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

Send us a text

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.

Episode Transcript

David Evans (00:05):
Welcome to today's deep dive episode. Today we're
speaking with Dr. Rob Hubert, anassociate professor of political
science from the University ofCalgary. He's a leading Canadian
commentator on Arctic security,sovereignty and defense issues,
and knows everything there is toknow about the Arctic. And what
we don't know about the Arctic.
I'm so excited to introduce him.

(00:26):
And we're going to learn allabout Arctic sovereignty, the
issues with the melting of theice in the Northwest Passage,
how that's impacting defense,how that's impacting human
health, how that's impacting theCanadian economy, and also the
potential for more trade andmore commerce and more
productivity for northern areasof Canada, and how this can
affect some of the NorthernIndia wheat and indigenous

(00:48):
communities that live up inthese areas as well. We talked
about the threats from Russiaand China in the polar seas. Did
you know that China's up thereas well, crazy. So let's talk
about what happens if there isanother military conflict how
the Russian invasion in Ukrainehas changed the game in the
Arctic and what this means forCanada are we prepared

(01:11):
militarily All this and morecoming right up so get excited
to learn a little bit more aboutArctic sovereignty defense
issues, what melting ice meansfor Canada and for the world?

(01:32):
Barney, G. nippy

Unknown (01:38):
for me to know marry a cheap Chinese way, my wife, Neto

David Evans (02:00):
water we doing? And how can we do better? Your one
stop shop for everything waterrelated from discussing water,
its use and the organisms thatdepend on it for all the global
issues that you really neverknew all had to do with water.

(02:22):
I'm your host, David Evans fromthe aquatic biosphere project.
And I just want to ask yousomething. What are we doing?
How can we do better?
Welcome to another deep diveinterview. Today we're talking

(02:44):
with Dr. Rob Hubert from theUniversity of Calgary. Rob,
would you mind introducingyourself and telling us a little
bit about what you do and yourbackground?

Dr. Rob Huebert (02:53):
Sure. My name is Rob Hubert. I'm with the
Department of Political Scienceat the University of Calgary. My
major field of study is withininternational relations. But
within that, I study Arcticsecurity, Arctic sovereignty and
and when I say security, let mebe clear, I'm talking about
security. And its most extendedof definitions. That means I do

(03:16):
look at hard military issues aspertain as we're seeing right
now, what's happening betweenthe relationship between Canada,
Russia and the other Arcticnations. And so that obviously,
is uppermost in my in my mind,but I also look at environmental
security, human security, allthese other issues that clearly

(03:37):
affect the Arctic. The Arctic,of course, is most people will
be aware is in fact, an ocean.
from an internationalperspective, we have a very
large landmass, of course, thatis covered by snow and ice for
much of the year. But theinternational Arctic is that of
a frozen, and well not so frozenanymore. that unifies and

(03:57):
separates us. And so therefore,anything dealing with the
maritime ocean side is of directand Porsches regardless if
you're looking at the potentialof nuclear war, and that, of
course, is talking aboutsubmarine delivered systems. Or
if you're talking about theimpacts of climate change on
communities, if you're talkingabout any form of security in

(04:20):
the Arctic, you have to focus onwater, frozen, liquid snow in
many different formats.

David Evans (04:32):
For Perfect, that's what we're here to talk about.
You kind of mentioned thatyou're focused on defense,
security and sovereignty, andyou focus on the Arctic. So I
guess why is the Arctic soimportant? And why should
someone in southern Canada inOntario or in Alberta here, why
why should we be so concernedabout the Arctic or should we be

(04:52):
concerned?

Dr. Rob Huebert (04:53):
We should be absolutely concerned about the
Arctic, the Arctic for Canada isgoing to be the geographical
center are of two existentialthreats to Canadian Security.
And by existential I mean, thepossibility of extreme violence
be falling upon Canadiancitizens. The first one, of
course, is the one that, thatyour listeners were probably

(05:16):
more aware of the nasty impactsof climate change. We know that
climate change is occurring at arate roughly three to four times
as severe in the Arctic as it iselsewhere. So the Arctic is
first and foremost a canary inthe in the mineshaft in terms of
warning and giving us aprediction in terms of where we

(05:36):
are headed. But the other factoris, of course, is that the
Arctic is ultimatelyinterconnected with almost every
other type of biologicalclimatic system within the
international system. Whathappens in the Arctic does not
stay in the Arctic, and will bespilling literally into the
entire international system. Andso therefore, there is a driving

(06:00):
need to understand the processesof which that is occurring, the
second existential threat and ithas been made very clear with
the actions of old Amir Putinwith his resumption of the 2014
war against Ukraine. And thatis, of course, as he's reminded
us that the Russians are aexistential threat to Canada.

(06:24):
Make no mistake about it when heis threatening to utilize
nuclear weapons against theWest. And he has made several
statements to that extent. Weneed to take him very serious on
that. Now, what does that haveto do with the Arctic? Well, the
Russians are truly an Arcticnation. I mean, Canada pretends
about being an Arctic nation,but in terms of effort and

(06:46):
political focus, it's in ournational anthem, we'd like to
think of ourselves but we dothat little the Russians, the
entire protection of the Russiangeopolitical and geo economic
capabilities is Arctic based.
And as the relationship with theRussians have deteriorated since
2008, when they first beganfighting against possible NATO

(07:07):
expansions. And that's theGeorgian war, not the Ukrainian
war. Ever since that point intime, it has been clear that
Russia in fact, is a danger toall Western countries, but in
particular, because of ourgeography, are a threat to the
to Canada. Now, once again, thatthreat comes in two formats, it
comes in an aerospace that isthe one that more people are

(07:28):
familiar, it does not come inland base. Let's be very clear
on that. We're not talking abouta Russian invasion, a lot of
people throw that up as a redherring, and it's a total red
herring to see aerospacecapability that the Russians are
the poses a threat. The secondcomponent of that that poses a
threat is the maritimedimension. Everybody always
pretends to, to say that theRussians lost all their

(07:51):
submarine capabilities at theend of the Cold War. And that's
partly true. I mean, they lost alot of their capabilities. But
through assistance provided byus by the Americans, the
Norwegians and the British.
They've been very successful inrebuilding a lot of their
undersea capability, inparticular, a new types of

(08:14):
threats such as autonomousunderwater vehicles, when once
known as Poseidon, they alsohave a very good capability
being able to cut under oceancables. And they demonstrated
that in fact, before theyresumed the war in Ukraine back
in the early parts of Februaryof this year, and so taken in
its hole, if you want to talkabout where two of the most

(08:37):
dangerous threats facingCanadian Security are coming
from, you have to understand theArctic and you have to
understand the Maritime andOcean component of it.

