I’m not entirely sure how you expect this to happen – I’m not convinced that the US would or could effect such a major power shift in the EU without doing itself more damage than it would to France and Germany. I certainly can’t see the UK moving to the fore in the EU unless France and Germany scupper their own plans. My impression is that the “Special Relationship” between the US and UK is seen as a negative from the EU standpoint, not as a means of leverage.
I’m not talking about the U.S. necessarily orchestrating it. It seems to me that there is already a power struggle going on within the EU. I think those two letters from 20 countries explicitly supporting the U.S. are partly opportunism - they see France and Germany being isolated by the U.S., and they are choosing sides.
Most major wars end with with the world looking significantly different. Alliances break apart, new ones form, powers rise, powers fall.
The question is, what is the world going to look like after Iraq is successfully invaded, North Korea is solved, and the war on terror continues?
Most major wars end with with the world looking significantly different
This is a major war? Or a police action on steriods? The world will look no different than after Gulf War I.
Iraq is successfully invaded
And there was I thinking this was about liberation and regime change, rather than conquest.
North Korea is solved
Maybe by supplying lots of Iraqi oil to the Korean peninsula?
the war on terror continues
I’m glad to hear that one hasn’t been put in the too hard basket.
GwB will probably relaunch a trade war, pick a fight with “old Europe” and get into another screaming match with China. IOW same agro, different protagonists.
Roll on 2004.
Stick a democracy, even a psuedo-democracy, into the liberty-free political landscape of the Arab Middle-East, and things will change. In a big way, I would bet.
We can’t exactly liberate Iraq without an army on the ground to ‘conquer’ it first, can we? In Afghanistan, there was the Northern Alliance. There is no such standing army to do the work in Iraq, so we are using ours. But the end result will be the same: Liberations and regime change. Call the beginning portion of it ‘invasion’ or ‘picking daisies’. Irrelevant.
Ya, right. Bush has shown that he is a pushover, huh? He’ll just buckle and start shipping over the aid. Or not.
Out of curiosity, I have heard many counter-Bushistas complain about the way Bush is handling the NK situation. But what would you do? Specifically, please.
I certainly hope that contracts over which Bush has influence will be given to those nations that support us, not those whose leaders stake their political careers on opposing us. If you want to call that a ‘trade war’, then so be it.
It would be good if you were right, am just struggling to recall a valid precedent.
I’d spend a whole lot of time listening to and taking advice from the South Koreans.
No offense, but you dodged the question.
Only if we support them and stop calling them names, like Iran (where the moderates lost political ground when Bush included them in his Axis of Evil rhetoric).
This still sounds like “the white man’s burden” argument.
For starters, he could stop poking them with a stick. North Korea will only stop being a threat when they feel they can change without losing face. South Korea would certainly like, if not a complete reconciliation, then at least a thawing of relations. Calling the North Koreans “evil” is not conductive to that. Bush needs to use more carrot and less stick (without throwing away the stick, of course). North Korea needs the West more than the West needs it. The “softly softly” approach had been working. It needs to continue.
That’ll larn 'em to mess with us.
Apologies, but I don’t agree.
Were you expecting maybe a 5 point peace plan and a share of the Nobel Prize?
Those of you who don’t think it matters whether the US remains a strong ally of France & Germany, I ask you a simple question… Do you then accept the fact that the US will eventually have no ally in Europe, do you back the dissolution of Nato, and are you content with the idea that the US’s only real allies in the future will be Canada and Mexico?
Those who try to downplay the power that France & Germany have are seriously mistaken. The European Union is no longer a joke or just an organization of talk. This is a serious movement that is bringing the entirety of Europe together into what amounts to a single nation, with a central leadership. Every country in Europe except for 1 is already a member. With the exception of the UK, they have common currency, soon common language, common laws, and common voting. There is already legislation being considered to remove power from individual leaders of nations, and replace them with the modern day equivalent of US state governors. It is not a reality ‘yet’. But in 20 years, you will not really see a Europe made of up a bunch of little countries. You will see a single large Europe as a single country made up of a lot of little territories, all answering to the central authority.
