Tweet
but now we might
Has this guy not figured out our mindset yet? 5.3 billion dollars isn't that much to spend if it means we get to piss off the Americans. Telling us not to do it just means that this makes the issue a popular opinion slam dunk for Harper. He proposed it as part of the campaign, and now that he's elected he gets to show he's not a Bush lapdog by going through with it over the objections of the Americans. Wilkins also deflates the opposition (most particularly by the Liberals) who went after Harper for his perceived closeness with Bush. They're going to have to be careful opposing this now...
U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan
Last Updated Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:09:54 EST
CBC News
The United States opposes a plan by prime minister-designate Stephen Harper to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic in order to assert Canadian sovereignty, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.
"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," David Wilkins said Wednesday as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.
"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."
During the election campaign, which culminated with Harper's win this week, the Conservatives promised to spend $5.3 billion over five years to defend northern waters against the Americans, Russians and Danes.
"Sovereignty is something, you use it or you lose it," Harper said at the pre-Christmas announcement in Winnipeg.
His plan included the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy icebreaking ships, as well as the eventual construction of a $2-billion deepwater port in Iqaluit and an underwater network of "listening posts."
Harper wouldn't say whether he would order military action if the ships or port detected an unauthorized submarine in Arctic waters.
In an interview, Wilkins said he doesn't think that kind of military buildup is necessary in the Far North.
"We are simply having a disagreement on this," he said. "We have agreed to disagree, and there's no reason ... to say, 'There's a problem that's occurring and we gotta do something about it.'"
Wilkins also said he expects less anti-American sentiment from Harper's new minority government, and added that he called Harper to offer congratulations on his election victory.
Last Updated Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:09:54 EST
CBC News
The United States opposes a plan by prime minister-designate Stephen Harper to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic in order to assert Canadian sovereignty, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.
"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," David Wilkins said Wednesday as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.
"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."
During the election campaign, which culminated with Harper's win this week, the Conservatives promised to spend $5.3 billion over five years to defend northern waters against the Americans, Russians and Danes.
"Sovereignty is something, you use it or you lose it," Harper said at the pre-Christmas announcement in Winnipeg.
His plan included the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy icebreaking ships, as well as the eventual construction of a $2-billion deepwater port in Iqaluit and an underwater network of "listening posts."
Harper wouldn't say whether he would order military action if the ships or port detected an unauthorized submarine in Arctic waters.
In an interview, Wilkins said he doesn't think that kind of military buildup is necessary in the Far North.
"We are simply having a disagreement on this," he said. "We have agreed to disagree, and there's no reason ... to say, 'There's a problem that's occurring and we gotta do something about it.'"
Wilkins also said he expects less anti-American sentiment from Harper's new minority government, and added that he called Harper to offer congratulations on his election victory.
Has this guy not figured out our mindset yet? 5.3 billion dollars isn't that much to spend if it means we get to piss off the Americans. Telling us not to do it just means that this makes the issue a popular opinion slam dunk for Harper. He proposed it as part of the campaign, and now that he's elected he gets to show he's not a Bush lapdog by going through with it over the objections of the Americans. Wilkins also deflates the opposition (most particularly by the Liberals) who went after Harper for his perceived closeness with Bush. They're going to have to be careful opposing this now...
, 1996-Perot 
, 2004-Bush :|, 2008-Obama :|, 2012-Obama 
Comment