I think I'm on Canada's side here, but only because the panama and suez canals are internally managed. This waterway doesnt help out any otherwise landlocked countries.
Joe, Egypt controls the Suez canal. And there is noone telling them they cant. Same goes for the Panama canal which is owned and regulated by Panama. There is also one trough Turky aswell.
The only relevant difference is that the Suez and Panama canals are man-made waterways and probably require maintenance to stay open. The countries that own the canals might have an incentive to just close the canal entirely if they cannot benefit from the shipping passing through. Similarly, the Kiel Canal, which cuts through the bottom of Jutland in Denmark, is not considered international waters.
AGiantPie the costs of that ocean would be fairly expensive too. We would have to provide a lot of rescue vehicles in relatively uninhabited land (aside from a few settlements dotted here and there), which would make maintenance insanely expensive since we would have to ship in workers and resources. For example, if you need a part for repairs you couldn't just stop at a nearby hardware store and buy it. It would have to be brought in from the south. All that money has to come from somewhere. I personally think we should own it & keep it open but just put tariffs on it.
@@fraserhenderson7839 you are a total door knob! Transit charges are made by many countries. US airspace extends out over the Pacific to near Philippines and the US charges for that. Is that more palatable for your delicate snowflake sensibilities!
the problem of the North passage (North-West for Canada)is not solved in terms of solid national borders of adjacent countries. When its done, then - sure: all bordering countries should charge for their part of the passage. But it is obvious, that Russia will have the largest chunk))
This is a tough one. On the one hand international maritime law is international maritime law, but on the other hand I see the Canadians point of view. All of the other declared short cuts are literally that - SHORT cuts - except for maybe the Danube River one mentioned in the video. In the case of NWP you're talking about saying one country has to allow everyone else to travel hundreds or maybe even a thousand miles through it. This is a bit of a unique situation. I side with Canada's claim. If Canada wants to control the passage and limit the type and origin of ships that can pass through, then that should be their choice. If Canada wants to ban ships like an Exxon Valdez that could severely damage the environment, that should be their choice. If they want to ban military vessels, that should be their choice. What if Russia or Chinese air craft carriers want to transit the passage? Then they could effectively launch a surprise attack on Canada from the heart of their own country. Yeah I'm with Canada all the way on this the more that I think about it.
>On the one hand international maritime law is international maritime law, but on the other hand I see the Canadians point of view. Except they're both the same since the Canadian argument is based on international maritime law, given this is literally Canada's territorial waters we're talking about here. Should American land also be "international land" for Canadians to have land access to Mexico? It is precisely international maritime law which gives Canada the sovereignty over its Arctic passage.
Turkish guy living in Canada chiming in. The situation is not at all different from one of the examples given in this video that I am familiar with, the Turkish Straits. They are not man-made shortcuts and they are considered international waters, even though there's literally an inland sea between the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Turkey cannot charge transit fees but provides paid optional maritime pilotage services. However, Turkey can close the Straits to marine traffic during adverse weather or armed conflict. Countries along the coast of the Black Sea have a wider berth when it comes to military ships, but other countries are severely limited in terms of tonnage, armament and duration of passage. The document that gives Turkey these powers and responsibilities is not the Law of the Sea as delineated at UNCLOS (which Turkey is not a party to) but the Montreux Convention of 1936. Canada needs to seek a similar arrangement, as: 1) It is obvious that these are definitely not territorial waters, 2) The passage is surrounded by Canadian territory in its entirety, so Canada's concerns about security are totally justified. Just enough to show how flawed and/or incomplete the UNCLOS is.
@@egemensentin it's completely the opposite of the Turkish Straits situation. The connection between the Black Sea and the subsequent Mediterranean Sea are access points to the ocean for several Black Sea countries, and given international maritime law, Turkey cannot charge any country nor close them off from the ocean access they would require. There are agreements in place to ensure such access. The Canadian situation in the Arctic passage is the opposite. It's more in the ballpark of the Suez canal. No country needs to pass through Canada's territorial waters up there, but if they do they'd be crossing through Canadian territorial waters, and they should do so according to Canadian laws, regulations and permission. Canada is under no obligation to provide free passage across its own waters whatsoever under any current international agreements.
@@jjjiljjjj I, in my boundless laziness, assumed that the Northwest Passage was wider than 24 nautical miles (12 nm territorial waters limit on both sides) in its entirety. If any portion of the passage is narrower than that, Canada can and should do as she pleases. If not, there is little that Canada can do under the current UNCLOS regime, and this (the necessity of a Convention like Montreux that will keep the Passage open *and* address Canada's concerns) was the similarity I was pointing to. Otherwise you're absolutely right - the two situations couldn't be more different.
I wish you would have used spherical maps instead of the flat one you chose. The area around the north pole is so stretched that it totally skews the perspective of how much shorter those routes are.
Jack W Nope. Because in map projections each route gets distorted differently depending on the center of the map. But if he was using a moveable 3d earth model the distortion of each route would be the same so it would not matter to the viewer that tries to compare them.
There’s no way it’s an international waterway, it’s not providing countries ocean access, it’s a shortcut. If this is made an international waterway, then so should the Panama and Suez Canal
I agree with you that the Suez Canal should be international but not necessarily the Panama Canal since there is an inherent cost with operating the locks.
