Taissumani, June 4

In 2007, the columnist, Gwynne Dyer, wrote about the Northwest Passage, shortly after one of Stephen Harper’s increasingly frequent visits to Nunavut. He described the Canadian government’s position on the passage as one of posturing.

In April of that year, the government had announced that the Northwest Passage would no longer be referred to as “territorial waters” but rather “Canadian internal waters.”

The difference was significant — foreign ships enjoy the right of innocent passage through territorial waters, while Canada exercises complete control over Canadian internal waters. The audience for the Prime Minister’s announcement was American as well as international, and the threat was perceived to be the possibility of unfettered commercial shipping through the Northwest Passage.

Recently political scientist Michael Byers wrote about the Northwest Passage, “Since 1988, the two countries [Canada and the USA] have simply agreed to disagree. Rather than worrying about whether the waterway is internal or international, they co-operate on all practical matters, from search and rescue to maritime surveillance.”

He predicted, “At some point, melting sea ice and increased shipping will necessitate a new agreement, which common security and environmental protection concerns should make it possible to achieve.”

By late 2009, Gwynne Dyer had weighed in on the subject again and he had changed his tune somewhat. In September he suggested that “all the fuss about the Northwest Passage is irrelevant.” The inexorable progress of climate change, felt first and with most effect in the Arctic, had made it so.

In the labyrinth of channels separating the islands north of Canada’s mainland, there are at least six routes for a potential commercially-viable Northwest Passage. No-one disputes that the islands are Canadian.

But the United States has never agreed that all of the waterways are ours. Thus Canada’s preoccupation with the matter, its word-smithing of phrases like “Canadian internal waters,” and its determination to build ships to patrol those waters. (When Stephen Harper proclaimed in Iqaluit that “Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty in the Arctic. We either use it or lose it,” he used the occasion to announce that Canada would build a number of armed Arctic patrol vessels with which to assert sovereignty over the famous passage.)

But, says Gwynne Dyer, “it will make no difference, because the Northwest Passage will never become a major shipping route.” He went on to explain, “The problem for Canada is that all the routes for a Northwest Passage involve shallow and/or narrow straits between various islands in the country’s Arctic archipelago, and the prevailing winds and currents in the Arctic Ocean tend to push whatever loose sea ice there is into those straits.

It is unlikely that cargo ships that are not double-hulled and strengthened against ice will ever get insurance for the passage at an affordable price.”

But, one wonders, if the distance is shorter, won’t commercial shippers find a way? Isn’t that what business does?

Dyer, however, then went on to elaborate on the rest of the reason. And it’s simple: “The Northeast Passage is just too much easier.” The Northeast Passage is open water for most of the admittedly-short summer, and this open water season is predicted to lengthen with global warming.

There is an infrastructure of ports along the Russian Arctic coast and nuclear-powered icebreakers to provide assistance when needed. Moreover the shipping distances from Europe to eastern Asia are comparable no matter whether the Northeast or Northwest Passage is chosen. The same can be said for the distances from Europe to western North America.

In September, two German container ships travelled from Vladivostok to Rotterdam through the Northeast Passage, the first commercial transit of the that passage by non-Russian ships. The trip took only a month. This, suggests Dyer, is the way Arctic shipping will happen if global warming continues to make the Arctic more ice-free.

His conclusion is simple, “The Northwest Passage will never be commercially viable.”

I’ve titled this article, “Who cares about the Northwest Passage?” The obvious answer is that Canada does. Perhaps the real question should be, “Why do we care about the Northwest Passage?”

Taissumani recounts a specific event of historic interest. Kenn Harper is a historian, writer and linguist who lives in Iqaluit. Feedback? Send your comments and questions to kennharper@hotmail.com.