When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don't always think alike - and that's precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it's important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1. RCInet.ca's online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. RCInet.ca reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3. RCInet.ca's online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in seven languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden.
  10. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  11. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  12. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  13. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  14. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International forums is prohibited.
  15. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  16. Radio Canada International reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  17. Radio Canada International reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  18. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  19. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.
Home  Blog  Heather Exner-Pirot  
Heather Exner-Pirot

Harper: #1 Priority in Northern Sovereignty is Protection of Sovereignty in our North

Print Sunday, 22 August 2010 12:37 Written by Heather Exner-Pirot



Heather Exner-Pirot
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Cannon_Arctic_Policy2
Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon, makes an announcement on Canada's Arctic foreign policy on Friday, August 20, 2010, in Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick Doyle
Drum roll, please: Canada announces another Arctic foreign policy statement - without actually announcing much in the way of new policy.  Stephen Harper used his best doublespeak when commenting on the new Statement on Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy to reporters last Friday:

“[O]ur No. 1 and, quite frankly, non-negotiable priority in northern sovereignty… is the protection and the promotion of Canada's sovereignty over what is our North."

I guess in the absence of really convincing reasons to focus so much attention on Arctic sovereignty, Arctic sovereignty becomes its own raison d’etre.

The Statement issued by Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon on August 20th has few surprises, sticking closely to the script outlined in the 2009 Northern Strategy and its four pillars of sovereignty, environment, development and governance.  A handful of things distinguish it from its predecessors:

·      Stephen Harper typically goes full-bore on Arctic sovereignty in his speeches about the North, but the policy statements are generally a bit more muted. This one, on the other hand, makes no bones about the fact that in Canada’s “Arctic foreign policy, the first and most important pillar [emphasis added] towards recognizing the potential of Canada’s Arctic is the exercise of our sovereignty over the Far North.”

Readers of my previous blogs will know that I have developed sovereignty fatigue, and this is a perfect example of why. Mired in the Westphalian era preoccupation with territory and borders, the Harper government is treating sovereignty as an end in itself, when it should be viewed as a means; a means to achieve sustainable development, promote good governance and protect indigenous values and the environment. The Statement itself makes clear that the few “discrete boundary issues” we have in the Arctic are well-managed and unlikely to lead to conflict.

So while we all agree there is no sovereignty crisis, protecting some lines on a map is perpetually prioritized over the health and well-being of the North and its inhabitants, in both attention and funding. The Master serves the servant.

·      The Statement alludes to the negotiations, and hopefully eventual resolution, of our boundary disputes with the United States over a wedge of territory in the Beaufort Sea between Yukon and Alaska, and with Denmark over tiny, uninhabited and resource-poor Hans Island. There are many fair and equitable possible solutions to these problems, and their resolution would prove a welcome removal of unnecessary irritants in relations with our closest neighbours. If and when they are resolved, I hope the media and Opposition (whoever that may be at the time) applaud the accomplishment, rather than opportunistically decry the loss or forfeit of Canadian territory.

·      The Statement confirms that Canada and the United States are in negotiations, however early, to submit a joint agenda for their upcoming Arctic Council chairmanships. (Canada holds the chair from 2013-2015, the USA from 2015-2017).  This is encouraging.  One of the main institutional challenges faced by the Arctic Council is that its lack of a permanent secretariat (it has rotating two-year chairmanships instead) leads to disjointed and inchoate agendas. Norway, Denmark and Sweden have tried to resolve this dilemma by pursuing a joint agenda and establishing a semi-permanent secretariat during their successive chairmanships from 2006-2013.  It is wise for Canada to try to do the same, as any chance for real reform and progress in Arctic governance depends on buy-in from the United States. It will be interesting to see what goals they decide to jointly pursue.

·      The mark of a bona fide region in international relations is when a group of states starts to develop and act towards common interests, to the exclusion of third parties. This has been a sluggish process in the Arctic. Circumpolar relations begin in earnest at the end of the Cold War, but it has been slow to shed its East vs West (or Russia vs the Rest Of Us) mentality. But for all the chest thumping over the 2007 Russian flag planting and potential disputes over the Lomonosov Ridge, the process of claiming the northern continental shelf seems to have brought the Arctic coastal states together. Because the alternatives here seem to be: 1) each of the five Arctic coastal states annex huge swathes of Arctic seabed, presumably loaded with oil and gas; or 2) all concerned parties from around the world get together to form a treaty and make the Arctic Ocean and its continental shelf the common heritage of all mankind. No gold stars for guessing what the preference of the Arctic 5 is. Indeed, that’s why we now have an ‘Arctic 5’ instead of just an Arctic Council. And that’s why the European Union’s application to join the Arctic Council was rejected by Canada.

This is what the Statement has to say about outsiders:

“Increasingly, the world is turning its attention northward, with many players far removed from the region itself seeking a role and in some cases calling into question the governance of the Arctic. While many of these players could have a contribution to make in the development of the North, Canada does not accept the premise that the Arctic requires a fundamentally new governance structure or legal framework. Nor does Canada accept that the Arctic nation states are unable to appropriately manage the North as it undergoes fundamental change.”

Other than its prioritizing of sovereignty, the new Statement is a good, solid document that at the very least clarifies Canada’s intentions for those who don’t want to read through endless PMO and DFAIT press releases and speeches. But it fails on one further account – an almost complete lack of creativity and innovation. Perhaps in its joint Arctic Council agenda with the United States, Canada can develop some northern governance arrangements that are as forward thinking at an international level as they have been on the domestic side.