[118877] in Cypherpunks
Re: Clinton questions independance of Quebec [CNN]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig McKie)
Sat Oct 9 11:26:05 1999
From: Craig McKie <cmckie@ottawa.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 11:10:34 -0400
Message-ID: <gFf=NzbpOIkjYYIiwS1kZMbzeB7B@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19991008233527.04a31a20@popserver.com21.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: Craig McKie <cmckie@ottawa.com>
>At 09:49 PM 10/8/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>A Canadian friend told me that during the first secession vote Clinton and
>his advisors were on the phone all night with Canada's federal leaders. It
>was clear from Canadian news coverage that Clinton viewed any victory by
>Quebec secessionists as a possible catalyst to similar anti-federal groups
>in the U.S. None of this, to my knowledge, was related in the major U.S. media.
That would be the SECOND referendum. It was a much closer run thing
with the result being decided in the negative by a very small
majority. The first vote occurred according to my recollection in the
late 1970s. During the second referendum, there were consultations
between the Prime Minister's office and various American officials
possibly, probably including Clinton. Little doubt has been left in
the minds of Canadians of all political persuasions that the United
States sees that its national interest lies in preserving the present
Canadian federation. This position no doubt played a part in the
outcome of both referenda. I will leave it to others to interpret WHY
U.S. national interests have been defined in this way. One possibility
is, as the original post suggests, that a successful referendum might
serve as an example for domestic de-federalizers. There are other
plausible reasons including current military arrangements, the UKUSA
arrangement, the FTA treaty, etc. etc.