David Evans (08:48):
Absolutely, yeah, it it's interesting that this
now with the Ukrainian conflictthat that's really brought in
more of this this there's moreto the forefront of most
Canadians minds, I think, ratherthan the Georgian war and and in
the Crimea incursion before

Dr. Rob Huebert (09:07):
Asian invasion, let's let's, we gotta be careful
in terms of accepting theRussian narrative. There is a
tendency of Western governmentsto recite call it an incursion
to call it a annexation. Andpart of the problem of using
that terminology is Ukrainiansdied, territory was seized by
military force. It was aninvasion. It was a war. And we

(09:30):
have this tendency, the Trudeauadministration was particularly
bad for this of calling it justan annexation, which somehow
makes it a normatively lessimportant act, which of course
is just saying, Okay, well, youknow, so what the Russians
invaded this territory killedpeople will call it an
annexation and that way we don'thave to worry about it. So words

(09:53):
do matter in this particularcontent,

David Evans (09:54):
writing it down invasion only. So I guess my
next question is more around inthe north. And in the Arctic,
there's many different countriesthat have different areas of
their national sovereignty ortheir national area within the
sea. And I have learned thatthere is something called the
Law of the Sea that governsthis. Could you just explain a

(10:18):
little bit about what is the Lawof the Sea?

Dr. Rob Huebert (10:20):
Absolutely.
Excellent question, David. Onceagain, it gets back to this
reality that the Arctic theinternational Arctic is a
maritime space. It is an ocean,it is a frozen ocean, but it is
nevertheless the ocean. What theUnited Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea is all about isan effort that develops in the
is the result of efforts thatdevelops at the end or early

(10:44):
parts of the 1960s ends of the1950s. When it was realized from
an international perspective,it's the international
governance of ocean space waslimited. There were the
traditional three mile nauticalterritorial seas that gave you
some control. But what wasstarted become very apparent

(11:05):
when we looked at the thedeveloping internationalized
fishing fleets, oil developmentinitiatives, a whole bunch of
resources. It was wild west, tobe born. And so this initiative
develops in the early 1960s.

(11:25):
It's led by people such as I butPardo, even my supervisor,
Elizabeth man, Berg, AZ plays acritical role, from the Canadian
perspective of coming to therealization that we needed to
come up with an internationalmeans of governing what happens
in the high seas, that led to aseries of of negotiations, there

(11:48):
was one in 1960, and other onein 1961. They're limited. But
then in the early 1970s, whenpeople really start realizing
that yes, there is going to notonly be a huge demand on the
oceans, but people wererealizing from a social justice
perspective that as the formalcolonies of the Western States

(12:09):
started to develop their owncapabilities, but there was also
a need to ensure that they werenot left behind in the
industrialization of the oceans.
And that's what was happening.
So we have a series ofnegotiations from 1973, all the
way to 1982. That develops atthe time the most comprehensive
international treaty and it's atreaty it's called a convention

(12:31):
convention treaty, PotatoPotato. It's the same thing
governing ocean usage. And oneof the things that it provides
for is how do we actually dividebeyond the territorial seas, the
territorial seas everybodyagreed, okay, that it used to be
three nautical miles and it gotextended to 12 nautical miles,

(12:51):
we really didn't have to spendtoo much time changing what
states had the right within notwas understood and but it was
codified, what the Law of theSea negotiations also do as they
say, okay, coastal states havecertain rights that go beyond
the 12 nautical mile. So we havea creation of a whole set of new

(13:12):
boundaries that give limitedsovereignty to the coastal
states. Most people will beaware that under the terms of
the convention, everybody gets a200 nautical ease at its 200
nautical miles. And within youreconomic exclusive zone, you're
allowed to claim sovereign rightover the resource development

(13:33):
within that you don't get tostop international shipping
shipping still discuss to gothrough so you can see it was a
bit of a balancing act, youdon't want to interfere with
international shipping becausethat's the backbone of our
economic system. But by the sametoken, you want to ensure that
states now have the right tocontrol what happens within
those those waters. And so younow have you gave the rights to

(13:56):
to control fishing to controlany form of oil or gas or any
form of resource development, igoes to the coastal state, and
the thinking is okay, wellAfrica's coming independent
South America so this is aneconomic means for them. And
once they were able to getcontrol of it, so that was
important. There was a thirdcategory that was developed and

(14:17):
it's it's it was developed orwasn't recognized. To add a
potato, the reality is out ofthe Law of the Sea codified
what's known as the extendedcontinental shelf. Now, it's
long been known that thecontinent extends beyond the
land boundary, just you know,because of sea levels. Part of
what you know, if the waterswere a little bit lower. North

(14:39):
America, for example, on theeast coast would extend further
into the Atlantic. And so wehave this phenomenon worldwide.
And so what the what theconvention negotiator said is
okay, the continental shelfmeans that the coastal state
doesn't acquire extra control.
over the water columns that I'veused, that stays high seas, but

(15:02):
the soil and subsoil, thenactually the sovereign rights
over how you develop theresources on that go to the
coastal state. And so you haveyour territorial waters, and you
have your ease, add, and thenyou have your continental shelf.
And so what they said is okay,you have to determine

(15:22):
scientifically that you haveone, you determine it you you
give the coordinates to ascientific body that the United
Nations sets up, they say, Yes,you do have one. And then you
have to negotiate with yourneighbors over what the
boundaries are. The Arctic isalmost one extended continental
shelf, there's there's twodoughnut holes, so to speak,

(15:43):
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 relativelyshallow ocean. And it's a
shallow ocean because of theextension of the continental
shelf. Right now, Denmark, orGreenland, Norway, Canada,
Russia are all trying todetermine what their continental

(16:05):
shelf in the Arctic is. TheAmericans have a continental
shelf. But the problem with theAmericans is that they never
ratified the Convention, youhave to join the convention.
Before you can inquire thebenefits of the I mean, that
standard international law andthe Americans have signed on. So
the big issue with the Arctic iswho gets watch within the

(16:26):
continental shelf. And that iswhat we are scientifically and
internationally trying todetermine the process is slow,
because it takes a lot of effortin an ice covered waters to
actually determine thescientific criteria if in fact,
you have a continental shelf andwhere it goes. The other part is
the United Nations body thatexamines these these these

(16:49):
claims takes a long time, thesesubmissions are 1000s of pages,
very technical. And thecommission is only a part time
commission. Because of thefinancial problems UN has faced,
they didn't set it up as apermanent or as a full time. So
these folks are doing this onweekends and other times. And so
you can imagine how long it istaking all countries to submit