Considering the fact that the Panama and Suez Canal were man made and the ice melting isn't, nether the Panama or Suez Canal should be made international waterways. If there was a cost to building/running the shortcut then I would agree. As it is, when the ice melts Canada can say "oh no you lost a ship, that sucks. To bad you didn't want to pay us to keep cost guard in the area and make sure it's safe." From a purely economic standpoint, it would cost less to pay Canada to keep the water safe for passage then it would to prepare/accompany every single ship that goes through there with security.
i don't know about the panama canal, but the suezkanal is considered an international waterway. even warfaring countries may use it and egypt can't just close it at will. although they operate the administration and operation (which is necessary) they get to keep the fees charged for every passage. it's not only rescue missions. if there is significant traffic you need regulations, officials, workers, maintenance and supplies for support and repairs and upkeep, a whole infrastructure. you can't just have a bunch of captains go in and out as they please, once it becomes a busy shipping route. so the suez canal authority has a annual revenue of some 5 billion $, they operate a whole fleet of all the ships you need, they provide housing for 10-20k employees...some industry, some streets, hospitals, tunnels, shipyards.....and so on. now the story of the suezcanal is actually a precedent case to this here model of a new and highly profitable waterway: the english and the french used to own it, because they built it when they had africa. now in the 50ies nasser said: nope, arabian nationalism, colonial bs, i seize it for the egyptian people. then there was war, which is considered one of the last attempts of europes colonial powers to just do what they want and send some troops. but the un was actually in place after ww2, they sent troops...yadayadayada: it belongs to egypt now. just saying: he is right when he says there might be trouble. and of course the ice melting is man made.
Singapore: Cries having to rent airspace from neighbouring Indonesia? (Because Singapore is tiny & the Indonesian island of Batam is just 20km away, so planes landing/stacking at Singapore's Changi Airport sometimes have to go through Indonesian airspace, depending on wind conditions)
@Joseph Hentschel you should keep you need it cause comments like the one you posted could of only come out of your ass. I'm usually not a rude person and respect others opinions. But for you I made an exception.
@Joseph Hentschel we can also see that not much thought went into your comment. And my response was in direct relation to that lack of reflection on your part. Canada is a sovereign country and this important waterway flows within and around islands in Canadian territory. How do you justify your FUCK CANADA answer. Only am ignorant American can spew garbage like that .
Canada maintains the water way and charges a fee, what you get is coast guard and navel ships patrolling the passage and gives you quick search and rescue response. A port is being build half way across the passage where you can dock and repair your ship. anyone caught dumping garbage or fuel will be banned from using the passage, any accidental leakage will be met with heavy fines. Those new icebreaker patrol ships for the navy along with the new CCG ships will do the job.
I don't think the US has a solid legal claim here, for a reason not really addressed in the video. The Bosporus, for example, is the *only* direct Sea Access for a country like Ukraine or Bulgaria. But that can't be said of the Northwest Passage. There are no countries that need to go through Canadian water to have access to the wider ocean. Consider that the US, China, Vietnam, Russia, Japan etc. would all still have their coastlines. Just because an open Northwest Passage would make it *cheaper* doesn't make it *necessary*. That's quite a loose definition.
Agreed. Without being able to go through the Danish Straits, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Finland would have no access to the open ocean. That isn't the case for the Northwest Passage. A ship can still go from Japan or China or wherever to Europe. It will just take longer.
Generalissimo1991 Well as stated in the video this gives Canada the power to ruin countries economies and to maintain the balance of power this is something that just can’t happen.
Daniel Brownson It’s cheaper to go through the NW passage and as stated in the video if Canada hypothetically allows one East Asian country like Vietnam to ship goods cheaply through that pass and not China that could decimate the Chinese economy as Vietnam now able to charge less because of cheaper shipping can now out compete China and steal the revenue and because Chinese economy is so heavily reliant on trade one upset like that could cause havoc.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket it doesn't mean it is international waters. It means the US does not care. Internal canadian waters are 12 nautical miles from low tide coastline. If a country can find a passage that isn't covered by the internal waters that isn'Mt frozen it is fair game. Otherwise, it's just a redifinition of the laws in place by opportunistic politicians.
Reasons for Canada: 1. Historical: I've had to suffer through 9 years of Canadian history, and what I can tell you is that all the traders and explorers who went on to create settlements in what will be later known as Canada were looking for the NWP. 2. Financial: Who do you think is going to be responsible for maintaining the safety of the NWP? Who do you think is going to have to pay for the infrastructure that will no doubt develop with the passage? Who do you think is going to be stuck cleaning up any spills and messes? If Canada is going to have to maintain the passage it needs to get a financial compensation. 3. Security: No sane country is going to give anyone unrestricted access to a 9000+ km passage that runs straight through their country. Its a f***ing national security risk. To force a country to compromise their national security is an infringement of national sovereignty. 4. No one cared before: Before global warming Canada's claim to its Arctic regions and waters remained uncontested since their founding. The only reason other countries are *now* claiming it as international waters is because it's now in *their* national interest to. 5. I can agree that the NWP and the canals are different cases. However, just like the canals Canada would have to *specifically* develop infrastructure in the north to support the shipping industry. This infrastructure would be significantly more expensive than any of the canals because: A)the passage is 9000+ km long B)the Arctic is very expensive to build in because it lacks infrastructure and manpower and the cold weather and permafrost are an engineering nightmare.
