According to WRAL.com, "the U.S. Geological Survey estimates has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas" may be lying under or around the Northwest Passage. It's a popular fishing route during the summer, but now, with Global Warming or <insert whatever terminology doesn't upset your ideological preference> the ice is melting and potentially opening the surrounding area for mineral exploration. The U.S. claims Canada doesn't have rights to the passage because it is neutral waters, but Canada has long claimed the passage. Canada also has a running dispute with the Danish.


Canada recently increased military spending and now it wants to build a deep water port at the passage and guard the waterway with "six to eight patrol ships".

Does any country have territory rights to the Northwest Passage?

Can the dispute be settled without force?

I'd be more concerned if they wouldn't contest the water actually. The Canadian government is notorious for just rolling over on land use and trade.

Professor Anthony D'Amato makes a rather dishonest remark,



One of the more widely accepted laws of the sea is transit use. Since passage has just started to open up in a rather inhospitable part of the world, his comments are disengenous because no one could assert effective control of an area landlocked for much of the year.



The bulk of this thread should be focused on the various interpretations of the law of the sea. Be aware that countries that have a continental shelf have a further boundary.

From the CBC


How effective Canada will be on asserting control will depend largely on how well Russia's claim will be taken in the EU. I would expect oceanic measurements to be taken assessing the length and depth of the continental shelf from Canada's waters. If Russia's arguement of accepting the Lomonosov ridge is accepted, we have a leg to stand on. If it falls, we must rely on the transit use theory which includes naval patrols. If we are forced to defend the latter the American view will prevail.

If force becomes an issue you can throw the fortress America idea out the window along with the rest of the SPP. The Americans know if they push the Canadians too far efforts at continental integration will be put at risk.

We do.



Sure we can “discuss” with Canada.

But the point may be mute. We have billions of barrels of oil in ANWR the nutty environmentalists won’t let us touch why do you think this area would be different?

Under theses circumstances who cares who owns it?

If by "we" you mean the USA, I find this to be an extraordinary statement. Let's remember what the geographic situation is.

Link



I'm baffled as to how a case could be made that these are American waters. I will not pretend to any knowledge about maritime law, but it seems clear from a glance at the map that these waters (with the exception of those on the far west which are next to Alaska, some of which might be claimed by Russia also) run next to, and in some cases, through Canada.

Link

Apply the law fairly to determine if these waters are international or Canadian. Develop them appropriately.

Okay Ted- as usual, you are only about half right - I live here, and know the hyperbole on both sides. You are right- enviromentalists are being stupid about complaining that drilling in ANWR will harm ANWR- total fabrication- the foot print is to small, the emisions negligable and, in regards to the envirment- it is all done in the winter- there is zip zero nada wildlife even CLOSE to the drilling rigs. You got a crappy dirt road basically that links the wells if we went full bore on ANWR.

But TED- the "millions of barrels" is pure speculation- literally- we SPECULATE that there are millions of barrels there- an educated guess- but a guess nevertheless.

BUT, the enviromentalists, that are smart- would be very, very correct at talking about the enviroment of the MOVING of oil- the safety record and such of shipping and contamination of the enviroment in, say, valdez is MASSIVE.

This we need to hold the industries feet to the fire better.

I am all for opening of ANWR- but if you think of it as some Panacea of hope and flowing black gold- you are seriously deluded.

It will be really, really good for Alaskans, but to Ted? I dont' think you would see a hiccup of difference in your life in any measurable way- unless you come to work in the AK soon

Your personal fuel prices won't go down, it won't add enough oil to the global market to make a hiccup of difference in total global production.

America gobble up 25% of the worlds TOTAL resources- including oil. That means- for America, basically, we have to produce 25% of the global oil to NOT be completely dependent on foriegn oil.

America, with every resource we have,is in NO WAY going to produce 25% of the worlds oil- TED, this sound about right to you?

It will take 10 years, if we started drilling this winter- to get it up to speed.

Not going to make even a blip on your fuel bill, or anything else Ted.

Now-

as far as the northwest passage goes- America, Russia and Canada have been sending ships through that area for a while- quite frankly- Russia has ocean power advantage there, big time, and, if it comes to who can patrol these waters right now to say " we own this" when it comes open through global warming- so I am not sure if the US wants this definition to be exerted

Those Russian nuke icebreakers are cool!

