Canada’s icebreaker deal was looking great until Trump started threatening the Arctic

US President Donald Trump’s threats to Greenland and claims of continental hegemony contained in the new US National Security Strategy have awakened Canadians to the threat to their Arctic sovereignty.

But Canada is still helping the Americans develop the same technology that could one day enable them to gain control over all or part of Canada’s Arctic Archipelago.

Canadian collaboration and design is central in the construction of a new fleet of ships, which the US wants to use to strengthen its presence in the areas around the North Pole.

That new fleet will enter service under a new national security strategy that claims the right to demand access to all areas of the Western Hemisphere.

“The DoW (Department of War) will therefore provide the President with credible options to guarantee US military and commercial access to key areas from the Arctic to South America, especially Greenland, the Gulf of Mexico and the Panama Canal.” document. “We will ensure that monroe theory It has been preserved in our times.”

A controversial journey 40 years ago

The current state of play between the US and Canada in the High Arctic is governed by informal agreements made after the last sovereignty dispute in 1985.

That year the US Coast Guard heavy icebreaker USCGC Polar Sea traveled from Greenland to the Chukchi Sea via the Northwest Passage. The US government did not seek permission from Canada, but only notification, noting Canada’s long-rejected claims to the route.

(The distance between Arctic islands often exceeds the standard 12 nautical miles considered a country’s territorial waters. Therefore, Canada’s claim that the channels between islands are “internal waters” is questioned by other countries.)

The voyage caused quite an uproar in Canada, which the US government tried to quell by allowing Canadian observers on board the ship.

Two years after the Polar Sea passage, the US quietly agreed that it would seek Canadian permission for future voyages, without recognizing Canada’s claim. that situation continues even today.

As Brian Mulroney said at the time, “One of the great ironies of the position adopted by the United States is that, if carried out to its logical conclusion, it could lead to much greater freedom of navigation in the Arctic for the Soviet Union.”

That’s because if the US insists that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway, it risks opening it up to the whole world, says Rob Hubert, an expert on Arctic sovereignty and security at the University of Calgary.

“Who in their own mind would think this would be safer from an American perspective?” He said.

Who controls the route?

Those ideas may persuade America to abandon the status quo down the road.

But the same legal realities could push Washington to take a more aggressive stance by seizing land on both sides of the route to assert its “internal waters” claim, says Vincent Rigby, who served as national security and intelligence adviser to the prime minister until 2021 and now teaches at McGill University.

In such a scenario, the US would demand that other countries, including Canada, seek its permission to enter what Canada considers Canadian territorial waters.

“If you have to do this,” said Hubert, “you must capture the entire coastline passing through the north-western passage.”

“You can do that. There’s not much in terms of Canadian resistance there.”

Hubert says that while the U.S.’s exact demands and actions will remain unclear, the pressure is almost certainly coming, and Canada should expect to hear more about Trump’s false claims about Russian and Chinese vessels around Greenland.

He said, “I don’t think there’s any question, given that Trump has made so much mistake in mischaracterizing the problem with Greenland, that he is just going to move on to the Canadian issue and misrepresent that as well.”

ICE agreement

This reality sheds a new light on the ICE (Icebreaker Co-operation Effort) treaty, a 2024 agreement in which Canada, the US and Finland will together build icebreakers, giving the US a far greater ability to reach the High Arctic than currently.

“We intend to enhance our capabilities by using the expertise and know-how of Finland and Canada,” a senior US security official said. told CBC News At a background briefing in Washington in July 2024. “It is a strategic imperative.”

The three-nation ICE agreement includes Davie and Seaspan, both of Canada’s largest shipbuilders. Quebec’s Davy Shipbuilding said it would help NATO deal with adversaries whose shipbuilding efforts are “running on an effective war footing.”

“No country can solve this challenge alone, but reliable allies with common goals and advanced shipbuilding can solve it,” A said. company release.

But in the 18 months since that statement was issued, Washington’s status as a “reliable ally” has been repeatedly questioned.

“It’s a good deal,” says Rigby of the ICE Pact. “Certainly when we initially looked at it before Trump’s return it felt good that we were helping each other build those capabilities as NATO allies. But the way Trump and the U.S. administration are acting now raises the question, is this the right path? Should we be working with the U.S. and potentially helping them build ships that they would use to violate Canadian sovereignty?”

‘Don’t press the panic button now’

Delivery timelines are a factor in that calculation, experts say.

The first delivery of the medium-sized Arctic security cutter is not expected until 2028–29, when the current president’s term is set to end. Larger polar security cutters would not be ready until years later.

Rigby says this will buy Canada some time.

“Don’t panic now, don’t reject this agreement,” he said. “But you have to look at it very, very carefully as we move forward. And if the US becomes more assertive and more aggressive, things like this will have to be reconsidered.”

“I don’t think we’ll be able to get Canada-U.S. relations completely back to normal. But we’re all hopeful that whatever comes, there will be some renewed stability.”

Hubert says the threat to Canadian sovereignty should not focus solely on American icebreaking ability.

“People focus on the icebreakers, but it’s (the Americans’) amphibious ability to go and occupy the four airfields we have (in Yellowknife, Inuvik, NWT, Iqaluit and Goose Bay, NL),” he said.

“Because if they are able to go in and capture four forward operating locations, we have no other way to get there. That gives you strategic command of the area.”

Canada has long talked about strengthening its presence in the Far North and is now paying the price for its failure to live up to that commitment, experts say.

“We’ve been taking leisurely trips into the Arctic for a long time,” Rigby said. “If we say we’re going to get a sub, go ahead, pick a sub. If we’re going to increase our satellite capability, go ahead. That should be the number one military priority.”

need to see

In the meantime, Rigby says, Canada should send its new Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels (AOPS) through the Northwest Passage on a more regular basis to make its presence felt.

Hubert believes the threat exists more to Canada’s Arctic islands than to the route itself.

While Trump himself may have his own motivations, the US defense establishment is genuinely concerned about recent developments in Russian nuclear weapons technology, including stealthy hypersonic missiles and nuclear torpedoes that could target US ports.

The fear that US missile defenses and deterrents are becoming obsolete is the motivation behind Golden Dome.

“It’s really about monitoring hypersonic, stealthy cruise missiles that the Russians might be coming with their bombers or their submarines, trying to go undetected, launching them and hoping that older systems don’t detect them,” Hubert said. “That’s everything.”

It is in Canada’s interest to continue cooperating with the Americans where Canada can safely do so, experts said, as well as building up its own capabilities as quickly as possible.

“It’s a two-track game we’re playing right now,” Rigby said, adding that the positives of the ICE treaty still outweigh the risks.

“I think it’s probably too early to start talking about tearing up the agreement,” he told CBC News. “Let’s continue that work and keep a brief overview.”