Deep Dive: Dr. Rob Huebert, Arctic Sovereignty and Security

For more information check out ArcticNet and the North America and Arctic Defence Network (NAADSN).

ArcticNet contributes to the development and distribution of the knowledge to inform policy development and adaptation strategies to help Canadians meet the challenges and opportunities created by modernization and climate change in the Arctic.

NAADSN - The North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network is a collaborative network providing timely, relevant, and reliable expert advice on North American and Arctic defence and security topics.

The Aquatic Bisophere Project
The ABP is establishing a conservation Aquarium in the Prairies to help tell the Story of Water.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

David Evans: 0:25

Welcome to today's deep dive episode. Today we're speaking with Dr. Rob Hubert, an associate professor of political science from the University of Calgary. He's a leading Canadian commentator on Arctic security, sovereignty and defense issues, and knows everything there is to know about the Arctic. And what we don't know about the Arctic. I'm so excited to introduce him. And we're going to learn all about Arctic sovereignty, the issues with the melting of the ice in the Northwest Passage, how that's impacting defense, how that's impacting human health, how that's impacting the Canadian economy, and also the potential for more trade and more commerce and more productivity for northern areas of Canada, and how this can affect some of the Northern India wheat and indigenous communities that live up in these areas as well. We talked about the threats from Russia and China in the polar seas. Did you know that China's up there as well, crazy. So let's talk about what happens if there is another military conflict how the Russian invasion in Ukraine has changed the game in the Arctic and what this means for Canada are we prepared militarily All this and more coming right up so get excited to learn a little bit more about Arctic sovereignty defense issues, what melting ice means for Canada and for the world? Barney, G. nippy

Unknown: 1:57

for me to know marry a cheap Chinese way, my wife, Neto

David Evans: 2:20

water we doing? And how can we do better? Your one stop shop for everything water related from discussing water, its use and the organisms that depend on it for all the global issues that you really never knew all had to do with water. I'm your host, David Evans from the aquatic biosphere project. And I just want to ask you something. What are we doing? How can we do better? Welcome to another deep dive interview. Today we're talking with Dr. Rob Hubert from the University of Calgary. Rob, would you mind introducing yourself and telling us a little bit about what you do and your background?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 3:12

Sure. My name is Rob Hubert. I'm with the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary. My major field of study is within international relations. But within that, I study Arctic security, Arctic sovereignty and and when I say security, let me be clear, I'm talking about security. And its most extended of definitions. That means I do look at hard military issues as pertain as we're seeing right now, what's happening between the relationship between Canada, Russia and the other Arctic nations. And so that obviously, is uppermost in my in my mind, but I also look at environmental security, human security, all these other issues that clearly affect the Arctic. The Arctic, of course, is most people will be aware is in fact, an ocean. from an international perspective, we have a very large landmass, of course, that is covered by snow and ice for much of the year. But the international Arctic is that of a frozen, and well not so frozen anymore. that unifies and separates us. And so therefore, anything dealing with the maritime ocean side is of direct and Porsches regardless if you're looking at the potential of nuclear war, and that, of course, is talking about submarine delivered systems. Or if you're talking about the impacts of climate change on communities, if you're talking about any form of security in the Arctic, you have to focus on water, frozen, liquid snow in many different formats.

David Evans: 4:52

For Perfect, that's what we're here to talk about. You kind of mentioned that you're focused on defense, security and sovereignty, and you focus on the Arctic. So I guess why is the Arctic so important? And why should someone in southern Canada in Ontario or in Alberta here, why why should we be so concerned about the Arctic or should we be concerned?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 5:12

We should be absolutely concerned about the Arctic, the Arctic for Canada is going to be the geographical center are of two existential threats to Canadian Security. And by existential I mean, the possibility of extreme violence be falling upon Canadian citizens. The first one, of course, is the one that, that your listeners were probably more aware of the nasty impacts of climate change. We know that climate change is occurring at a rate roughly three to four times as severe in the Arctic as it is elsewhere. So the Arctic is first and foremost a canary in the in the mineshaft in terms of warning and giving us a prediction in terms of where we are headed. But the other factor is, of course, is that the Arctic is ultimately interconnected with almost every other type of biological climatic system within the international system. What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic, and will be spilling literally into the entire international system. And so therefore, there is a driving need to understand the processes of which that is occurring, the second existential threat and it has been made very clear with the actions of old Amir Putin with his resumption of the 2014 war against Ukraine. And that is, of course, as he's reminded us that the Russians are a existential threat to Canada. Make no mistake about it when he is threatening to utilize nuclear weapons against the West. And he has made several statements to that extent. We need to take him very serious on that. Now, what does that have to do with the Arctic? Well, the Russians are truly an Arctic nation. I mean, Canada pretends about being an Arctic nation, but in terms of effort and political focus, it's in our national anthem, we'd like to think of ourselves but we do that little the Russians, the entire protection of the Russian geopolitical and geo economic capabilities is Arctic based. And as the relationship with the Russians have deteriorated since 2008, when they first began fighting against possible NATO expansions. And that's the Georgian war, not the Ukrainian war. Ever since that point in time, it has been clear that Russia in fact, is a danger to all Western countries, but in particular, because of our geography, are a threat to the to Canada. Now, once again, that threat comes in two formats, it comes in an aerospace that is the one that more people are familiar, it does not come in land base. Let's be very clear on that. We're not talking about a Russian invasion, a lot of people throw that up as a red herring, and it's a total red herring to see aerospace capability that the Russians are the poses a threat. The second component of that that poses a threat is the maritime dimension. Everybody always pretends to, to say that the Russians lost all their submarine capabilities at the end of the Cold War. And that's partly true. I mean, they lost a lot of their capabilities. But through assistance provided by us by the Americans, the Norwegians and the British. They've been very successful in rebuilding a lot of their undersea capability, in particular, a new types of threats such as autonomous underwater vehicles, when once known as Poseidon, they also have a very good capability being able to cut under ocean cables. And they demonstrated that in fact, before they resumed the war in Ukraine back in the early parts of February of this year, and so taken in its hole, if you want to talk about where two of the most dangerous threats facing Canadian Security are coming from, you have to understand the Arctic and you have to understand the Maritime and Ocean component of it.