Ted, I'm curious by what standard you determined that the U.S. has a claim to the Northwest passage. Simplifying the for just a moment; there are generally two ways for a country to stake a claim to ocean territory; either by it's proximity to sovereign incorporated land of that country, or through unchallenged navigation of that territory. Since the U.S. is not the only nation to navigate the Northwest Passage (Russia and Canada have done it, as well as private boats under different flags), and the U.S. has no land-proximity claim to it, what is your justification beyond some hubristic extension of Manifest Destiny?

Well, we do have SOME proximity to it- being in Alaska and all - if we take the 200mile limit, straight up the international date line to the pole, and straight up from the eastern border- a significant part of the northwest passage.

However- just look at the globe, and it is pretty much a no-brainer that Canada owns the lions share of the NP.

But they also need to patrol it if they want it.

Well read below. And by the way the company liberals all hate Halliburton – is in the oil exploration business (not an oil company) and could tell us how much oil and gas is there in short order.

U.S. Geological Survey - 1980. In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

U.S. Geological Survey - 1998. The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources. (See Oil in the ANWR? It's Time to Find Out!)

Too bad the idiots will never let us drill in ANWR. The Republican House got some things approved but the Senate would no go along and you cab BET your Dem buddies will deep six any attempt to allow us to get our own oil out of the ground..


http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/alaska-oil-anwar.html

http://www.anwr.org/features/akeval.htm

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/anwr/story/...p-7681370c.html

Does any country have territory rights to the Northwest Passage?

Yeah, looks like Canada pretty much has the whole thing, with the exception of the far Western area around Alaska.

Can the dispute be settled without force?

I hope so. I hope this becomes a moot point down the road. But my hopes have been scrapped more than a few times, so they aren't very high.

So, assuming saber rattling goes on, Canada gets a bunch of credit to build its floating military, maybe gets the nuclear bomb . . . yep, could become a big mess. A huge waste. Typical.

Does any country have territory rights to the Northwest Passage?
No single country has territorial rights to the entire NWP. Its pretty clear though that Canada has the lions share, with the US (Western End) and Denmark (Eastern End) having strong claims to chunks.

Can the dispute be settled without force?
What type of force? If the US "leans on" Canada and bends them to our evil corporatist will, then you can be sure that any Canucks unhappy with the result will say that we "forced" them. If, on the other hand, you mean "without the use of military force", uh, yeah, it will be settled without any bullets flying. We'll save those for dealing with the envirowhackos.

It should be noted that the argument here isn't about who gets to consume the oil, but rather about which government gets to suckle at the teat of Big Oil.

Why not? Does no single country have rights to the Suez canal, how about the Panama Canal?

The 'Northwest Passage' is Canadian, it travels right through Canada, and barring a tiny portion of it near Alaska, no other nation has any 'right' to it whatsoever. Why on earth would they? Denmark's claim is fanciful, based on a tiny, uninhabited rock they claim, and are disputed, and EVEN IF that rock somehow allowed danish territorial sea laws, it would still allow only a fraction of the Northwest passage.

Saying that the Northwest passage is 'useful to many nations' is not an argument, so are the other waterways I mentioned. So is the Nile and the Columbia and the St laurence, do nations have 'rights' to these rivers because they are useful? Canada has LONG had a presence in the North, which has been neglected the last 20 or so years, and is now being rebuilt. But when ships get icelocked or lost up there, it's Canadian Icebreakers that go save them. There is quite simply no argument for the Northwest passage to be anything else than purely Canadian territory.


But EVEN IF you accepted the arguments that it is such a critical waterway that it needs to allow international ships regardless of sovereignty, that is the right of passage, and ONLY passage. The initial post in this thread talks about exploitation of oil and mineral wealth! Are people like Ted seriously contending that the US somehow has the 'right' to go into the middle of Canadian territory, HUNDREDS of miles into Canadian territory, and extract Canadian oil?

How on earth do you justify that?



And the ANWAR oil reserve is entirely irrelevant, This has nothing to do with 'nutty environmentalists' wanting to prevent the US from extracting Oil, this is international law and common sense dictating you don't get to go into another country and extract their mineral resources. ANWAR is in the US, and it's Americans debating the issue of drilling. The Northwest Passage, and the minerals and oil that may or may not be nearby, are deep inside another sovereign country. ANWAR is an utter irrelevancy to the debate.

