joint crisis committees...of the manmade roosevelt aquifer, the united states of america became...

C R I S I S B A C K G R O U N D G U I D E

V M U N 2 0 1 8

Joint Crisis Committees

Vancouver Model United Nations The 17th Annual Session | January 19 - 21, 2018

Dear delegates, My name is Julian Miller, and it is my pleasure to be writing to you as the Crisis Director of the Joint Crisis Committees at VMUN this year. I am currently a senior at Prince of Wales Secondary School in Vancouver, and have been participating in Model United Nations throughout my time in high school. During that time, I’ve participated in a wide variety of committees as a delegate, as well as occupied staff and secretariat roles at other conferences. This is my second consecutive year directing VMUN’s Joint Crisis Committees, and I am very hopeful that I will be able to provide an even richer delegate experience in my second attempt. Evidently, the topic for this year’s Joint Crisis Committee is not founded in reality. It is a fictional conflict between two factions within the United States: a separatist group called the AFAS, and the states loyal to the United States government. It is set thirty-two years in the future, and it bears little semblance to actual events. I wholeheartedly believe this crisis will be both enthralling and challenging, and I am eager to see where you take it as a committee. The possibilities are virtually infinite, as are the developments and crises we have in store for you. As the conference draws nearer, I sincerely hope you are excited, and busily plotting your strategies to ensure your bloc is victorious. However, before we go any further, I would like to remind you that as this crisis is fictional, there are no resources besides the background guide that can offer you any help in preparing for the conference. Though you may use external resources to gain additional historical knowledge, these sources cannot, and should not be what you use to principally research and prepare for this committee. In lieu of the typical online research, I implore you to devote your energies toward becoming extremely familiar with the background guides. While the sheer amount of reading may be daunting, I must remind you that these are your only resources regarding this crisis, and it is paramount that you familiarize yourself with them as much as possible. I promise you that your knowledge of the background and context of this crisis will be directly proportional to the effectiveness of your directives, as well as the likelihood of your finding success in this committee. If you have any questions regarding the background guides, the committee itself, or if you have any other concerns or inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me. From all my fellow JCC staff members and me, I would like to offer you a warm welcome to this year’s JCC. Best of luck, Julian Miller JCC Director

Ken Hong Secretary-General

Callum Shepard Chief of Staff

Jerry Jiao

Director-General

Andrew Wei Director of Logistics

Jadine Ngan USG General Assemblies

Eric Zhang

USG Specialized Agencies

Dillon Ramlochun USG Conference

Angelina Zhang

USG Delegate Affairs

Jerry Xu USG Delegate Affairs

Alan Chen

USG Finance

Meghna Lohia USG IT

Position Paper Policy

What is a Position Paper? A position paper is a brief overview of a country’s stance on the topics being discussed by a particular committee. Though there is no specific format the position paper must follow, it should include a description of your positions your country holds on the issues on the agenda, relevant actions that your country has taken, and potential solutions that your country would support. At Vancouver Model United Nations, delegates should write a position paper for each of the committee’s topics. Each position paper should not exceed one page, and should all be combined into a single document per delegate.

Formatting Position papers should: — Include the name of the delegate, his/her country, and the committee — Be in a standard font (e.g. Times New Roman) with a 12-point font size and 1-inch document margins — Not include illustrations, diagrams, decorations, national symbols, watermarks, or page borders — Include citations and a bibliography, in any format, giving due credit to the sources used in research (not included in the 1-page limit) Due Dates and Submission Procedure Position papers for this committee are mandatory. The submission deadline is January 7th, 2018. Once your position paper is complete, please save the file as your last name, your first name and send it as an attachment in an email, to your committee’s email address, with the subject heading as your last name, your first name — Position Paper. Please do not add any other attachments to the email or write anything else in the body. Both your position papers should be combined into a single PDF or Word document file; position papers submitted in another format will not be accepted. The email address for this committee is [email protected].

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 4

The American Water Conflict, 2040 ............................................................................................. 5

Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Global History 2018-2040 ..................................................................................................................... 6

American History 2018-2040 ................................................................................................................ 8

The Geopolitical Landscape of 2040 .................................................................................................. 11

The Association of Free American States ............................................................................................... 11

The United States of America .................................................................................................................. 13

Canada ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Europe & the United Kingdom ............................................................................................................... 14

Africa ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

Asia .............................................................................................................................................................. 15

South America ........................................................................................................................................... 15

Inciting Crisis ........................................................................................................................................ 15


The American Water Conflict, 2040

Overview

After accepting the Illinois Republican Party’s nomination for state senator in 1858, Abraham Lincoln famously offered the warning that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Hackneyed though his words may now be, his warning adeptly foreshadowed the oncoming civil war, proving that a nation “half slave and half free” as Lincoln put it, was very much unsustainable. Indeed, as 2040 dawns on the United States of America, Lincoln’s clichéd speech has begun to find relevance again, as the seeds of division have been planted in earnest. This time though, they are not born of racial hatred, but of an environmental plight so dire as to threaten the constitutional unity that has bound the continental United States since the end of the civil war.