David Evans: 9:07

Absolutely, yeah, it it's interesting that this now with the Ukrainian conflict that that's really brought in more of this this there's more to the forefront of most Canadians minds, I think, rather than the Georgian war and and in the Crimea incursion before

Dr. Rob Huebert: 9:26

Asian invasion, let's let's, we gotta be careful in terms of accepting the Russian narrative. There is a tendency of Western governments to recite call it an incursion to call it a annexation. And part of the problem of using that terminology is Ukrainians died, territory was seized by military force. It was an invasion. It was a war. And we have this tendency, the Trudeau administration was particularly bad for this of calling it just an annexation, which somehow makes it a normatively less important act, which of course is just saying, Okay, well, you know, so what the Russians invaded this territory killed people will call it an annexation and that way we don't have to worry about it. So words do matter in this particular content,

David Evans: 10:14

writing it down invasion only. So I guess my next question is more around in the north. And in the Arctic, there's many different countries that have different areas of their national sovereignty or their national area within the sea. And I have learned that there is something called the Law of the Sea that governs this. Could you just explain a little bit about what is the Law of the Sea?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 10:40

Absolutely. Excellent question, David. Once again, it gets back to this reality that the Arctic the international Arctic is a maritime space. It is an ocean, it is a frozen ocean, but it is nevertheless the ocean. What the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is all about is an effort that develops in the is the result of efforts that develops at the end or early parts of the 1960s ends of the 1950s. When it was realized from an international perspective, it's the international governance of ocean space was limited. There were the traditional three mile nautical territorial seas that gave you some control. But what was started become very apparent when we looked at the the developing internationalized fishing fleets, oil development initiatives, a whole bunch of resources. It was wild west, to be born. And so this initiative develops in the early 1960s. It's led by people such as I but Pardo, even my supervisor, Elizabeth man, Berg, AZ plays a critical role, from the Canadian perspective of coming to the realization that we needed to come up with an international means of governing what happens in the high seas, that led to a series of of negotiations, there was one in 1960, and other one in 1961. They're limited. But then in the early 1970s, when people really start realizing that yes, there is going to not only be a huge demand on the oceans, but people were realizing from a social justice perspective that as the formal colonies of the Western States started to develop their own capabilities, but there was also a need to ensure that they were not left behind in the industrialization of the oceans. And that's what was happening. So we have a series of negotiations from 1973, all the way to 1982. That develops at the time the most comprehensive international treaty and it's a treaty it's called a convention convention treaty, Potato Potato. It's the same thing governing ocean usage. And one of the things that it provides for is how do we actually divide beyond the territorial seas, the territorial seas everybody agreed, okay, that it used to be three nautical miles and it got extended to 12 nautical miles, we really didn't have to spend too much time changing what states had the right within not was understood and but it was codified, what the Law of the Sea negotiations also do as they say, okay, coastal states have certain rights that go beyond the 12 nautical mile. So we have a creation of a whole set of new boundaries that give limited sovereignty to the coastal states. Most people will be aware that under the terms of the convention, everybody gets a 200 nautical ease at its 200 nautical miles. And within your economic exclusive zone, you're allowed to claim sovereign right over the resource development within that you don't get to stop international shipping shipping still discuss to go through so you can see it was a bit of a balancing act, you don't want to interfere with international shipping because that's the backbone of our economic system. But by the same token, you want to ensure that states now have the right to control what happens within those those waters. And so you now have you gave the rights to to control fishing to control any form of oil or gas or any form of resource development, i goes to the coastal state, and the thinking is okay, well Africa's coming independent South America so this is an economic means for them. And once they were able to get control of it, so that was important. There was a third category that was developed and it's it's it was developed or wasn't recognized. To add a potato, the reality is out of the Law of the Sea codified what's known as the extended continental shelf. Now, it's long been known that the continent extends beyond the land boundary, just you know, because of sea levels. Part of what you know, if the waters were a little bit lower. North America, for example, on the east coast would extend further into the Atlantic. And so we have this phenomenon worldwide. And so what the what the convention negotiator said is okay, the continental shelf means that the coastal state doesn't acquire extra control. over the water columns that I've used, that stays high seas, but the soil and subsoil, then actually the sovereign rights over how you develop the resources on that go to the coastal state. And so you have your territorial waters, and you have your ease, add, and then you have your continental shelf. And so what they said is okay, you have to determine scientifically that you have one, you determine it you you give the coordinates to a scientific body that the United Nations sets up, they say, Yes, you do have one. And then you have to negotiate with your neighbors over what the boundaries are. The Arctic is almost one extended continental shelf, there's there's two doughnut holes, so to speak, that are not continental shelf, they're deep sea, and they'll they'll remain International, but almost the rest of the Arctic Ocean. It's a relatively shallow ocean. And it's a shallow ocean because of the extension of the continental shelf. Right now, Denmark, or Greenland, Norway, Canada, Russia are all trying to determine what their continental shelf in the Arctic is. The Americans have a continental shelf. But the problem with the Americans is that they never ratified the Convention, you have to join the convention. Before you can inquire the benefits of the I mean, that standard international law and the Americans have signed on. So the big issue with the Arctic is who gets watch within the continental shelf. And that is what we are scientifically and internationally trying to determine the process is slow, because it takes a lot of effort in an ice covered waters to actually determine the scientific criteria if in fact, you have a continental shelf and where it goes. The other part is the United Nations body that examines these these these claims takes a long time, these submissions are 1000s of pages, very technical. And the commission is only a part time commission. Because of the financial problems UN has faced, they didn't set it up as a permanent or as a full time. So these folks are doing this on weekends and other times. And so you can imagine how long it is taking all countries to submit their continental shelves. Now, Canada, and Russia, Russia was the very first to submit in the Arctic, but it got told it didn't do the science. Right. And so it has been recently submitting its its claims or its submission. and Canada took a little while to submit its its submission. Denmark was a little bit ahead of everybody. We're still waiting for the UN body to give its adjudication did we do our science, right? But then of course, then once to give the green light, okay, your science is all okay, we're supposed to negotiate. Now the reality is, given what's happening in the international sphere, we're not going to see negotiations anytime soon. Now, what I suspect is going to happen is that the Commission recognizes this and probably is just going to put other submissions ahead of the Canadian, Danish and Russian one just because what's the point of rushing through this when in fact, the countries are almost threatening war with each other? And so I'm not anticipating at anytime, anytime for the foreseeable future, that we will of course address that and so that there's two, you know, there's a cup half empty half full perspective, on the one hand, you can turn around, say, Okay, well, that means that this is going to remain in abeyance, we're not going to get to it. Okay, well, that's fine. On the other hand, the fact that we can put off in such a dangerous environment means that that's not going to be something that will be aggravated for the time being. In other words, we have the luxury of doing so. So ultimately, when people talk about the division of the Arctic, what they're talking about is an orderly system that was established by the creation of the Convention on the Law of the seas, it said, Hey, countries, you everybody has, you know, a lot of countries, not everybody has one I should point out, it depends on your geography. But a lot of you have continental shelf. So this is the way that you determine it peacefully, in terms of the divisions between you and your neighbor. And so that has been actually proceeding quite quite as the rules dictate. Nobody has been breaking any of the rules except for the fact that the Americans have not joined the convention. That's problematic. But having said that, is it has been an orderly, legal way. And so there's not a no sometimes people will characterize it as a as a sovereignty issue. At this point of time, it's not because nobody has challenged one side or the other now has changed because as a result of the intensification of the, of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and that's the Danes are thinking that that is going to change it. So that's a possibility. But you know, stay tuned.

