U.S. `would reshape Canada' if Quebec splits

(This article is somewhat outdated, but it's still valid [imho, Numure probably disagrees] and a good read)

THE TORONTO STAR, Monday, November 8, 1999
U.S. `would reshape Canada' if Quebec splits

Will demand equal role in negotiations, experts warn

By Kathleen Kenna
Toronto Star Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - A ``cold-blooded'' America will demand an equal - and even the primary - role in future negotiations if Quebec separates, and could wreak even more damage on an already fractured nation, political experts warn.

``A divided Canada will have a tough time standing up to American vital interests,'' three McGill University professors state in a new analysis. ``While high-level American policy-makers truthfully say they prefer a
united Canada . . . separation may be accelerated or exaggerated by powerful American players,'' the trio warns in a foreign policy paper to be published this month.

``The final outcome (will be) a North America redesigned in accord with American public and private directives . . . There will be a `what hit me' look on the faces of many former Canadians.''

Canadian and Quebec leaders are naive to insist it won't happen, co-author Tom Velk told a weekend forum at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He's an economics professor at McGill and co-director of its North American studies program.

``Although Quebec separatists want the future of their province to be decided by Quebeckers, and Canadian federalists insist the rest of Canada (ROC) must have a voice as well, they both forget that American vital interests require that America have a prominent, if not dominant, place at the table upon which any new plan for the political re-organization of
North America will be drawn up,'' Velk told a forum on Canada's future.
America will do everything it must do to protect its national security,
economic and other interests - even use force if necessary, he said.

``If the U.S. is asked by the federal government, because they have lost control over their troops, or if it's asked by Quebec, because they fear an invasion, or if the request is put in terms of terrorism, then the American military, order-keeping, law-enforcing agents may very well take a role,'' Velk said in response to questions about U.S. troops entering Canada if separation involved violence.

``A great power does not allow its border states to fall into serious instability.'' Current Canada-Quebec debate about separation glosses over America's critical interest in the 320 treaties, thousands of political agreements, ``tens of thousands of private, cross-border contracts and hundreds of thousands of daily exchanges of people, money, goods and securities,'' Velk said.

In addition to two-way trade of $1 billion (U.S.) a day between the two nations, they share ``the costs and benefits of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of common assets, liabilities, responsibilities and opportunities'' affected by Quebec separation, he said.

All of this will be on the table at any separation talks, and ``Americans will call the tune,'' Velk warned. Negotiations with the U.S. will be long and painful despite any Canadian urgency in a separation crisis, Velk insists in a report co-written by political scientist Harold Waller and historian A. R. Riggs.

``The American negotiating style, driven by self-interest, will be potentially cold-blooded,'' they write in a paper entitled, U.S. Foreign Policy and Canadian Fragmentation: Balancing vital interests during a crisis.

Powerful lobbies, unions and diverse interests - from big business to the White House to a divided Congress - will demand a role in talks that must cover everything from water, energy, transportation and air space to boundary waters and the integrated North American defence system. The experts speculate ``parts of Canada may be sold off in bargains with American and local interests before far-off Canadian claimants have a chance at it."

``If negotiations on (Quebec) independence ever do occur, the U.S. . . more than ever before, will be in a position to shape the destiny of a continent in a manner best suited to the protection of its own interests.''

As I recall, it was back in 1976 that I was working on a project with a couple of guys from Toronto. One time when we were breaking for a meal, I asked them if they thought English Canadians would go to war to keep the country intact, against an attempt by the Quebec separatists to secede. Being thoughtful, they pondered the question for a moment. "You mean, have a civil war?" one of them asked me. "Only if it were on a weekend. And if no one got hurt," they both agreed. "It would have to be over my Monday, because people would have to go back to work, eh?" "And if there were no hockey on TV," was added. "And if they served beer. They'd have to serve beer!"

Pretty much true for both Cultures. Peaceful at heart.

One thing is for certain, and that is that the northeastern United States is critically dependent on electricity generated by Hydro Quebec. During the Cold War, I thought that a prime target for destruction by the Soviets would be the Hydro Quebec complex. The Atchafalaya River Control Struture would be another, as well the dam which creates the lake that provides the water for the operation of the Panama Canal. There is no question that it is in the strategic interest of the U.S. to guarantee the security of Hydro Quebec and the transmission lines which transmit its power into the NE grid. What political measures are in place, we can only guess at, I suppose.

We sell the power at quite high rates Thus why we pay the lowest rates in North America. It is secure, and I doubt it would ever be victim of attacks.

Would you say the separatists were successfully outflanked?

They we're the ones that Nationalised our Electricity in the first place. Not exactly seperatist, but the seperatist party didnt exist at that time. Réné Levesque, was the one that NationalisedElectricity in Québec. He , a decade later, created the Parti Québécois.

Numure has a point, re the costs of electricty. Quebec has benefited greatly.