Totally agree man. I think Canada really needs to start realizing that we are going to start having a more major role in the world scene and thus we need to not let other countries walk all over us.
Jingya Sun I mean the Russians are basically the only ones with a significant number of icebreakers. it'll be hard for us to claim we're helping maintain the passage, so it's really pressing to build infrastructure up there to strengthen our claim
Yup. The Dardanelles is an international waterway because its the only way to get out of the Black Sea. The Denmark Straights are because its the only way out of the Baltic Sea. That river is because its the only way to get to the sea. It wasnt mentioned in the video but I imagine Straits of Gibraltar are too, or should be. The Suez and Panama canals are not because you can go around them. By that reasoning you can go around the Northwest Passage too. The only fly in that ointment are the straights of Malacca, which you can also go around but are apparently an international waterway anyway.
Well the only reason why the straits of Malacca is an international waterway is that there's not a single country occupying both sides of the strait. Indonesia controls the Sumatra side, while Malaysia and Singapore controls the eastern (Malay Peninsula) side.
A lot of people got stuck in the ice and died before Amundsen managed to get through. Most of them are still up there :/ Great video, very interesting..!
To my mind, Amundsen was the greatest of the explorers. His great strength was that he was a very careful planner. Toward the end of the Northwest Passage expedition, after literally years of travel, they were approaching their destination when they met a local ship (not attempting the passage, just operating in the area) that was low on supplies, and Amundsen gave them some of the extra from his stores. That is attention to logistics.
I dont see how it can be considered international waters. All examples that were listed were examples of a country being blocked access completely to the oceans and it was the sole path to a location. NW passage is not a sole route to the pacific or Atlantic
"should one country decide who can go from the Atlantic to the Pacific faster" Well, if Panama could do it, and Egypt could do it (charge fees), it only makes sense that Canada can.
The North-West passage is Canadian just as the Panama Canal is Panamanian because it is a shipping shortcut, not a necessary route as the Turkish and Danish straits are necessary. If others don't like it, then they should start working on reversing global warming.
Winston Sullivan The Panama Canal is more American than Panamanian. It was built by Americans and then after about a hundred years of ownership given to the Panamanians. Not really relevant just thought I’d share.
No it's not. There is a thing called 12 mile zone... and only at 1 point there is an island in between the more than 40 mile wide area called NWP. maybe we should just send some danes out there to kick over the canadian flag and leave a bottle of schnapps there...
@lock n load I live in Canada for 34 years now ... and I don't see muslims more than 1 or 2 time a week ... so ... don't panic and don't listen too much mass media ... it's destroying your brain clearly
@lock n load There is less that 3% muslims in Canada ... take a breath ! It's like if you were telling me that sweden will be black because there 3% black people in your conuntry. But I hear you, and it's a fact that we have more muslims here than before, mostly because many speak french and it's what our government in Quebec wants ...
It would make your economics prosper , especially if U can get to Quebec's St-Laurence river much quicker, and greet a handsome Canadian like me , Daria ?
@@WW-pw2mz Raeally? The best you got? Not sure what you're getting at? Well when that happened, the fire didn't come from Canadians. And the people who started the fire would be begging for help 100 years later.
@@TSemasFl Never said Canadians as we were not a country. Should of said non Americans . My point is like it or not we are joined at the hip. But now and then i get tired of the arrogant war mongering US attitude. You make it sound like you and a few boys grab a six pack and a Uber to the border and we will cave in. With 10x the population and how many trillions spent on the war machine the US can throw your weight around pretty easily. But with 85% of our population with in 200 miles of the us border stretched out over 3,000 miles coast to coast I don`t think it would be a cake walk.
“Saguenay: a town so small you probably never heard of it” I live in Saguenay!! And its considered one of the top 5 biggest cities of the province!! Fyi
Not Canadian but I do agree that this passage shouldn't be international, it's inside or almost inside Canada and it's in Canada's rights as a sovereign nation.
thats like hundreds of kilometers apart and other nations have islands in between anyways...the northern waterways used to be ice so it should be treated like land in the first place, plus there are no other countries in the region so i dont see how it shouldnt be canada's
Thanks for answering. I think you meant to say, "currently belongs to", rather than "is currently belong to". That sounds like that old meme from 20 years ago, where the game character's line was translated as "all your base are belong to us", instead of "all your bases are ours".
If the panama canal and other canals have the right to be privatised, Canada should have the same right, they are not denying any other country access to the ocean.
Bit of a difference when you consider the other waterways were excavated in massive infrastructure projects that were funded by governments. Its not like Canada went to the frozen north and put together anything at all, not even a port of call available and Im sure the freight companies are charged for the Naval escort. They just ignored the passage till it was potentially worth a few dollars and then held out their hand.
yet the straits of turkey and Denmark are. Seems you're argument is invalid as canals are man made and need to be maintained by the nation who owns them, so as they are providing a service they should be allowed to get paid. With straits, they are not man made and require no maintenance on part of the owner, so what service is being provided by the owner. Perhaps I can see some reasoning as to why it should stay Canada's, but using that reasoning then the straits of Denmark and Turkey should also be controlled by Denmark and Turkey.