David Evans: 20:16

Am I interpreting this correctly, so the continental shelf would extend and beyond the E said, but it would only be for mineral rights or for those, it wouldn't be for the water column. So the fishing rights would be still international waters. It's we're talking more about that mineral rights.

Dr. Rob Huebert: 20:32

And David, that's a critically important point for the Arctic, because there's the realization that the Arctic as it melts and goes back to our initial discussions, is going to be a new area of international fishing, how much how much it's going to transfer. That's still a point of some discussion in terms of whether or not the type of fish talk that would be sustainable in a, in a international fishing, understanding, we'll actually have enough feedstock to be able to come in were the plankton Well, the smaller fish that then support the larger ones that are commercially viable, will they actually move into the North as it melts? And that's an open discussion. Having said all that, there's been the Americans led this initiative of applying what's known as a precautionary principle, which is, hey, it's something looks like it's changing, but we don't know how it's changing. Let's try to figure out what's going on before we do anything stupid. I mean, that's basically what the doctrinaire Yes, well is, you know, let's not open up markets until we understand if markets can be sustained. And so you had the five coastal Arctic states, and that, of course, is United States, Russia, Norway, Denmark, and Canada. So if you look at a map of of the Arctic, those are the five countries that ring around the Arctic Ocean, they're the ones that are going to obviously have fishing issues, interests, as the waters recede. But there are five other international fishing ships, or a nations that also are a play a major role. And that includes the Japanese, South Koreans, China, the EU, and I'm missing one out, and I'm forgetting which one the fifth one is. Anyway, these 10 countries got together and actually agreed under American leadership to negotiate a high sea fishing agreement in the Arctic region, is based on the assumption that as the ice is melting, we need to do science to determine whether or not in fact fishing can occur and at what rate, but also recognizing that it will be international waters. And so this is an interesting effort on the part of the Arctic nations and the fishing nations to try to anticipate the problem. There are critics of this, of course, and many of the critics point to the behavior of China. You know, you're allowing China to have a major say in terms of how fishings are proceeding in the Arctic, while recognizing that they are supporting the ghost fleets. I mean, the the rampid overfishing that's occurring off of South Korea, the Galapagos Islands, all of these locations, we know it's the Chinese that are basically sustaining those very illegal overfishing operations. And so, you know, once again, the Arctic is an interesting testbed on the one hand, do you want do you want the Chinese in, you want to try to contain them and have a, you know, give them a seat at the table and hope that they're better behavior than is brought forward by excluding them. But you're also looking at the Chinese behavior elsewhere in terms of their fishing fleets and going to so you know, which which China will show up in the Arctic? Will it be the restraint are China that wants to be a power of contribution for international governance, or we'll be the China? I mean, just think, you know, the, what they're doing on for Galapagos Islands, and many of these other locations, which is just is just horrific. And so once again, the Arctic is an interesting testbed, because we've never seen any, we've never seen a phishing agreement of this scale are based on the precautionary principle. And so, you know, just sort of interesting when we think about it.