The question however, is more of an economic one. Should the state be involved in running a business, irrespective of the government in power?

I don't get the question... I'm a Socialist, and I think their should be more Nationalisation. We have seen the benefits it has given us with Hydro-Québec, La SGF, la SAQ, Loto-Québec....

Is the Parti Québécois dedicated to maintaining Canada intact?

Another matter: some folks perceived NAFTA as a kind of Anschluss of Canada. Where did the Parti Québécois stand on NAFTA?

The Parti Québécois is the Provincial party, who's goal is the souvrainty of Québec. The Bloc is only its voice in Ottawa.
They we're against it! As we're most Québécoise and Québécois. The protests that happenned at the time, showed it.

Canadians (yes, I refer to you, Numure, as a Canadian) as whole were against NAFTA. Nobody wanted it, and yet Mulroney went ahead with it anyways. There were protests across the country.

fair enough-- I didn't know your political leanings, which is why I asked.

While I can't say I'm a socialist per se, I can see where govt should provide services above and beyond the traditional govt service poo.

HQ is a good example of that, though historically, govt doesn't have a great track record in running businesses.

We have several provincial crown (province-owned) corporations in Manitoba too, American Voice. So do other provinces.

Manitoba Hydro also claims to have the lowest rates in Canada, for the same reason as Quebec. It's a matter of how the math is done as to who is actually cheaper, but Manitoba and Quebec have similar rates.

Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and BC have the lowest auto insurance rates in Canada. All four provinces have public insurance.

As for the US stepping in if Canada breaks up...violent or not (I'd bet on not) the United States has no legal right to invade Canada. If they were to do so they would be in clear violation of international law and Canada would have no choice but to call on its allies in the Commonwealth, the Association of French-speaking Nations (is that the right name), and so on.

The US does not get a place at the table.

I don't know why you think the fact that the US has no legal right to invade, or the fact that it would be in violation of international law would prevent the US from taking action.

The US will do whatever they think is in the SHORT TERM interest of the US. To hell with everyone and everything else.

That said, I don't think the US would invade Canada; why bother, when it is possible that they can have a puppet running Canada anyway?

Are you referring to the Honorable Mister Harper?

First of all they wouldnt be invading Canada anymore.Rremeber we are talking about after seperation where quebec would be cut off of the purse strings of the rest of Canadaas well as its money and military. Everything at that point would be up for grabs and new treaties and alliances would have to be formed. Any agreemets with Canada and the uS would not apply.
Second alo of the "takeoevers" would be finanacial. After seperation and the subsequent exodus of people and businesses, there would be and economic collapse for other reasons as well. This is when US would swoop in in the name of stability and offer economic bailouts as well as other protections. Who do think would protect Quebecs distinct culture and language rights more, Canada or US?

Europe.

You say Europe? Whom, and why? To poke a sharp stick in the eye of the Americans?

Just a thought re an American 'invasion'.

A couple of years ago, I was in Poland on business.

A shrewd observer mentioned to me that the Germans no longer need bullets to invade Poland.

Nowadays, they use Deutschmarks and Euros.

While the analogy isn't perfect, it does have some merit.

That is what the US has been doing to Canada since at least the age of Mulroney, researchok.

You missed the part where I pointed our allies who would take great umbrage at Canada being invaded, TenPenny. Canada has some buddies on this planet, that's part of being a multilateral nation.



They will. I don't they'll do it for long though. When I was four the USA's own people stood on the streets of Chicago and chanted, "The whole world is watching," as men in uniform beat them. Now people the world over are saying the same basic thing while being beaten by American men in American uniforms. The whole world is still watching, but the absolute and total disgust at the actions of the US government is becoming palpable again. I doubt it will subside this time.

They can only have that puppet if we agree to it.

Yes they would, Thorshammer.



It is extremely unlikely that Quebec would separate without some sort of sovereignty association. Considering the considerable economic might of Quebec, especially its hydro power in the emerging economy, Canada would have no choice.

There would be very little exodus of people and business. That already happened way back in the seventies. Those that were going are already gone. The rest have too much invested, regardless of their political leanings.

I think everybody in Canada, except maybe Stephen Harper, would be extremely wary of any swooping.

England and France mostly, Voice. We belong to multilateral coaltions with them that the US does not. England is required to aid us by law, in fact. We are still an official part of the Empire.

With England and France comes the EU. That isn't just the influence of them, that's also because we are a generally well-liked country

We can also count on the support of many African, South American, and Asian countries. That's because we have backed them in intenational disputes (mostly not military) or they respect us as acting fairly in the past.

That's all a long-winded way of saying that Canada is a middle-power. We have friends and they will back us up.
If we elect Stephen Harper those friends will start to disappear.

Lots of truth to that, rev.

But its a 2 way street. Canadians are the largest investors in the US, by far, biggerthan the Japanese, Brits, Saudis, etc.

