VZCZCXRO3934
RR RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHQU RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #1904/01 1702146
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 192146Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2920
INFO RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RULSJGA/COMDT COGARD WASHDC//G-OPR//
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 2104
RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 OTTAWA 001904 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
WHA/CAN, WHA/EX, OES/OA (SMITH, BRANDEL), L/OES (ROACH), 
IO/T, PM/PP, EB/TRA, EUR/RUS 
 
DOD FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
COASTGUARD FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EWWT PREL PBTS MARR CA
SUBJECT:  Northwest Passage Conference in Ottawa Offers Bold 
Idea 
 
¶1. Sensitive But Unclassified, not for distribution outside 
USG channels. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Summary: Panelists at an Ottawa conference on 
Canada's arctic waters called for Canada and the U.S. to 
open talks on the Arctic route because the increasing melt 
rate of Arctic sea ice could allow significant summer 
navigation through the Northwest Passage (NWP) as soon as 14 
years from now.  In their opinion a well-thought out 
governance structure to manage shipping and other activities 
and to address environmental concerns is imperative.  The 
thesis presented by the organizers of the event was that a 
bilateral agreement, similar in intent to the 1988 Canada- 
United States Agreement on Arctic Cooperation (regarding 
government ice-breakers), could be crafted in which the 
United States "agrees" to Canada's claim of sovereignty over 
the waters of the Northwest Passage (essentially allowing 
Canada to claim the passage as Internal waters) and Canada 
would, in return, agree to unfettered access by the U.S. for 
transit of the passage.  The Russian Deputy Chief of Mission 
in Ottawa, who participated in the conference, supported 
this notion.  According to this thesis, the U.S. by acceding 
to Canada's desire for the NWP to be internal waters, could 
collaborate with Canada to control and safeguard the passage 
and secure the North American continent from security 
threats in the far north. The conference prompted Canadian 
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade 
(DFAIT) officials in attendance to approach Embassy officers 
to explore the idea of government-to-government arctic 
discussions. End Summary. 
 
Legal Scholars, Political Scientists and Real Scientists 
Discuss NWP 
 
 ¶3. (U) Michael Byers, Professor of Global Politics and Law 
at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and 
Suzanne Lalonde, Professor of Law at the University of 
Montreal organized a one-day program on June 14 in Ottawa to 
discuss the subject of "Canada's Arctic Waters in Law and 
Diplomacy".  Byers and Lalonde argue that the end of the 
Cold War and the rise of global terrorism have changed the 
world situation such that the Canadian position regarding 
the NWP (that it is Canadian internal waters subject to full 
Canadian law) actually coincides with U.S. security 
interests.  As a result, they assert, the two countries have 
a unique opportunity to resolve a long-standing dispute and 
to concurrently improve the security of the continent's 
citizens and environment. The day long event featured five 
panel discussions, four of which included American 
participants; three that represented universities while one 
was from the United States Artic Research Commission. 
Embassy ESTH Counselor and Specialist, as well as the Naval 
Attach, attended the program. 
 
¶4.  (U) The first panel addressed the matter of "Law"; the 
American participant was Professor Bernard Oxman of the 
University of Miami's faculty of Law, a world renowned 
expert on matters of maritime law and the UN Convention on 
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).  The other two panelists were a 
Belgian (Erik Franckxx, Free University of Brussels) and an 
Australian (Donald Rothwell of the University of Sydney). 
The panelists each presented arguments for about 10 minutes, 
concerning the validity and utility of Canada's maritime 
claims in the arctic followed by a roughly 60 minute 
Qclaims in the arctic followed by a roughly 60 minute 
question and answer session.  Franckxx provided a legal 
 
history of the Canadian claim.  Rothwell argued that Canada 
cannot claim the NWP as historic waters since it has been so 
little used; but he was the first speaker of the day to 
suggest that the entire argument could be bypassed if Canada 
and the United States were to negotiate a bilateral 
cooperative agreement regarding use of the NWP.  He 
suggested also that the Antarctic experience may illuminate 
solutions. 
 
