New Arctic policy involves 'good cop–bad cop' strategy But mixed message could create confusion, experts say. By Anca Gurzu Published August 25, 2010

View story Email Comments To the Editor

NASA Photo

Shortly after Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon released Canada's Arctic foreign policy statement at the end of last week, most news headlines were relaying a similar message: The Canadian government is happy to engage with its Arctic neighbours to resolve existing Arctic boundary disputes, making that its top priority.

But a glance at the statement's conclusion shows that that message is not as clear-cut as many believe.

"Co-operation, diplomacy and respect for international law have always been Canada's preferred approach in the Arctic," the document reads. "At the same time, we will never waver in our commitment to protect our North."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, just a few days before embarking on this week's tour of the North, reinforced that thought. He said Canada will work with its partners "where appropriate," but called the protection and promotion of Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic "non-negotiable."

Although Canada wants to signal to its Artic partners its willingness to solve boundary disputes though diplomacy, experts say the sovereignty tough talk is designed to invoke a sense of nationalism by targeting the domestic audience. As a result, they say the government faces a messaging challenge both towards the public and foreign governments, trying to find the right balance between an assertive and a practical approach.

"I think it is a sophisticated good cop–bad cop scenario. It's very much dual messaging," said Robert Huebert, associate director at University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

"If you can [resolve the boundary disputes] through co-operation and international law, that's always the best solution. But if that does not work, then to have the ability to unilaterally defend your interests is much better than just to have soft power. They are improving the ability to act in the event that negotiations don't end up advancing Canadian interests."

Mr. Huebert pointed out last week's Arctic foreign policy statement was released just as Canada is in the midst of what he calls "probably the most ambitious and powerful" military operation in the North: Nanook.

The annual 20-day operation involves Arctic sovereignty patrols, military exercises and emergency preparedness training. This year marks the first time troops from the United States and Denmark are participating in the exercise.

Canada and the US disagree about the maritime border in the Beaufort Sea, while the Americans also insist the Northwest Passage is international water, rather than a Canadian coastal channel. Meanwhile, Canada has a dispute with Denmark over the small and uninhabited Hans Island, which lies off Greenland and Baffin Island.

In a separate context, Canada and other Arctic states also have a 2013 deadline to submit to the United Nations measurements of their extension of the continental shelf, a process that will help legalize the countries' Arctic jurisdiction. This is where Russia could be problematic. It is believed the country has extended its claim to the Arctic seabed well into Canadian territory.

The recently-released 27-page statement on the Arctic is, for the most part, formalizing on paper a direction the government has previously expressed. It is based on the Arctic policy blueprint released last summer, Canada's Northern Strategy, which has four main points: exercising sovereignty; promoting economic and social development; protecting the Arctic environment; and empowering indigenous governance.

But this is the first time the government is formally expressing its commitment to resolve the boundary issues through co-operation, said Ken Coates, Arctic expert and Dean of Arts at the University of Waterloo.

"I'm glad to see the government talking about it so openly, because you are not going to solve it through belligerence," he said.

At the same time, Mr. Coates believes the strong sovereignty message is targeting the Canadian public, since "nations hate the thought that their borders are vulnerable."

"Questions of national sovereignty stir the national blood," he said.

But overall, the government is aiming to send the right message, he continued.

"You see the government doing a balance of the assertive stance with a practical approach, and that's exactly what we need to get this one done," Mr. Coates said. "On the one hand we will defend our interest, but as long as we do this co-operatively, we can find a win-win solution."

Michael Byers, an international law professor at the University of British Columbia and author of Who Owns the Arctic, said he welcomed the government's switch from military to diplomatic rhetoric, since Canada has been lagging behind in solving its Arctic disputes. Russia and Norway diplomatically settled their decade-long dispute over the Barent Sea border last April.

"Canada is the odd country out," he said. "We still have two maritime boundary disputes and the only land dispute."

Mr. Huebert pointed out Canada is also behind in formalizing its Arctic foreign policy as other Arctic countries, like the US, Norway, Denmark and Russia, have already made that step.

Although other states have also emphasized co-operation in their Arctic rhetoric, Mr. Huebert said Canada is heading into a "sophisticated era" of Arctic security. He cited the recent meeting between the US navy commander and the Norwegian minister of defence, and the possibility of having Americans train in Norway's North, as well as Norway's wish to obtain US co-operation on new air-to-sea missiles for the Scandinavian country's new F-35 jet fighters.

"Everyone wants to see co-operation in the Arctic, but everyone is starting to prepare just in case," Mr. Huebert said. "It's a classic case of a steel fist in a velvet glove."

However, Alexander Braun, professor in the geosciences department at the University of Texas at Dallas, said he does not think Canada's Arctic foreign policy statement is relevant since its messages are contradictory and concrete details about how to engage with our Arctic partners are missing.

"It's difficult for me to see any innovative aspect in this new policy," Mr. Braun said. "It's always the same rhetoric: we are happy to talk, but we are proud Canadians."

Mr. Byers said this rhetoric is an explanatory challenge for the government. He said it is important to understand that the large majority of Canada's Arctic is unquestioned Canadian territory.

"You can still stand up for 99 per cent of Canada's Arctic sovereignty, and still be seeking to resolve the rough edges," Mr. Byers said. "I am not convinced the government has managed to convey this message effectively."

However, Mr. Byers also agreed on the political message.

"The government wants to speak about Arctic sovereignty because it resonates with Canadians," he said. "It doesn't want to be seen in any way compromising something that is integral to Canadian identity."

agurzu@embassymag.ca