David Evans: 24:24

It's fascinating. Yeah, to be able to recognize that this is a completely new fishing resource that's opening up that we have no idea on how that's going to impact how that's going to change. Regardless, it'll likely have impacts to all the fishing areas throughout the world as these waters change and, and populations move around. And

Dr. Rob Huebert: 24:44

as a biologist, you'll you'll love this. I mean, we are some some have already began to argue that we've already seen the it's not eliminated, but he's definitely been shown the way out of an apex predator in the Arctic. And that, of course, has always been recognized as the polar bear. And there's a discussion now whether or not the ice melting, if the polar bear can can adjust to it. There are some actually let's say that they can't others would say they can't. So that's an ongoing debate whether or not the polar bear how it will, you know, to what degree will it run Need an apex predator. But what is fascinating from a biological perspective is that we are seeing very clear evidence that the killer whales are definitively moving in and taking advantage of less ice. Now this has tremendous ramifications for the bow whale population for the belugas for the NAR Wales. And once again, is this all part of a redistribution of animal power, if you want to use that terminology in that area, I had the privilege one time I was up in Churchill. And we were there I was there, I used to be a member of the Canadian polar commission, and we were there holding a series of meetings. And of course, you know, gotta go out and go see the polar bear. So, you know, that was a highlight, they arrange for that. When we're sitting in the zodiacs looking, you know, off the coastline looking for polar bears. All of a sudden, over the radio, this guy gets this message saying that orcas had been sighted. And so of course, we immediately turned around and tried to head towards Well, as we were coming in the orcas were chasing something and we don't know what their their prey was at that point in time. But so our boats coming this way. And all of a sudden, this part of I think it was about six or seven oak orcas, there was one very big male, and three, four or five, juvenile or female, the smaller dorsals. Day came right at we had this kind of pull over because it was sort of like, a hit the dam Zodiac The male was bigger than Wow, it was sort of like, let's, you know, should we be here, but it was, it was clear. They were in hunting mode. It wasn't just sort of like, you know, you often seen the BC where they're kind of loitering around and they come off, right, this, this was all business, and they were going fast. And so it was fascinating to see that and see that it within the overall Arctic context.

David Evans: 27:14

Yeah, and to take it even one step further, how that changes the traditional foods that many of our indigenous and Inuit groups and nations are relying on and have been traditionally relying on and part of their culture and how that this impact is changing their to food sources and, and cultural identity as well.

Dr. Rob Huebert: 27:36

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

David Evans: 27:38

So I guess, one thing that we were talking about when, when you were mentioning the Law of the Sea and and how this The territory is being split up, potentially along the Continental Shelf, it just was brought back to memory of the kind of competition of who can get their flag on the North Pole. First that I remember was quite highly publicized was was that also to do with, with the continental shelf? Absolutely. But

Dr. Rob Huebert: 28:04

this is this is an analytical viewpoint that's not widely shared. But I also think that the Russians did that to distract us from the reality that they were in fact investing reinvesting very heavily at the time, this is around 2006 2008. In the rebuilding of their our shared military capability. So in other words, you know, it's, it's a typical switch and eight, sort of like, okay, we're going to do this thing and not really do it, because that whole Hullabaloo, just to put it into context, we had a Russian member of the Zuma who's unknown Arctic researcher, so he's a member of of the Russian parliament. He's not a member of the Putin party, but he's a he's an ally of Putin at this time before Putin is real authoritative. Street came through and he went and and basically utilize to rush French mini subs to go and plant a flag at the North Pole. Now what that means from an international legal perspective, it wasn't the state that was planting it, Putin kind of embraced the action saying, see our brave scientists and all the rest. And that's, of course, we're reasons why you can't just put a flag in the, in the in this and claim it. Technically, the Russians were claiming it. But technically, the Russians were letting us know that they were there. And the Russians are doing a very good job of making sure that we were focused on that and we weren't looking at there. They were actually at the same time resuming their long range bomber patrols in the Arctic. And they also had resumed their their nucular missile submarine patrols at the time. And so it was early. Well, if you want to distract people, that's that that was a brilliant way to do it, in my view. And so, you know, many people said, Okay, wait, that's not how you make the claim. The Russians say, well, we never were making the claim that way. But you do use that you do use those scientific efforts to basically take your measurements and to go in so I think to it was a political act to say we're here, by the way, we're not doing we're not breaking any international law. So they were you know, it was a sophisticated, very good public. Yeah, public affairs event. And if the Russians didn't want us to know about it, we wouldn't have known about it. because there's not exactly a lot of media stations up in the upper North Pole.

David Evans: 30:26

That's very true. Yeah, it was a very good public distraction campaign.

Dr. Rob Huebert: 30:30

Yeah, it was. Yeah.

David Evans: 30:33

So we've talked about the ice melting and the current state of diplomatic relations, and how ice melting will affect fish populations and that fishing. Right, but how does the opening of the Northwest Passage does that affect other diplomatic relations in the Arctic as well?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 30:51

