Tweet
WASHINGTON - Prime Minister Stephen Harper "blew off" complaints from President George W. Bush about Canada's opposition to natural gas tankers passing through Canadian waters to get to New England, a U.S. coast guard captain told a briefing this week.
Capt. Charles Michel said the issue is a good example of why the United States needs to endorse the international treaty on the Law of the Sea. "Without being a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, we cannot avail ourselves of the dispute-resolution provisions," he said.
"This is a slam dunk. We would win."
"There's absolutely no question about it," said Michel, the coast guard's chief of the office of maritime and international law.
"My understanding is President Bush has personally communicated with the prime minister, who blew off (Bush) and said no, because he's playing to his local political constituency."
And the United States is not about to use force with Canada over the issue, he said.
"Right now, U.S. citizens are likely going to end up paying more for their natural gas and probably have less of it because of our inability to become a party to the (treaty). I don't know how much closer to home that can hit."
Harper and several other Canadian ministers have said it would be dangerous to allow liquefied natural gas tankers to travel through Head Harbour Passage leading into U.S. ports in northern Maine.
It's part of Passamaquoddy Bay in southern New Brunswick that straddles the U.S. border, near Campobello Island where former U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a retreat.
The bay is also home to rich fishing grounds.
The issue, which originally surfaced in the 1970s, is prominent again with new plans to build new LNG terminals in northern Maine.
New Brunswick MP Greg Thompson calls the passage, with its high tides and rocky ledges, one of the most treacherous in Canada and says a gas spil would be devastating.
Thompson, who is Veterans Affairs minister, said Bush raised the issue with Harper at the August summit in Montebello, Que.
And while he wasn't there for the conversation, he said Harper gave a "polite" synopsis of Canada's position and its intent to use "every legal and diplomatic means" to ensure the tankers don't pass through the passage.
"We regard them as internal Canadian waters," he said from Ottawa.
Ambassador Michael Wilson wrote to the head of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February to say risks to the sensitive area from U.S. tankers are too great for Canada to accept.
U.S. officials have been lobbying the Senate to quickly endorse the Law of the Sea treaty for reasons including national security and access to untapped Arctic energy resources.
The upper house is expected to vote on the convention and it must pass with the support of two-third of senators.
The United States helped devise the treaty, which came into effect in 1994 and has been ratified by 155 countries including Canada.
But the United States never signed because of concerns it would be giving up sovereignty or losing rights.
Not joining is hurting the country in several ways, said U.S. navy Capt. Patrick Neher.
"It denies us the opportunity to submit a claim for our own extended continental shelf off Alaska and elsewhere" covering vast energy resources, he said.
Passing the treaty would also give the United States tools to claim an area of the Beaufort Sea that Canada considers its own.
Canada insists the international border continues through the ocean in a straight line from the land along the border between Alaska and the Yukon.
The United States argues the border angles 30 degrees to the east, an area with high energy potential.
Global warming is reducing ice cover in the Arctic, creating the prospect that a shipping route could open up within a decade, so there's more impetus for northern countries to stake their claims.
Capt. Charles Michel said the issue is a good example of why the United States needs to endorse the international treaty on the Law of the Sea. "Without being a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, we cannot avail ourselves of the dispute-resolution provisions," he said.
"This is a slam dunk. We would win."
"There's absolutely no question about it," said Michel, the coast guard's chief of the office of maritime and international law.
"My understanding is President Bush has personally communicated with the prime minister, who blew off (Bush) and said no, because he's playing to his local political constituency."
And the United States is not about to use force with Canada over the issue, he said.
"Right now, U.S. citizens are likely going to end up paying more for their natural gas and probably have less of it because of our inability to become a party to the (treaty). I don't know how much closer to home that can hit."
Harper and several other Canadian ministers have said it would be dangerous to allow liquefied natural gas tankers to travel through Head Harbour Passage leading into U.S. ports in northern Maine.
It's part of Passamaquoddy Bay in southern New Brunswick that straddles the U.S. border, near Campobello Island where former U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a retreat.
The bay is also home to rich fishing grounds.
The issue, which originally surfaced in the 1970s, is prominent again with new plans to build new LNG terminals in northern Maine.
New Brunswick MP Greg Thompson calls the passage, with its high tides and rocky ledges, one of the most treacherous in Canada and says a gas spil would be devastating.
Thompson, who is Veterans Affairs minister, said Bush raised the issue with Harper at the August summit in Montebello, Que.
And while he wasn't there for the conversation, he said Harper gave a "polite" synopsis of Canada's position and its intent to use "every legal and diplomatic means" to ensure the tankers don't pass through the passage.
"We regard them as internal Canadian waters," he said from Ottawa.
Ambassador Michael Wilson wrote to the head of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February to say risks to the sensitive area from U.S. tankers are too great for Canada to accept.
U.S. officials have been lobbying the Senate to quickly endorse the Law of the Sea treaty for reasons including national security and access to untapped Arctic energy resources.
The upper house is expected to vote on the convention and it must pass with the support of two-third of senators.
The United States helped devise the treaty, which came into effect in 1994 and has been ratified by 155 countries including Canada.
But the United States never signed because of concerns it would be giving up sovereignty or losing rights.
Not joining is hurting the country in several ways, said U.S. navy Capt. Patrick Neher.
"It denies us the opportunity to submit a claim for our own extended continental shelf off Alaska and elsewhere" covering vast energy resources, he said.
Passing the treaty would also give the United States tools to claim an area of the Beaufort Sea that Canada considers its own.
Canada insists the international border continues through the ocean in a straight line from the land along the border between Alaska and the Yukon.
The United States argues the border angles 30 degrees to the east, an area with high energy potential.
Global warming is reducing ice cover in the Arctic, creating the prospect that a shipping route could open up within a decade, so there's more impetus for northern countries to stake their claims.
Comment