctic for nearly three decades, has an interesting post on the Yale Environment 360 blog about the ongoing debate over the need for an Arctic Treaty similar to the Antarctic Treaty System. While the latter has been highly successful, resulting in a continent dedicated to scientific research and free from militarization, it is more difficult to construct such a treaty in the Arctic due to its greater strategic and economic value. Struzik breaks down the current debate on an Arctic treaty into two camps: the “hard-liners” and “soft-liners.” The first group wants a new, multilateral treaty ratified, while the second group wants to harness regional cooperation within existing regimes like UNCLOS. His post quotes a variety of sources from both sides, making for an informative read.

For more thoughtful musings from Struzik, his 2009 book, The Big Thaw, is available from Amazon.

The Bronco ATTC - soon to be on Arctic ice?

Singapore’s ST Kinetics unveiled the new prototype of its Bronco all-terrain tracked carrier (ATTC) at this year’s Eurosatory, a biannual defense trade conference held in Paris. Dubbed the Bronco Fire Support Vehicle (FSV), it has greater firepower than previous models. ST Kinetics, the land systems and specialty vehicles branch of ST Engineering, is trying to sell the Bronco ATTC to the Arctic countries of Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, and Sweden. ST Kinetics already has strong ties with the Finnish army, to whom it has sold 40mm High Velocity, High-Explosive Dual Purpose ammunition  for automatic grenade launchers for the past decade. Currently, the Bronco ATTC is used by Singapore’s army and by the British army in Afghanistan.

On the market, the Bronco ATTC mainly competes with Swedish defense company BAE Systems AB’s BV line of vehicles, namely the BvS-10. Both can operate over a wide range of terrain, from the dense jungle to the barren tundra. The BvS-10, however, has a smaller payload than the new FSV, which is over five tons. The new competition posed by Bronco ATTC could mean that Sweden might soon be purchasing its Arctic defense vehicles from a tropical country.

The president of ST Kinetics, Sew Chee Jhuen, stated,

“The new Bronco FSV, with its world’s first dual RCWS design, is able to provide outstanding fire support to improve warfighters’ lethality, while ensuring survivability, leading to mission success.  The Bronco FSV is yet another testimony of ST Kinetics’ commitment towards continual innovation to enhance the warfighter’s effectiveness.”

News links

“Singapore seeks Arctic sales for Bronco,” DefenseNews

“ST Kinetics unveils new Bronco variant prototype at Eurosatory 2010,” Shephard

The Department of the Interior announced last Thursday that it is suspending all offshore drilling, including drilling in the Arctic, until at least 2011. The press release stated,

“The Department will make decisions about potential future lease sales in Alaska in the 2012-2017 OCS program based on public input, scientific analysis, and the results of on-going investigations and reviews into the BP oil spill.”

This decision means that Shell’s plans to begin drilling five exploratory wells this summer in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas have been put on ice until at least next summer. Shell had tried to convince the administration of the safety of its drilling plans, noting that it would be drilling in only 150 feet of water compared to the 5,000 feet of water Deepwater Horizon had to go through to reach the seafloor. However, its efforts came to no avail. Shell paid $2.1 billion for the leases in 2008, which it purchased during the Bush Administration. Even if drilling does ever get underway in the Arctic, it will likely come under stricter controls and a harsher public eye.

Representative Don Young (R-AK) rebuked the move, condemning it as an “emotional decision” which is “the worst economic decision the Administration has made.”

“The kind of event that happened in the gulf, while tragic, is so uncommon. It is akin to an American jetliner crashing. If a plane goes down, we don’t stop flying.”

Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) also came out against the suspension, albeit somewhat less colorfully. He observed,

“I am frustrated that this decision by the Obama Administration to halt offshore development for a year will cause more delays and higher costs for domestic oil and gas production to meet the nation’s energy needs.”

Left unmentioned by Begich are the enormous costs wrought by oil spills. The Deepwater Horizon Industry has already cost $1.6 billion, and the clean-up effort is nowhere near over. Plus, the five oil wells Shell was supposed to drill in Alaska this summer would have been exploratory, meaning that the oil would not have been part of the supply stream just yet, and therefore would not have lowered the price at the pump.

Oil spill at PS-9, Tank 190. © Alyeska Pipeline Service Company

The support of Alaska’s congressional delegation for the oil industry is unsurprising. The Alaska Permanent Fund receives 90% of its income from the petroleum industry, yet the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is only operating at 1/3 capacity. Alaskan officials had hoped that offshore drilling would fill the pipeline with oil and the state coffers with dollars. Ironically, 800 miles of the pipeline were just shut down for three days due to an oil spill of thousands of barrels during a scheduled maintenance. Fortunately, all of the oil was captured by an 2.3 million gallon storage tank, which can contain overflow. This incident further underscores the risks involved with any type of oil drilling, whether offshore or onshore, and the need for safety mechanisms.

