Protecting Canada's North: A Q&A

University of Calgary professor Rob Huebert on how Canada can defend its sovereignty in the Arctic.

The Mark: Last week's incident between the Canadian CF-18s and the Russian bombers near Inuvik and the government's investment in a number of development and infrastructure projects in the region announced during the Prime Minister's visit, demonstrates that the Harper government is aggressively taking on the Arctic issue. Have the events of last week demonstrated that Canada is heading in the right direction with its Arctic strategy, or is it, as some have suggested, timely political opportunism?

Rob Huebert: Harper has been doing this since he's been elected. One of the things, of course, by going up [to the Arctic] is he makes himself a target politically almost every time. And the sad reality is the Arctic or [...] any foreign policy issue doesn't attract votes – people tend to vote locally. So, my inclination is just by being up there, [Harper] raises the profile of the Arctic. There do seem to be some inroads that are being made for going beyond mere talk, and that's been the biggest criticism – that we've got a good plan and no action. The fact that Operation Nanook was probably the most complicated [Northern exercises] that we've seen since they resumed in 2002 I think is pointing in that direction. The announcement that we will have the High Arctic research station in Cambridge Bay I also think is a step forward. So, I do see going beyond rhetoric this time.

TM: The countries involved in the Arctic dispute preach diplomacy, but are also increasing their military presence in the region. How will this complex international dispute be resolved?

RH: I don't think that we're going to be seeing any immediate resolution. We are going to be seeing the border irritants, the small issues that are in many cases holdovers from the Cold War, resolved. We saw the Norwegians and Russians successfully resolving their boundary dispute in their northern waters. I suspect we'll see movement with the Americans and Canadians. But this buildup that we are seeing in terms of capabilities in the Arctic is probably going to be something that's going to be with us for a long time. Not so much that there is a danger of a conflict per se breaking out over any of the multiple diplomatic disputes that we have in the Arctic.

But what really makes it complicated is once you add those capabilities, issues that may in fact develop in the South will have an increasing propensity to spill into the North. One example is, of course, when something happens in the Koreas, the Americans put their fighter base that they have in Elmendorf near Anchorage, Alaska, on higher alert. And when they do that I have no doubt that the Russians are probably increasing their alert status and [...] keep track of the Americans and so forth and on. It's the question that the Arctic is increasingly becoming like any other part of the globe, i.e. with the type of military capabilities that states keep elsewhere. And you're going to have the spillover, the fungibility issue that really is at heart. But I don't see people moving away from increasing their military strength in the Arctic for any time in the foreseeable future.

TM: What can Canada learn from Russia's or Denmark's Arctic strategy?

RH: If you have proper goodwill and an intelligent approach towards resolving some of these issues, then even some of the most intractable issues [that seem] like they cannot be solved actually have resolution. Nobody was seeing the Russians and the Norwegians coming together, but they were able to achieve what most people seemed to think was a pretty equitable agreement more or less going down the middle of their disputed area. I think what this tells Canada is that as difficult as an issue like the Beaufort Sea boundary may be, there are ways of seeking resolution and achieving it.

TM: Will Canada have to give up a measure of its sovereignty to the United States in order to protect its Arctic territory against countries like Russia?

RH: I think the opposite is true, the more that Canada takes [the issue] seriously in terms of providing the type of instrumentation that it needs to ensure that people respect and follow Canadian rules and regulations within what Canada claims is its Arctic is actually more sovereignty. I think the Americans, for example, on the issue of the Northwest Passage would be more than happy to agree to ignore their particular claim (they are never going to come out and publicly disown it just because of the precedent it might set [...] but the more the Americans see us actually protecting and having the proper enforcement capabilities in our Arctic, I think, the less likely they would be to actually press us on some of these issues. So the paradox is the more that we actually develop our own security capabilities, I think it actually strengthens our position with the Americans.

TM: Why should Canadians, particularly in the southern region of the country, be concerned with development of the Arctic when they might prefer federal money to be spent in more populous areas like the major cities?

RH: There are three main reasons why Canadians should care. First and foremost, the Arctic is part of Canada. Yes, there's no question that the population is less, but by the same token that's like saying we should ignore all the rural sectors in Canada. So, there is an issue of principle at stake here. The second thing is what happens in the Arctic is going to be affecting what happens in the South. The impact, for example, of climate change – the Arctic is going to be the first region to feel it, but the impact will then spill over into the southern regions. And the third is as the Arctic does open up to the international community, the activities that take place [there], be it mining or tourism, will have impacts on what happens in the South. Ultimately, when you start putting all those factors together, it's quite clear that southerners do have to become very concerned with what happens in the North and be willing to treat it like the rest of Canada.