Indeed, gone are the days where climatic changes brought about by human activity rest in the realm of plausible deniability. With the drastic heatwaves and drought conditions of the 2030s ravaging nations worldwide, it became impossible to ignore. With a shoddy and corruption-laden drought protocol in place, the United States watched on helplessly as their water supply was depleted rapidly. Ultimately with the accidental contamination of the manmade Roosevelt Aquifer, the United States of America became irreversibly plunged into a fully-fledged water crisis. In the wake of the newfound shortage, the United States has been divided once again into factions, and Lincoln’s words “half slave and half free” ring ominously in a much different sense, as the states are divided into a collection of haves and have-nots, with water-lacking states disturbingly reliant upon the water-bearing states’ “generosity” as the Governor of California put it.

Such a power dynamic has not gone unnoticed in the political arena. Immediately following the Roosevelt Aquifer incident, Congress began the process of creating a bill known as the Water Distribution Act (WDA). The WDA decreed that all American fresh-water stockpiles must be distributed evenly across the United States according to population and that all privately owned stockpiles in the United States would be immediately turned over to the government. The WDA in effect nationalized the entirety of fresh water, in the hopes of returning a sense of equality between the states. Clearly though, this process was quickly rejected by the water-bearing states, many of whom protested the requirement of ceding their stockpiles. In this protest, the water crisis has become the ultimate “life and death” political issue. In this jarring new reality, the sight of American citizens calling for Americans in other states to have their access to water limited is commonplace, and any sense of American unity or patriotism has long since been replaced by a darkly survivalist dog-eat-dog mentality.

Nevertheless, the WDA has remained in place, with water-bearing states begrudgingly acquiescing to the sharing protocol it outlined. This acceptance of the WDA, however, may finally be called into question. Twenty of America’s water-bearing states have issued a joint statement announcing that beginning in two months time, they will no longer be participating in the “theft operating under the guise of welfare” of the WDA. In addition to ending the sharing of their stockpiles with “dry states” (states lacking their own freshwater supply), they have announced deals to sell off their surplus water at an astronomical premium to several drought-ridden nations in Asia and Africa. This announcement has sparked outrage, with dry states calling for the military to forcibly seize the stockpiles in question. In response, the same twenty water-bearing states issued a threat of profound consequence: if the government continues to threaten their control over their water, they will secede from the United States of America.


Global History 2018-2040

The Trump administration’s rejection of climate science and the Paris Climate Agreements marked the beginning of a noticeable descent into environmental irresponsibility in the United States. Though many other nations, as well as American state governors, attempted to sway the tide toward renewable energy, the Trump government repeatedly affirmed their commitment to oil, gas, and coal, and effectively curtailed any strides towards green energy sources. Nevertheless, environmental groups and pro-renewable energy nations retained a great deal of hope considering the progress made by other countries in divesting from fossil fuels into renewable energy. This was true in particular when, in 2020, a collective of nations including China, India, the majority of Europe, as well as Canada, Brazil, and other nations announced the creation of the ISEC or the International Sustainable Energy Coalition. The ISEC outlined a plan for significant tax incentives, subsidies, and outright financing for sustainable energy investment as well as monetary aid to developing countries to support the development of renewable energy infrastructure. The plan was groundbreaking, with the financial backing for the planned infrastructure in the trillions of dollars. It was hailed by then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “a ray of hope that we as global citizens truly can reverse the effects of climate change, and ultimately save our planet.”

Unfortunately, this astronomical investment into renewable energy worldwide abruptly trailed off amid a global recession in 2021, prompted largely by the cataclysmic Chinese debt crisis. The Chinese economy had ultimately failed to match its growth brought by exports and foreign investment with consumer spending, creating a dangerously high debt to GDP ratio, and a bubble which finally burst. The global fallout was palpable, with much of international investment collapsing. Many developed nations elected to proceed and rebuild with an isolationist mindset, including much of Europe. Less economically developed nations sought out new trading partners, with nations such as India and Nigeria finding newfound status as global economic powerhouses. China, crippled by the crash, fell into the former group, with their government electing to pursue economic redevelopment as an isolationist, quasi-communist, command economy. An unfortunate casualty of the new Chinese economic model was the ISEC and its associated investments. With the palpable absence of Chinese leadership and financing, the project fell apart. Though many economically developed nations continued to individually develop their own renewable energy sources, many less developed nations were no longer able to finance their renewable energy projects and remained reliant on fossil fuels. The United States began to emphasize their status as the primary exporter of fossil fuels, primarily coal, as did other former OPEC nations. These nations did a great deal of business with impoverished nations left stranded by the dissolution of the ISEC.