Yeah, very much. So. I mean, let's, let's begin with the fact that the Canadian government has always established that the sovereignty over the Northwest Passage as well in hand, that's their their their catchphrase always. We now have the Trudeau Government practicing sovereignty. That's what they said they do, in in terms of their Arctic policy are their alleged Arctic policy that they're released on the day that we went to the polls last year. But, you know, I don't know if that indicates just how little interest at the this government has in the Arctic. But nevertheless. So what does it do for the Northwest Passage? Well, the Canadian claim over the Northwest Passage, and this is another distinction under the Law of the Sea, is that we say that the Northwest Passage is internal waters, we say that it's internal waters, because from a historical perspective, we've always treated it as basically like we would treat Lake Winnebago or any other internal waters. We also sustain that argumentation that the indigenous people, the Inuit in particular, have lived there from time immemorial. The problem that we face is until we had the negotiations and the completion of the United Nations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UNDRIP international law did not recognize indigenous indigenous reality. In other words, we can say that that was important for us as Canadians, and it is important, but from an international perspective, most countries will shrug their shoulders and say, Well, so what, you know, so you've had indigenous people living there, you know, it doesn't make an international legal difference. UNDRIP may, in fact, change that. So with UNDRIP, that may see a much greater international recognition of the fact that indigenous reality does have a standing within international law and changes. No, we'll have to see, the problem that we have with the Northwest Passage is that for it to be a internal waters, you have to have the acceptance of the international community that in fact that is always been treated as internal waters is. So the problem is, is our neighbors to the south don't agree with that. The United States has sent two vessels through the Northwest Passage, one by accident, one by intent, without asking permission. Now, there's all sorts of, you know, explanations. In 1969 1970, when they sent the Manhattan, which was an ice strengthened ice tanker, through they very deliberately did it to to challenge Canadian sovereignty, the sending of the polar sea and icebreaker that went through 1985 was not a challenge, they needed to get the ship from Seattle to to Lee and back. And they couldn't do it by going through the Panama Canal, on the way to truly they sent it through the Panama Canal. But they needed to go through the Northwest Passage. And we did all sorts of sort of somersaults to try to figure out a way in which we could say steal our waters, but the Americans did not go, you know, ultimately, because it sets a precedent elsewhere. Now, up until very recently, it was a candidate US relations that Russians were going to come over. They didn't you know, because of the cold war and a whole bunch of other reasons. But very few countries had the capability of actually coming into the Northwest Passage outside of the Americans. Now, so that meant it tended to be a bilateral issue. After the polar sea, we had a series of negotiations with the Americans where we agreed to disagree. We came up with a with an agreement called the Arctic waters Cooperation Agreement, which basically said that the Americans will ask for our consent, it's not permission, but it's still consent, and we get to pretend it's permission. And we will always give it and then we live happily ever after. And it has worked, actually ever since 1988. We haven't had an issue with the Americans. They have followed it. We've always granted it but it doesn't have standing in international law. So that has always hovered in there. As the ice melts, the shipping nations have been recognizing that and we see statements coming out of the International Maritime Organization. We see it out of individual countries saying you know that you know, the Northwest Passage is an international waterway just like any other water and the only thing that made it different was the ice. And if the ice is dis disappearing, it's not it's not internal waters anymore. Now Canada, of course will argue no, it's always been internal waters. So therefore, it remains internal waters. countries like Singapore Germany, have said elsewhere they've said in the International Maritime market organization sorry, Canada, you can't claim special status over then you don't have sovereignty over that you has to follow international law. Now have have we seen an issue ultimately? You know, push it? No. Is it coming? Absolutely. Our first warning was in 216. When enough ice melted, that a cruise vessel the size of the largest warships during World War Two went through without too much difficulty, there was a little bit of ice that they ran into. Anyway, so one of these very large cruise vessels 63,000 tons. She went through in 2016 and 2017 2017, she ran into a little bit more ice around ballot straight, sort of right in the center of the Northwest Passage, she had an icebreaker with her and was able to Crystal Serenity. That's it. So the Crystal Serenity goes through and illustrates that a pretty big ship can go through. Now the crystal surrender these company did everything by the book, they asked permission, they wanted me to cross their T's asked permission of the communities before they came in. They were the outstanding corporate actor in this regards. There is no sovereignty challenge that they pose, but they showed that the Northwest Passage is changing. Now what happens last year, and this is a more problematic issue that the Canadian government is trying to trying to minimize. But there was this, because of COVID, we close the Northwest Passage to cruise vessels to sailors to basically everybody just said like this COVID is too bad. We don't want anyone going through Canadian or international. And everybody, with one exception, respected that. So we have this, this New Zealand, New Zealand or say saleman it's a it's a, I won't call it a yacht, it's a sailboat is what it is the key we wrote. And he said that Canada doesn't have the right to stop him to come through that as an international straight, and he refused to stop. Now Canada is taking him to court. So one could say while you were still enforcing our sovereignty, but the point of the matter is in the worst pandemic that we've ever experienced. When we say these are internal waters, we didn't stop the guy. We are bringing charges, we are asserting our sovereignty in that capacity. We didn't physically stop him. You know, some say the decision was made that while we didn't want put our Coast Guard crew at risk, it makes us much of a statement to then just basically bring the court case against him, you know, Potato Potato. But the reality is we didn't stop him. And so he went through. And so I think that that is probably a bit of a warning shot, we are going to face this more and more as the ice melts, we're going to have more and more countries saying you know what, we'll follow international law, but you can't give special problems. Where this is going to be a real issue is, of course is that at the same time that we're seeing the ice melt, we are also knowing that there is greater a growing concern amongst the indigenous populations in terms of what increased shipping with me. And so we say within Canada through reconciliation and other means of trying to understand and to to extend the power that the Indigenous peoples have over their their territories. How do we reconcile the fact that if we have someone saying no, we have the international right to go through because it's an international straight? We have indigenous communities saying, You know what, we've got some major hunting or fishing going on. We don't want any ships going through at this point in time. Then mighty interesting to see how the Canadian government responds to that. You know, we'll just basically say, yeah, that's internal waters, we're not going to let you come through. And in physically stopped, when in fact, we weren't willing to stop, you know, spend the effort to stop on a sailboat. So I mean, that's going to be an interesting development as the ice melts, to be perfectly honest.

David Evans: 39:46

Yeah, no, it's fascinating. I understand the indigenous perspective of not wanting increased shipping up there was

Dr. Rob Huebert: 39:54

I mean, for some communities, they they welcomed when the Crystal Serenity came in. They saw that as an economic opportunities at Cambridge Bay. Yeah, they said, This is great. Come on in and respect, you know, respect to our territory. Make sure that you're not overwhelming us. Give us notice. But yeah, we want to showcase our culture. We want to also see if people want to buy some of the various crafts that we're capable some community said no, you know, we just can't handle you. So in that context, one has to be a little careful in terms of over characterizing that there is one voice on this, there's not right. And so, you know, that's a bit of a colonial legacy. When we turn around and say, Okay, we understand that there is one voice that is saying this, that's not the case,

David Evans: 40:40

right now that that's a very good point to bring up. Of course, the last thing I want to do is mischaracterize all of these different indigenous communities and pretend I understand where they're coming from, and how they would react to this opening of the Northwest Passage and how that might affect their community. So you're absolutely correct. I misspoke. And yeah, thank you for correcting me there. Would there also be concern? So the difference between having this as an international waterway versus Canadian sovereign water? Is this also a concern for the allowance of vessels from any nation to be in those waters without any jurisdiction from us? Or is it more of? Yeah, it's just we don't have to give permission, anyone can go there? Or is there a financial incentive to want to be able to provide that

