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

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,645
129
63
Larnaka
(This article is somewhat outdated, but it's still valid [imho, Numure probably disagrees] and a good read)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.''
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
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!"
 

Numure

Council Member
Apr 30, 2004
1,063
0
36
Montréal, Québec
American Voice said:
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.
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
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.
 

Numure

Council Member
Apr 30, 2004
1,063
0
36
Montréal, Québec
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.
 

Numure

Council Member
Apr 30, 2004
1,063
0
36
Montréal, Québec
American Voice said:
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.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
Numure said:
American Voice said:
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?
 

Numure

Council Member
Apr 30, 2004
1,063
0
36
Montréal, Québec
researchok said:
Numure said:
American Voice said:
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....
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
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?
 

Numure

Council Member
Apr 30, 2004
1,063
0
36
Montréal, Québec
American Voice said:
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.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,645
129
63
Larnaka
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.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
Numure said:
researchok said:
Numure said:
American Voice said:
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....

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.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
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.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
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?
 

ThorsHamburger

New Member
May 16, 2004
27
0
1
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?
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
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.