¶5. (U) The American legal scholar, Dr. Oxman, (who was one 
of the senior U.S. negotiators for UNCLOS III) noted that 
freedom of navigation in arctic waters is one principle that 
supports the global freedom of navigation and of over flight 
(innocent passage and /or transit passage).  His statement 
 
OTTAWA 00001904  002 OF 004 
 
 
suggested that any acknowledgement by the United States, or 
other governments, that the NWP is internal waters would 
erode the global principle, and therefore is to be avoided. 
Oxman did also note that UNCLOS Article 234 (the ice-covered 
area clause) allows Canada, within its exclusive economic 
zone, to exercise effective measures, specific to the harsh 
arctic realm, to prevent, reduce and control marine 
pollution from vessels. Incidentally, Oxman also related his 
recollection of the Canadian position during the UNCLOS III 
negotiations that "Canada has no international straits"; a 
choice of phrase he attributed to a careful diplomatic 
attempt to not be forced to argue the matter of 
inviolability of International Straits. 
 
¶6. (U) The second panel addressed "Science".  The American 
panelist was George Newton, Chair of the U.S. Arctic 
Research Commission.  Professor David Barber of the 
University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and John Falkingham of 
Environment Canada's Marine and Ice Services Division 
rounded out the panel.  The panelists concerned themselves 
with describing ice conditions, i.e., the physical geography 
and climatology of the Arctic Ocean region with Barber 
articulating the position that ice cover is rapidly 
diminishing, that this process is irreversible and that 
possibly as early as 2020-2050 the NWP will be a true 
navigable waterway.  On the other hand, Falkingham stressed 
the uncertainty of our knowledge noting that for as long as 
we have had records, the ice cover has been highly variable 
from year to year.  Falkingham also said that in recent 
years the sea ice throughout the NWP and Canada's Arctic 
Archipelago has actually increased in thickness.  In fact, 
he thinks that the NWP will be the last passage (after the 
Russian Northern Route and the Murmansk to Churchill route) 
to become navigable; his time frame is 2070 to 2100.  He 
also reminded the audience that in the arctic winter there 
will always still be ice in the NWP, rendering it un- 
navigable during that part of the year. 
 
¶7. (U) George Newton of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 
like Falkingham, explained to the audience that our 
scientific knowledge of the arctic is very, very modest.  He 
characterized forthcoming exploration and research during 
the 2007-2008 International Polar Year (IPY) as a voyage of 
discovery comparable to that of Christopher Columbus. 
 
 ¶8. (U) The third panel addressed "Security and Policing"; 
the American participant was Professor Elizabeth Elliot- 
Meisel of Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska. 
Professor Rob Huebert of the Center for Military and 
Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary in Alberta, 
and the former Commander of the Canadian Forces Northern 
Area, Colonel Pierre Leblanc (CF ret.), were the Canadian 
panelists.  Elliott-Meisel described the current situation 
as similar to the period leading to the 1988 Canada-U.S. 
Arctic Cooperation Agreement, characterized by acknowledged 
interdependence and close POTUS-Canadian PM links.  She 
asserted that "cooperation may not compromise sovereignty, 
but lack of cooperation will mean less security."  She 
proposed that the United States, within a bilateral 
agreement, should recognize Canadian sovereignty over the 
NWP, and Canada and the U.S. would then work collaboratively 
to ensure appropriate capabilities are brought to bear to 
Qto ensure appropriate capabilities are brought to bear to 
ensure security of Canada's arctic maritime domain. 
 
¶9. (U) Both Colonel Leblanc and Professor Huebert decried 
the lack of Canadian military capability in Canada's arctic 
regions.  Leblanc emphasized that one test of sovereignty is 
to "know what is going on in your territory," and Canada, in 
his opinion, cannot meet this test in the arctic.   Leblanc 
also mentioned that the unchallenged transit of submarines 
through the NWP bolsters the claim that it is an 
international strait.  Finally, Leblanc agreed with previous 
panelists that U.S. recognition of Canadian sovereignty 
would serve to strengthen overall North American security. 
Professsor Huebert did not explicitly support a Canada-U.S. 
agreement on the NWP, suggesting instead that the 
sovereignty debate is a red herring.  In his opinion, the 
critical issue is security, and a shared Canada-U.S. 
approach to security would achieve the greatest benefit for 
North America.  In contrast to the Cold War, however, when 
 
OTTAWA 00001904  003 OF 004 
 
 
the threat was a military one posed by the Soviet Union (and 
which the United States addressed throughout Canada's arctic 
via the DEW Line, subs under arctic ice, etc.) the new 
threats are somewhat ill-defined and may include 
environmental threats (oil spills), threats to cultures 
(traditional Inuit mode of life) and economic threats 
(illegal fishing) as well as traditional military and 
criminal threats.    The challenge is for government leaders 
to identify and prioritize the threats, and that effort 
will, in turn, precipitate policy solutions.  He noted that 
so far the political authorities are "all talk and no 
action" on taking arctic security seriously. 
 