Dr. Rob Huebert: 41:35

role all of the above, and we've just seen this played out in a certain way, that one of the world's largest deposit of iron ore is in Baffin Island. And there have been efforts to develop that's already initiated a bath in mind a Baffin Island mining company, and it has in fact been extracting ironore the ironore is one of the most pure ores that exists relight it. So you know, you get a little piece of it. And you know, you compare the pick it up because it's so pure IRA or, anyway, what has just happened is that there are some members of the community that want to see that expanded. We see, for example, the Deputy Minister of the Government of Nunavut, saying that this would be a good thing for jobs if it's done in a, in an environmentally sensitive way, who is an Inuit. But we've also seen representatives who say, No, this is going to upset the narrow whales, it's going to upset that the hunting, the increased shipping has a detrimental effect. And the review board examining the request of Baffin Island to expand the shipping that is coming out, has just been declined. And so that we're seeing this literally played before our very eyes. In other words, what? What does it mean? Now in this case, this is destination Oh, shipping, in other words, Canada, because the shipping is not claiming a right of transit under an international waterway. But it's you're coming in to do business. I mean, it's Canada has the right to basically say that, sorry, we're not going to let this go forward. You know, the company has the legal systems to go through. But ultimately, the Canadian government has the international right to sign up. And we're not going to allow that to go through. And that seems to be what's what's transpiring there. But it also illustrates part of the coming challenges that are coming in this particular instance, I suspect, that what we're going to be seeing is that the company probably will not be sustainable now. And so we'll see the closing of it now. And so that'll end that particular development. But as we move forward, one of the big fallouts of the current conflict in Ukraine is, of course, the Europeans are moving to cut themselves off from oil and gas that is developed in northern Russia, and then exported to Europe. Now, if they actually do that, they say they're going to do it. One has to take a little bit of grain of salt, you're gonna have to find alternative sources. Well, the Canadian North has tremendous resources in terms of gas, a little bit of oil, but it's natural gas. The kicker is that the federal government without any consultation with the territories are the indigenous organizations unilaterally entered into an agreement with the Americans not to develop their offshore oil and gas, and that was under the Trudeau administration, when he was meeting with Obama. And so Canada has a moratorium on gas development. Now, under the current circumstances will there'll be an appetite to change probably not under the current government. But you know, once again, we see you know, all politics are local. Several of the conservative candidates for leadership have made it very clear that they would be in favor of increased oil and gas but specifically gas production because gas of course is a is a different kettle of fish, particularly on the environmental establish that it does when it spills. I mean, you know, a gas bill just dissipates. You know, that's the reality. You know, oil is the one that is the is the problem, and the government of the Northwest Territories has been in favor of offshore development. The head Dwayne Smith has spoken favorably from the Western New Viet land claim As an organization, so ITK, not so favorable. So once again, we get into this different voice, different understandings of it. But it all comes back to how the resources will ultimately be developed, if they are developed within the context of the Arctic, and it will be a maritime focus in that it particularly in trying to get it

David Evans: 45:39

out. Yeah, no, that's, that's fascinating to see how this is all gonna play out as the sea ice melts, there's so much more opportunity and the landscape is literally changing in front of us, you know, seascape seascape. Yeah. So we talked a little bit about kind of some of the military threats and how Russia's aggression and invasions and and how its stance has kind of changed in regards to our own security. Is Canada prepared to respond? Well, that's

Dr. Rob Huebert: 46:11

easy. No, no, we are very powerful. On the rhetoric. You know, our current government gives very stirring speeches about how we're the true strong north and free. But if we're being honest with ourselves, we haven't really done anything. We have a surveillance system that was last modernized in 1985. Let me ask you this, would you be wanting to use a computer that was built in 1985, let alone defend against Russian hypersonic missiles with that, and we keep talking about doing it. And this is something you know, the liberals are particularly bad at right now. Because they said they were going to change that into 2017. When they released their defense, their defense policy, strong and secure, engaged. But you know, once again, not to be too harsh, only on the liberals, but the Conservatives under Harper had plenty of time that they could have also modernized. No rat did not. We are flying an aircraft that was we we bought in 1982. Are you driving a car that was built in 1982? Do you know anyone who drives a 1982 car? You know?

David Evans: 47:26

Yeah, I do. But I did spend most of the time in the shop to be quite honest.

Dr. Rob Huebert: 47:30

Yeah. So do you want to defend against hypersonics with with it in the shop all the time? So no, our fighter is 1982 vintage, full stop. Let's let's not mince words about it. So we have our radar site. Our radar systems are 1985 Our fighters are 1982. We have got we use the Conservatives did initiate the development of a conciliatory naval vessel, the Arctic offshore patrol vessels route to the Navy is going to get sick. So ultimately the Coast Guard will get to. So that is a that is something that has occurred. Our submarines are not at arised capability. They two were built in the end of the 1980s. seeing a theme here. Yeah, ya know, in terms of our capabilities, we were supposed to, you know, are we're under understaffed. There's an issue in terms of leadership that doesn't seem to be addressed at the most senior levels. And so you go right across the board, and it's are like, Okay, this is where we are. The Norwegians, the Finns, the Danes, the Brits, all made a relatively quick decision to get the f 30 fives, you know, it seemed like it was not that painful for them. All of them have been redeveloping their, their their detection systems, all of them have been doing these very large scale exercises with the Americans, we will send 10 people, you know, were there. But I mean, these exercises like Cold Response in Norway, where it's about a little I think, in total, there's about 40,000 troops. We're just not really there. Every once in a while we will do an exercise, we usually send a frigate or submarine to engage with our NATO allies when they called what's called the operation, dynamic mongoose, and that is learn to learn how to hunt Russian subs again. So we are there. So we can't say that we're at you know that we're absolutely nowhere. But in terms of the the capabilities in that, you know, not looking good. Good retar Ik, you know, both, both jolly can give amazing speeches saying what we will be doing and Trudeau of course, once again will always tell the Ukrainians and everybody we're there with him. But in terms of actual capabilities, there's even questions in terms of you know, whether or not our runways and and hanger system in the north can actually sustain our air capabilities. That's people just don't seem to have an understanding of that. So no, no, I I mean, it's it's, I think Canadians should be outraged. You know, I'm an academic, I'm supposed to be neutral on this. But I mean, just the fact that we are so vulnerable is going to be problematic. And you haven't even asked me about the Chinese when it comes to the security issue.

