What the practical implementation of this policy means is the expanded penetration of the Arctic Circle by the U.S. Navy's submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) third of the American nuclear triad, as will be examined later, and the extension of plans for a U.S.-NATO-Asian NATO worldwide interceptor missile system already being put into place near Russia's western, southern and eastern borders. U.S. and NATO radar, submarine and missile deployments in the so-called High North will complete the encirclement.
The U.S. and Britain have conducted joint submarine warfare exercises under the polar ice cap over the past three years, Operation Ice Exercise 2007 and Operation Ice Exercise 2009. A U.S. Navy website said during the first exercise that "The submarine force continues to use the Arctic Ocean as an alternate route for shifting submarines between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans....Submarines can reach the western Pacific directly by transiting through international waters of the Arctic rather than through the Panama Canal. [12]
The Arctic Ocean, in particular that part of it under the ice cap, is Russia's last retaliatory refuge, that spot on the earth where any element of its strategic forces is comparatively safe from a Western first strike and least targetable by interceptor missiles after such an attack.
Earlier this month the American attack submarine the USS Texas "completed an Arctic mission, with some U.S. media outlets noting the nuclear-powered submarine broke through the ice near the North Pole and stayed on the surface for 24 hours." [13]
A Canadian news agency reported that the government's Foreign Affairs spokesman Alain Cacchione "said information about submarine operations is considered secret. He noted...that Canada permits shipping through its Arctic waters...." [14]
A rather broad definition of shipping, to be sure, but Cacchione's attempt at evasiveness wore thin when he added "There are safety protocols in place under NATO that provide for the exchange of information on allied submarine movements...." [15] That is, the U.S. submarine was off the Canadian coast with Ottawa's full knowledge. And blessings. "The U.S. navy did not release details on what, if any, weapons tests were performed by the Texas." Nor did the Canadian government ask, even though January's U.S. National Security Directive explicitly challenges Canada's claim to exclusive rights over the legendary Northwest Passage, now navigable for the first time in recorded history.
Instead, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon "have taken a hard line in regard to excursions by the Russians into the Arctic. Earlier this year, [Defense Minister Peter] MacKay accused the Russians of sending military aircraft too close to Canadian northern airspace. He vowed that Canadian Forces CF-18 fighter aircraft would intercept Russian aircraft each and every time they came near the country."
By excursions (perhaps the word intended was incursions) are meant routine patrols over neutral, international waters conducted according to the terms of the relevant treaties.
"In March, Cannon said Canada 'will not be bullied' by a Russian plan to create a new security force for the Arctic." [16]
If loose lips could sink ships, Harper, Cannon and McKay would have sent the entire Russian navy to the bottom of the Arctic and the North Atlantic. All three have delivered a steady stream of exhortations, bluster and downright threats to Russia throughout the year.
This blunt, eminently non-diplomatic, and incessant saber rattling by a relatively minor military and international political player would not persist for as long as it has - questionable domestic gains notwithstanding - if the three ministers were not assured of support from the United States and NATO. In the second case, the Article 5 mutual obligation to engage in armed intervention if any member state requests it. In fact Canada has nothing to back it up except for its military ties with Washington and the Alliance.
That Canada has advanced to the front rank of Western nations confronting and challenging a disproportionately stronger Russia in the Arctic strongly suggests that it has been put up to the task. Being a smaller and weaker nation allows it to be cast in the role of a sympathetic victim of "Russian aggression," much like Estonia two years ago with alleged cyber attacks and Georgia last year after its invasion of South Ossetia. Leading Western elected officials were champing at the bit to activate NATO's Article 5 in the last two cases (even though Georgia is not yet a full member of the bloc), and Canada could provide a casus belli impossible to resist.
In line with that scenario, the Canadian foreign affairs minister, the self-styled Lawrence of the Arctic, was back on the warpath on November 23, warning "the world...that this country will respond 'firmly' when other nations 'push the envelope' with military exercises or other provocative actions anywhere along Canada's northern frontier." [17]
He was not, of course, referring to the United States or Great Britain or Denmark, who as NATO allies are allowed to parade their military presence off Canada's coast as they choose to do. He singled out Russia.
Cannon spoke three days after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia. "The future of NATO and international claims on untapped Arctic oil [also] dominated discussions, largely behind closed doors, between Gates and top officials from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Germany, India, New Zealand, and the Netherlands.
"Gates announced...that Washington planned to boost cooperation with Canada in the Arctic, as Russia and others eye its vast energy and mineral resources." [18]
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