In the wake of the Chinese debt crisis, it became clear that economic confidence in foreign investment had been deeply shaken. The 2020s saw a new wave of both economic and political nationalism. The European Union, now without the United Kingdom, developed a strategy of internal development, focussing on developing a European “Silicon Valley” style technology and innovation hub in Germany, the Netherlands, and France and their own hub of renewable energy (wind, hydro, biomass, and geothermal) in the Baltic states and Scandinavia. As time progressed, trade with the United States of America ceased almost entirely. The result, an insular and self-sustaining European continent built upon strong technology and green energy sectors with combined with left-leaning governments did well, with excellent health care, education, and other public systems. This became a model replicated to varying extents in Canada, Japan and South Korea, and scattered other countries worldwide.

These utopian aspirations, however, did not reflect global political tides. With less developed nations in disarray following the demise of the multi-trillion-dollar ISEC energy projects in their nations, economic catastrophe brought about disaster in the political sphere. In Africa, Ethiopia, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Morocco, and South


Africa had all been classified as primary target sites for ISEC project development. Following the projects' cancellations in 2021, their economies were dramatically affected, with hundreds of thousands of people suddenly unemployed. Even nations that had not seen as much ISEC investment saw dramatic consequences to the fallout, with most African economies experiences severe downturns thanks to the lack of financial inflow into the continent, especially given the political instability. Overall, as the economic and political arenas began to steady themselves in 2027, much of Africa had seen a period of “regression and damage unheard of since colonialism” according to the then-Chairperson of the African Union, Pascal Kimpembe.

In Asia, India took China’s place in global trade and investment, growing both in size and wealth. Nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia took similar strides forward, developing rapidly into centres of business and trade. In South America, Brazil—a heavy investor in the ISEC projects—declined rapidly, while smaller nations suffered less. In North America, Canada remained entrenched in global trade, though invested primarily in renewable energy along with much of Europe, having ultimately divested from their exhausted supply of oil and natural gas. In the Middle East, China’s withdrawal from much of international trade caused a vacuum that resulted in nations redefining their trading partners. Turkey strengthened ties with Russia, while Saudi Arabia invested heavily in renewable energy, developing into a global power thanks to lucrative ties to Southeast Asia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and continental Europe. Iran followed suit, developing close ties to the European economy. Russia remained firmly in the oil market, in spite of the overwhelming trend towards green energy. Now without China as a primary trading partner, Russia elected to deepen its bonds to Turkey, the United States, and eastern Europe. As a result, the Russian economy stagnated, as it now remains.

This brand new economic landscape, though, was not to be without its trials. As the 2020s, a decade of austere economic recuperation, ended a brand new challenge emerged: drought. The long-since abandoned Paris Agreement had aimed to keep global warming below a rise of 2°C, for perspective, by 2031, global temperatures had risen approximately 3.2°C since 2017. This dramatic rise in global temperature averages brought about increasingly extreme weather conditions. The 2020s had seen instances of dramatic weather patterns as well: in 2023 Hurricane Leo wreaked havoc all the way from Cuba to North Carolina in 2023 in the most damaging tropical storm on record, killing 11,000 people over a two-week period. In 2026, an unprecedented series of typhoons and monsoon rains caused incredible damage in Thailand and Vietnam, causing over 200,000 fatalities as a result of catastrophic flooding in urban centres. The 2030s though, saw a new brand of climate crisis, with torrential rains and tropical storms replaced by extended periods of drought conditions.

It appeared quickly that the economic crash of the 2020s had forced the abandonment of more climate initiatives than simply the ISEC. Groundwater and aquifers had continued to be exploited, with the sustainable use of water a hopelessly low priority. Indeed, as global rainfall and snowfall dropped, it became apparent that water stores—already perilously low—would no longer be replenished to the same degree. In 2033, the United Nations adopted a global drought guideline known as the “Freshwater Conservation Protocol." The FCP placed strict guidelines on the use of groundwater and aquifers, as such stores were quickly being depleted. Additionally, it recommended that governments halt non-vital irrigation (all publicly maintained lawns, gardens, and other non-agricultural vegetation). Furthermore, it recommended to governments that strict regulations be imposed upon private water companies such as Nestle, which often control aquifers and bottle the obtained water for profit.

The FCP, unfortunately, was only partially effective. Only 118 out of 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly signed the document, a group of notably absent major nations such as China, the United States of America, and Russia. Over the following decade, the drought conditions persisted worldwide, with some nations responding with swift innovation and cognizance of the situation. This largely European group included Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and many other European Union


nations, while also encompassing nations such as Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia. All of whom committed immediately to curtailing their respective uses of water, all the while investing heavily in the research and development of large-scale water desalination, to be used to convert seawater into potable water. Nevertheless, the United States and their fellow non-signatories took no such pains to improve their water sustainability. The international bottled water lobby held a level of influence that proved difficult to combat. Multinational giant Nestle continued to bottle water extracted from American aquifers, despite significant protest. Many of the countries that refused to sign cited a belief that the drought conditions would not persist, or that their severity had been blown out of proportion.