One flaw regarding how money from increased shipping alone can permit development of Canada's arctic, is the fact that it has a tundra climate. Comparing the Canada's arctic to Anchorage, Longyearbyen, and Murmasnk is misleading since those places are moderated by the ocean, and are relatively warm places.
I feel as though Canada should be allowed to tax for usage of those waters so they can cover the cost of the infrastructure to protect and monitor those stretches. They aren't in a current state where they're able to meet what most would consider suitable safety requirements for passage through this section of water and would need to set up stations, transport, utilities & housing for personnel to make this effective and they shouldn't have to foot the bill for it. This would of course also take a very long time. Even if they had a set agreement where for 30-50 years they were allowed to tax for usage of this waterway and then after that would subside back to regular International Waterway rules as per Denmark & Turkey. Or alternatively they could be allowed to tax (with no enforced cap) for x amount of time and then after said period has ended, would have a capped amount they're permitted to tax so they can maintain the infrastructure in those regions without essentially committing extortion. However, if this is the case initially and the Arctic Ocean clears itself of ice within the next 50 years, that route would become almost completely null and void (at least during the summers) which could end up turning into a similar situation that Anchorage had with the upgrade to the airport shortly before the USSR opened the Siberian Passage for flights which turned Anchorage Airport into a ghost town. Tough call either way I guess.
@@mattnorris7124 that's true and if you think about it, setting up infrastructure to make the passage safe would require Canadians to pay huge amounts in taxes to build it all up. If it's considered international waters, one single country shouldn't have to foot the huge bill so others can come through and use what we set up
wingracer 16 The USA owns the panama canal and charges ships and controls what ships can come through so why can't Canada do the same? Both are the in the same category since the NWP would need infrastructure with the amount of ice that would build up and safety regulations.
Three points. 1. The US does not own the Panama Canal anymore, Panama does and has since 1999. 2. Canada does not have to provide any infrastructure at all. They can do absolutely nothing if they wish. That being said, if other countries wish to use it on a regular basis, infrastructure would be wanted and granting Canada control and toll rights through there would be needed to convince Canada to implement those improvements but it is not required. Ships occasionally go through there now despite the lack of infrastructure. 3. This is more towards the other guy. Looking at a map, it looks to me like it is possible to go through the NWP without ever coming within 12 miles of Canadian land except possibly for a couple uninhabited islands near Resolute. So again, should the US control half of the Pacific? Should India control the Indian ocean? Should Argentina control the south Atlantic and Chile the south Pacific? Don't get me wrong, I'm not really opposed to the idea of Canada being granted control and toll rights, just the argument that they should automatically simply because it passes through their land doesn't really fly when we are talking about a VAST sea through uninhabited land, not a tiny little canal or river straight through a densely populated area.
Ever hear of the Straits Of Malacca? They are surrounded on both sides by Malaysia yet are vital to international traffic do to being a chokepoint between the Pacific and Indian oceans as such they are considered an International Strait. And that is an example that DOES not block other countries access to the seas but simply makes it harder to get from one ocean to the other.
USA not really complaining. They are consistent with international access. Did you not just watch the video? Canada has virtually no leg to stand on in the international courts. CCP China building giant ice breakers now. Their oil/gas exploration, fishing fleet vessels etc. will follow. And since Canada has nothing militarily that concerns CCP China, they will have free reign over these waters. Weakness has a price.
@@xavierfortin1101 I believe Canada is going with the new UK design? Should be real good. USA didn't have time to wait since we are building more small aircraft carriers for Marine F-35 detachments and need them as soon as possible. Italy had good boats in the water with lots of extra power generation.
@@calcrappie8507 no you guys built the zumwalt which was an absolute joke. And even the F-35 is a disappointement. But its too late to come back. So they're commiting now.
@@xavierfortin1101 The ONLY customers who aren't clamoring for more F-35's is Canada. Just sold 50 more to UAE a few days ago. Greece, Switzerland, Finland are next. You guys will come around, but you'll be in the back of the line with your hand-me-down CF-18's. Nothing out there even close to what F-35's can do. Selling like hotcakes!
the passage is clearly under Canadian sovernty, as all the other emples listed are the only access to that region. those going through the NW passage have 2 other options, and thus the passage should be Canadian. it's the exact same case as the souez and Panama canals. they are simply shortcuts.
if Canada owns the passage and it's not free and open to all then Turkey and Denmark should own the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits and the danish straits are fully sovereign waterways to Turkey and Denmark and could tax and stop passing ships.
those waterways are essential for otherwise landlocked nations that require sea access. That is the distinction. The NW Passage is not essential for any landlocked nations
I came down here to see if anyone thinks it should be considered international waterways. Thank god everyone is sane and thinks it should be Canadian waters🇨🇦
@@justinbrah627 No you wont. You havent been able to ascend a ship through the Nlrth west passage since the 70s. And when you have, you had to ask Canada for permission. Canada will continue to own the North west passage. U.S. will be denied entry but we will let other countries through. You will come crawling to Canada for entry and we will accept your pleas and charge you the standard fee for using it.
