Use it or lose it - Defending Arctic soverignty
How should Canada best shore up it's claim to arctic territory in ;light of claims by Russia and others on what Canada claims as it's own territory.
This is a growing issue as arctic waterways/shipping routes become available as well as the possibility of large natural resource deposits in the area that will be fought over in the coming years.
Here is a primer article on the topic.
"In 2007, the stakes were raised considerably when Russia launched a naval manoeuvre designed to plant an actual Russian flag, in a titanium capsule, at the base of the North Pole, 4,200 metres below sea level.
Russia's game plan was to extend its territory almost up to the Pole itself, to claim the vast mineral and energy resources many feel lie underneath the Arctic ice."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/27/f-arctic-sovereignty.html#ixzz1ByrN5HB7
Craig, CraigBurton 11:02, 24 January 2011 (PST)
Canada has simply not done enough to truly claim its sovereignty in the Arctic. Harper's Canada First Defense Strategy looks impressive, however, there is not much that has been invested to truly stake a claim to its sovereignty, unless there is significant investment in the near future, for example, instead of spending so much money on the F35 fighter jets, more ice-breakers could have purchased to shore up our defense in the Arctic.
I like the idea of narrowing our topic of 'Defence' into something that is more manageable and specific. Arctic sovereignty seems like an interesting topic that many Canadians are not well informed about, that we could further explore through our survey. We could ask questions and opinions about military spending in relation to different contexts, such as comparing whether people are more willing to spend money on border defense (Arctic) or peacekeeping operations (Afghanistan).
HEY!
Good one J Chiang I agree that we should ask a question comparing people's willingness to spend on border defense versus peacekeeping operations.:)
I really like your idea Jon!
Do you think that the lack of knowledge on arctic sovereignty would result in unreliable answers? Or that maybe the strong negative views of Afghanistan would steer people into wanting to spend more on border defense?
Or maybe that's something we don't need to worry about, but that could possibly be a reason for some people's responses.
I think this is a great question. I think most people have some sort of grasp on the topic of arctic sovereignty, it has been a talked about issue recently. As for whether Afghanistan would affect their views, is that not an underlining part of the question. Do people think that peacekeeping is more important than protecting our sovereignty? They see our role in peacekeeping in afghanistan and they can see a threat to our borders, which is more important if at all?
Another approach. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/arctic-security-means-more-than-arctic-sovereignty/article1882672/ Another suggestion to promoting Canadian sovereignty in the arctic is to invest in social programs (education, health, social assistance) in arctic communities of the territories rather than just increasing military presence. The idea is that we need to populate the north with Canadians because that will reinforce that region as ours. I am thinking something along these lines, maybe someone can help rework this.
"The Canadian government should increase regional funding in arctic communities to help increase the population and establish our sovereignty rather than to the military for border defence to protect existing claims." 1. strongly agree , 2. agree, etc. . . .
RE: Ian Wood/social programs (education, health, social assistance) in arctic communities of the territories rather than just increasing military presence.
I think that is a good counter to the defense portion of the questionnaire. Something like that would allow respondents to say yes to sovereignty but no to the militarization of the issue.