An Independent Quebec in NORAD and NATO: A Long and Winding Road?

Abstract

Introduction Were another referendum to be held in Quebec resulting in a majority vote in favor of sovereignty, how would security relations be shaped between an independent Quebec, Canada, and the United States of America? Would it be possible for Quebec to fully integrate itself into existing Canada-United States bilateral agreements on defense like NORAD, and into a multilateral defense organization such as NATO? Conscious that the transition period between a Yes vote for sovereignty and the conclusion (or not) of a new partnership between Canada and an independent Quebec will be extremely crucial, the two scenarios that will be presented in this paper are based on the assumption that the federal government would not question the legitimacy of the referendum or its results and would negotiate the terms of secession with the government of Quebec. Reality, certainly, could be otherwise. The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, I do an overview of Quebec's sovereigntist positions over the last twenty years on NORAD and NATO. (1) In the second part, I look at what several experts have said about the possibility for an independent Quebec to be a party to NORAD and a member of NATO. In the third part, I present my two scenarios on how Quebec could be integrated in the North American and the Euro-Atlantic security communities. Background Overview When it comes to constitutional matters in Canada, there is no doubt that a Parti Quebecois government in Quebec can be described as revisionist. In May 1980, the PQ government, led by Rene Levesque, organized a referendum to get a mandate to negotiate what was called then Sovereignty-Association. In October 1995, Quebeckers were asked once again to vote in a referendum on sovereignty with an economic and possibly political partnership with Canada. Thus Quebeckers have twice rejected the sovereignty option. At the present moment, no one can tell whether the sovereigntist side might prevail. On the question of security alliances, even if PQ militants were inclined to be neutral in the early seventies, the party elite has seemed to be less inclined. For instance, in a February 1978 interview in the Times, Rene Levesque clearly said that an independent Quebec should have normal ties with the West, NATO included. (2) A year later, the Quebec government published its Sovereignty-Association platform. This document would become the government's battlehorse during the 1980 referendum campaign. A very short section of the document dealt with defense issues. (3) It stated that Quebec would continue to occupy a strategic position in NORAD and would continue to fulfill its defense obligations in this continental defense structure. As for its membership in NATO, the government considered that Quebec's future was closely tied to European and American democracies. The authors of the document stressed that Quebec's membership in NATO would also further international exchanges. This view is similar to the current one held by Eastern and Central European countries who want to join NATO. Frankly speaking, defense issues were not really a hot topic during the 1980 referendum. (4) Most people in the Quebec government knew that, in the Cold War context, it was not in the interest of an independent Quebec to create a breach in the security system of the Euro-Atlantic community. It surely did not want to be perceived by the United States as the Cuba of the North. From 1980 to 1990, the Quebec question was not of major interest outside Quebec and Canada. However, the failure to ratify the Meech Lake accord in 1990, and a majority No vote in Quebec and in the balance of the country in the Charlottetown Accord referendum in 1992 put the sovereignty question back on the Canadian political agenda. Polls in Quebec showed that this option could be a winner. In 1993, the Liberal party came back to power in Ottawa under the leadership of Jean Chretien, followed a year later by the PQ victory in Quebec. …