Blue Berets of a Different Colour; Commonwealth UN Peacekeepers

[Doctor What]

From wikipedia:

Returning its attention to the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the United Nations responded to Suez Crisis of 1956, a war between the alliance of the United Kingdom, France, and Israel, and Egypt, which was supported by other Arab nations. When a ceasefire was declared in 1957, Canadian diplomat (and future Prime Minister) Lester Bowles Pearson suggested that the United Nations station a peacekeeping force in the Suez in order to ensure that the ceasefire was honored by both sides. Pearson had initially suggested that the force consist of mainly Canadian soldiers, but the Egyptians were suspicious of having a Commonwealth nation defend them against the United Kingdom and her allies. In the end, a wide variety of national forces were drawn upon to ensure national diversity. Pearson would win the Nobel Peace Prize for this work, and he is today considered a father of modern peacekeeping.

Let's suppose that, for whatever reason(s), L. B. Pearson's original idea is accepted.

What would be the consequences?

What would it take to keep it going?

What would be the reactions?

 

[Beedok]

Canada Army = Peacekeepers?

That would actually be pretty sweet!

 

[Dan1988]

Hmm, now that would be an interesting idea. One problem, though - how is Mike going to convince Nasser that solely supplying peacekeepers from Canada is a good idea? That is the key here - if Mike can't convince Nasser, then we're back to square one. Other than that, I could see this as a tie-in with TheMann's CF-wank TL.

(paging TheMann, paging TheMann, . . . . )

Plus, after WW2 and Korea, this would be a much-needed break for the Canadian Forces, and could probably convince Parliament to go for a much larger budget for the military. Maybe this could tie in with the Quiet Revolution, bolstering the manufacturing industry in Québec as well as helping to boost Atlantic Canada's economy?

 

[Thande]

If the Canadians indeed were scrupulously neutral (and knowing Canadians, they would be) there would be a huge backlash in Britain about it: at this point in the 1950s Canada was still expected to toe the UK's line (some leeway was given for relations with the US, but that was about it). I can imagine the tabloids ranting about boycotting maple syrup and so forth... The USA's response was already popularly seen as a betrayal in OTL, never mind this from Canada.

The French would probably do a de Gaulle-type "Vive le Quebec libre" setup earlier on as well in similar reaction.

This actually has interesting butterflies because NIBMAR by Britain was introduced thanks to pressure from Pearson: if he's seen as a hate figure in Britain, successive Prime Ministers might stand against NIBMAR precisely because it's his idea, with the result that the British stance on apartheid South Africa is a bit softer and there's no (significant) objection to e.g. Rhodesia becoming independent under white minority rule.

 

[Dan1988]

If the Canadians indeed were scrupulously neutral (and knowing Canadians, they would be) there would be a huge backlash in Britain about it: at this point in the 1950s Canada was still expected to toe the UK's line (some leeway was given for relations with the US, but that was about it). I can imagine the tabloids ranting about boycotting maple syrup and so forth... The USA's response was already popularly seen as a betrayal in OTL, never mind this from Canada.

Just 'cause I'm wondering here: how important were Canadian imports to the 1950s UK economy, and vice versa?

The French would probably do a de Gaulle-type "Vive le Quebec libre" setup earlier on as well in similar reaction.

Which, considering that that would be whilst Maurice Duplessis was still around (Le Chef only died in 1959), would probably backfire spectacularly. Even if a "Vive le Québec libre" setup were used during the Quiet Revolution, due to the POD, it would also backfire spectacularly (i.e. how dare the godless French tell us God-fearing Québécois, les maîtres chez nous, what to do?)

 

[Doctor What]

This actually has interesting butterflies because NIBMAR by Britain was introduced thanks to pressure from Pearson: if he's seen as a hate figure in Britain, successive Prime Ministers might stand against NIBMAR precisely because it's his idea, with the result that the British stance on apartheid South Africa is a bit softer and there's no (significant) objection to e.g. Rhodesia becoming independent under white minority rule.

Interesting. How likely would this be, though?

 

[Thande]

Interesting. How likely would this be, though?

Fairly likely I think. The political establishment was never quite comfortable being hard on people like Ian Smith, even as late as 1980.

 

[mowque]

Just 'cause I'm wondering here: how important were Canadian imports to the 1950s UK economy, and vice versa?

Do you really want to know? I do happen to have the numbers here but they are a pain to actually work with (giant spreadsheets).

 

[Dan1988]

Do you really want to know? I do happen to have the numbers here but they are a pain to actually work with (giant spreadsheets).

I only asked that as a rhetorical question, but please - do enlighten us.

 

[mowque]

I only asked that as a rhetorical question, but please - do enlighten us.

Ok, I put it in graph form. I originally had only 1940-1960, but what the heck, here is from 1920-Today. Note- Those war years, Canada had a decifet of trade.