Clik here to view.
The tie between Canada and the Arctic is a common association to make. It’s even in the English version of our anthem: “the true north strong and free”. In the minds of most Canadians, as well as the world, the two ideas are almost inseparable. Ask a foreigner about Canada and the great north is bound to come up in conversation. It is an inextricable part of our identity; a strange but not unjustified remnant from the early days of this country, when the pioneer spirit still held strong. It harkens back to the predominantly European settlers who were left to their own devices to tame the vast wilderness that was the least hospitable part of the Americas.
But how does this translate into geopolitics? Ask any Canadian today if they feel like the Arctic north belongs to us and you’ll likely get an emphatic “yes!”. A closer look at the situation on the ground will reveal a different reality. In fact, while the north might nominally be Canadian territory, it is by and large a human wasteland. All three territories have a combined population of just above 100,000 people (0.03 per square mile). There is a dearth of infrastructure, no deep-water port or commercial harbour and – most disturbingly – no significant Canadian military presence. Simply put, our claim to the Arctic is extremely tenuous.
“Now wait!”, I already hear you exclaiming, “This is ridiculous! Canada’s territorial claims have stood mostly unchallenged for the better part of the last century. Land doesn’t just get annexed by foreign powers anymore. Worse case scenario, the US would never allow any harm to befall us!”
Forgive me the strawman. But even if you don’t subscribe to this position, you can probably admit that the average Canadian does. Canadians possess a hubristic sense of their own invincibility. There is, in our mind, no credible threat, and if there was, we assume that America’s military might will always safeguard our interests. In response to the first argument, I would like to remind everyone that Russia successfully annexed Crimea four years ago and got away with it. As for the US, I do believe that the recent trade spat between the federal government and President Trump should serve as a potent reminder that the US has no permanent allies, only interests. Even those have proven to be increasingly fickle. Just because our elite has buried its head in the metaphorical snow, this reality does not cease to be a factor. Only we can be the guardians in our home, and only through our actions can we hope to safeguard an independent future.
As for the purely economic argument, the Arctic holds significant oil and gas reserves as well as mineral wealth, fish stock and, least surprising of all, freshwater. In fact, massive quantities of freshwater locked away in the glaciers. Some sources estimate the value of this wealth in oil and gas alone approaching the range of 20 trillion USD and that’s what we’ve been able to survey given the less than optimal conditions. Up until recently, logistical limitations borne out of a rather inclement climate meant that those resources were more or less off-limits. This made most territorial disputes moot points hardly worth clogging diplomatic channels over, let alone wasting any treasure for. But global warming, whether you believe it man-made or not, is happening. Not only governments but also companies are pouring money into researching the impact. That means retreating glaciers and increased traffic in this region. When that area of the world becomes viable for economic development and year-long navigation, it’s going to be open season. Arrayed against us is Denmark (and thus the EU) thanks to their hold on Greenland, as well as Norway, Russia and the US. The two bigger contenders present inside the Arctic circle due to their landmasses are Canada and Russia. Theoretically, Russia and Canada are as such the two biggest stakeholders in the region due to the size of their claims. Yet, to be a true stakeholder, one must be willing and able to play the game. This means occupying and militarizing the north.
Some of you are likely jumping on your seats. “Militarizing?” I hear you protest. Fear not, dear reader, and dispel whatever vision of barbed wire-covered trench networks you may have conjured up at the mention of this ghastly and most un-Canadian word. When I say militarize, I mean that a portion of our military assets must be shifted northwards to assert and – if need be – protect our claim in the Arctic. The beautiful thing about powerful armed forces is that they are less likely to be needed in actual conflicts if they act as an effective deterrent. As such, a strong military presence in the Arctic might be enough to give our more bellicose neighbours a second thought about a potential scrap.
I will get into what we should be doing economically, politically and militarily to assert our claim and secure our independence in these deadly wastelands. Yet to begin, allow me to go over what we have going for us right now. For good and for bad (and it’s mostly bad).
Those of you who have read my previous articles on the Canadian military will know that our navy possesses: some 12 frigates optimized for anti-submarine warfare, 4 aging diesel electric “hunter-killer” submarines, 12 flat-bottomed and lightly armed coastal patrol vessels and 1 auxiliary refueling vessel. The latter is the MV Asterix which is in fact a converted civilian cargo ship. For those of you who might be wondering, this is a tiny force and is hopelessly outmatched by what the Russian and the American navies field. Two issues lie at the core of this: infrastructure (or lack thereof) and ships (or, more accurately, the lack of adapted ship classes).
You see, the Arctic is a nasty place. It’s cold. There’s ice that’ll trap even modern ships The Terror-style. There’s no large port or harbour in which ships can resupply and sailors can rest and oh…there’s sometimes Russian submarines under the ice.
From the get-go, our frigates are essentially useless there. They have no ice breaking capabilities and so could only sail close to the shore in the summer and at great risk to themselves. There’s no need to even mention the coastal patrol vessels. They are simply too small, too lightly armed and lack the seaworthiness to be used in any offshore operation for any length of time – never mind in such hostile conditions. The MV Asterix is a civilian freight ship and is in no way configured for Arctic operations. Furthermore, a sizeable portion of its crew is made up of civilians. This leaves us with the attack submarines which, while quite capable as ship killers, simply do not have the endurance to operate in such conditions. They require oxygen to run their diesel generators and thus need to surface quite regularly, which is a dubious proposition when the surface is a few meters of solid ice. While the Coast Guard does possess some ice breakers with a few more on the way, it is a civilian agency and possesses neither the training nor the equipment required to serve as anything more than a survey force. (This is in fact a useful capability but not relevant to the present issue).
The Harper Conservatives did recognize the problem and tried to remedy it. But their efforts were, in typical Canadian fashion, far too timid and thus underfunding remains an issue. A Harper-era plan to build a fully manned naval station was downgraded to that of a simple fueling station. Even this was to be manned only for parts of the year. What had been a plan to build a small but robust fleet of heavy icebreakers for the navy was downgraded to a larger fleet of icebreakers with a lower polar class, which is to say that they can only break young ice. This makes them all but useless in the deeper parts of the Arctic, where the Russians like to prowl with their nuclear submarines and their heavy ice breakers. In addition, the decision to arm them with only Mk 38 Bushmaster 25 mm guns is baffling. By military standard, such a weapon is by and large useless given the profile of potential threats (submarines and fighter jets). Torpedoes, missiles and the proper sensors would be required. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Our current government, for all their bluster about asserting Canada’s place in the world, have been more than happy to sustain a middling approach to this looming problem. With little in the way of an Arctic navy, few monitoring stations and the dearth of a population in the area, our claim to the vast resources and future trade routes will be a hard one to enforce. This is especially true given the fact that the Russians have been very active in the region. As a result, Russian naval and air assets far outnumber Canadian and even American forces in the area. The US, for its part, is a latent powerhouse in the Arctic. The sole reason for its relative weakness in the region is that, as an imperial power, it can only dedicate resources to so many theatres. The Arctic is simply not a priority for the Americans right now. That fact may well change rather soon. We would do well not to give Uncle Sam an excuse to get too involved by our inaction lest we find ourselves playing second fiddle in our own backyard.
What can Canada do? What should Canada do? Rearmament, diplomacy, or infrastructure projects? The truth is that it will take a bit of everything. In the next part I will go detail a proposal for a comprehensive plan for a Canadian Arctic. The “true north strong and free” must become a reality.