> When you wanna pass through *Canada* so you go through northern *Canada* but claim its not *Canada* because you don't want to pay *Canada* to go through *Canada* > *US: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*
@@justinbrah627 We'll just wait for the United States to pull itself apart with their new Government, the Democrats (Who are socialist and have a majority in the house) .
Ahem, the Canadian north is significantly more inhospitable than the European north due to the Golf stream. Svalbard has a couple thousand inhabitants mostly for research and tourism.
Gusti Firza Afrizal That doesnt make sense.Yes,its called "south china sea" but 90% of what china claims isnt in china's sea waters(200km from coast I believe) and I am pretty sure the northwest passage isnt called "canada north sea" so I dont get you
Gusti Firza Afrizal That doesnt make sense.Yes,its called "south china sea" but 90% of what china claims isnt in china's sea waters(200km from coast I believe) and I am pretty sure the northwest passage isnt called "canada north sea" so I dont get you
if Canada owns the passage and it's not free and open to all, then Turkey and Denmark should own the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits and the danish straits are fully sovereign waterways to Turkey and Denmark and could tax and stop passing ships.
I was a little shocked by the irrelevance of this line! What do you mean, "worth it"? This seems like a long report on the consequences of something that is happening even though some people say it is NOT happening? Oddly the people who say it's not happening look to be the ones hurt most by the new setup, as formerly small players become great because of changing conditions. One of the things I keep waiting for someone to mention is that if there is more and more traffic through the northern passage, more and more atomic icebreakers, portable atomic power plants, shipping in general.... Cities develop and create heat islands the way they do... that all this will throw a few thousands of megawatts of heat an hour into that ice water, and maybe melt it a little MORE, so maybe the more people do in the Arctic the more they CAN do, and Miami (I live in Miami!) slowly sinks. Oh, WELL. Our billionaires will be safe, that's the important thing. Everyone else will just migrate! Maybe the grandchildren of former FLoridians will live in the North, and have distant legends of how people used to wear shorts all the time!
If canada gets this waterway, then turkey and denmark should get the same control of their respective waterways. Those are no less of a security risk or source of potential income. The rules regarding international waterways are already in place and should equally and fairly apply to everyone. That means that while canada in the past was correct an the usefuless of this shortcut and lack of traffic meant it didn't apply, this now or in the near future no longer holds place and the same rules apply to them as to denmark and turkey.
not at all. there is only 1 island there that narrows the whole thing down so the 12 mile zone overlaps from 2 opposing shores... and that's only for about. That is not a must it's a 'possibility', a country can have less than a 12 mile zone. and guess what country did not sign that treaty... yes - it was the US. and since you don't like mr Trump and the whole congress and whoever makes funny laws in the US, your opinion does not matter ;) vote hte right president next time and force him to sign that UN treaty from december 10th 1982.
Foxi! You do realize that does not grant a single country to the ocean right? It’s Canadian waters! So many straights if controlled, could cut off multiple countries from the ocean but, the Suez Canal meanwhile is a shortcut around Africa into the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean and DOES NOT deny any country from the ocean. You also disregarded his opinion just because he “doesn’t like Mr. Trump”. Shame shame shame...
Canada: *Discovers a large amount of oil under the Arctic* USA: Howdy their partner! Y'all still honor the monarchy? Looks like y'all need some freedom!
As I Canadian I strongly support our ownership of the Northwest passage - if UN countries wanted it to be an international waterway they should have thought ahead of time to declare it such, seeing as it is just now showing the ability to allow safe passage though the arctic areas and Northern territories they chose to jump on it, which brings up thoughts of children fighting over toys in a sand box, and shows the inability of other major governments to behave maturely, on top of that, pressuring a country that is renowned for being friendly into publicizing something that could majorly benefit its citizens almost seems like a form of bulling, if they are going to tax passage ways such as the panama canal and the Suez canal, and then complain about taxing on the Northwest passage, it just seems hypocritical, something that should not appear in international politics, we should not allow other nations across the sea - or simply to the south of us to push us around.
Skylights I am sorry, you are saying UN countries had to declare huge piece of ice as international waters 30-40 years ago in case it would start melting?? Ok then, I say Sahara dessert is mine because with climate change it will star raining heavily in 70 years creating new economy.
The Northwest passage is not a canal. The Panama canal, on the other hand, was a massive undertaking and one of the largest engineering projects in history. It also requires maintenance and operators. The Canadians are proposing levying a tax for emergency services that are already provided to them and everyone else all over the world when operating in waters within a certain distance of ones territory. I say fine. Let them charge the fee. Provided that every other country be able to assess the same fee on Canadian vessels operating within a certain distance of ones waters. In other words, fair and equal treatment. I'm American and I think we'll wind up getting more fees in such an arrangement.
It international waters not Canada u bimbos global warming will Harm all of the world u people don't have any right to cash in on other peoples agony If u don't comply we are going to invade ur leftish hellhole for good
Yah, or we Canadians can just let the internationals drown cause they don't want to pay...or we could just sink any ships in the area since they are technically invading the sovereign nation.
As an American I agree with Canada those rivers that are international waters are to help those nations that are land locked, were as that new route is more like a short cut
it's not like we're denying anyone access either. As mentioned in the video, ships usually even get an escort. It seems as though people like to get worked up over every little thing.