(17:13):
their continental shelves. Now,Canada, and Russia, Russia was
the very first to submit in theArctic, but it got told it
didn't do the science. Right.
And so it has been recentlysubmitting its its claims or its
submission. and Canada took alittle while to submit its its

(17:35):
submission. Denmark was a littlebit ahead of everybody. We're
still waiting for the UN body togive its adjudication did we do
our science, right? But then ofcourse, then once to give the
green light, okay, your scienceis all okay, we're supposed to
negotiate. Now the reality is,given what's happening in the
international sphere, we're notgoing to see negotiations

(17:56):
anytime soon. Now, what Isuspect is going to happen is
that the Commission recognizesthis and probably is just going
to put other submissions aheadof the Canadian, Danish and
Russian one just because what'sthe point of rushing through
this when in fact, the countriesare almost threatening war with
each other? And so I'm notanticipating at anytime, anytime

(18:19):
for the foreseeable future, thatwe will of course address that
and so that there's two, youknow, there's a cup half empty
half full perspective, on theone hand, you can turn around,
say, Okay, well, that means thatthis is going to remain in
abeyance, we're not going to getto it. Okay, well, that's fine.
On the other hand, the fact thatwe can put off in such a
dangerous environment means thatthat's not going to be something

(18:41):
that will be aggravated for thetime being. In other words, we
have the luxury of doing so. Soultimately, when people talk
about the division of theArctic, what they're talking
about is an orderly system thatwas established by the creation
of the Convention on the Law ofthe seas, it said, Hey,
countries, you everybody has,you know, a lot of countries,

(19:01):
not everybody has one I shouldpoint out, it depends on your
geography. But a lot of you havecontinental shelf. So this is
the way that you determine itpeacefully, in terms of the
divisions between you and yourneighbor. And so that has been
actually proceeding quite quiteas the rules dictate. Nobody has
been breaking any of the rulesexcept for the fact that the
Americans have not joined theconvention. That's problematic.

(19:26):
But having said that, is it hasbeen an orderly, legal way. And
so there's not a no sometimespeople will characterize it as a
as a sovereignty issue. At thispoint of time, it's not because
nobody has challenged one sideor the other now has changed
because as a result of theintensification of the, of the

(19:48):
Russian invasion of Ukraine, andthat's the Danes are thinking
that that is going to change it.
So that's a possibility. But youknow, stay tuned.

David Evans (19:56):
Am I interpreting this correctly, so the
continental shelf would extendand beyond the E said, but it
would only be for mineral rightsor for those, it wouldn't be for
the water column. So the fishingrights would be still
international waters. It's we'retalking more about that mineral
rights.

Dr. Rob Huebert (20:13):
And David, that's a critically important
point for the Arctic, becausethere's the realization that the
Arctic as it melts and goes backto our initial discussions, is
going to be a new area ofinternational fishing, how much
how much it's going to transfer.
That's still a point of somediscussion in terms of whether
or not the type of fish talkthat would be sustainable in a,

(20:34):
in a international fishing,understanding, we'll actually
have enough feedstock to be ableto come in were the plankton
Well, the smaller fish that thensupport the larger ones that are
commercially viable, will theyactually move into the North as
it melts? And that's an opendiscussion. Having said all

(20:55):
that, there's been the Americansled this initiative of applying
what's known as a precautionaryprinciple, which is, hey, it's
something looks like it'schanging, but we don't know how
it's changing. Let's try tofigure out what's going on
before we do anything stupid. Imean, that's basically what the
doctrinaire Yes, well is, youknow, let's not open up markets

(21:16):
until we understand if marketscan 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 arethe five countries that ring
around the Arctic Ocean, they'rethe ones that are going to
obviously have fishing issues,interests, as the waters recede.

(21:38):
But there are five otherinternational fishing ships, or
a nations that also are a play amajor role. And that includes
the Japanese, South Koreans,China, the EU, and I'm missing
one out, and I'm forgettingwhich one the fifth one is.

(21:58):
Anyway, these 10 countries gottogether and actually agreed
under American leadership tonegotiate a high sea fishing
agreement in the Arctic region,is based on the assumption that
as the ice is melting, we needto do science to determine
whether or not in fact fishingcan occur and at what rate, but

(22:18):
also recognizing that it will beinternational waters. And so
this is an interesting effort onthe part of the Arctic nations
and the fishing nations to tryto 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

(22:40):
major say in terms of howfishings are proceeding in the
Arctic, while recognizing thatthey are supporting the ghost
fleets. I mean, the the rampidoverfishing that's occurring off
of South Korea, the GalapagosIslands, all of these locations,
we know it's the Chinese thatare basically sustaining those

(23:00):
very illegal overfishingoperations. And so, you know,
once again, the Arctic is aninteresting testbed on the one
hand, do you want do you wantthe Chinese in, you want to try
to contain them and have a, youknow, give them a seat at the
table and hope that they'rebetter behavior than is brought
forward by excluding them. Butyou're also looking at the
Chinese behavior elsewhere interms of their fishing fleets

(23:22):
and going to so you know, whichwhich China will show up in the
Arctic? Will it be the restraintare China that wants to be a
power of contribution forinternational governance, or
we'll be the China? I mean, justthink, you know, the, what
they're doing on for GalapagosIslands, and many of these other
locations, which is just is justhorrific. And so once again, the

(23:46):
Arctic is an interestingtestbed, because we've never
seen any, we've never seen aphishing agreement of this scale
are based on the precautionaryprinciple. And so, you know,
just sort of interesting when wethink about it.

David Evans (24:04):
It's fascinating.
Yeah, to be able to recognizethat this is a completely new
fishing resource that's openingup that we have no idea on how
that's going to impact howthat's going to change.
Regardless, it'll likely haveimpacts to all the fishing areas
throughout the world as thesewaters change and, and
populations move around. And

Dr. Rob Huebert (24:24):
as a biologist, you'll you'll love this. I mean,
we are some some have alreadybegan to argue that we've
already seen the it's noteliminated, but he's definitely
been shown the way out of anapex predator in the Arctic. And
that, of course, has always beenrecognized as the polar bear.
And there's a discussion nowwhether or not the ice melting,

(24:46):
if the polar bear can can adjustto it. There are some actually
let's say that they can't otherswould say they can't. So that's
an ongoing debate whether or notthe polar bear how it will, you
know, to what degree will it runNeed an apex predator. But what
is fascinating from a biologicalperspective is that we are
seeing very clear evidence thatthe killer whales are