Lets keep those strong foreign currencies coming in!

France for one, they have always supported our bid for independance. They still do to this day, though not as publicly as Charles de Gaulle did 40 years ago.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-236-...e_quebec_libre

--

Anyways, our premiers still visit the french presidents every year. We also are an independant from Canada member of la Francophonie. And Québec has strong ties to many African countries and a few south american countries (like Cuba for example). Our friendly ways, go far, just like Canada.

The United States, Canada, and an ever-extending list of Eurpoean Union members, are all, or nearly all members of NATO. Doesn't that fact supersede the variety of other multi-national coalitions several of you have mentioned? Call me cynical, but I suspect the existence of these other multi-national defense coalitions represent the statutory dedication of sums of national defense spending to members states' own domestic suppliers. I can't envision NATO breaking up over Quebec, when it didn't break up over the deployment of mobile cruise missiles in Britain, and the Pershing II missiles in the German Federal Republic--both of which ran roughshod over public opposition, and led to Thatcher and Schmidt being branded Quislings. There is a certain sense of proportion missing from this debate, in my opinion.

I've never personnaly thought highlyn of NATO, thus why. But you you are right.

Before NATO and oth erissues arise, there remains the pragmatic issues of currencies, treaties, trade-- free or otherwise, tax reciprocity with other states, etc.

Any new entity would have to deal with those issues.

NATO is way down the list of priorities.

This discussion is useless because Quebec separatism simply doesn't exist. The PQ does not promote the separation to the rest of Canada. Among the Québec political parties, only the RIN did promote pure independence back in the early 1960. But the party was soon disbanded and the PQ represents a moderate approach to politics.

Radical groups like the FLQ did promote the notion of separation, but it was only seen as a mere means to carry out the socialist revolution. All of that is long dead by now. Don't worry, don't expect any revolution for the next few decades as the Quebec population is getting older and that the youth are much attracted to the backward capitalist ADQ policies.

In the 1980 referendum, the parti Québécois suggested a souveraineté-association (soft approach) and in the 1995 a souveraineté partenariat (Mario Dumont, Lucien Bouchard and Parizeau agreed on the question just one month before the referendum)

Bernar Landry, now the PQ leader, is talking about a union confédérale, so that the idea of souveraineté has completely disappeared.

And Gilles Duceppe from the bloc is now attracting federalists in this election.

You see that the notion of separation is a nonsense in 2004 modern Quebec. Only in the ill-informed English Canada the notion is still debated, in Quebec we gave up decades ago.

When you say, Quebecois "gave it up", (separation) are you saying the issue is dead- or dead for now?

I'm saying that it has never been a issue. The issue put forward by the PQ was "la souveraineté-association". Only radical groups which have never been really active on the political level did promote the radical option of pure separation.

I'm saying that most Quebekers are moderate people who don't really want to make radical choices. Separation is a extremist option. On the other hand, souveraineté I guess is the idea that Quebec is politically autonomous while maintaining close economic and strategic ties with Canada. Back in the 1995 referendum, I remembered Lucien Bouchard saying that a souvereign Quebec would keep using Canadian currency and would negociate a plan to keep military ties with Canada. That's not what you call independence and rather implies lots a negociation.

The issue is dead since the Quebec issue became basically constitutional after the 1980 referedum (Back then, Levesque would refer to the renewal of federalism le "Beau Risque") Anyway, separation has never been fashionable in Quebec. Only revolutionary poets, singers and intellectuals would use this term while politicians and bureaucrats really engaged into politics would understand the need of a moderate and diplomatic approach and vocabulary.

Jean-François Lisée, the personal political adviser of Parizeau and Bouchard published a book two years ago saying basically that the souveraineté would not happened and he suggested that the next referendum should be about strengthening provincial jurisdictions.
What a shift!

Like I said, Now Landry's talking about a new confederation pact. Who knows what it means? I guess is the same old idea of souveraineté-association but coined in a way to be less scaring to soft nationalists.

The only way the radical separation could rise up again is that moderate people in the PQ get out to form a new leftist party and leave behing only the right-wing radical harliners in the party.

Next november, Françoise David is to found a new party that will bring together Greens, Progressives and probably a lot of former leftists PQ members, so that the provincial politics will be a struggle fought by four major parties (PQ, Lib, ADP, a the new one)

Maybe then the PQ will radicalize his discourse, I don't know. Nobody does. But for sure something important and big is happening in Quebec. It is quiet, but it is real. Politics is really something in Quebec, and complicated.

I read your post with great interest.

I must say, as an ex montrealais, I was struck with the of Bernard Landry's notion of a renewed comapct between the feds and Quebec.

Is he serious? Is the option serious? The negotiations would open doors we can't imagine-- not to mention the effect the negotiations would have on the the rest of the provinces!