A post about the importance of picking your fights…

From the Globe and Mail today, in a story about the push to make Canada's three northern territories into provinces:

"There are other countries. I'm not going to name countries. I'm just telling the world, the Arctic is Canadian territory, and we will exercise our sovereignty."

The country he wouldn't name is the US, which doesn't acknowledge Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic. Specifically, the US does not recognize all those channels between the islands of the Arctic archipelago as internal waters, which is what Canada insists they are. The distinction means that the US maintains that surface or subsurface ships can navigate those channels as if they were traversing the open Atlantic. Canada insists on being asked for permission before those ships enter those waters.

So who's right?



For issues like these, the basic rule is whoever is bigger wins. It might seem childish to sophisticated Euro-philes, but territorial integrity is a function of brute force.

It's related to a concept called a "monopoly of violence". In effect, the guy with the biggest stick is in charge. To be more subtle, the most basic definition of a nation is a contiguous geographical region in which a single organization enjoys a monopoly of violence. That organization is known as…wait for it…"the government".

What happens is that to form a stable society, citizens hand over the right to pursue alleged injury to a central authority. Instead of getting a baseball bat and going after the guy who side-swiped the car, a citizen goes to the police. The police, as agents of the government, have the recognized authority to employ violence in the pursuit of their goals, and are the only ones so recognized. Anyone else using violence is a criminal. For the police, "violence" can mean writing a ticket, arresting a perpetrator, or actual gun play. The rest of the citizenry stands aside, including the wronged parties.

The courts, too, have the means to enforce their judgments. Resisting the order of a court will result in fine and imprisonment. Note that we take that as a given – it does not even come to mind that we should take a shot at the bailiff. As a basic principle of civics, the notion of monopoly of violence exists at almost the subconscious level.

Even in the US, citizens have a right to "bear arms" only, not the right to take shots at the paper boy for throwing the morning paper onto the roof for the fifth day running.

In many areas of the world, there is no such monopoly. Justice is extracted by means of vendetta law, or by competing private armies in the employ of local warlords. In these areas, the concept of "nation" dependent on the monopoly of violence criterion is so compact geographically (a few city blocks for a local gang, for example) as to be meaningless.

Some countries exist in a nether region of true nationhood. Though we recognize the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, it is well known that inside the recognized borders of both nations are areas where the heavily-armed locals do not respect the orders of the government, and who violently resist agents of the government. But since these areas are inhabited by insular people little interested in exporting their beliefs, these seditious behaviours are tolerated by the central government (as if it has a choice), and politely ignored by the rest of the world.

Back to Canada's arctic. Are those channel areas sovereign Canadian waters? In the old days, the limit of sovereign control of coastal waters was actually 3 nautical miles – the distance you could effectively employ coastal cannon to attack offending ships. Ships could not employ such large artillery, so the monopoly of violence in that strip of ocean belonged entirely to the coastal cannon. That's the big-stick theory in action. That limit became 12 nautical miles, then 200 nautical miles. The 200 mile limit was first promulgated by Harry Truman in 1945 to encompass the continental shelf and all the undersea resources.

Anyone here think the US could not enforce such a limit?

Now treaties have formalized the situation. Within 12 nautical miles, a nation has the absolute right to control access and navigation. Within 24 nautical miles, a nation can impose smuggling and immigration laws. Within 200 nautical miles, a nation enjoys an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) only.

In the case of the Arctic, a vessel can thread a path that avoids the 12 nautical mile exclusion zone extending from the islands of the archipelago. For Canada to impose its will on the area, it will need to be more proactive. Surveillance with aircraft, surface craft, and submarines. Mine fields to close off passages that are not patrolled. Forceful interdiction of foreign vessels.

No one is disputing Canada's economic control of the waters in the archipelago – the 200 EEZ is in effect. In order to stop ships from using these waters unless they ask for permission, however, Canada will have to put some pretty big "cannon" in place. But that costs money, is politically unpopular, and would put us on a collision course with the US, which is not a good idea at the best of times, and these are not the best of times (cross-border security, mad cow disease, soft wood lumber).

So I'm not sure what Prime Minister Paul Martin means when he says he will "exercise our sovereignty". Maybe he thinks he can mention it to President Bush when he visits next week. Ask him nice-like to please don't send any big ships or nasty submarines. Then the Prime Minister will get all steely-eyed and growl "Or else!"

Hopefully the President won't be munching on a pretzel when that happens – I'd hate for him to risk choking again when he bursts out in laughter.