Interesting comparison. Neither canal is directly comparable to the NWP for a simple reason: both canals are man-made, with both entrance and exit clearly lying within a single country. However, there are also interesting similiarities, namely both are connecting clearly identifiable bodies of water. The problem is, the definition of the Northwest Passage is somewhat hazy, eh? Lets look at the definition provided by Victoria:

Based on that definition, the NWP runs from the Bering Straits in the west to Davis Straits in the east. Given that the eastern shore of the Baffin Bay (entered from the Atlantic Ocean via the Davis Straits) is Greenland, a "tiny, uninhabited rock" , it seems as though Denmark would have a pretty strong claim to that portion of the NWP. Who gets the seabed at the center of Baffin Bay?
Ditto for Americas claim to the Alaskan coastline, also part of the Northwest Passage. Surely you're not going to claim that Kotzebue Sound is Canadian territory? So perhaps we should consider the role of imprecision in this discussion, eh, and set the hackles down?

Only, as I've demonstrated, its not all "in the middle of Canadian territory." If you want to object to anybody else's claims to the seabed between Melville Island and Prince of Wales Island, then I'll back you. If you want to claim the entire seabed west of Victoria Island and north to the Pole, uh, don't think so... Not that it really matters. We've got the Godwhales on our side, so we'll be able to get the oil no matter where its squirreled away.

I'm not sure what the relevance of the aformentioned canals being man-made is. The Suez Canada was man made by Britain and France, yet they do not own it any more. And as for the Northwest passage, both entrance and exit lie clearly within Canadian territory, as shown below.

But for the sake of argument, let us examine other non-man-made examples. One of the most heavily used shipping lanes on earth is around the south-east tip of Florida, the entrance from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico. Does that mean then that China or any other nation is allowed to set up oil rigs any time they want a few dozen meters from American shore? Are any mineral or oil resources there 'international' as well?



I think perhaps you should take a moment and have a look at what the internationally recognised boundaries of Canada are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_Can...litical-geo.png

And let me be clear, when I say internationally recognised, I mean including the US. They dispute a tiny region along the Alaskan North-eastern border, but it is a matter of a dozen kilometers only, irrelevant to the question at hand. Both entry and exit (to say nothing of the lengthy passage itself) lie CLEARLY inside what everyone INCLUDING the US recognises as Canadian territory. The Canadian border with Greenland is well understood at the halfway point in the waterways, the 'tiny uninhabited Ilsnad' I was referring to was not Greenland thank you very much, but Hans island, an uninhabited rock in the Nares straight with no vegitation and measuring about a square km.

So you may not 'think so', but you are wrong. The Northwest Passage is Canadian territory, and any and all mineral or petrochemical resources within or around it are canadian, for the Canadian government to do with as IT chooses.

Don't forget Bikerdad, Vermillion is the authority on all things Canadian!

Seriously, it looks like most of it is in Canadian Waters according to the map. Of course, there's that part above Alaska. I don't know about that few kilometers bit... seems a little understated by the Wikipedia representation, but whatever. That's neither here nor there.

Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northwest_passage.jpg

Maybe we should send in the Alaskan National Guard to take it. How long would that take... a week? Hmmm...

It is just a few kilometers. Canada claims the maritime boundary to be along the 141st meridian out to a distance of 370 km, following the Alaska-Yukon land border. The United States claims the boundary line to be perpendicular to the coast out to a distance of 370 km, following a line of equidistance from the coast. That means there is a small sliver of sea claimed by both nations. That dispute in no way affects the Passage in question, which falls within Canadian waters according even to the United States.



Oh, a little longer than that I think. The entire Alaskan national Guard is less than 2000 men, and a full Company of them is on service in Iraq.

I know... just a little tongue in cheek. Alaska isn't known for it's overwhelming fighting force.

These things being said, I'd venture to state that this bodes well for our dependance on other sources for these resources. Makes you wonder what it'll bring... and frankly I'm glad it's Canada and not some other nation who might make life more difficult (i.e. Venezuela, etc).

Your picture does nothing to indicate where either end of the NWP lies. According to the definition of the Northwest Passage that I've already quoted, the west end of the route is the Bering Straits, the east end is the Davis Strait. Surely you won't argue that the Bering Strait lies "clearly within Canadian territory"? If so, take that up with CruisingRam, I know where I'll put my money.

