NationStates Jolt Archive

At a coming model UN meet I’ll be representing a country called the “Amalgamated Canadian States” in the year 2010. Have you ever heard that term before and how do you think Canadian foreign policy could change in the next 5 years?

well, in the unlikely event Quebec becomes independent...whole can of worms. New country, agreements to be worked out and cut off maritime provinces.

/notacanadian:p

At a coming model UN meet I’ll be representing a country called the “Amalgamated Canadian States” in the year 2010. Have you ever heard that term before and how do you think Canadian foreign policy could change in the next 5 years?
I do not think that in the next 5 years Canadian foreign policy will change that much. If the Conservatives get a majority (unlikely), our foreign policy would become much more agressive. Otherwise I do not see it changing that much.

Nope. Never heard of it.

At a coming model UN meet I’ll be representing a country called the “Amalgamated Canadian States” in the year 2010. Have you ever heard that term before and how do you think Canadian foreign policy could change in the next 5 years?

Well, with a name like "Amalgamated Canadian States", you'd have to assume that somebody broke Confederation, or some northern US states broke away and joined Canada, or both. Those are some damn big changes.

Off-hand I think you'd have to pick your scenario.

If we broke Confederation and oh, say, the Western provinces joined together to make ACS, you could probably assume that its foreign policy would change quite a bit. Assuming that Alberta and Calgary dominated these new states, its foreign policy would very much follow the US lead, regardless of who was president and what their foreign policy was. Their most important consideration would be staying on the US's good side so they could keep selling stuff to the States. Unless the US closed their borders to beef or oil, or placed high tariffs on either. Then you'd see some tension.

If it was the Atlantic provinces forming the ACS, they'd probably be pretty isolationist and inward focusing, as they worked to build up their own economy. They would fight with France over territorial waters around Saint Pierre and Miquelon. France claims more ocean than Canada recognizes around those islands, including possible offshore oil deposits. They'd also have problems with Spain and Portugal, as their fishing fleets hit Canada's territorial waters now, let alone if it only had to worry about the small Atlantic provinces.

If it was Canada and the northern States, expect more of the same kind of foreign policies that the Liberal government currently enacts.

Well, with a name like "Amalgamated Canadian States", you'd have to assume that somebody broke Confederation, or some northern US states broke away and joined Canada, or both. Those are some damn big changes.

Off-hand I think you'd have to pick your scenario.

If we broke Confederation and oh, say, the Western provinces joined together to make ACS, you could probably assume that its foreign policy would change quite a bit. Assuming that Alberta and Calgary dominated these new states, its foreign policy would very much follow the US lead, regardless of who was president and what their foreign policy was. Their most important consideration would be staying on the US's good side so they could keep selling stuff to the States. Unless the US closed their borders to beef or oil, or placed high tariffs on either. Then you'd see some tension.

If it was the Atlantic provinces forming the ACS, they'd probably be pretty isolationist and inward focusing, as they worked to build up their own economy. They would fight with France over territorial waters around Saint Pierre and Miquelon. France claims more ocean than Canada recognizes around those islands, including possible offshore oil deposits. They'd also have problems with Spain and Portugal, as their fishing fleets hit Canada's territorial waters now, let alone if it only had to worry about the small Atlantic provinces.

If it was Canada and the northern States, expect more of the same kind of foreign policies that the Liberal government currently enacts.
To add to your Western Canada ACS senario, if BC was the dominant state its forieng policy would be much different than an Alberta dominated ACS. Trade with the US would still be very important, but it would be eager to trade with Asia too. BC has the population to be the dominant player in a Western ACS senario. Right now in many people, especially because of the softwood lumber issue, want the government to do more to help increase trade with Asia. More money would be spent on harbours and ports to help increase trade. The ASC would try to be a bit more assertive with the US. BC would benifit alot from a more assertive relationship with the US, but Alberta would want to more like the US (for trade purposes) and would make ACS be more submissive with the US.

To add to your Western Canada ACS senario, if BC was the dominant state its forieng policy would be much different than an Alberta dominated ACS. Trade with the US would still be very important, but it would be eager to trade with Asia too. BC has the population to be the dominant player in a Western ACS senario. Right now in many people, especially because of the softwood lumber issue, want the government to do more to help increase trade with Asia. More money would be spent on harbours and ports to help increase trade. The ASC would try to be a bit more assertive with the US. BC would benifit alot from a more assertive relationship with the US, but Alberta would want to more like the US (for trade purposes) and would make ACS be more submissive with the US.

Excellent points, I totally agree. I also think that a Western Canada ACS dominated by Vancouver would be much less likely to follow the US lead in foreign policy than a Calgary-dominated Western ACS. For example, a Calgary-dominated WACS would have gone into Iraq and gone for missile defense. A Vancouver-dominated WACS would have done neither.

Excellent points, I totally agree. I also think that a Western Canada ACS dominated by Vancouver would be much less likely to follow the US lead in foreign policy than a Calgary-dominated Western ACS. For example, a Calgary-dominated WACS would have gone into Iraq and gone for missile defense. A Vancouver-dominated WACS would have done neither.

I've heard that Alberta isn't that happy with Ottawa but how uppity could British Columbia be? I've always thought of it as one of those liberal bastions that wouldn't ever, pardon the term, have the guts to get up and leave

Somebody should stomp on that troll. I can't wait to see "ex-member" by his name.

And "Amalgamated Canadian States" is a term I have heard before. It is a term refering to what Canada would be had Quebec voted to seceed back in 95. It is one of those "if"y history terms.

I forget what "if"y history is called...you know..."what if" history? Not revisionist, but that's the word I keep wanting to say.

I've heard that Alberta isn't that happy with Ottawa but how uppity could British Columbia be? I've always thought of it as one of those liberal bastions that wouldn't never, pardon the term, have the guts to get up and leave

That would be southern, urban BC. Parts of northern BC wouldn't mind joining Alberta.

It's all just a what-if scenario, so I what-if'd for a while.

I've heard of futuristic countries such as Cascadia -- that's where BC, Washington, Oregon, and Califordia secede from their various nations and form a utopic "ecotopia".

It's all just an exercise for the imagination.

I forget what "if"y history is called...you know..."what if" history? Not revisionist, but that's the word I keep wanting to say.

I think the term you want is "alternate history".

I think the term you want is "alternate history".

No, that refers to history told by the defeated side. As opposed to "history written by the victors".

I remember now...virtual history.

I've heard that Alberta isn't that happy with Ottawa but how uppity could British Columbia be? I've always thought of it as one of those liberal bastions that wouldn't never, pardon the term, have the guts to get up and leave
I think after Quebec and Alberta, British Columbia is the third most likely province to leave Canada. I can't remember where I saw this so I don't have a source. BC is rather pissed off about the fact that Ottawa hasn't done much in regards to the softwood lumber dispute.

Ottawa hasn't done much in the regards of softwood lumber? Are you kidding me? They have been trying to put the stick to the kidneys of the elephant that we are in bed with (the United States of America) however it hasn't gone through due to the elephant's rough exterior. Ottawa has threatened the United States, one to sell more of our oil to Red China. That got the United States to begin to think. It just isn't British Columbia that is hurting in the softwood lumber dispute, the same goes with Ontario and Quebec.

Have any of you heard of the Western Canadian Concept? They are a bunch of Neo-Nazis. They want all of Western Canada to seperate.