David Evans: 50:36

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's that's a whole other ballgame right there to where we're at currently globally, in so focused with the Russia invasion into Ukraine, in your opinion, is this the beginning of a world war three?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 50:51

Well, I think what it is it establishes the fact that the Cold War never really ended. You know, there's a lot of people that said 1988, under Gorbachev under under the new new rules, orders, Cold War ended, we were finished with all the old problems that we're facing. I think the Russia is where the Soviet slash Russians were exhausted at the end of the Cold War, I think that they had to capture their breath again. But I don't think it ever ended. I think that the driving interest, the driving competitions, never really went away. The United States was a it was a hedge of mine. So we tended to say, Okay, well, there is no problem. Well, it was because the Americans won. And there were on the American side. And so with the renewal that the Russians had been able to have, I recognize that they rebuilt their strength on the basis of oil and gas, so it is more or less from the Arctic region. And so that's part of it, that then allows him then you get somebody like a Putin coming in, who wants to make Russia great again. And so we're seeing that come forward, again. But the problem is, is is not a bilateral, we have to now factor into China, so that we return to the issue of China in that context. So we now have China entering into the sphere. Now, China claims it is a near Arctic state, and people have different reactions to that. Now are the Chinese in the Arctic? Well, they actually showed up on the Canadian Arctic in 1999. Many Canadians will be surprised to know that all of a sudden, they did tell us that they were coming the message God garbled and transmission. But first time we really had an understanding that they had that capability is when they showed up and talk to Yuck, tuck in Chinese were just wandering around into town. This was the same time that we were having issues in terms of illegal immigration from China. The very first reaction was these were very well furnished refugees. But it wasn't it was it was the zoo loan showing up for the first time. Now the Chinese always say that they want to be a power for you know, they want to be the good guys, they want to cooperate. The problem is, is that we watched China elsewhere, it's clear that they want to be a real, hegemonic, they want to challenge the Americans. And now you turn around and say, Well, what does that have to do with the Arctic? Well, once again, if you want to challenge to become a peer, equal, you got to be able to challenge your competitor anywhere. So if you're Germany, you want to build up a Navy in World War one that matches the Russians because you turn around say, why does the Germans need a fleet of battleships as large as what they build? Well, they built it because they want to challenge the Americans. And so we see the type of challenges that occurred that between the British and the Germans, we see the way that the Soviets built up to challenge the Americans from a maritime perspective. And so what we're starting to see is that the Chinese are going to build off a capability to go into the Arctic, not necessarily to challenge to seize territory, but say the Chinese launch military actions against Taiwan the way that the Russians launched against Ukraine, you want to make sure that you've tied up the American Navy as tightly as you can. And what better way then say you have a submarine all of a sudden pops up? And the Americans go, Whoa, you know, what's the capability? What can you do? So it's, you know, there's that. The other thing, too, is that the Chinese have also already been very active in sending their vessels into the so called doughnut holes, the part of the international Arctic, that is not is not going to be anyone's continental shelf. And we know that they're doing all sorts of studies in terms of anticipatory participation from an economic perspective. So the Chinese will be a player economically for shipping. And for fishing, they've already signaled us to that the security side, is there some who say that, that just ain't gonna happen. Why would it and it's difficult, you know, getting through the Bering Sea is hard. And so their submarines would have to go to that location and that is a that's going to be a limiting factor. On the other hand, if you do get your submarines through, then all of a sudden you've really complicated the situation with both the Russians and the Americans. And so that's, you know, China is the Enigma we Don't know what the long term ramifications are going to be. But we do see that they have to be taken into consideration in moving into the forward of the strategic environment

David Evans: 55:32

is absolutely fascinating, I would never have assumed. But when you explain it to that effect of matching who you're going up against, or sizing them up, you want to be able to keep them on their toes and be able to match them in in any kind of context. And that makes perfect sense. This has been absolutely fascinating. So where could a concerned listener go to learn more about these types of issues? Or if someone is really interested? How would you recommend that they could learn more or get involved in some capacity?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 56:06

Well, there's the challenges, of course, is there's no centralized sort of, you know, a, you know, it's, I can't say good conscience, okay, go to this website. And every, you know, you'll find a whole bunch of good information here. Part of the problem is, Dr. Attic is out of sight, out of mind. And it's until these type of incidences occur, we're not paying attention. I mean, until we started having, you know, I'll give you one example, until we started actually doing the science to back it up. Nobody had a clue that the breast milk of Indigenous women were contaminated 10 to 20 times as badly as Southern women's in what is known as PRPs, persistent organic pollutants. Pol peas are, of course are from fertilizers, pesticides, fire retardants, elements that are essential to the well being of life, but through what's called transboundary pollution, they actually made them boil the residue from all of these PRPs concentrated in the Arctic region through the food supply, and so you don't see it, and you just go holy crap, you know, PRPs are worse in the Arctic than anywhere else? And the answer is yes. And so we tend not to have sort of that focus. The government definitely, you know that. I mean, the government doesn't have a website. I mean, they don't believe in open information anymore. They start under the Harper government continues under the Trudeau. So you can't you know, there's no real good sources there. If you're interested on the scientific research side, Arctic net, is probably the premier site for Canada for understanding what's happening from a scientific perspective. They have DNS automation of the best experts and best minds. So I would say, Arctic net, there's a network that is set up by a colleague of mine, Whitney Locke, and burrow called NatCen, Na, dd, na DASN. That looks at sort of the security side. So that's not a bad site to go to either. But your listeners are limited. Beyond that, to be perfectly honest.

