bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1988) — Summer 1988 // Été 1988, pp. 31–32
The North and Canada’s International
Relations, The Report of a Working Group
of the National Capital Branch of the
Canadian Institute of International Affairs,
Canadian Arctic Resources Committee,
Ottawa, March 1988.
This working group of fourteen, many of whom are widely known in Canada for their past participation in policy-shaping in either foreign or northern aspects, set themselves the task of putting flesh on a Government pronouncement in December 1986, acknowledging the importance “of developing a coherent set of policies for the Arctic, including foreign policy.” In about eighty tightly packed pages, which include two appendices to their report, they have succeeded in doing just that. The report is a thoughtful compilation of the principal ingredients that enter into any consideration, claiming to be a comprehensive approach to policy issues in the North. The group end up with four “basic objectives”, which they suggest are reasonably clear and provide a “unifying goal” namely: “the achievement and maintenance of a secure and peaceful world in the Arctic, in which the aboriginal inhabitants can preserve the essentials of their cultures while living in association with Canadians of other origins.” This “goal” is enhanced by other strictures about preserving the natural environment and encouraging compatible economic development.
There is much in this working group report that will be familiar to Canadians, and perhaps a few outsiders, who have followed closely governmental efforts to come to grips with the fundamental policy issues facing Canada in this awesome space of land, sea and air which lies somewhere north of an imaginary line, depending upon the eye of the beholder. For me there is even an unqualified acceptance, which may signify some degree of conversion in CIA circles, that the foreign policy dimension is an extension abroad of domestic policies. The working group’s report demonstrates clearly and effectively how such an approach can be pursued, in a range of related and significant fields, among them: international scientific investigations concerning arctic phenomena; close and constant cooperation with international efforts to safeguard the natural environment; encouragement and support for circumpolar contacts among indigenous peoples; Canadian cooperation with other northern countries, in particular with the Nordic Council.
The report is much concerned with national security and sovereignty in the North, and this is sensible at a time when the perennial challenges to Canada’s territorial jurisdiction, in northern waters in particular, are getting a renewed airing both in the media and in governmental utterances. The Government’s announcements of intended responses, somewhere in a rather distant future, appear to lean heavily on installing updated and expensive defence systems, especially for surveillance but also for interdiction. The working group appears to accept these as necessary givens in a strategic situation which remains unpredictable and potentially risky, despite some marginal improvements in East-West relations. Although lam acutely conscious now of my own obsolescence, in assessing many of these matters, my tendency and instinct is to agree with Maxwell Cohen’s appended dissenting opinion, on Canada introducing what may well become obsolete nuclear submarines into the Arctic waters. Notwithstanding the technical definitions and distinctions, that move will almost certainly be seen by broad sections of public opinion, at home and abroad, as a further departure from Canada’s long-standing self-denial where nuclear weaponry is concerned. The Polar Class 8 ice-breaker seems a much better bet, in national and international accounting, even if it too carries a big price tag.
The appendix by Donat Pharand presents an impressive case in international law for Canada’s claims to sovereignty, especially in the lands and waters of the Arctic Archipelago. The Northwest Passage may be more problematical. Either way, I doubt whether Canada should hold its breath while waiting for the United States to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in these matters. The American attitude on the law of the sea is not likely to change much in the very near future. Nor am I persuaded that Canada’s best course lies in bilateral working
32 bout de papier Vol. agreements on Arctic cooperation, like the one signed with the United States on January 11, 1988, “without prejudice” to rights and claims by either party. Canada’s strongest safeguards for its sovereignty, especially in relation to the United States, continues to lie in meaningful participation in multilateral arrangements, which also include our continental neighbour. In the North, this may point the way to future treaty and institutional arrangements, for sharing and cooperating in the “management” of those Arctic phenomena and problem areas, that have widespread if not world-wide ramifications, in such key concerns as environmental protection; ice movement, climatic change and weather forecasting; conservation of wildlife and marine resources generally. If we really believe what we have long proclaimed, about the global impacts of environmental occurrences in both Arctic and Antarctic regions, we should actively seek to make them the joint concern of all states and nations effectively exercising jurisdiction in those regions.
In the meantime, we in Canada can get on with legitimizing our own involvement in the North, by making it possible for the peoples who regard that region as their homelands to take charge of their own affairs. That begins with the native peoples of Canada — Inuit, Indian and Metis — who have lived there longest. The working group report once more acknowledges the clear priority which attaches to meeting that Canadian challenge and documents the details in forthright terms. It subscribes, in particular, to getting on with establishing the new jurisdictions in the Northwest Territories, that offer real opportunities for aboriginal self-government, beginning with Nunavut in the central and eastern Arctic. The report calls for an “innovative” system of government for the complex mosaic of the western NWT, which must make provision for the concept of Denendeh, desired by some Indians and Metis living there. These and other ideas for aboriginal self-government were explored in great detail in the late seventies, by our management team in Indian and Northern Affairs. They were not pursued then, because the whole approach to self-government got caught up in the constitutional process of 1978-82, where it appears to have been held in suspense ever since, ostensibly by a web of federal-provincial complications.
In sum, I applaud the fact that the working group’s report reiterates and reinforces the first commandment concerning Canada’s northland. That it is the homeland for people, for Canadians who have all the rights that all their fellow Canadians enjoy, for governing themselves and living life in ways of their own choosing, and who therefore ought to have full opportunities for individual and collective fulfilment of aspirations and needs, stemming from their distinct cultural backgrounds. It is that kind of diversity which all Canadians hold high as the bright standard of their national identity, it is an essential element of the freedom we cherish. If we have the political will to act, we still have a chance in the North, where the territorial expanse is so wide spread and the population therein so small and exposed, to rally to that standard and renew our faith in it. Whatever the financial costs, they are likely to be miniscule alongside some of the other projects the Government has been talking up for safeguarding Canada’s position in the North. And in the final analysis the dividends of such investment in our human resources there, are bound to be much higher and more enduring. They would indeed add a sharply defined dimension and one of intrinsic value to Canadian foreign policy.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1988) — Summer 1988 // Été 1988, pp. 31–32. Read the rest of this issue →