Sadly, by 2038, conditions had only worsened. Rainfall remained limited, and naturally occurring freshwater supplies were alarmingly low. In FCP-adhering countries, desalination and recycled wastewater had in most cases become sustainable. Nevertheless, isolationist attitudes remained, and while many nations had developed suitable technology to sustain their own people, little allowance had been made for foreign aid to drought-ravaged nations that lacked the financial firepower to develop sustainable infrastructure. In non-FCP countries, however, the situation was dramatically worse. The United States of America, China, and Russia had elected to pursue their own drought protocols, which was both careless—making allowances for frivolous things like gardening and lawn care—as well as toothless with regard to corruption. Indeed, Nestle and similar bottling companies had been able to continue and in places expand their operations, making colossal profits in countries where there was little other water on offer. Additionally, private wealth could also purchase stores of water, occasionally for their own sustenance, but largely as a speculative investment.

Over the next two years, the global water shortage finally became a widely accepted global emergency. Virtually all nations who still allowed for water’s exportation or the operation of private water companies nationalized their water supply. This had the incidental effect of causing the water’s price to skyrocket, meaning that nations with no water supply of their own and no technology were left to pay astronomical premiums to purchase water from the few states that had not nationalized their own, such as Russia, Turkey, Brazil, and a few others. Though many nations were in political and economic turmoil, none quite matched the unique brand of chaos that has now descended upon the United States of America. A superpower brought to the brink of catastrophe through its internal division, the world is watching anxiously on to see what will become of this nation in crisis.

American History 2018-2040

In 2019, with the world set to pour trillions of dollars into in the International Sustainable Energy Coalition, the United States was at a crossroads. A substantial percentage of the public wanted the United States to join the project and invest in developing sustainable energy for the future. Nevertheless, a great many American conservatives — many of whom remained skeptical of climate change and the need for renewable energy — opposed joining the ISEC. The opposition felt that joining the ISEC would be an enormous use of public funds to be spent on investment in an industry that both lacked legitimacy and threatened traditional American industries. The Trump government agreed, with President Trump denouncing the program in a public address, saying: “Let me promise you right now, there is no way we’re gonna go and spend all these billions and billions of hard-earned American taxpayer dollars on ‘green energy’ just because other countries are doing it. Our economy is doing fantastic, our oil, our coal, all our industries are doing incredibly. This is absolutely not something America needs, and it’s not something we’re going to do.” Nevertheless, 2020 was an election year, and the question of whether or not to join the ISEC would be paramount in deciding its fate.

The Republicans predictably fielded President Donald J. Trump for re-election, banking on the historical advantage of incumbency in elections. The Democrats nominated Senator Elizabeth Warren, who was quick to


promise a multi-billion-dollar investment into ISEC energy projects, alongside a heavy divestment from fossil fuels. Unfortunately for Warren, despite a strong anti-Trump sentiment among Democrats and many Republicans, the Republican smear campaign of the ISEC projects worked brilliantly. Climate change skepticism was rife, and the American people were wary of “wasting” almost a trillion dollars on a program that included a great deal of international investment and foreign aid for infrastructure development. Trump’s “America First” sentiment capitalized on that fear, and come election day Americans chose to continue to prioritize job creation in fossil fuel industries rather than the development of sustainable energy, with Trump defeating Warren to win re-election in a close race: 272 electoral college votes to 266.

Off the bat, Trump’s refusal to sign on to the ISEC looked like a stroke of brilliance. By 2021, the project had been abandoned by its own primary financial supporter, China, and the project lay in tatters. Nevertheless, the United States was still massively affected by Chinese debt crisis. The Trump administration did a great deal to attempt to further their status as the foremost exporters of fossil fuels and petroleum products, which was relatively successful for a time. Nevertheless, in a shifting economy with a trend towards renewable energy sources, and away from fossil fuels and international investment, this position became untenable. Amid protests and social dysfunction born out of a stagnant economy, the United States began to recuperate, investing largely in the technology and information sectors. This was more successful, though many lamented the continued lack of investment in renewable energy and the associated apathy toward climate change.

In 2023, the American economy was dealt a blow with Hurricane Leo striking much of the southeastern United States. Tens of billions of dollars of destruction were dealt across Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee, along with 8,000 Americans killed. That said, though the tragedy was more destructive than any other single disaster in American history, it did provide an economic focus, with the rebuilding creating thousands of jobs working to repair and replace infrastructure. It also provided a realization that climate change may actually be a significant threat and prompted some minor investment into renewable energy. In spite of this the economy, as well as the new energy infrastructure, moved slowly.