(25:09):
definitively moving in andtaking advantage of less ice.
Now this has tremendousramifications for the bow whale
population for the belugas forthe NAR Wales. And once again,
is this all part of aredistribution of animal power,
if you want to use thatterminology in that area, I had

(25:29):
the privilege one time I was upin Churchill. And we were there
I was there, I used to be amember of the Canadian polar
commission, and we were thereholding a series of meetings.
And of course, you know, gottago out and go see the polar
bear. So, you know, that was ahighlight, they arrange for
that. When we're sitting in thezodiacs looking, you know, off
the coastline looking for polarbears. All of a sudden, over the

(25:50):
radio, this guy gets thismessage saying that orcas had
been sighted. And so of course,we immediately turned around and
tried to head towards Well, aswe were coming in the orcas were
chasing something and we don'tknow what their their prey was
at that point in time. But soour boats coming this way. And
all of a sudden, this part of Ithink it was about six or seven

(26:13):
oak orcas, there was one verybig male, and three, four or
five, juvenile or female, thesmaller dorsals. Day came right
at we had this kind of pull overbecause it was sort of like, a
hit the dam Zodiac The male wasbigger than Wow, it was sort of
like, let's, you know, should webe here, but it was, it was

(26:35):
clear. They were in huntingmode. It wasn't just sort of
like, you know, you often seenthe BC where they're kind of
loitering around and they comeoff, right, this, this was all
business, and they were goingfast. And so it was fascinating
to see that and see that itwithin the overall Arctic
context.

David Evans (26:55):
Yeah, and to take it even one step further, how
that changes the traditionalfoods that many of our
indigenous and Inuit groups andnations are relying on and have
been traditionally relying onand part of their culture and
how that this impact is changingtheir to food sources and, and
cultural identity as well.

Dr. Rob Huebert (27:17):
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.

David Evans (27:19):
So I guess, one thing that we were talking about
when, when you were mentioningthe Law of the Sea and and how
this The territory is beingsplit up, potentially along the
Continental Shelf, it just wasbrought back to memory of the
kind of competition of who canget their flag on the North
Pole. First that I remember wasquite highly publicized was was
that also to do with, with thecontinental shelf? Absolutely.

(27:43):
But

Dr. Rob Huebert (27:45):
this is this is an analytical viewpoint that's
not widely shared. But I alsothink that the Russians did that
to distract us from the realitythat they were in fact investing
reinvesting very heavily at thetime, this is around 2006 2008.
In the rebuilding of their ourshared military capability. So

(28:06):
in other words, you know, it's,it's a typical switch and eight,
sort of like, okay, we're goingto do this thing and not really
do it, because that wholeHullabaloo, just to put it into
context, we had a Russian memberof the Zuma who's unknown Arctic
researcher, so he's a member ofof the Russian parliament. He's
not a member of the Putin party,but he's a he's an ally of Putin

(28:29):
at this time before Putin isreal authoritative. Street came
through and he went and andbasically utilize to rush French
mini subs to go and plant a flagat the North Pole. Now what that
means from an internationallegal perspective, it wasn't the
state that was planting it,Putin kind of embraced the

(28:51):
action saying, see our bravescientists and all the rest. And
that's, of course, we're reasonswhy you can't just put a flag in
the, in the in this and claimit. Technically, the Russians
were claiming it. Buttechnically, the Russians were
letting us know that they werethere. And the Russians are
doing a very good job of makingsure that we were focused on
that and we weren't looking atthere. They were actually at the

(29:12):
same time resuming their longrange bomber patrols in the
Arctic. And they also hadresumed their their nucular
missile submarine patrols at thetime. 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. Andso, you know, many people said,
Okay, wait, that's not how youmake the claim. The Russians
say, well, we never were makingthe claim that way. But you do

(29:35):
use that you do use thosescientific efforts to basically
take your measurements and to goin 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 anyinternational law. So they were
you know, it was asophisticated, very good public.
Yeah, public affairs event. Andif the Russians didn't want us

(29:57):
to know about it, we wouldn'thave known about it. because
there's not exactly a lot ofmedia stations up in the upper
North Pole.

David Evans (30:06):
That's very true.
Yeah, it was a very good publicdistraction campaign.

Dr. Rob Huebert (30:11):
Yeah, it was.
Yeah.

David Evans (30:14):
So we've talked about the ice melting and the
current state of diplomaticrelations, and how ice melting
will affect fish populations andthat fishing. Right, but how
does the opening of theNorthwest Passage does that
affect other diplomaticrelations in the Arctic as well?

Dr. Rob Huebert (30:31):
Yeah, very much. So. I mean, let's, let's
begin with the fact that theCanadian government has always
established that the sovereigntyover the Northwest Passage as
well in hand, that's their theirtheir catchphrase always. We now
have the Trudeau Governmentpracticing sovereignty. That's
what they said they do, in interms of their Arctic policy are

(30:54):
their alleged Arctic policy thatthey're released on the day that
we went to the polls last year.
But, you know, I don't know ifthat indicates just how little
interest at the this governmenthas in the Arctic. But
nevertheless. So what does it dofor the Northwest Passage? Well,
the Canadian claim over theNorthwest Passage, and this is
another distinction under theLaw of the Sea, is that we say

(31:14):
that the Northwest Passage isinternal waters, we say that
it's internal waters, becausefrom a historical perspective,
we've always treated it asbasically like we would treat
Lake Winnebago or any otherinternal waters. We also sustain
that argumentation that theindigenous people, the Inuit in

(31:35):
particular, have lived therefrom time immemorial. The
problem that we face is until wehad the negotiations and the
completion of the United Nationson the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples UNDRIP international lawdid not recognize indigenous
indigenous reality. In otherwords, we can say that that was

(31:56):
important for us as Canadians,and it is important, but from an
international perspective, mostcountries will shrug their
shoulders and say, Well, sowhat, you know, so you've had
indigenous people living there,you know, it doesn't make an
international legal difference.
UNDRIP may, in fact, changethat. So with UNDRIP, that may

(32:18):
see a much greater internationalrecognition of the fact that
indigenous reality does have astanding within international
law and changes. No, we'll haveto see, the problem that we have
with the Northwest Passage isthat for it to be a internal
waters, you have to have theacceptance of the international

(32:38):
community that in fact that isalways been treated as internal
waters is. So the problem is, isour neighbors to the south don't
agree with that. The UnitedStates 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,

(33:00):
explanations. In 1969 1970, whenthey sent the Manhattan, which
was an ice strengthened icetanker, through they very
deliberately did it to tochallenge Canadian sovereignty,
the sending of the polar sea andicebreaker that went through
1985 was not a challenge, theyneeded to get the ship from
Seattle to to Lee and back. Andthey couldn't do it by going

(33:24):
through the Panama Canal, on theway to truly they sent it
through the Panama Canal. Butthey needed to go through the
Northwest Passage. And we didall sorts of sort of somersaults
to try to figure out a way inwhich we could say steal our
waters, but the Americans didnot go, you know, ultimately,
because it sets a precedentelsewhere. Now, up until very

(33:46):
recently, it was a candidate USrelations that Russians were
going to come over. They didn'tyou know, because of the cold
war and a whole bunch of otherreasons. But very few countries
had the capability of actuallycoming into the Northwest
Passage outside of theAmericans. Now, so that meant it
tended to be a bilateral issue.
After the polar sea, we had aseries of negotiations with the

(34:09):
Americans where we agreed todisagree. We came up with a with
an agreement called the Arcticwaters Cooperation Agreement,
which basically said that theAmericans 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 andthen we live happily ever after.