Also look at how pissy China gets when the US navy sends a ship or plane through the South China sea, and there are several countries that have territory in the South China sea. The NW passage is through Canada only.
"Ah, for just one time I would take the Northwest Passage To find the hand of Franklin Reaching for the Beaufort Sea Tracing one warm line Through a land so wild and savage And make a Northwest Passage to the sea" --Stan Rogers
You're probably another Liberal who doesn't know the geography of Canada. Don't worry, you can't be as bad as the PM who missed out an entire province in his 150th speech.
I'm American and even I think it's Canada's waters. I mean, it literally goes RIGHT through their country. They have the choice of making the passage international, but refusing to allow trade ships through WOULD prevent an entire new economy from ever forming.
CANADA GAMING - Whenever someone on social media says “I’m (so and so), and even I think...” Here’s a clue: They’re lying‼️ He’s no more American than you are. Keep hating the best got damn country on Earth. 🇺🇸. Suck it CANADA! 🖕🏽
@@saxopio6280 "Best god damn country on Earth" You poor overly patriotic fool. Anyone that genuinely thinks that ANY one country is "the best" across the board, is a complete and utter idiot. It's also so sad that you'd even dare to try and boast the US as "the best" when it's only declined in being such a great nation over the past few decades, not gotten better. Your excessive amount of patriotism blinds you.
This video brought up the fact that allowing ships passage would obligate Canada's resources at great expense, what they did not mention was the environmental cost if an oil tanker or other ship carrying material hazardous to the environment. There is also a big financial burden cleaning it up and it does not fully recover for years or decades and Canada would be the one that would have to live with it. If someone announced they had a right to drive through your back yard on a regular basis and required assistance at your expense when they got in trouble then trashed it, how would you feel?
You mean the 120'000 people whole live up there, which is about 0.3% of canadas population, would have to live with it. Compare that to the Bosphorus, which is MUCH tighter and goes through a city of 14 million people. And is still an international waterway.
Even if it's just 120,000 people Canada will still have the obligation to fix that mess that was made to the environment. If people were to go through the North-Western Passageway, then Canada is also obligated to put up search and rescue and maintain a military presence up there to protect THEIR border since the passage cuts straight through their country. All of this costs shit tons of money to place there and maintain. The infrastructure needed just to get supplies there needed to build outposts and bases to house the military and Search and rescue vehicles would just be too expensive. Also it should not be named an international waterway due to the fact that countries can still go use a different route to get where they want. If Canada decides to block it, why can't other nations just deal with the expensive fuel cost and go use some different route? Let's say if hypothetically it was cheaper to send goods aimed for the US through Philippine waters would the waters within the borders of the Philippines be called international waters then?
120,000 people making barely any money won't be able to clean it, and it isn't just their responsibility, it's the whole country's. Why do people suddenly think it's ok to just declare another nations land as international? Our land, our rules. Take it or leave it.
Look up the legal concept of an easement. Yes, there are places where someone has the right to drive through somebody else's backyard to reach their property. No, there's nothing that obligates Canada to provide any services to an international waterway through its territory. Conversely, Canada cannot stop shipping or impose a tariff on it. For better or worse, international shipping is done at your own risk, and if you ask for help via a mayday call you can expect to be charged full expenses incurred, if anyone bothers to respond at all.
Making the NW passage an international waterway would mean that the Panama Canal and Suez Canal should be too, as they are in the same situations. EDIT SINCE PEOPLE DON'T READ REPLIES BEFORE REPLYING THEMSELVES: Of course I know that the canals are artificial waterways. My point is that the northwest passage is a shortcut just like them, unlike the danish straights for example that are the only way out of the baltic sea. Thus, no one "needs" the Northwest passage, just like no one "needs" the canals, they are just a more convenient route. Thus, Canada should not be forced to give up the NW passage for free.
Melting Arctic sea ice actually contributes very little to global sea level rise due to displacement as its already floating on the water. Antarctic melt on the other hand, is where the big issue is.
this isn't about sea level rise, it's about the Arctic Ocean being ice-free and year-round in a few decades and all that implies. Sure shorter shipping to/from Asia and northern Europe most of all for the benefit of global trade and its profit margins, but do we really want an endless stream of tankers and freighters running across the pole and spills and pollutants screwing up one of the last pristine oceans on the planet (the other being the Southern Ocean)?? And will we see Chinese and Korean fishing fleets strip-mine the Arctic Ocean like they have the Pacific? (btw the transpolar route will be a reality; but forget the Canada route, we'd never agree to it, not a chance, short of an armed conflict to take the region from us by force - and no the US wouldn't protect us, if it was the US seizing the Passage.....)
WESTWARD FROM THE DAVIS STRAIT TIIIS THERE 'TWAS SAID TO LIEEE THE SEA ROUTE TO THEEE ORIENT FOR WHICH SO MANYYY DIED SEEKING GOLD AND GLORY LEAVING WEATHERED, BROOOKEN BONES AND A LONG-FORGOTTEN LONELY CAIRN OF STOOONES!
@@ShaunCheah AHHHHHHHHH FOR JUST ONE TIME, I WOULD TAAAKE THE NORTH WEST PASSAAAAGEEEEEE, AND FIND THE HAND OF FRANK-KE-LIN REACHING FOOOOOOOORRRRRR THE BEAUFORT SEAAAAA!