The remainder of the 2020s were inauspicious, save for a few major events. Democrat Kamala Harris won the Presidency in 2024, becoming the first female President of the United States, after defeating Republican Senator Tom Cotton with relative ease, with the defining issue being taking procedures to divest from fossil fuels into renewable energy sources. The other landmark event of the 2020s began immediately after Harris’s election when the growing Hawaiian Nationalism movement reached a critical mass. This occurred when, following the election in 2024, the Hawaii State Legislature was rocked by a dramatic ideological shift. The newly elected legislature was comprised of 11 Republicans, 26 Democrats, and 39 members of the brand-new separatist Hawaiian National Party or “HNP” (these totals represent both houses of the legislature). The HNP was rooted in the longstanding feelings of resentment in Hawaii, particularly among native Hawaiians, towards the continental United States. A colonized archipelago, Hawaii’s status as an American state was largely rooted in conquest and the systematic disenfranchisement of indigenous Hawaiians and Hawaiians of Asian descent. After enduring yet another American economic crash, the sentiment that Hawaii would be better off with its independence was popular. With the victory of the HNP, this sentiment was made official.

The HNP quickly delivered on its promise of a plebiscite on the issue of Hawaiian independence. The results of the vote were decisive. 57% of Hawaiian citizens voted in favour of separating from the United States of America. Following the results of the plebiscite, the issue was brought before Congress by the current Hawaiian representatives. Initially, the push for Hawaiian separatism was surprisingly well received. Many Democrats sympathized with the indigenous heritage of the issue and several — though still a minority — of the Republican representatives supported the motion under the banner of states’ rights. The issue, however, was more complex.


Despite earning the requisite votes to pass Congress and the Senate, before it was able to do so, Hawaiian Republicans, led by Hawaiian State Senator Gary Lee contested the constitutionality of such a bill. The case went to the Supreme Court. Despite the opposite precedent set in 1869’s Texas v. White case, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Lee vs. Hawaii that if certain conditions are met there is no constitutional obligation to remain in the United States of America. These conditions were defined as: a two-thirds majority of the seceding population votes in favour of secession in a referendum, a two-thirds majority assents to the secession in Congress and the Senate, and the President approves the secession. President-turned-constitutional law professor Barack Obama called the ruling “the most significant Supreme Court decision in all our lifetimes." With regard to Hawaii, the Supreme Court’s requirements were quickly met, and in 2027, Hawaii officially left the union and became the Sovereign Republic of Hawaii. Hawaiian citizens were given the option to remain American citizens, though many opted to relinquish theirs. The nation was recognized by the UN that same year. Overall, this process was controversial, with many believing that the United States of America should have remained an indivisible union and that allowing Hawaii to secede would serve to embolden future secessionist causes.

President Kamala Harris won re-election the next year in 2028, as the now 49 United States of America pressed on into the 2030s. The global drought conditions of the 2030s were no kinder to the United States than they were elsewhere worldwide. The limited rainfall and snowfall quickly proved problematic, though in 2032, Republican Graham Connolly won on a unique brand of optimism, capitalizing on the political capital to be gained in easing the fears of the populace. His message that the water shortage was temporary and to overreact would be dangerous was easily preferred to Democrat Terry Thompson’s relatively alarmist message of drought protocol and rationing of water. Nevertheless, the drought weather persisted, but even as the UN adopted the FCP in 2033, the Conolly administration remained resolute in its position that no such protocol was necessary.

In 2036, however, with the harsh reality of the situation, the United States of America elected Democrat Stephen Martinez, who promised to introduce a drought protocol that would force the sustainable usage of groundwater and other American water reserves in the case that drought conditions of limited rainfall persisted in years future. The bill that ended up passing, however, bore little resemblance to the promise of sustainability that Martinez ran on. In June of 2037, President Martinez signed into law Congress’s bill known as the “Drought Response Act." The DRA was flawed from start to finish. While it acknowledged the issue of limited rainfall and overuse of groundwater and unsustainable rates, the bill did not ban several forms of frivolous water use (for example, the bill infamously allowed for the irrigation of golf courses) and did not prevent corporations such as Nestle from continuing to privately bottle and sell water located in several locations in the United States of America. The ensuing protests were deafening. In particular, in states such as California which were now entirely dependent on imported water from elsewhere in the United States, the population was furious that the government would continue to allow for golf courses to be irrigated and American water to be bottled and sold for profit.

President Martinez’s response was an initiative known as “the Roosevelt aquifer." Unlike a geological aquifer, a naturally occurring source of groundwater, the Roosevelt aquifer was merely the name given to a massive wastewater recycling centre to be built in Los Angeles, California. The plan was for the plant to provide enough water to sustain California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Unfortunately, the planned aquifer failed completely. Shortly after its completion in 2038, the facility suffered an accidental cross-contamination between the wastewater and the purified water, leading to the contamination of several hundred thousand gallons of potable water.