(34:31):
And it has worked, actually eversince 1988. We haven't had an
issue with the Americans. Theyhave followed it. We've always
granted it but it doesn't havestanding in international law.
So that has always hovered inthere. As the ice melts, the
shipping nations have beenrecognizing that and we see
statements coming out of theInternational Maritime

(34:51):
Organization. We see it out ofindividual countries saying you
know that you know, theNorthwest Passage is an
international waterway just likeany other water and the only
thing that made it different wasthe ice. And if the ice is dis
disappearing, it's not it's notinternal waters anymore. Now
Canada, of course will argue no,it's always been internal
waters. So therefore, it remainsinternal waters. countries like

(35:16):
Singapore Germany, have saidelsewhere they've said in the
International Maritime marketorganization sorry, Canada, you
can't claim special status overthen you don't have sovereignty
over that you has to followinternational law. Now have have
we seen an issue ultimately? Youknow, push it? No. Is it coming?

(35:38):
Absolutely. Our first warningwas in 216. When enough ice
melted, that a cruise vessel thesize of the largest warships
during World War Two wentthrough without too much
difficulty, there was a littlebit of ice that they ran into.
Anyway, so one of these verylarge cruise vessels 63,000

(35:59):
tons. She went through in 2016and 2017 2017, she ran into a
little bit more ice aroundballot straight, sort of right
in the center of the NorthwestPassage, she had an icebreaker
with her and was able to CrystalSerenity. That's it. So the
Crystal Serenity goes throughand illustrates that a pretty

(36:20):
big ship can go through. Now thecrystal surrender these company
did everything by the book, theyasked permission, they wanted me
to cross their T's askedpermission of the communities
before they came in. They werethe outstanding corporate actor
in this regards. There is nosovereignty challenge that they
pose, but they showed that theNorthwest Passage is changing.

(36:41):
Now what happens last year, andthis is a more problematic issue
that the Canadian government istrying to trying to minimize.
But there was this, because ofCOVID, we close the Northwest
Passage to cruise vessels tosailors to basically everybody
just said like this COVID is toobad. We don't want anyone going

(37:03):
through Canadian orinternational. And everybody,
with one exception, respectedthat. So we have this, this New
Zealand, New Zealand or saysaleman it's a it's a, I won't
call it a yacht, it's a sailboatis what it is the key we wrote.
And he said that Canada doesn'thave the right to stop him to

(37:26):
come through that as aninternational straight, and he
refused to stop. Now Canada istaking him to court. So one
could say while you were stillenforcing our sovereignty, but
the point of the matter is inthe worst pandemic that we've
ever experienced. When we saythese are internal waters, we
didn't stop the guy. We arebringing charges, we are
asserting our sovereignty inthat capacity. We didn't

(37:50):
physically stop him. You know,some say the decision was made
that while we didn't want putour Coast Guard crew at risk, it
makes us much of a statement tothen just basically bring the
court case against him, youknow, Potato Potato. But the
reality is we didn't stop him.
And so he went through. And so Ithink that that is probably a

(38:10):
bit of a warning shot, we aregoing to face this more and more
as the ice melts, we're going tohave more and more countries
saying you know what, we'llfollow international law, but
you can't give special problems.
Where this is going to be a realissue is, of course is that at
the same time that we're seeingthe ice melt, we are also

(38:30):
knowing that there is greater agrowing concern amongst the
indigenous populations in termsof what increased shipping with
me. And so we say within Canadathrough reconciliation and other
means of trying to understandand to to extend the power that
the Indigenous peoples have overtheir their territories. How do
we reconcile the fact that if wehave someone saying no, we have

(38:53):
the international right to gothrough because it's an
international straight? We haveindigenous communities saying,
You know what, we've got somemajor hunting or fishing going
on. We don't want any shipsgoing through at this point in
time. Then mighty interesting tosee how the Canadian government
responds to that. You know,we'll just basically say, yeah,
that's internal waters, we'renot going to let you come
through. And in physicallystopped, when in fact, we

(39:15):
weren't willing to stop, youknow, spend the effort to stop
on a sailboat. So I mean, that'sgoing to be an interesting
development as the ice melts, tobe perfectly honest.

David Evans (39:26):
Yeah, no, it's fascinating. I understand the
indigenous perspective of notwanting increased shipping up
there was

Dr. Rob Huebert (39:34):
I mean, for some communities, they they
welcomed when the CrystalSerenity came in. They saw that
as an economic opportunities atCambridge Bay. Yeah, they said,
This is great. Come on in andrespect, you know, respect to
our territory. Make sure thatyou're not overwhelming us. Give
us notice. But yeah, we want toshowcase our culture. We want to

(39:55):
also see if people want to buysome of the various crafts that
we're capable some communitysaid no, you know, we just can't
handle you. So in that context,one has to be a little careful
in terms of over characterizingthat there is one voice on this,
there's not right. And so, youknow, that's a bit of a colonial
legacy. When we turn around andsay, Okay, we understand that

(40:17):
there is one voice that issaying this, that's not the
case,

David Evans (40:21):
right now that that's a very good point to
bring up. Of course, the lastthing I want to do is
mischaracterize all of thesedifferent indigenous communities
and pretend I understand wherethey're coming from, and how
they would react to this openingof the Northwest Passage and how
that might affect theircommunity. So you're absolutely
correct. I misspoke. And yeah,thank you for correcting me

(40:44):
there. Would there also beconcern? So the difference
between having this as aninternational waterway versus
Canadian sovereign water? Isthis also a concern for the
allowance of vessels from anynation to be in those waters
without any jurisdiction fromus? Or is it more of? Yeah, it's

(41:07):
just we don't have to givepermission, anyone can go there?
Or is there a financialincentive to want to be able to
provide that

Dr. Rob Huebert (41:16):
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 BaffinIsland. And there have been
efforts to develop that'salready initiated a bath in mind
a Baffin Island mining company,and it has in fact been

(41:39):
extracting ironore the ironoreis one of the most pure ores
that exists relight it. So youknow, you get a little piece of
it. And you know, you comparethe pick it up because it's so
pure IRA or, anyway, what hasjust happened is that there are
some members of the communitythat want to see that expanded.