David Evans: 58:14

Yeah, yeah, well, I'll be leaving links in the show notes for those and think about these. And for any listeners who are concerned, take this with you as you go into a next election. And if this is an issue that's concerning, you can also try the political system, reach out to your local representatives, and make sure that the Arctic becomes more of an issue on the table. So I guess my final question for you, Rob, is what led you down this career path and what kind of led to you being where you are today?

Dr. Rob Huebert: 58:44

The article was supposed to be a case study, I was working on my PhD thesis, I was looking at something that would allow me to do a multi level security examination of an issue of importance to Canada, I was interested in international maritime law, I was interested in sea power. I was interested in how Canada applies all this. So it's that nexus of sort of an extended and narrow definition of security had to be something that people had not looked at yet, as a PhD, you want to find something that you're making a contribution to knowledge. And I remember having a drink with my good friend, Aldo Tarkoff, who is a leading international legal expert in Canada now, but he was working on his is his PhD in law. And we're sitting at the law students pub, having a few drinks, and I was bemoaning the fact that it couldn't quite get my thesis topic nailed down, you know, and so after a few beers, he's Maltese in you know, I can't do a Maltese accent, but I just remember going abroad. There's just been this American voyage last year that went through the Northwest Passage. Nobody else has written on it. So you could be wrong, and no one would know that. I mean, that was just humor. Why don't you look at that, and I'm thinking, that sounds good. But of course, there was no information whatsoever on it. And I thought, Well, that's good. I think maybe it's irrelevant. So I took it as a case study. It was her like, Okay, I need to have a decision making model that show As me how in Canada, we've treated hard NERT maritime power, how we've taken international law and how this all merges together for for foreign policy outcomes. And I thought, Okay, well, this was a good case study. And I finished the thesis and then at right after the thesis, then I got an opportunity to be involved with a research network that was being set up to deal with environmental security in the Arctic. And okay, well, this is interesting. So I did that. And then no matter how much I tried to sort of write and go back to sort of just sort of sea power or international law, what people were starting to notice of what I was doing was anytime I did anything on the Arctic, it was like, Oh, well, hey, rock, can you give me a chapter for this volume? Or can you come contribute there? It wasn't there weren't asking me for my navy, or my Law of the Sea stuff. You're asking me for the Arctic stuff. And so inevitably, I just, I surrendered to the inevitability that, you know, this, obviously, is something that, you know, has an appetite and the the reality is, the more I thought about it, the more fascinated I got, I mean, where else can you talk about two existential threats, one environmental one nucular war, in the same breath, and it was a sort of like, wow, how do you, you know, how do you figure that out? How do you because even on the policy side, we joke about our politicians not being able to chew gum and walk at the same time. But how do you as a politician, even if we give credit to them with with a willingness to do so. And so all of us to say is that the Arctic, which poster was supposed to be a short term, fill a gap in, you know, move on, here I am at this stage of my career, and it never ever left.

David Evans: 1:02:01

Wow. It seems that the Arctic found you and then that case

Dr. Rob Huebert: 1:02:06

tends to do that.

David Evans: 1:02:10

Well, thank you so much for speaking with the show. And and speaking with their listeners, I know I've learned a tremendous amount. I've got a lot of thinking to do on on. Yeah, just everything you've mentioned. So thank you so much, and excited to see or nervous to see what happens next in the Arctic, I guess. Oh, yeah.

Dr. Rob Huebert: 1:02:29

Well, I look forward to the next conversation we have David.

David Evans: 1:02:37

Thanks for tuning into today's deep dive episode with Dr. Rob Hubert from the University of Calgary, I feel like I had opened up Pandora's box to a whole other world that I had no idea about, then. So glad I did. Because it provides so many different thoughts to think about and, and avenues to learn about. So I'm so excited to follow up on a lot of these different topics that we've discussed, and to learn more than I hope you do, too. Thanks so much to Dr. Rob, for speaking with me, we had a lot of touching go on when we would actually get the interview set up. So thank you for sticking with me. And going through that whole process. This interview was incredible. And I'm so excited that we get to share it with listeners now. So thank you for making that extra effort. For more information on Dr. Rob, I'll post some of the links to some of his research down in the show notes. Also, there'll be links to Arctic net, as well. There'll be links to the North America and Arctic Defense and Security Network website as well. Very good resources to be able to learn more about these issues that Rob mentioned at the end. I'm the host and producer David Evans. And I just like to thank the rest of the team, specifically Paul Polman, Lee Burton, and the rest of the aquatic biosphere board. Thanks for all of your help. And to learn more about the aquatic biosphere project. And what we're doing right here in Alberta telling the story of water, you can check us out at aquatic biosphere.ca. And we also have launched our new media company, a b n aquatic biosphere network, which you can find at the public place dot online and search for the aquatic biosphere network channel, where we will actually be posting all of the video episodes that we're going to be creating this year. So tune in, they will be out for the next little while, but very excited to start sharing video content as well as our interviews. Next week, we will be releasing our deep dive interview with Dr. Susanne Schmeir from IHE Delft, all about water diplomacy, and how we can use transboundary waters to be able to stop water wars and more shift to water peace, how we know where there's water conflict, how we can address those concerns, and how we can move forward together. Tune in you won't want to miss it. If you have any questions or comments about the show, we'd love to hear them. Email us at conservation at aquatic biosphere.org. Please don't forget to like, share and subscribe. Leave us a review. It really helps us out. Thanks and it's been a splash