In the weeks following the Roosevelt aquifer incident, there was a period of deep social unrest. Many public demonstrations took place across the United States, particularly in states that had already resorted to importing


water from elsewhere in the United States. These demonstrations were nicknamed “The Water Riots," and are largely credited with bringing about the WDA. The Water Distribution Act was, in effect, a replacement to the toothless and ineffectual Drought Response Act. Signed into law in January of 2039, it demanded that all freshwater now be allocated and distributed equitably by state according to population. All states, individuals, and corporations in possession of water stockpiles were also forced to cede them to the government. The water supply was, in effect, nationalized. This decree was protested among water-bearing states, with much of the population in these states calling for states to control their own water supply rather than be forced to sustain dry states. the law was respected for the following year. Finally, tensions have come to a head.

In February 2040, several of the water-bearing states incurred accusations of treason following admissions of covert deals selling off surplus water to China, Nigeria, and other drought-wracked countries in Africa and Asia. In response, these states admitted to the sales, and stood by their decision to exercise ownership over their water supply. President Martinez condemned the action, demanding that these states respect the WDA provision banning external water sales. In response, a joint statement was issued by the Governors of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida. These twenty states lambasted the WDA, describing it as “an affront to states’ rights," “pure theft operating under the guise of welfare” and accused it of “expecting certain states to absolve the federal government of its colossal irresponsibility over the past two decades." Following the publication of this statement, the aforementioned states joined together in a coalition known as the “Association of Free American States." The AFAS promptly declared that should the United States Government make any attempt to continue the water-sharing outlined in the WDA, they would secede from the union entirely and federate, forming a new nation independent of the USA.

The Geopolitical Landscape of 2040

The current landscape is a portrait of a world divided. With few countries accepting immigrants, a person’s citizenship now often determines their ease of access to one of the most basic human necessities. The challenge of achieving a sustainable water supply is one that transfixes every nation, with drought and the associated food and water shortages threatening day to day life across the globe.

The Association of Free American States

Economy The AFAS is currently merely a collective of like-minded states within the United States of America, and thus bears little resembling an independent national economy. As things currently stand, the AFAS states still enjoy federally-funded public services and infrastructure, though that would certainly cease to be the case should they further pursue secession. Nevertheless, many political leaders within the AFAS appear to feel strongly that economic independence from the United States of America would be possible. Though perhaps it goes without saying, the AFAS are home to the water supply of the United States of America. Provided the water consumption needs within the AFAS are met, the excesses can then be sold off to the proverbial highest bidder. Water is now the most valuable global commodity, and with the vast majority of water stores nationalized, the AFAS stands in a position of incredible economic power as one of the few willing exporters of potable water. China, Nigeria, India, Egypt, and many other nations have all expressed an interest in purchasing water stores at exorbitant prices, thus offering a great deal of encouragement to those in favour of AFAS independence.


In addition to their water monopoly, a vital member of the AFAS is New York, which remains the primary seat of the international finance industry. Recently in particular the global finance sector appears to be entering a renaissance of increased confidence in international investment. New York, however, is not the only economic powerhouse among the AFAS. Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Washington are all among the United States’ most prosperous economically and lend a great deal of credence to the claims that the AFAS could one day be economically self-sufficient. Nevertheless, for the AFAS to do so, it would require a difficult period of transition away from the federal government’s economy, and such a period would likely be economically harmful, with the AFAS forced to replace federal public services with its own. Many have suggested this transition would be eased if the AFAS were to take a Libertarian approach to secession, with private enterprise picking up the majority of the federal slack in industries such as education, infrastructure, healthcare, and social services. In truth, it will never be certain whether or not the AFAS could financially support itself without attempting it in earnest—a risk, to say the least.

Political Politically, the AFAS is a complex beast, though they are very fundamentally united in their belief that each state should have total control over their water supply. Indeed, this belief in a state’s right to self-governance is widely held among the AFAS, and should the AFAS defy the odds and successfully secede from the union that belief would likely manifest itself very clearly. Each state would likely retain control over their water supply, although a central government of the federated collective would probably levy taxes upon any revenues collected in order to support federally operated public works. The social politics of the AFAS are primarily very progressive. The AFAS is mostly made up of historically Democratic strongholds such as New England and the Northeast, with the addition of Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. The only ideological contrast is found in Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, and North Dakota, primarily conservative states though members of the AFAS nonetheless. That said, one would be remiss to believe that the AFAS are politically unified.

In response to their respective Governors announcing their plans to ignore the WDA and abandon the dry states among the USA, there have been many protests within the AFAS states. One particular group entitled “Americans Against Abandonment” or “Triple-A” have gained popularity across the United States, in particular as the voice of political opposition in the AFAS states, holding many anti-secession rallies and protests. They believe that secession would constitute a despicable act of selfishness, effectively condemning the dry United States to brutal water and food shortages. This argument is not without merit, though the political establishment in the AFAS remains firm in its belief that pragmatism and survival must outweigh any moral imperative. Undoubtedly, the question of secession is without doubt one that will certainly polarize the political sphere in the coming times.

Military As mentioned before, the AFAS is currently not a sovereign state and thus does not possess its own military force. The US Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard are still under the command of the President of the United States and the Department of Defense, and it is unclear how the AFAS would amass a military should it require one. There have been murmurs throughout AFAS states that the Governors of the AFAS member states were attempting to form an armed militia of civilians, similar in nature to the National Guard. Many have also acknowledged the possibility that if the AFAS were to secede, the new nation could offer incentives (access to water, immigration to a water-bearing state, money, etc.) for individuals in the military both within and outside AFAS States to defect and pledge allegiance to the AFAS. It has also been rumoured that the AFAS could attempt to engineer a NSA-esque surveillance agency as well as a covert intelligence agency in order to better protect the


nascent federation from being forcibly reincorporated into the United States, should secession become a reality. Nevertheless, the reality remains that absenting a seismic shift in power dynamic or foreign intervention from their overseas allies, the AFAS lacks its own military, and is thus as at a considerable disadvantage in the case of a military conflict with the United States of America.

The United States of America

Economy Though the United States has limited access to water outside of their dwindling stockpiles in Northern California, Montana, Idaho, and Mississippi, they are not without abundant resources of their own. The majority of the American renewable energy sector (largely comprised of wind turbines, solar farms, and hydroelectric dams) is located in Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Montana, California, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nevada, and Arizona. On top of this, the technology sector remains firmly headquartered in California. The subject of intensive federal investment, the United States technology industry is unparalleled worldwide. A hub of engineering, innovation, and development, technological mecca Silicon Valley rapidly outpaced its Northern European competitor, earning the United States the lion’s share of what is one of the three most vital industries worldwide, apart from energy and water. Silicon Valley itself has grown into a booming urban metropolis, with the newly developed city of Silicon Valley rivalling New York and Los Angeles in economic activity, though with only half of the latter’s population. Thus, while they lack in natural resources, the United States of America are certainly by no means cash-strapped, and will not be even without the AFAS states. Regardless, it is still very much in the economic interest of the United States they remain united, as the loss of so many financial powerhouse states would be a devastating, though survivable, blow to the US economy.

Political Politically, the United States of America has enjoyed a strange phenomenon of political unification through their division with the AFAS states. Social issues have taken a backseat to the most primal of survival instinct, with the preservation of the WDA and their continued access to water the foremost concern. With this in mind, preventing an AFAS secession is of the utmost importance. Despite public outcry for public services to be cut off or other sanctions to be levied against the AFAS, President Stephen Martinez, a Democrat, has refused to do so. “It’s true that the Governors of these States have issued a very frightening threat, and that in doing so they have threatened the lives of millions of Americans. But with that said, we cannot descend to aggression and infighting. These are still Americans we’re talking about. They are our brothers and sisters, and we cannot afford to lose them. We need to heal these divisions, not widen them.” said President Martinez.

Nevertheless, it is an election year. While President Martinez and the Democrats have maintained the need for peaceful dialogue regarding the renegotiation of the WDA while opposing forcible seizure of the secessionist water stores, the Republicans have repeatedly opposed this. The Republicans, led by nominee Senator Chelsea Halloran of Arizona, have repeatedly advocated for harsh anti-secessionist measures, such as cutting off resources and imports to AFAS states, forcible water seizures, and ultimately the deployment of troops and the imposition of martial law in the AFAS states. Another candidate on the ballot in 2040 is tech magnate and billionaire Ron Cole. Cole is a liberal in the classic sense of the word, who believes in limited government intervention, and is standing as the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, with his primary campaign promise being to allow and encourage the secession of the AFAS. He is popular within the AFAS, and with the AFAS holding 232 combined Electoral College votes, he hopes to make a significant impact in the 2040 election. Cole, however, is hated with vitriol outside the AFAS, seen as public enemy number one in many of the states


that stand to lose much of their access to drinkable water in the outcome of a Cole presidency. A billionaire from Indiana (part of the AFAS), Cole has little personal attachment to the issue and has received numerous death threats so far. However, it must also be considered that Cole may not be successful in allowing a legal secession even in the case of a win. The precedent set in Lee v. Hawaii requires a 2/3 majority in both the seceding population, Congress, and the Senate in addition to presidential approval. Though there are many months before election day, it is already the focus of many Americans, who know it to be a defining moment in the issue of secession.

Military From a military standpoint, the resources at the disposal of the United States of America leave little to be desired. Despite ups and downs in their recent economic history, the US Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard remain a formidable force rivalled by few, if any, nations worldwide. The concern with the military is not size nor capability, but loyalty. If secession becomes imminent, it must be assured that the American military remains loyal to the United States Government and does not give in to the temptation presented by defection. If the AFAS were able to sway a substantial portion of the American military away from the United States, the threat of an irreversible secession or an outright civil war would become well within the realm of plausibility. Indeed, maintaining control of the military currently stationed within the AFAS, including the largest military base in the United States at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, will certainly be the most challenging piece of the puzzle for the United States Government. Questions of loyalty aside, the United States of America is armed to the teeth, certainly a deterrent to any foreign intervention or civil war effort.

Canada

Fortunately for Canada, decades of steady environmental leadership have placed the nation in good stead with regard to water supply. The nation is relatively stable, currently under the leadership of the relatively left-wing New Democratic Party. They trade primarily with Europe, though a great deal with the United States and China as well. On the topic of the AFAS, Canada has stated it will refuse to intervene, though it supports unification and would condemn secession. If the AFAS were to exit the United States along with their water supply, Canada has stated its willingness to sell the remaining states its water at a heavy discount on a temporary basis, to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible.

Europe & the United Kingdom

Similar to Canada, Europe and the United Kingdom took pains throughout the past decade to ensure its environmental sustainability. The United Kingdom in particular invested heavily in procuring water stockpiles from nations willing to sell theirs so as to provide for years to come. Continental Europe, conversely, invested in infrastructure to produce a self-sustaining water supply. Finally, European nations were able to achieve large industrial-scale desalination and wastewater recycling and has since been able to provide adequate water supplies to its people with little to no rationing. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Italy, and Greece have all enjoyed prosperity of late, with other European countries and Eastern Europe comfortably mediocre, with no threat of drought or starvation. Europe in general remains of an isolationist inclination, with no nation but for Germany issuing a statement on the AFAS. The German statement read in part."...The German government stands for peace and equity in all nations, and thus supports a solution that preserves those characteristics. In this same interest, Germany will not take an active role in any emergent conflict....” in keeping with the global reluctance to intervene in American affairs. The only moderate level of actual investment in the conflict has come from Conservative


UK Prime Minister Ezra Thomas, who said that the United Kingdom “would be open” to purchasing water from a seceded AFAS.

Africa

The majority of the African continent never fully recovered from the economic abandonment of the early 2020s. Though Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria, South Africa, and a few other nations have found success in the finance industry, capitalizing on growing populations, many nations have only encountered food shortage and water shortage in the face of growing population numbers. Currently, the majority of Africa’s water is imported, with almost no native supply. Russia is the primary source, along with Turkey, Brazil, Venezuela, and the United States. Nigeria, now a global superpower and the third most populous nation worldwide, in particular, is a significant customer in the global water market, set to spend hundreds of billions each year on water. This importation has placed a significant burden upon the already impoverished nations, and it is unclear how sustainable the situation is. Indeed, while it remains to be seen what shall become of the African continent in an increasingly dry future, it is certainly in the interest of the African continent that the AFAS is allowed to continue its water exports.

Asia

As has been the case for many decades, the Asian geopolitical landscape is dominated by China and Russia. China has now returned to superpower status as a quasi-communist command economy boasting the second largest military in the world, and it has once again created an immense wealth, though this time rooted in domestic production and consumption as opposed to foreign capital. Indeed, China is one of the few nations for which the importing of water supplies is almost entirely financially sustainable, though that rests partially on the continued availability of American water. Thus, the Chinese government has been outspoken in demanding that “the United States government respect the Association of Free American States’ inherent right to ownership of their water supply." Russia, on the other hand, is a virtual hermit state. Led by Vladimir Putin’s former right-hand-man Anton Vaino, the Russian Federation trades almost exclusively in its water supply with the fossil fuel industry all but dead. It exports to much of Africa, China, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe, and little else. This trade in water has proved lucrative, and would appear to have reinvigorated the Russian economy. That said, it is unclear whether or not there is adequate water supply not being sold off to sustain the people of Russia. Southeast Asia is a mixed bag of water recycling plants and expensive imported Russian water, though overall has managed to escape the worst consequences of the drought conditions.

South America

South America was considered one of the luckiest places on earth for a time. Until 2035, drought conditions had still not reached South America to the same degree as they had almost ubiquitously elsewhere. This gave South American nations time to adjust, preparing stockpiles and rationing water carefully by the time drought conditions did begin to set in. Now Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, and Colombia all export surplus water for significant profit, while other South American nations elect to conserve their stockpiles. It is unlikely that South America would have any bearing on the AFAS crisis in the United States.

Inciting Crisis

The United States has been backed into a corner by the AFAS. With the rebel collective holding all the cards, it has become increasingly difficult for many to envision a peaceful resolution. Even so, the United States


Government is well aware that any form of civil war must be avoided at all costs, with a bloody conflict likely spelling disaster for both sides. The United States Government’s plight is almost unimaginable, as they must determine a course of action that ensures no Americans are left without access to water, while all the while preventing the chaos of secession. To make matters worse, this crisis falls in an election year, with the winner of the election vitally important in selecting the approach towards the rebels. In a time of unparalleled political strife, both the United States Government and the Association of Free American States must move forward strategically, balancing appeasement and self-interest while considering their respective strengths and weaknesses. There is no telling what will become of the United States of America, but as with any civil conflict, the cuts will run twice as deep, and the scars will last forever.

joint crisis committees...of the manmade roosevelt aquifer, the united states of america became...

Documents