Vermillion, I half expect you to break out in a rousing rendition of O Canada now, which it least would have the benefit of being honest. Your own linked picture shows the border down Baffin Bay as being "disputed", not exactly the same as "internationally recognized" or "well understood." It may be well understood to Canadians, but the Danes evidently disagree. At least the Canadian gov't, unlike certain of its citizens, isn't denying that a dispute exists. Ditto for the border extension between Alaska and Canada up to the North Pole. "Disputed"

Gee, still no effort to address the meat of what I said, so I'll put it in really, really simple terms for you.

The geographic dimensions of the Northwest Passage are imprecise.

You have offered nothing to indicate that you dispute the definition of the Northwest Passage first given by Victoria, then repeated and expounded by me. Based on that definition, your claim that "The Northwest Passage is Canadian territory, and any and all mineral or petrochemical resources within or around it are canadian, for the Canadian government to do with as IT chooses." reveals you to be at best "geographically challenged", or, given your apparent enthusiasm for militarizing the Arctic, an imperialist of the sort you always rail against.



There is, of course, a third option. You're too lazy to provide a useful working definition of what you're talking about, preferring to get all offended by this purported American grab for sacred Canadian resources. If that's the case, well, its been our pleasure to provide you with another comforting tankard of moral superiority, a favored imibement of Canadians.

I believe one of the first principles of debate is to make sure that we're talking about the same thing. You've given the rest of us little reason to believe that's the case here.

Now you are being pedantic for no reason. The Bering strait is a huge open waterway, a sea-lane in its own right, and is no more 'part' of the Northwest passage than the Red sea is 'part' of the Suez canal. Look at the map I provided, then look at the link/map aevans provided in post #14. Then tell me again how the passage is not entirely in Canadian territory. Please, be specific.



Denying the dispute exists? Are you kidding? I have referred to it and explained the dispute at greath length in every single one of my posts. Drop the invented rhetorical flourishes and stick to truth, if you don't mind. The Danes disagree about Hans island, as I explained in some detail. However Hans Island is not IN the Northwest Passage but far further north. And by the way, you accusing me of excess Flag-waving when speaking about Canada is irrelevant, inaccurate, and oh yes, laughable. Shall we look at pretty much every post you have ever made about YOUR country and see how often nationalist rhetoric overwhelms facts? Again, drop the fanciful flourishes and stick to the ebate, if you can.

And speaking of the debate, what IS your position exactly? Are you saying the Northwest passage is NOT canadian territorial waters? Are you saying the US DOS have the right to drill inside Canada for oil? Do you have a position on the topic, or are you arguing for argument's sake?



Thanks for the 'hooked oh phonics' approach. Though reading back, I think your comment about 'ignoring the meat of people's posts is deeply ironic at best. However I shall reply as best I can, in the same manner.

No, the dimensions are quite precise. Sorry.

Just look at Aevan's link, and see for yourself. Then, if you wish to take a position and actually argue, please lay out exactly where you think the Nortwest passage is NOT in Canadian waters. Please be specific.



Oh, so I have not disputed Victoria's definition? Gee, perhapos thats because I agree with it entirely. YOU apparently do not.



Don't try and draw upon reputable names as if they supported your position, when in fact they do no such thing. Again, long on invented rhetorical flourishes, short on fact.




So you keep asserting. So please do what I asked above: consult the maps provided and tell me exactly what parts of the Northwest passage are NOT inside Canada, please explain to all of us how 'geographically challenged' little me is SO WRONG about how the passage and any underlying minerals lie inside Canada. Please be specific.




A third option indeed. Third option, rather than debating facts or inventing rhetorical flourishes, is personal attacks and childish nationality baiting. Only problem is you refer to that as a 'third' option, when you seem to use it as a 'first' option far too often. (case in point: above)


Lastly, I have never denied international dispute of frontiers, in fact mentioned it every time despite your baffling claim to the opposite, but NONE of those disputes affects the passage itself, entering from the Davis Strait, passing through the Beaufort sea and the Canadian Arctic archapelago, and exiting into the Davis strait. None of that you have been able to dispute, nor the nature and ownership of resources found underneath this straight. And that (as you seem to have forgotten) is what this entire thread is about.