(41:59):
We see, for example, the DeputyMinister of the Government of
Nunavut, saying that this wouldbe a good thing for jobs if it's
done in a, in an environmentallysensitive way, who is an Inuit.
But we've also seenrepresentatives who say, No,
this is going to upset thenarrow whales, it's going to
upset that the hunting, theincreased shipping has a
detrimental effect. And thereview board examining the

(42:22):
request of Baffin Island toexpand the shipping that is
coming out, has just beendeclined. And so that we're
seeing this literally playedbefore our very eyes. In other
words, what? What does it mean?
Now in this case, this isdestination Oh, shipping, in
other words, Canada, because theshipping is not claiming a right
of transit under aninternational waterway. But it's
you're coming in to do business.

(42:45):
I mean, it's Canada has theright to basically say that,
sorry, we're not going to letthis go forward. You know, the
company has the legal systems togo through. But ultimately, the
Canadian government has theinternational right to sign up.
And we're not going to allowthat to go through. And that
seems to be what's what'stranspiring there. But it also
illustrates part of the comingchallenges that are coming in

(43:07):
this particular instance, Isuspect, that what we're going
to be seeing is that the companyprobably will not be sustainable
now. And so we'll see theclosing of it now. And so
that'll end that particulardevelopment. But as we move
forward, one of the big falloutsof the current conflict in
Ukraine is, of course, theEuropeans are moving to cut
themselves off from oil and gasthat is developed in northern

(43:30):
Russia, and then exported toEurope. Now, if they actually do
that, they say they're going todo it. One has to take a little
bit of grain of salt, you'regonna have to find alternative
sources. Well, the CanadianNorth has tremendous resources
in terms of gas, a little bit ofoil, but it's natural gas. The
kicker is that the federalgovernment without any

(43:53):
consultation with theterritories are the indigenous
organizations unilaterallyentered into an agreement with
the Americans not to developtheir offshore oil and gas, and
that was under the Trudeauadministration, when he was
meeting with Obama. And soCanada has a moratorium on gas
development. Now, under thecurrent circumstances will

(44:15):
there'll be an appetite tochange probably not under the
current government. But youknow, once again, we see you
know, all politics are local.
Several of the conservativecandidates for leadership have
made it very clear that theywould be in favor of increased
oil and gas but specifically gasproduction because gas of course
is a is a different kettle offish, particularly on the
environmental establish that itdoes when it spills. I mean, you

(44:37):
know, a gas bill justdissipates. You know, that's the
reality. You know, oil is theone that is the is the problem,
and the government of theNorthwest Territories has been
in favor of offshoredevelopment. The head Dwayne
Smith has spoken favorably fromthe Western New Viet land claim
As an organization, so ITK, notso favorable. So once again, we

(45:03):
get into this different voice,different understandings of it.
But it all comes back to how theresources will ultimately be
developed, if they are developedwithin the context of the
Arctic, and it will be amaritime focus in that it
particularly in trying to get it

David Evans (45:19):
out. Yeah, no, that's, that's fascinating to
see how this is all gonna playout as the sea ice melts,
there's so much more opportunityand the landscape is literally
changing in front of us, youknow, seascape seascape. Yeah.
So we talked a little bit aboutkind of some of the military
threats and how Russia'saggression and invasions and and

(45:43):
how its stance has kind ofchanged in regards to our own
security. Is Canada prepared torespond? Well, that's

Dr. Rob Huebert (45:51):
easy. No, no, we are very powerful. On the
rhetoric. You know, our currentgovernment gives very stirring
speeches about how we're thetrue strong north and free. But
if we're being honest withourselves, we haven't really
done anything. We have asurveillance system that was

(46:15):
last modernized in 1985. Let meask you this, would you be
wanting to use a computer thatwas built in 1985, let alone
defend against Russianhypersonic missiles with that,
and we keep talking about doingit. And this is something you
know, the liberals areparticularly bad at right now.
Because they said they weregoing to change that into 2017.

(46:38):
When they released theirdefense, their defense policy,
strong and secure, engaged. Butyou know, once again, not to be
too harsh, only on the liberals,but the Conservatives under
Harper had plenty of time thatthey could have also modernized.
No rat did not. We are flying anaircraft that was we we bought
in 1982. Are you driving a carthat was built in 1982? Do you

(47:02):
know anyone who drives a 1982car? You know?

David Evans (47:07):
Yeah, I do. But I did spend most of the time in
the shop to be quite honest.

Dr. Rob Huebert (47:11):
Yeah. So do you want to defend against
hypersonics with with it in theshop all the time? So no, our
fighter is 1982 vintage, fullstop. Let's let's not mince
words about it. So we have ourradar site. Our radar systems
are 1985 Our fighters are 1982.
We have got we use theConservatives did initiate the

(47:35):
development of a conciliatorynaval vessel, the Arctic
offshore patrol vessels route tothe Navy is going to get sick.
So ultimately the Coast Guardwill get to. So that is a that
is something that has occurred.
Our submarines are not at arisedcapability. They two were built
in the end of the 1980s. seeinga theme here. Yeah, ya know, in

(47:59):
terms of our capabilities, wewere supposed to, you know, are
we're under understaffed.
There's an issue in terms ofleadership that doesn't seem to
be addressed at the most seniorlevels. And so you go right
across the board, and it's arelike, Okay, this is where we
are. The Norwegians, the Finns,the Danes, the Brits, all made a

(48:21):
relatively quick decision to getthe f 30 fives, you know, it
seemed like it was not thatpainful for them. All of them
have been redeveloping their,their their detection systems,
all of them have been doingthese very large scale exercises
with the Americans, we will send10 people, you know, were there.