George Edwardson

Unlike Alaskan politicians, Native American groups in Alaska came out in favor of the decision. Two weeks ago, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope a sent delegation to Washington, D.C. to meet with congressional officials and petition against offshore drilling. The president of the Inupiat Community, George Edwardson, said,

“If you want to know what I think about Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic, look at the Gulf of Mexico. There’s no ice there and they can’t even clean up the oil.”

Drilling in other Arctic states

Canadians are also concerned about offshore drilling. Craig Stewart, director of the Arctic Program of World Wildlife Fund Canada, remarked in an interview with the Toronto Star that an oil spill in the Arctic would be disastrous, as no more than five percent of the oil could be contained. This is because in the Arctic, “we cannot clean up oil that flows under ice, and in the North Atlantic the rough seas would make it virtually impossible to contain the oil before it spread.”

Arctic drilling is also a major political issue in Norway, where the government will make a decision on whether to open up an area near the Lofoten Islands to exploration this fall. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg told the Financial Times,

“The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will be one of many pieces of information we will use when we are considering whether to move forward or not on the question of opening these areas to oil exploration.”

Already, Norway has just moved to ban deepwater drilling, the first country to do so in light of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Terje Riis-Johansen, Minister of Petroleum and Energy stated,

“It is not appropriate for me to allow drilling in any new licenses in deep water areas until we have good knowledge of what has happened with the Deepwater Horizon and what this means for our regulations.”

Sparks could fly between Stoltenberg’s government and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, which does not want to halt deepwater drilling, which has been occuring off the coast of Norway for years. Bente Nyland, head of the NPD, said,

“It is not necessarily the water depth that is the main issue. There are other issues such as the depth of the reservoir, which is fairly deep in the Gulf of Mexico and shallower below the seabed in Norway.”

The tensions within Norwegian government are reflective of wider societal tensions over oil drilling in Norway, which has had to renconcile the industry with its identity as an environmentally conscientious nation since the discovery of oil in 1971.

News links

“Government puts Shell’s Arctic drilling plans on hold,” Indian Country Today

“Arctic Ocean drilling decision panned, praised,” Associated Press

“Alaska tribe asks government to suspend Arctic oil drilling,” Wall Street Journal

“U.S. to suspend new exploratory drilling in the Arctic,” Los Angeles Times

“Norway bans deepwater oil drilling,” Financial Times

“Norway directorate sees no reason to stop deepwater drilling,” BusinessWeek

“Oil industry vital to Alaska,” Anchorage Daily News

Izumrud © NRK

The Norwegian Coast Guard (Kystvakten) has detained the Russian trawler “Izumrud,” or “Emerald,” in Tromsø, Norway. A helicopter from the coast guard filmed crew members of the Izumrud illegally dumping fish over the side of the ship near the environmentally protected maritime areas around Svalbard. Members of the coast guard’s KV Senja boarded the ship to arrest its crew members and then escorted the ship a little under 500 miles to Tromsø in northern Norway.

View Svalbard and Tromsø in a larger map

A press release from the Kystvakten said,

“Dumping of fish is a serious environmental crime on which Kystvakten has a strong focus.”

(Original quote, in Norwegian: “Dumping av fisk er en svært alvorlig form for miljøkriminalitet som Kystvakten har et stort fokus på.”)

The Izumrud was detained in April 2003 outside of the islands of Magerøya near Finnmark for violating fishing rules by under-reporting its catch totals. Izumrud had 55 tons more tuna than they had claimed. Murmansk Trawler Fleet, the company which owns the ship, was fined 750,000 kroner (US $115,000). Russian newspaper RIA Novosti complains that Norway has yet to inform the Russian Embassy that the ship has been detained, which should be standard procedure.

According to the Russian Fish Company,

“The high degree of professionalism in [Murmansk Trawler Fleet’s] staff has been confirmed by ratings of the Association of Russian Managers and awards conferred by the Government.

We’ll see whether the Norwegian government confirms or denies this position.

You can read more about the Kystvakten in English here (PDF).

News links

“Russian trawler detained for illegal fishing,” RIA Novosti

“Nekter for fiskedumping,” NRK (in Norwegian)

“Russisk tråler tatt ved Svalbard,” NRK (in Norwegian)

(L-R) Gen. Natynczyk, Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff and Gen. Bartels, Chief of Defence of Denmark sign the MOU. © Corporal Tanya Tobin, CFSU(O) Photo Services.

