[QUOTE=clairobscur]
So, if I understand correctly, since you don’t cite any other reason, you put the UK significantly above France only on the basis of its friendliness with its former colonies and, I assume, the USA? Or maybe on the fact that Brits speak english, or something…IOW, your ranking is dependant on what foreign policies are followed, and whether you like them or not, or on what language is spoken?
[/QUOTE]
The UK was kicking France’s tail for a few hundred years, before France decided to jump on board a winning team and ally with them. The UK is well aware of its fading glory, and seems to be happy with its continued role as consigliere to the US (they’re the wise and experienced, but physically feable, Vito, to the US’s Michael, to put it Godfather terms). If having the UK be up above the line while France is below (I know how envious France can be), we can jump the line up. In that case, it’ll have to skip Russia, as well (unless they can somehow reverse their precipitous slide).
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
I won’t comment on China and Russia (though I’m fully convinced China will overpower everybody else in a not so long away future) because they’re in very peculiar situations and difficult to assess.
[/QUOTE]
China may well be in a tie for number 1, if not hold the number 1 slot on its own, in 100 years or so. They’ll need to develop a blue water navy, and maybe liberalize their political system, but it’s doable. France certainly sees China as a rising star- that’s why they’re whispering sweet nothings in China’s ear: “Go ahead. Roll over Taiwan. We don’t mind. In fact, it kinda turns us on.” I don’t know if they really want that, or if they just say that because it’s the opposite of what the US says.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
To say the truth, I’m fully convinced you put your list in this order so you’ll be able to put France in the middle of a list of randomly assorted powers of secondary importance, and you like this better. Not on the basis of any objective reason.
[/QUOTE]
OK. OK. France is number 6, and falling. They’re less important on the world stage than India. In 20 years or so, they’ll be number 7 or 8, as the rehabilitated WWII losers Germany and Japan start to inch their way back into the world scene (a full normal lifetime of 80 years after the unfortunate incidents of the mid-XX century)
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
I say randomly because honestly, it seems you picked them from a hat or something. Canada, for instance, as I already mentionned, has a low population, and as a result a low GNP, not much in the way of international influence, and they barely spend a dollar on their military.
[/QUOTE]
Canada’s got a top 12 GNP, with room to grow (unlike France). They aren’t facing the sort of demographic crisis that most of Western Europe is (not making enough babies to grow into workers that will pay for their extravagant welfare systems), and treat their immigrants in such a way that they don’t turn over cars and set fire to everything in sight, periodically. They’re also a G8 member, and, while not a nuclear power, they can be one faster than you can say “Eh? How’s aboot another Labatt’s?” (Which, by the criteria of the Francophiles in this thread, should put them in the top 5). Unfortunately, some of them speak French.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
New-Zealand??? I’ve nothing against kiwis, but putting it in a list of “meaningful world powers” is nonsentical. And so is equating New-Zealand and France in term of global clout. I’ll give a pass to Australia because it’s actually a regional power, and acts as such in its sphere, regardless of its global influence.
[/QUOTE]
Please notice that I said “Australia/ New Zealand (thrown together, ANZAC-style),” not New Zealand or Australia alone. If you look back in history, you’ll see that these two disparate nations tend to team up, when the fertilizer hits the air circulation device, and send their boys out as a team, as the Australian/ New Zealand Army Corps, or ANZAC (in exchange for being first in the acronym, Australia allows New Zealand to use two letters, making up 40% of the acronym). It’s amazing, but these two wildly dissimilar cultures can see past their differences for the common good.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
So, it seems to me the main reason they’re in this list is that these countries are english-speaking, or maybe that you like them better, or maybe you’re more familiar with them, or maybe because they’re friendlier to the USA. I couldn’t tell why exactly, but it’s certainly not because you’ve carefully considered your ranking. I clearly see a pro… how do you call that?.. “Anglophone Union” bias at work here.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe all of the above, or maybe because the UK has a better sense of their place in world affairs, and doesn’t try to pawn itself off as some sort of “third way” (well, second way, now, since the passing of the USSR/WP). Having realistic goals, instead of living in some sort of fantasy world, definitely has some value.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
I also note you didn’t mention a number of regional powers, either. Say, Brazil,
[/QUOTE]
I missed them. They definitely qualify (if on potential, alone). They make the top dozen.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
or Iran, who certainly could claim a spot in your list if New-Zealand is in.
[/QUOTE]
While they have the potential to cause worldwide trouble (mostly by owning one side of the Straits of Hormuz), they couldn’t project power anywhere (not even with their vaunted suicide corps they claim to be setting up).
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Not even Israel, to my surprise.
[/QUOTE]
Israel is the biggest little bad-ass around, don’t get me wrong; but their influence on world affairs is mainly as a potential strategic trouble spot. They’ve got a damn good record of kicking ass and taking names, especially for a country smaller in size and population than greater LA, but not top dozen material.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Or any African power
[/QUOTE]
What, do you think being a powerful nation is selected through an affirmative action program? Just about all of Africa is basket case material.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
(South-Africa,
[/QUOTE]
Potential, but needs to get its house in order (still recovering from that whole Apartheid/ being-a-world-pariah thing). Next?