Jim Taylor I agree with your position of Canada being in the right. However, in the case of Turkey, the Black Sea is actually an access to the world's oceans as stipulated by international law. By contrast, the NW Passage only goes through Canada and is not an access point for other countries that would otherwise be landlocked.
Jim Taylor, Me too & I'm "American"...was born in the land U.S. now owns...but my family was here before the U.S. even existed...use the...Zia symbol as a clue
It wasn't like that always. the US created the Panama canal (and I guess the whole country in a sense) but Carter decided to give it to Panama in the 70s so when it comes to the manmade passage, the power can change easily.
Donal Trump oh its man made alright, we should be going into another ice age right about now and it ain't happening. But of course Canada cannot take all the credit on that one!
Nizte Nitze That is wrong. When the U.S first created it, we signed an agreement to hand it over to the Panamanian government in 1999. Carter did not do anything with Panama
The canal was built by the US as a pernment structure of the US. There was no formal negotiation before 70's in giving the canal away. "With the backing of the United States, Panama seceded from Colombia in 1903, allowing the Panama Canal to be built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers between 1904 and 1914. In 1977 an agreement was signed for the total transfer of the Canal from the United States to Panama by the end of the 20th century, which culminated on 31 December 1999." Carter was the one that made the "hand it over to the Panamanian government in 1999". "On September 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Panama Canal Treaty and Neutrality Treaty promising to give control of the canal to the Panamanians by the year 2000."
4:44 Anchorage Alaska is completely hospitable. It’s winters are more mild than anywhere in the Midwest averaging 25 Fahrenheit or -3 degrees Celsius. It’s summers are 60 Fahrenheit or 15.5 degrees Celsius. An inhospitable city that only survives due to job availability would be Fairbanks Alaska. Fairbanks average winter weather is -15 degrees Fahrenheit or -26 Celsius. It’s significantly colder in Fairbanks than Anchorage. Fairbanks is also 162 road miles closer to the arctic circle than it is to Anchorage.
The only reason Canada needs in its claim for the NWP being an internal waterway is that denying anyone passage through it doesn't restrict any nation's access to any other part of the ocean and any other maritime trade opportunities, therefore it's not an international waterway.
Robert Lewis but no one would want to immigrate into the wide north since there's pretty much nothing. Also the permafrost would basically just destroy the colonies because of global warming
Canada SHOULD own these waters as they aren't cutting any country from any ocean and instead just act as a shortcut; however if all trading shortcuts were international there would be almost no national waters. Further more, Canada controls the archipelago and hence the waters within it.
Granting access to a country to international waters is not the only criteria for making something an International waterway. According to International Maritime Law this should become an International waterway. It's also not just the US that sees it that way. Many European member states as well as the UN's agency International Maritime Organization also see it that way. This is nothing more then a money grab by Canada to control who gets to use something that by any definition should be an International waterway. As for Search and rescue, that's what the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue was created for. Something Canada is already a member of.
Sovereign Canadian land. Canadian islands, Canadian shores, Canadian territory comprising the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Aggression and invasion without seeking permission in sovereign Canadian land should be dealt with by the Canadian military, just as other nations have the right to protect themselves. Canada also has National Parks in the Arctic. Panama, Egypt, and whoever can control their waterways, yet people want to use and abuse Canada for free, burdening their resources in the high arctic region. That's not moral. Treat Canada with some decency. They have Native populations, a Coast Guard, and servicemen and woman to support there. They have a say over their territory. Period. Greedy foreign politicians trying to undermine a country when its suits them to pocket some money at the expense and dignity of another nation and its people. I'm in full support of Canada defending themselves.
So the Northwest Passage opens up. and it can also freeze over. NO doubt sometime in the future, there'll be a video here that shows the LAST commercial ship traversing the NW Passage as the ice returns.
It's ridiculous that the U.S thinks that Canada should allow the north-west passage be an international waterway. It splits Canadian Arctic (this type of thing is only otherwise seen in Denmark which is special because several nations depend on it for sea access) and is severally unfair considering the Panama and Suez are not considered an international waterway. What I haven't seen many others mention is that Canada would definitely have to spend as much if not more money than it takes to build and maintain some small canal. Billions would have to be spent developing search and rescue operations in those regions filled with iceburgs, developing roads to supply these all year operations, through very difficult to build terrain across the Hudson lowlands. Frankly, it's not even a necessary thing, the north-west passage, other nations sea access would not be compromised having to pay a small fee to get their goods to others faster.
+Phillip Moore. So Canada is supposed to export oil from the Arctic regions without tankers... I dont think you realise how many tankers Canada will need filled for their GDP as more Arctic oil exploration begins, and how much of a Canadian caused problem that would be since you're the ones putting the oil on ships and selling it in the first place. Its really easy to just assume victim status and start complaining though. Every ship has enough fuel oil to cause an ecological disaster, Id rather they didn't shipwreck in the Mediterranean or in the habited latitudes. The passage cuts the risk in half and the resources consumed. Everyone would benefit from lower gas prices if demand fell from ships. Before the mini ice age, the passage was open, the Vikings documented it and used to trade all around the globe. Its meant to be sea at this time in the worlds temperature cycle. We created artificial coolness by wintering the world with pollution during the industrial revolution, which, surprise surprise is now clearing with the advent of particulate control, clean coal, and catalytic converters. Were getting on trend with how the world should be had we not decided to burn millions of tonnes of particulates into our atmosphere over the last 200 years.