I would appreciate it if you laid off the "tongue in cheeck" reference to Alaskan Guardsmans fighting ability. We have to bury a few of them recently- not a funny joke these days.

And Alaska has over 70k veterans- the highest per capita in the nation.

On top of that- We have more than 2000 troops anyway. Probably active combat troops is what they are counting?

Regardless, we have to bury some this weekend. Not funny.

Also- Canada, though the figure changes from month to month- is already supplying more than any other country our oil.

Depends on the month though, and what type of oil is needed.

Which gets back into Ted's figures about "millions of barrels" of oil. LIke I said- it is all EDUCATED GUESSES- UNTIL the drilling begins- those fields get revised and revised again- some are great, some are bust- it is not near as an exact science as some would have you believe.

There is still a great deal of risk that there is no oil at all.

the right geological formations are there- but there is only one test well in ANWR at this time. And it is not as conclusive as our own state wants folks to believe.

There is hype on both sides- no one is telling the whole truth here.

I would say it is about 70% chance we are sitting on a near prudhoe size find.

But what would that mean for the US?

Not a damned thing.

Alaskans would get rich- that part is very cool to me - but for Ted, Vermillion and others posting here- unless you plan on moving up to the greatland- you don't get a thin dime or see any benefit at all.

About 90% of that oil is going to South Korea and Japan, and will do so like most of the northslope crude- even though they say "it goes to california"- it goes to a hub and then right back out- it is very low quality crude, and South Korean industry is more suited to it than US industry.

You can never look at oil as an "our country vs thier country" it is a global market with no real US relief from opening up a major find in the US- unless the find is Saudi Arabia sized.

I think only the most ideologically imperialistic types would even suggest that the northwest passage is anything but overwhelmingly Canadian- couple small bits are Alaskan- and there is some dispute right on the border between Canada and Alaska- still being bantered about in fact.

I think I understand the source of friction here. Bikerdad, the image provided by Vermillion is of the Northwest Passage, but the red lines just illustrate shipping routes that could make use of it. The passage itself is generally held to begin between between Baffin and Devon Islands on the east, and issues either north of Banks Island, between it and Victoria Island, or south of Victoria Island in the west; from there passing through a narrow channel between ice and land near the Alaska/Canada border. Here is a good map for reference.

While the shipping lanes illustrated in the link being disputed all touch close to land, outside of the area described above they are all in water open year-round and there is no claim to them because they can be navigated without crossing territorial waters, or they cross territory that is settled by previous agreements.

I really do not see how the US could claim any part of the Northwest Passage beyond those few kilometers off of Alaska (hopefully the most oil-rich part ). But this whole debate about who owns the passage, US or Canada, or Russia, or whoever, doesnt play a big role in who gets the oil really. Perhaps Canada will contract the exploration and drilling to an American company and just take a nice cut from it being in their territory. Perhaps a Canada will give us a special deal on the oil and they will drill it/ship it themselves. Who knows? Canada found oil in their territory, good for them.

Does any country have territory rights to the Northwest Passage?

I thnk it would be pretty silly to ask for territorey rights of the section that obviously run right through canada- are we seriuosly thining of annexing Canada or something.

Can the dispute be settled without force?

I am a bit lost here- who is going to be using force? Canadians against Russians? Americans against canadians (boy, would that make us a world pariah or what? ) America against Russia (end of the world scenario there- I have no doubt they would launch nukes at us if we start using force to claim russian territorey)

Right now, due to our foriegn policy silliness of the last 6 years or so- we dont have too much diplomatic stroke.

Does any country have territory rights to the Northwest Passage?

I think Canada obviously has the most right to the area, but not necessarily all of it. This is a pretty good article on the matter.


Can the dispute be settled without force?

I would think so. This will likely be decided in court. The increase in military spending and desire to patrol the passage and guard it with ships is actually a very sound idea, IMO. Do we want this area unpatrolled? It's a security issue. The potential for smuggling and piracy will become an increasing possibility as the waterway opens up. The new boats will help ensure the rule of law (however it is eventually interpreted).

Mrs P- I believe I have some expertise in this area- as I am probably the only person on this board that has actually been to areas mentioned, to some small degree- I have travelled the Northwestern part of Canada and Alaska extensively- and like to see how far north I can go by motorcycle in the summer in the Arctic.