(48:44):
But I mean, these exercises likeCold Response in Norway, where
it's about a little I think, intotal, there's about 40,000
troops. We're just not reallythere. Every once in a while we
will do an exercise, we usuallysend a frigate or submarine to
engage with our NATO allies whenthey called what's called the

(49:06):
operation, dynamic mongoose, andthat is learn to learn how to
hunt Russian subs again. So weare there. So we can't say that
we're at you know that we'reabsolutely nowhere. But in terms
of the the capabilities in that,you know, not looking good. Good
retar Ik, you know, both, bothjolly can give amazing speeches

(49:30):
saying what we will be doing andTrudeau of course, once again
will always tell the Ukrainiansand everybody we're there with
him. But in terms of actualcapabilities, there's even
questions in terms of you know,whether or not our runways and
and hanger system in the northcan actually sustain our air

(49:52):
capabilities. That's people justdon'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'msupposed to be neutral on this.
But I mean, just the fact thatwe are so vulnerable is going to
be problematic. And you haven'teven asked me about the Chinese

(50:14):
when it comes to the securityissue.

David Evans (50:17):
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's that's a whole other
ballgame right there to wherewe're at currently globally, in
so focused with the Russiainvasion into Ukraine, in your
opinion, is this the beginningof a world war three?

Dr. Rob Huebert (50:32):
Well, I think what it is it establishes the
fact that the Cold War neverreally ended. You know, there's
a lot of people that said 1988,under Gorbachev under under the
new new rules, orders, Cold Warended, we were finished with all
the old problems that we'refacing. I think the Russia is

(50:53):
where the Soviet slash Russianswere exhausted at the end of the
Cold War, I think that they hadto capture their breath again.
But I don't think it ever ended.
I think that the drivinginterest, the driving
competitions, never really wentaway. The United States was a it
was a hedge of mine. So wetended to say, Okay, well, there

(51:13):
is no problem. Well, it wasbecause the Americans won. And
there were on the American side.
And so with the renewal that theRussians had been able to have,
I recognize that they rebuilttheir strength on the basis of
oil and gas, so it is more orless from the Arctic region. And
so that's part of it, that thenallows him then you get somebody

(51:34):
like a Putin coming in, whowants to make Russia great
again. And so we're seeing thatcome forward, again. But the
problem is, is is not abilateral, we have to now factor
into China, so that we return tothe issue of China in that
context. So we now have Chinaentering into the sphere. Now,

(51:56):
China claims it is a near Arcticstate, and people have different
reactions to that. Now are theChinese in the Arctic? Well,
they actually showed up on theCanadian Arctic in 1999. Many
Canadians will be surprised toknow that all of a sudden, they
did tell us that they werecoming the message God garbled

(52:17):
and transmission. But first timewe really had an understanding
that they had that capability iswhen they showed up and talk to
Yuck, tuck in Chinese were justwandering around into town. This
was the same time that we werehaving issues in terms of
illegal immigration from China.
The very first reaction wasthese were very well furnished
refugees. But it wasn't it wasit was the zoo loan showing up
for the first time. Now theChinese always say that they

(52:40):
want to be a power for you know,they want to be the good guys,
they want to cooperate. Theproblem is, is that we watched
China elsewhere, it's clear thatthey want to be a real,
hegemonic, they want tochallenge the Americans. And now
you turn around and say, Well,what does that have to do with
the Arctic? Well, once again, ifyou want to challenge to become
a peer, equal, you got to beable to challenge your

(53:04):
competitor anywhere. So ifyou're Germany, you want to
build up a Navy in World War onethat matches the Russians
because you turn around say, whydoes the Germans need a fleet of
battleships as large as whatthey build? Well, they built it
because they want to challengethe Americans. And so we see the
type of challenges that occurredthat between the British and the
Germans, we see the way that theSoviets built up to challenge

(53:26):
the Americans from a maritimeperspective. And so what we're
starting to see is that theChinese are going to build off a
capability to go into theArctic, not necessarily to
challenge to seize territory,but say the Chinese launch
military actions against Taiwanthe way that the Russians
launched against Ukraine, youwant to make sure that you've

(53:48):
tied up the American Navy astightly as you can. And what
better way then say you have asubmarine all of a sudden pops
up? And the Americans go, Whoa,you know, what's the capability?
What can you do? So it's, youknow, there's that. The other
thing, too, is that the Chinesehave also already been very
active in sending their vesselsinto the so called doughnut

(54:10):
holes, the part of theinternational Arctic, that is
not is not going to be anyone'scontinental shelf. And we know
that they're doing all sorts ofstudies in terms of anticipatory
participation from an economicperspective. So the Chinese will
be a player economically forshipping. And for fishing,
they've already signaled us tothat the security side, is there

(54:31):
some who say that, that justain't gonna happen. Why would it
and it's difficult, you know,getting through the Bering Sea
is hard. And so their submarineswould have to go to that
location and that is a that'sgoing to be a limiting factor.
On the other hand, if you do getyour submarines through, then
all of a sudden you've reallycomplicated the situation with

(54:52):
both the Russians and theAmericans. And so that's, you
know, China is the Enigma weDon't know what the long term
ramifications are going to be.
But we do see that they have tobe taken into consideration in
moving into the forward of thestrategic environment

David Evans (55:12):
is absolutely fascinating, I would never have
assumed. But when you explain itto that effect of matching who
you're going up against, orsizing them up, you want to be
able to keep them on their toesand be able to match them in in
any kind of context. And thatmakes perfect sense. This has
been absolutely fascinating. Sowhere could a concerned listener
go to learn more about thesetypes of issues? Or if someone

(55:38):
is really interested? How wouldyou recommend that they could
learn more or get involved insome capacity?

Dr. Rob Huebert (55:46):
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 wholebunch of good information here.
Part of the problem is, Dr.
Attic is out of sight, out ofmind. And it's until these type
of incidences occur, we're notpaying attention. I mean, until
we started having, you know,I'll give you one example, until

(56:10):
we started actually doing thescience to back it up. Nobody
had a clue that the breast milkof Indigenous women were
contaminated 10 to 20 times asbadly as Southern women's in
what is known as PRPs,persistent organic pollutants.
Pol peas are, of course are fromfertilizers, pesticides, fire

(56:31):
retardants, elements that areessential to the well being of
life, but through what's calledtransboundary pollution, they
actually made them boil theresidue from all of these PRPs
concentrated in the Arcticregion through the food supply,
and so you don't see it, and youjust go holy crap, you know,

(56:52):
PRPs are worse in the Arcticthan anywhere else? And the
answer is yes. And so we tendnot to have sort of that focus.
The government definitely, youknow that. I mean, the
government doesn't have awebsite. I mean, they don't
believe in open informationanymore. They start under the
Harper government continuesunder the Trudeau. So you can't
you know, there's no real goodsources there. If you're

(57:13):
interested on the scientificresearch side, Arctic net, is
probably the premier site forCanada for understanding what's
happening from a scientificperspective. They have DNS
automation of the best expertsand best minds. So I would say,
Arctic net, there's a networkthat is set up by a colleague of

(57:33):
mine, Whitney Locke, and burrowcalled NatCen, Na, dd, na DASN.
That looks at sort of thesecurity side. So that's not a
bad site to go to either. Butyour listeners are limited.
Beyond that, to be perfectlyhonest.