¶10. (U) The fourth panel addressed "Diplomacy."   The 
American participant was Christopher Joyner, Professor and 
Director of International Law and Politics at Georgetown 
University.  The other two panelists were Sergey Petrov, 
Deputy Chief of Mission at the Russian Embassy in Ottawa and 
conference organizer Professor Byers.  Petrov told the 
conference that his government would support a negotiated 
deal between Canada and the United States that would see 
those countries decide on how to regulate the Arctic waters 
of the Northwest Passage. He noted that development of the 
NWP, and the reinvigoration of the Russian northern route as 
well, will only be possible with a huge influx of financial 
resources and that that will require multinational 
cooperation on governance and regulation.  "I'm quite 
comfortable having Canada and the U.S. decide how to ensure 
this future seaway is available for international sailing" 
he said to the press after speaking at the conference. 
 
¶11.  (U) Joyner discussed modes of governance for ensuring 
safe passage through the NWP and he asked, "Is resolution of 
sovereignty a prerequisite for establishing a regime for NWP 
navigation?"  His answer was maybe, but not necessarily. 
Professor Joyner described how the IMO'S Polar Code could 
eventually become customary international law, but that 
process will be long and slow.  Alternatively the Turkish 
approach in 1998 of unilaterally implementing regulations on 
all vessels transiting the Turkish straits (Bosporus and 
Dardanelles) is another, more controversial, approach. 
Byers, reiterating the notion put forth in his conference 
discussion paper, proposed negotiations aimed at achieving 
U.S. recognition of Canada's claim, i.e., that the full 
force of Canada's domestic law applies in the passage, 
balanced off by a firm commitment to open access for all 
U.S. vessels, active promotion and support for international 
shipping, and immediate investments in equipment and 
personnel necessary to monitor and police the passage on a 
rigorous, year-round, basis. 
 
¶12. (U) The final panel provided the "Inuit Perspective." 
There was no American participant on this panel.   Ms. Aaju 
Peter, a young Inuit lawyer, provided several thoughtful 
observations.  She noted that travel by dog sled over frozen 
passages in the arctic should be as valid as passage by 
ships on open water, or subs under the ice to establish 
historic use and sovereignty.  She also noted that Article 
15 of the Canada-Nunavut Land Claim authorizes a "Marine 
Council" to establish Inuit involvement in the development 
of the arctic maritime regime and that its efforts should 
feed into the Arctic Council's 2008 report on "Arctic Marine 
Qfeed into the Arctic Council's 2008 report on "Arctic Marine 
Shipping Assessment".  That Arctic Council report will, in 
turn, feed the broader policy debate on sovereignty, 
security, and environmental and cultural protection.  Ms. 
Peter also made the bold suggestion that local human 
capital, rather than imported southerners, should be trained 
and employed as the aircraft and ship pilots, the Search and 
Rescue technicians, the police and military staff required 
to manage increased ship and aircraft traffic in the arctic 
region. 
 
 
¶13. (SBU) Comment: The discussion paper put forward by the 
symposium's organizers, Michael Byers and Suzanne Lalonde, 
which was prepared to encourage debate at the conference, 
was entitled "Who Controls the Northwest Passage." Their 
choice of the word "control" rather than ownership is 
significant.  The majority of opinion offered by panelists 
suggested that some form bilateral agreement between Canada 
 
OTTAWA 00001904  004 OF 004 
 
 
and the United States would allow effective shared control 
by the two countries of the NWP, balancing Canada's 
"sovereignty" need with America's security and transit 
imperatives.  The conference discussion was notable for the 
relative balance of the presentations and the general lack 
of anti-U.S. rhetoric that has often characterized media 
reporting on this issue.  There were a number of GOC 
officials with responsibility for arctic issues in 
attendance at the conference.  Our private conservations 
with them tended to reflect an interest in discussion with 
the U.S. on the NWP, the bilateral dispute over border 
claims in the Beaufort Sea and other arctic issues.   End 
Comment. 
 
WILKINS