When folks talk about "smuggling" and "need to protect"- really, I think that case is more than a bit overblown- yes, Canada needs to protect soveriegnty by actively patroling- though, to be fair, the only criminal activity will probably be by fishing and poaching fleets.

Who ya gonna smuggle to, and what ya gonna smuggle way up there?

All smuggling up here consist of inter-village smuggling- Alcohol and drugs between villages- but there is nothing really to smuggle that would be cost effective to "go over the top"- except for fishing trawlers and poaching.

But Canada DOES need to assert authority over it- and, judging by the extra activity of thier millitary up north while I was riding a couple weeks back- looks like they are already on it!

I am hearing about alot of proposals to extend the road network farther north as well from the locals.

FYI- I usually do 2-3 "iron butt" rides WAY up north-some friends (I ran out of dough, didn't quite make it ) went up the Taylor hiway this June - and there was LOTS of conversation regarding road building way up in the NT, and across canada, and the challenges regarding global warming and the melting permafrost- a real engineering nightmare for road builders.

That is an interesting point, to be sure, but I wonder about its application. The passage you mention deals with 'coastal' waters, I wonder how it applies to inland waterways, ie waterways that pass directly through the country in question, and are not by strictly international terms, coastal at all?

Think about that law for a second: It would mean that the centres of such large bodies of water as the great lakes, or even great Salk lake or lake Iliamna in Alaska. There are plenty of internal bodies of water which are large enough to place large sections of it as 'international' according to that treaty.


And even if that were not the case, yes there are some sections of the Northwest Passage which by that strict definition could be considered 'international, but to GET to those wider areas you need to pass through narrows which are strictly Canadian.




Again, we need to be clear, this area is NOT unpatrolled. there is a small fleet of Canadian Icebeakers that patrol the northwest passage year in and year out, working as SAR and simply showing the flag. They operate year round and there are always several at sea in the area. The Canadian government has just commissioned the construction of a half dozen more artic aptrol boats and the construction of a permanent deep-water port in the passage, just in case there was any doubt.

You've relinked my link, Mrs. Pigpen. A little more care next time okay?



While I agree the icebreaker patrols establish usage and more importantly a pattern, in the eyes of the largest military spender of the world, icebreakers don't count for much. We need more militerisation in this area if the politicians of the south are ever going to agree to recognize sovereignty Vermillion. There is no getting around it.

UJ,

Thank you for offering a useful working definition of the NWP that appears to justify Vermillion's saber rattling. Too bad he didn't bother to do so himself...

Simple question that will bear on this question: How do Indonesia and the Phillipines (the largest archipeligo (sp?) nations dealing with their >12 mile desires?

That's a toughie. Article 47 of The Law of the Sea states that:



As far as I know the Philippines claims the full 100 mile extension, and this claim is challenged in small areas of the South China Sea, but is otherwise accepted.

Vermillion.

Whilst Hans Island is not geographically a part of the North West Passage, the dispute surrounding the island has been tied up with the dispute surrounding the North West Passage. Wikipedia describes the whole case fairly well as far as I can see and summarizes thus:

Thank you for admitting you were finally wrong, though I note you culdn't even do that without throwing in a few more personal jabs and mockery.

It is a pity you never bothered to read or respond to my previous arguments or explanations, or you might have been able of making such an admission earlier, and just maybe with a bit of class. 'Sabre-rattling'? Please.



The 12 mile question deals with external or coastal waterways. Quite clearly, according to the "International Convention concerning the regime of navigable waterways of international concern" treaty, signed by the United states I might add, such a waterway where both banks of the waterway are owned by one country excersises sovereignty over that waterway. That is, if the Norwest Passage can even be claimed to be such an international waterway, which is highly questionable. According to the 'Law of the Sea' quoted above, that is not even the case, it is simply a waterway inside an archapelago nation. Furthermore the only state that seem to question the internal status of the Northwest passage is the US, nobody else...

What the heck are you talking about BD? UJ pretty much re-posted what Vermillion already had posted- didn't like the source even though he was correct or something?

Dang, no wonder the Canadians have to think about arming the top of thier nation with Nukes or something to keep us from Annexing it?

Face it- we have no real claim to anything but the little sliver over Alaska, admit it and move on, without denigrating a poster over his (obviously correct) posts?