David Evans (57:54):
Yeah, yeah, well, I'll be leaving links in the
show notes for those and thinkabout these. And for any
listeners who are concerned,take this with you as you go
into a next election. And ifthis is an issue that's
concerning, you can also try thepolitical system, reach out to
your local representatives, andmake sure that the Arctic

(58:15):
becomes more of an issue on thetable. So I guess my final
question for you, Rob, is whatled you down this career path
and what kind of led to youbeing where you are today?

Dr. Rob Huebert (58:25):
The article was supposed to be a case study, I
was working on my PhD thesis, Iwas looking at something that
would allow me to do a multilevel security examination of an
issue of importance to Canada, Iwas interested in international
maritime law, I was interestedin sea power. I was interested
in how Canada applies all this.
So it's that nexus of sort of anextended and narrow definition

(58:48):
of security had to be somethingthat people had not looked at
yet, as a PhD, you want to findsomething that you're making a
contribution to knowledge. And Iremember having a drink with my
good friend, Aldo Tarkoff, whois a leading international legal
expert in Canada now, but he wasworking on his is his PhD in

(59:09):
law. And we're sitting at thelaw students pub, having a few
drinks, and I was bemoaning thefact that it couldn't quite get
my thesis topic nailed down, youknow, and so after a few beers,
he's Maltese in you know, Ican't do a Maltese accent, but I
just remember going abroad.

(59:31):
There's just been this Americanvoyage last year that went
through the Northwest Passage.
Nobody else has written on it.
So you could be wrong, and noone would know that. I mean,
that was just humor. Why don'tyou look at that, and I'm
thinking, that sounds good. Butof course, there was no
information whatsoever on it.
And I thought, Well, that'sgood. I think maybe it's

(59:52):
irrelevant. So I took it as acase study. It was her like,
Okay, I need to have a decisionmaking model that show As me how
in Canada, we've treated hardNERT maritime power, how we've
taken international law and howthis all merges together for for
foreign policy outcomes. And Ithought, Okay, well, this was a
good case study. And I finishedthe thesis and then at right

(01:00:14):
after the thesis, then I got anopportunity to be involved with
a research network that wasbeing set up to deal with
environmental security in theArctic. And okay, well, this is
interesting. So I did that. Andthen no matter how much I tried
to sort of write and go back tosort of just sort of sea power
or international law, whatpeople were starting to notice

(01:00:36):
of what I was doing was anytimeI did anything on the Arctic, it
was like, Oh, well, hey, rock,can you give me a chapter for
this volume? Or can you comecontribute there? It wasn't
there weren't asking me for mynavy, or my Law of the Sea
stuff. You're asking me for theArctic stuff. And so inevitably,
I just, I surrendered to theinevitability that, you know,
this, obviously, is somethingthat, you know, has an appetite

(01:00:59):
and the the reality is, the moreI thought about it, the more
fascinated I got, I mean, whereelse can you talk about two
existential threats, oneenvironmental one nucular war,
in the same breath, and it was asort of like, wow, how do you,
you know, how do you figure thatout? How do you because even on
the policy side, we joke aboutour politicians not being able
to chew gum and walk at the sametime. But how do you as a

(01:01:21):
politician, even if we givecredit to them with with a
willingness to do so. And so allof us to say is that the Arctic,
which poster was supposed to bea short term, fill a gap in, you
know, move on, here I am at thisstage of my career, and it never
ever left.

David Evans (01:01:42):
Wow. It seems that the Arctic found you and then
that case

Dr. Rob Huebert (01:01:47):
tends to do that.

David Evans (01:01:50):
Well, thank you so much for speaking with the show.
And and speaking with theirlisteners, I know I've learned a
tremendous amount. I've got alot of thinking to do on on.
Yeah, just everything you'vementioned. So thank you so much,
and excited to see or nervous tosee what happens next in the
Arctic, I guess. Oh, yeah.

Dr. Rob Huebert (01:02:09):
Well, I look forward to the next conversation
we have David.

David Evans (01:02:18):
Thanks for tuning into today's deep dive episode
with Dr. Rob Hubert from theUniversity of Calgary, I feel
like I had opened up Pandora'sbox to a whole other world that
I had no idea about, then. Soglad I did. Because it provides
so many different thoughts tothink about and, and avenues to
learn about. So I'm so excitedto follow up on a lot of these

(01:02:39):
different topics that we'vediscussed, and to learn more
than I hope you do, too. Thanksso much to Dr. Rob, for speaking
with me, we had a lot oftouching go on when we would
actually get the interview setup. So thank you for sticking
with me. And going through thatwhole process. This interview
was incredible. And I'm soexcited that we get to share it
with listeners now. So thank youfor making that extra effort.

(01:03:02):
For more information on Dr. Rob,I'll post some of the links to
some of his research down in theshow notes. Also, there'll be
links to Arctic net, as well.
There'll be links to the NorthAmerica and Arctic Defense and
Security Network website aswell. Very good resources to be
able to learn more about theseissues that Rob mentioned at the
end. I'm the host and producerDavid Evans. And I just like to
thank the rest of the team,specifically Paul Polman, Lee

(01:03:23):
Burton, and the rest of theaquatic biosphere board. Thanks
for all of your help. And tolearn more about the aquatic
biosphere project. And whatwe're doing right here in
Alberta telling the story ofwater, you can check us out at
aquatic biosphere.ca. And wealso have launched our new media
company, a b n aquatic biospherenetwork, which you can find at

(01:03:46):
the public place dot online andsearch for the aquatic biosphere
network channel, where we willactually be posting all of the
video episodes that we're goingto be creating this year. So
tune in, they will be out forthe next little while, but very
excited to start sharing videocontent as well as our
interviews. Next week, we willbe releasing our deep dive

(01:04:07):
interview with Dr. SusanneSchmeir from IHE Delft, all
about water diplomacy, and howwe can use transboundary waters
to be able to stop water warsand more shift to water peace,
how we know where there's waterconflict, how we can address
those concerns, and how we canmove forward together. Tune in
you won't want to miss it. Ifyou have any questions or

(01:04:30):
comments about the show, we'dlove to hear them. Email us at
conservation at aquaticbiosphere.org. Please don't
forget to like, share andsubscribe. Leave us a review. It
really helps us out. Thanks andit's been a splash