The reality of a single Europe, united under a single leadership, and speaking with one voice is here. It’s soon, and it’s not going to go away. France and Germany are at the heart of this movement, and will no doubt have a very serious leadership role to play in the organization. There are no 2 other nations with a greater say in the EU than France and Germany. For most cases, they are the ones steering the EU down it’s path. The UK right now is standing on the fence ready to jump off in either direction. On one hand, it’s part of the EU but has not really embraced the EU, rejecting the Euro as a currency, going at odds with other EU nations with laws and leadership ideas. On the other hand it is more inclined to listen to and follow US policy than that of it’s fellow EU nations. The UK has little say in the EU to moderate France and Germany, because of its reluctance to fully enter.
Where does this leave us? Without France, and without Germany, we lose Europe. They may not be our enemies, but down the road, they will not be our allies, either. They will not help us in war, and will not assist us in global affairs. They will not provide a base for US troops, and will not host our ‘star wars’ missile radar sites. They will compete with us both militarily and economicaly. These are the power centers of the EU, whether the UK likes it or not, and no doubt are already beginning to isolate Europe from the United States in policy. If we begin a policy of pushing these nations away, we begin a policy of pushing Europe away. We begin a policy of dissolving Nato, and taking the future Europe off of our list of friends. Is that what we really want as a nation?
I don’t see it that way, and I doubt the Iranian people see it that way; It is fairly obvious that Bush has no quarrel with the people of Iran, but with the Islamic fundies who are in charge. With a democratic Iraq next door, it will be much easier for change to occur in Iran, don’t you think?
**
If by that you mean ‘How we will actually implement the regime change, given the various balance of forces’, then I agree. If not, then I am not sure what you mean.
**
But it hasn’t! The only thing that continued was North Korea’s weapons development after we signed a treaty that was supposed to put an end to it. Obviously, North Korea cannot be trusted to do what it promised to do for the carrot.
**
How amusing.
A little more detail is all I want. You suggest doing what South Korea tells us to do? It would be nice if they had some suggestions for us, in that case.
Thats the matter for another (interesting, I bet) thread. But with 18 European nations giving support to America and the finger to Chirac and Shroeder (cite and cite), it is Germany and France that had best open their eyes to the reality that Europe, much less the world, do not revolve around them.
It is precisely attitudes that like yours that worry many of the smaller new members to the EU. Being friendly with America will help ensure their sovereignty.
Potentially? Not that bad off. NATO is quickly becoming an irrelevent artifact of the cold war. I believe that the UK if given a choice between playing second fiddle to a French/German led EU or a US led alternative will choose the US. Why? Because of the long common history we have, the language we share and our strong economic and cultural ties. What I see evolving is a EU block revolving around the continental powers of France and Germany versus a slowly growing alliance between the US/UK/Canada and Australia… a sort of english speaking military/economic entity. The rewards of such a long term alliance are fairly obvious, look at any map… that represents a large chunk of the planet’s real estate, money, brainpower, manpower, natural resources and military might spread strategically around the globe. Granted, there are alot of stumbling blocks to this happening… there are many significant differences of opinion on a variety of issues between a potential US/UK/CA/AU union… but it could happen I think. If a strong centralized EU can happen a US/UK/CA/AU union certainly could.
I think that’s a very good analysis. Whether it will happen or not is an open question, but it’s a plausible outcome. The next Canadian election is going to radically change Canada’s attitude, I believe. And it just makes all the sense in the world for the U.S. and Canada to grow closer. The U.K. is already moving in that direction, and France and Germany are going the other way. The question is, when the tug of war ends, which countries are going to be on each side?
I think we’re seeing the start of a major re-alignment in the world.
As I have always thought, Dubya is only interested in lackeys, not allies. 
Not a chance. The Libs will still win. Besides, Canadians don’t care about US’s private wars.
Of course the Libs will win. There is no effective opposition. However, A newer, younger Prime Minister who wants to have a nice, long career will be drawn towards the U.S. position. Chretien doesn’t give a rat’s ass.
Ray Martin strikes me as being a more reasonable man than Chretien in the first place. I think even a new Liberal government will A) Scrap the gun registry, B) Make moves to close the rift Chretien has created with the U.S., and C) Increase funding to the military.