According to a recent poll conducted for the Munk School of Global Affairs, Canadians rank defending Arctic sovereignty as a top foreign policy priority. Moreover, they support backing up Canada’s commitment to protecting the North by shifting military resources to the region from overseas deployments. Compared to people polled in other countries that border the Arctic Ocean, including Russia and the United States, Canadians were more likely to emphasize the importance of increasing military capacity in the Arctic. What is remarkable about these results is not the findings themselves, but rather how closely they mirror the Harper government’s Arctic policies.
Unfortunately, this apparent vindication of the Conservatives’ defence-heavy approach to the Arctic will help keep us from evaluating how successful their approach has been. The Harper government has done far too little to deliver on the ambitious Arctic defence plans that it laid out during the 2006 election campaign. Among these plans were a major new port on Baffin Island and several icebreakers to allow the Canadian navy to operate further into the Arctic and for a longer part of the year. The government has delivered on neither, and instead turned its attention towards costly plans to purchase F-35 stealth fighter jets.
If the prime minister were serious about improving Canada’s military capacity in the Arctic, he would initiate a major review of Canada’s defensive capabilities, resulting in a white paper (an authoritative government report or guide) explaining the government’s plans. Such a review would likely renew plans for expanded hard infrastructure, including longer airfields and deeper harbours, which had originally been scrapped during budget cuts by the Mulroney government. It would also call for modernizing Canada’s naval fleet, the vast majority of which is unprepared for Arctic operations, especially compared to the aging — but enormous — Russian northern fleet.
Unfortunately, due to the budgetary pressures and fears that the opposition will paint him as a warmonger, Harper has turned his attention toward renewing stalled talks with Denmark and the United States on Arctic territorial disputes. While these efforts are certainly admirable, they will do little to improve Canada’s position in the North, unless they are complemented with wider diplomatic efforts aimed at preventing new disputes. This is particularly important in the area of security, which was explicitly avoided during past negotiations due to Cold War rivalries. Without a clear mechanism for resolving disputes, Arctic security will be left at the mercy of ad hoc relationships.
Arctic diplomatic efforts will be made easier once the current UN-sponsored process of seabed claims throughout the region is completed. Canada is set to make its final submission next year, as are Denmark and Russia; all three claim ownership over mineral-rich undersea mountain ranges near the North Pole. If the recent resolution of a seabed dispute between Norway and Russia is any indication, the settlement of seabed claims, particularly near the North Pole, will help lay the groundwork for the resumption of wider-ranging negotiations between Arctic countries. The need for such negotiations is especially clear when it comes to environmental issues.
Another consequence of the resolution of competing seabed claims and the rapid pace of climate change will be vastly expanded oil and gas exploration and undersea mining. Some see this inevitable development as a future source of conflict. However, the enormous opportunities for development will create new incentives for them to cooperate with their neighbours to ensure the stability which investors in Arctic oil and gas ventures will demand. This, too, will set the stage for broader negotiations aimed at providing long-term solutions to Arctic problems. Unfortunately, increased traffic and development in the Arctic will also create significant new environmental challenges.
Until then, there is little incentive for Arctic leaders like Harper to work to revitalize the Arctic Council, which was intended to help Arctic countries coordinate their responses to Northern issues. Unfortunately, this means that for all his talk about making Arctic diplomacy a top foreign policy priority, Harper is likely promising far more than he can deliver. Combined with his failure to design and deliver a clear plan for the future of Arctic defence, Harper’s list of Arctic achievements is short. There is little indication that the opposition Liberals would do better were they in power, as they do little more than pay lip service to Canada’s Northern interests.
It is clear that there is major diplomatic work to be done to secure the future of the Canadian Arctic. Moreover, it is crucial that Canada build and maintain the capacity to credibly operate throughout its Arctic lands and waters. While conditions today are not those which are likely to lead to a long-term solution to Arctic problems, unless Canada is prepared and able to participate in developing that solution when the time comes, it risks being left out. The Harper government is doing far too little to ensure that does not happen.