The NWP cuts directly through our country but should be considered international waters because a lot of ships will use it, but we let the Panama Canal be taxed?!?! BULLSHIT!!! Canada needs the money! Maybe we can put that nice ship tax money towards fixing the shitty roads in Quebec and Newfoundland :)
@@lemao_squash4486 Doesn't matter. Those are not criterion. You going to clean up any spills? Pollution? Rescue ops? Military and coast guard installations? etc etc. Didn't think so.
You had me till the very end.... But na that is Canada's waters and resources. I know Personally that Capt. Joseph E. Bernier, claimed it for the Canadian Gov in 1906.
@ron fryslan But that doesn't remove the fact that we're deciding to either declare Canada responsible for deciding to risk that from damaging their land(Because even if it is international waters the rest of the land and general area around is Canada's) or just let these ships go around, sure if you can ensure ALL ships going aren't to be of any concern, then I'm completely fine with any arguments made with that point, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
@@PAFortin613 Dude im from northern manitoba you dont know the meaning of cold, we once had one of the top 3 coldest temperatures ever recorded on earth.
@@tygonmaster There is a real difference between Canadian tims coffee and american tims coffee. The Canadian stuff is actually good, and sorry, but the american variety just tastes like shit eh. Canada - 1 America - 0
Is that like soul food? No, Russia has built the largest fleet of nuclear icebreakers in the world. I heard to going rate for freeing "scientists" frozen the ice is a million bucks a head
My neighbor had his SUV vandalize and a busted back window; He said to me" I'm glad that there's no more back window, now i can fit my lawn mower without tht glass interfering with the mower's handle!!!
This has so many holes in it. For one, the melting ice caps are a much bigger problem on the wellbeing of the population of the world than better trade routs. Also, just because there are cities at the same lattitude as the northern territories of Canada, doesn't mean they should be the same temperature. Because of the jet stream, northern European countries are much more inhabitable because of the warm air pushing up into the British Isles and Scandinavia.
@@randymarsh5088 I'm also American and I think it's fair for Canada to claim it. The Turkish straits prevents many countries from accessing the ocean, the Canadian ones do not. Silly to generalize huh?
1:43 Roald: Alright crew we're going to head due west for 4,000km at 12 knots, then travel due south for 300km at 2500 knots, the- Crewman: I'm sorry did you say 2500 knots? Roald: Crewman: Everybody on board: Roald: then travel due west for another 4,000km at 12 knots, and we should expect to arrive in 3 years.
South east China sea was given to China after WWII. If you go find a map published by UN, it mark clearly chinese ownership. There are photos that this water is claimed by Chinese Navy after WWII, before it was controlled by Japanese. Before Vietnam and Philippine stole those island, there were temples built by Chinese fisherman and there are photos to prove it. We just claim things that belong to us. Stop making such jokes. By the way, in case you really have a heart, try to persuade Americans and Canadians to give those land back to native American. Native Americans have a much better claims!
Well it could help Canada a lot in terms of industry and commerce, it is not going to turn them into a super power, though regardless of whether they maintain control or give it up, Canada will benefit from this.
It's Canada's waters plain and simple. 1. The Panama Canal and Suez Canal are national waters and there is also the maintenance issue. (If it were to be declared international waters Canada should not under any circumstances provide SAR services. Screw the ships that go through there.) 2. On a philosophical note, I am a globalist, I admit. However, it is a gross violation of a country's sovereign right to regulate waters within their EEZ. The international community cannot simply 'declare' territory to be international. It is unfair and could equate to other nations deciding the fate of weaker countries. Completely immoral and again, unfair.
Of course they can declare territory to be international. That's exactly how it is done. This is no different from the Dardanelles being international waters despite Turkey owning both shores.
the history of the Dardanelles and Bosporus is far more complex as to how it became an international route; the whole British involvement in the Ottoman Empire had to do with trying to close the Straits to the Russian fleet and Russian shipping. The geopolitical history behind the Straits took a lot of wars to resolve....and has little in common with the thousands of miles of empty, environmentally fragile waterway that is the Northwest Passage
Still an interesting twist of irony. Also ironic is how global warming has brought prosperous conditions to formerly uninhabitable or struggling ecosystems. Though of course that's at the cost of many more... still interesting though. The world is not strictly black or white and climate is very much less so.
@Donald Kasper 99% of climatologists disagree with you. Manmade climate change is a fact, no matter how much money the Koch brothers spend on sowing doubt.
Thee will be serious jobs in the north and more people will live there and big bucks will be made and definitely will retire early and all thanks to global warming for the future of the northwest routes, the ones who actually Destroys nature is the enviromentalist themselves.
"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds." ~ 11-2-1922 Washington Post (Associated Press) docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
@Raziel De Melo Yes & given the hindsight I am very glad we were absorbed into a stronger western empire as it guaranteed Croatia's protection against the Ottoman empire allowing us to preserve our culture & religion. Fortunately following the collapse of Austro-Hungarian empire fascism was gaining traction & we were able to clean house on all the Muslims who entered.