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Nigeria,
[/QUOTE]
Nigeria? NIGERIA? They’ve got oil (what oil they can get to the coast through pipelines with more holes than an Everest-sized block of Swiss cheese), and other mineral wealth, but not much else. Let’s see, they’ve also got: Internal conflict bordering on civil war? (check), an AIDS epidemic- not too bad for sub-Saharan Africa- only about 1 in 19 adults infected? (check) A per capita GDP that barely makes it into 4 digits in Dollars, and in the high 3 digits in Euros? (check) I’d say that’s a nation that’s really going places. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Egypt
[/QUOTE]
They’ve had their ass kicked by Israel so many times, they finally quit trying. They’re 0-1 going against Israel alone (1970 War of Attrition), 0-3 going against Israll, when teaming up with the rest of the Arab world (1948 War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War), and were headed for 0-1 against Israel (with France and the UK), when the USSR threatened to step in (1956 Suez Crisis)- I’ll be generous and call that one a draw. It doesn’t appear Egypt could fight their way out of a paper bag- which I guess would be a plus, in French eyes 
.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
or even Lybia)
[/QUOTE]
Libya, that tiger of North Africa. They’re possibly the best off of former Italian colonies (great company- Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia). They’re good at causing problems, but to call them even a regional power is grading on a curve (they get points added since the rest of their region is at least as pitiful). Things might improve, now that they’ve got with the program, renounced their WMD programs, and haven’t blown up any discotecques or airliners, lately. They’ve got some oil, and actually get to sell it on the world market, now, so it isn’t just a decoration.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
who, though not on an equal footing with many develloped nations if considered in an abstract way, can’t be ignored because their strong regional influence make them “international players” that just can’t be dismissed out of hand when you consider regional issues.
[/QUOTE]
If, by “abstract,” you are using the artistic definition, i.e., “not reflecting the real world,” I’ll agree with you, there.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
And what makes you think that the WP wouldn’t have done that? If you think so, I assume that countries that were even more remote, like Spain and the UK were even safer. Why on earth were they worried in any way during the cold war, if France had no reason to?
[/QUOTE]
Even though Austria and Switzerland were neutral, and not part of NATO, I’m pretty sure a WP invasion through there would have drawn a NATO response far before Soviet tanks tried to get through the few passes through the Alps. The UK (which has nukes mainly because they help invent the damned things) and Spain were happy to stay part of NATO.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
No more risk than previously, indeed. France should somehow only follow policies that put it at a greater risk? Could you explain me why?
[/QUOTE]
France didn’t actually even pull all the way out of the North Atlantic Treaty- they were still protected by the US nuclear shield, even if they didn’t allow their precious land to be despoiled by a bunch of ugly American airmen and soldiers. The whole affair was just de Gaulle’s way of standing up in the battlements, yelling down to those silly Anglophones “I fart in your general direction”.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
It’s was a way of making sure that France didn’t have to rely on the goodwill of foreign countries (namely, the USA) for its protection, and as a result to have the means to conduct an independant foreign policy (and ultimately, if push came to stove, an independant military action) which has always been a major goal for De Gaulle. And once again, why wouldn’t your reasonning apply too to the UK, who had even less reasons to be afraid of its unexistant neighbors? Why do they thought they neeeded nukes, according to you? Were they afraid or the Irish, like France of the Swiss?
[/QUOTE]
The UK stuck around in NATO as a full-fledged partner, even holding the top political position 3 out of 13 times (with the US never being represented as Secretary General, but they have always held the top military position- Supreme Allied Commander Europe). They weren’t going to be the first battlefield- Germany was, if anyone was.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Hmmm… I think I know what the difference is. The UK belong to the “Anglophone Union”, hence needs nukes. France makes a lot of cheese, so it doesn’t need them. Or something.
Genrally speaking, since you seem to believe that you’re somehow at a risk only when your direct neighbors are unfriendly (based on what you said about France and your comments about China and India), I’m not sure why the USA has nukes, either. Did it fear the evil Canadians, or rather the Mexicans?
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, the UK helped invent the things- as did Canada (they’ve probably got the plans sitting around, somewhere). We (the allies) thought we might need them while getting Germany out of France. Even before we set off the first three, the USSR was working on making their own, so it’s not like the US could get rid of them.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Actually, and very unfortunately for you given the topic of this thread, it was mostly France that collaborated with the Israeli nuclear programm. You might want to look it up again. France used to be in very friendly terms with Israel.
[/quote]
That’s supposed to be a point in France’s favor? A few hours ago, you tried to slur the US with accusations of “violating the Non-Proliferation treaty by giving nuclear weapons to Israel was more likely the reason why every third-world state nowadays is scrambling for nukes.” Now that France is shown to be the one handing out nukes like candy, it’s a point in their favor? And people accuse Americans of being hypocrites? That’s a load of merde.
You make a lot of my dropping of the possibility of an “Anglophone Union.” It’s nothing that exists now, in any form (well, outside than the Commonwealth). You might want to get used to the idea. I know France sees the “special relationship” between the US & UK as something to be jealous over, but an expanded Commonwealth (with the US, and perhaps South Africa, Israel and Ireland) as a NAFTA/EEC economic union transitioning to a political Confederation, makes a lot of sense, and might be inevitable in the next century or two.