Just a few years ago, newspapers were full of reports stating that tensions between Canada and Denmark were aboil due to a dispute dating back to 1973 over tiny Hans Island, a rocky outcropping in the Nares Strait between Canada and Greenland. Today, both countries still claim possession of the barren island, yet they’ve been able to overlook their disagreement to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Arctic Defense, Security, and Operational Cooperation. This agreement fits in with Canada and Denmark’s attempts to ramp up diplomatic, military, and scientific cooperation as a way to defuse hostility.

General Knud Bartels, Danish Chief of Defense, and General Walt Natynczyk, the Canadian Chief of the Defense Staff, met in Ottawa May 13-14 to discuss NATO, the Arctic, Afghanistan, and counter-piracy. Thanks to the signing of the MOU, the two countries will now be able to facilitate cooperation in their Arctic regions through enhanced communication and information exchange, joint exercises, and visits.

The MOU builds on several recent visible efforts between the two countries to work together. In 2006, Canada and Denmark began carrying out a mapping mission of the Arctic. The final data, which has been gathered by drilling holes in the seabed and collecting aerial imagery, will be used in their final submissions of territorial claims to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Although Canada and Denmark’s claims overlap, as they both believe parts of the Lomonosov Ridge lying under the Arctic Ocean constitutes part of their landmasses, they are united in their belief that the Russians, who also claim the ridge, do not own it.

Then, in March 2010, the two countries engaged in joint military exercises as part of Operation Nunalivut, which were the first of its kind. 180 Canadian Rangers testing the tracking capability of GPS units in the Arctic were joined by Denmarks two military dog-sled patrol teams, called SIRIUS. Differences in the two countries’ methods of securing sovereignty over their Arctic lands became apparent through the Canadian’s approach of sending sheer manpower and resources up to the High North three times a year as part of their sovereignty operations, while the Danes just patrol 160,000 square kilometers of land in Northern Greenland with their dog-sled teams. The Danish way is definitely a lot cheaper. Danish Rear Admiral Henrik Kudsk noted,

“The sled is a very efficient, self-sufficient tool. It needs no gas, just food.”

The Danes also learned something from the Canadian Rangers, a unit of the Canada’s Reserve Forces which is entirely composed of Inuit, First Nation, Aboriginal and Métis members. Commenting on engaging the indigenous people in the country’s defenses, Admiral Kudsk stated,

“That’s something we have learned here. We can definitely work on that when we get home.”

© Grønlands Kommando

The Danish Forsvaret (Military) website posted an interested tidbit about Operation Nunalivut. Anders V. Fridberg wrote,

“Unlike Denmark, with which Sirius Patrol has a solid presence in the Arctic, Canada bases its assertion of sovereignty on the deployment of Ranger patrols in the annual exercises. Another difference between the Danish and Canadian modis operandi is that Canadians prefer their snowmobiles to sleds, while Sirius Patrol, as we know, uses dogs.”

Denmark will also participate in Operation Nanook, Canada’s annual “sovereignty operation” in which the Canadian Forces put on a display of military might in the Arctic. This year, the exercises will take place in August around Resolution Bay, where the government is particularly worried about the risk of oil spills.

Yet despite all these fuzzy feelings between the two northern neighbors, there is one group left out in the cold: the Inuit. Mary Simon, a vocal supporter of the Inuit community and former diplomat who served as Canada’s first Ambassador for Arctic Affairs and as Ambassador to Denmark, wrote in her blog on Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s website,

“One would think that if the Government of Canada was entertaining the idea of entering into agreements with other countries to conduct military exercises in Inuit Nunangat that they would at least mention it to Canadian Inuit. That doesn’t seem to be the case, there has been no consultation at the national level.”

While the Inuit may not have been directly consulted by the federal government, the Inuit have been involved in other ways. Premier of Nunavut Eva Ariak, who is Inuit, attended Danish Defense Chief Tim Sloth Jørgensen’s official visit to Iqaluit in August 2009. However, she visited in her stead as the premier of a federal territory rather than as a representative of the Inuit community. Additionally, much of the defense of the Arctic is carried out by the Canadian Rangers, a largely Inuit force. Yet still, what the Inuit are seeking is meaningful consultation at the level of the federal government speaking directly to Inuit leaders, something which was lacking when Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon’s hosted the ministers of the Arctic Five this past March in Chelsea, and which is lacking again as the Canadians and Danes build closer military ties.

News links

“Canada and Denmark ink Arctic military pact,” Nunatsiaq Online

“Canada and Denmark sign Arctic cooperation agreement,” Canadian Forces

“Forsvarschefen besøger Canada og Grønland,” Dansk Forsvaret

“Dogged diplomats steal the show in Canada Denmark High Arctic Exercise,” Globe and Mail

“That’s News to Us,” Mary Simon’s Blog at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami