re: the posts above
The political and socio-economic post-war europe was largely borne of the franco-german axis that grew out of the formers capitulation during the war, and it's attempts to pacify it's more expansionist neighbour.
De Gaulle recognised that such an axis with the newly constituted social democratic west germany, - formed principally in it's own image, could be a balancing super power in the european theatre to the emerging power of the us and the ussr.
De gaulle further recognised the importance to france of keeping the Uk on the fringes of this, but little understood the corollary of such a policy would be the Uk's increasingly close relations with the Us. This close relationship, cemented by the post-war marshall plan has been tested only by Suez, the Falklands and to a lesser extent -the grenada invasion, and has survived and grown stronger.
The whole post war european experiment was always an excercise in political integration aimed at preventing future wars that had blighted europe for the past 500 years. From the so- called 'common market, through to the 'EEC' [european econmoic community' evolving to what we know today as the EU, the european union, - union being the intentiionally operative word.
The Uk will become more integrated with Europe over the coming decades but is forever torn between it's american axis and european one, particularly as the 'old powers' of central europe try to temper the power of the Us.
Tony Blair's policy of the Uk's role as 'acting as a bridge between the Us and Europe' was severly tested with the Iraq crisis and the flaws shown for all to see. Europe will be shaped in the next few years in 2 main ways,
1. the integration of the new eastern european states to expand the EU. these are generally very much pro-america, bribed to a certain extent by fiscal assistance from the Us, and security issues connected to nato membership.
2. The emergence of China and to an extent India as a third genuine world power, particularly economically.
The Uk's alliance with the Us, and it's flexible and liberal economy and willingness to act militarily with a credible military force will give it real influence in the EU to counter the Franco-german axis, which will lessen when Chirac stands down, and schroeder loses the next election, which he undoubtedly will.
At best the Eu will only ever be an economic powerhouse, as even with the proposed european defence force, it will never agree amongst itself to act militarily. In any event the proposed 'european army' is just a concept proposed by the franco-german axis to counter balance the nato alliance which they feel is dominated by the Us and the Uk.
The previous poster is right to suggest that the real power lies in economics and military force, and seeing as the Us spends more on the military than the rest of the world put together, and that it's recent Bush administration increases in miliary spending in themselves have been more than that of all the Eu countries combined, - any axis with america will continue to yield the Uk and others benefits.
Russia will continue to westernise, albeit slowly, bemoaning it's loss of super power status, and trying to find a new role, punching above it's weight, with a respect shown to it primarily because of it's nuclear capabaility.
The big variable in this emerging world order is China, and my guess is that they too will 'westernise' albeit at a slower rate than Russia. Potential conflicts over taiwan and Tibet can be settled with the west, and if they work togethor with Russia, Japan, S.Korea and the Us to resolve the N.Korean problem, that, along with the continued bribe of the WTO will help to facilitate this.
The big variable in China is the dissemenation of information via the internet to the people, who are currently denied it to a large extent. Information=power, power=freedom. Over time the chinese people may yet rise up in a peaceful mass numbers revolution such as has been seen in some of the eastern european ex-comminist states to a lesser extent, the most recent being serbia's popular uprising. The only power a state has over it's people are twofold; fear, and war powers.
Remove the fear through growing an appetite for change fed by information of how things should be and are in the west (bush's much vaunted 'liberty') and the fear begins to evapotrate as numbers grow demanding change. This is the basis of all popular revolutions, and the internet can act as a very effecient expeditor in this respect. Such a polular revelution is bound to pro-western in it's afternath and outlook.
To preserve it's power and dominance the neo-conservatives in the west want the markets of China, India, and for that matter africa, but not the competition, that as India is proving, costs jobs.
So the west's policy toward China is governed only by it's potential military competitiveness, not so India and Africa where no serious attempt will ever be made to develop them to a western standard.
The policy of pre-emption, respect of human rights, and dealing with rogue states is pretty much here to stay if post war iraq can be resolved quickly and handed back to the UN, who as an organisation recognise that they must adapt and change too.
Changes to the permanent membes of the security council and to and the way the council works and act are inevitable, as the post 2nd world war victors still preditate. America and the Uk want to see France replaced by India, France wants to see the permanent members expanded by germany and japan, which they calculate would then split china/germany/france -v- Uk/USA/Japan in any potential veto vote.
Even a Democrat back in the White House (Other than Leiberman, who wouldn't anyway) will find it hard to undo the underlying ethos of Bush's post 9/11 foreign policy, particualrly when remembering Clinton's mis guided and lethargic 'make a few holes in the sand' foreign policies which were generally ineffective, barring perhaps the middle east where he narrowly failed to bring an agreement between barak and arafat in the last days of his presidency. (Arafat having 99% of demands in his grasp, rejecting the deal-the result being the bush administartion's refusal to deal with him, recognising rightly that he controls the extremists causing havoc to the curent so-called road-map.)
Fortunately the key powers of the Un recognise that it really is the only show in town, and the fear of it's demise will ensure it's legitimacy. (League of nations lesson etc)
As Reagan ended the cold war by the promise to bulid the hugely expensive star wars programme that Russia (Gorbachov) recognised it could not match for ecomomic reasons, and thus a new cooperation was borne, so Bush is trying to replicate the sea change that occurred then partly through the new 'star wars' programme and more generally bt he huge advantage the Us has militarily over any comparable potential adversary. Such one-sided top-down power in the world is calculated by the neo-cons/hawks in the administartaion as potentially having the same measure of effect in bringing about a sea change in the world order as reagan achieved. Their motivation is basically to build a world in their own image, but I think with agenuine respect for diversity only if it is not threatening. The short-medium term cost of this is calculated by them as being a potential increase in extremism and potential terrorism/instability, and as being worth paying. They calculate that such extremism/terrorism is something that all free and reasonable people of the world can unite to defeat in a common purpose, however their experiences in the run up to Iraq, will require some fine tuning of the policy as some refused to fall in line.
(so there you have it-a brief synopsis on the next 10-50 years, if only my trading was as good!)
bbmac.
