Well, it looks like the Bigger Dick Foreign Policy theory is going to be tested soon, and I'm sure other threads will pop up regarding the new war in Iraq. But I can't help but take a look at things now and see more long-term trends/problems in recent events.

What I see now, more than I've ever seen (and I'm only 26, so I can't say I've seen that much), is a lot of shifting alliances throughout the world. Countries which used to have one mind on most issues now regularly have public disagreement. Alliances which used to be strong are now being reevaluated, and in some cases, abandoned.

Since we have a rather diverse, International user base here, I thought I'd solicit opinions on what factors might be contributing to these changes in alliances and diplomatic relations. I don't see the current situation between the U.S. and Iraq as the sole cause, I see it more as "the straw that's broken the camel's back" than anything else. In my mind, there must have been some previous circumstances and trends which have been contributing towards these shifts, and I'm at a loss as to what those might be. I figure there are probably some cultural factors, some domestic political factors, and, almost certainly, some economic factors. I just don't know what they would be, because I have enough trouble following what's going on across the street, much less across the globe.

Anyway, I would hope that this thread doesn't turn into another debate for/against the war on Iraq, I think we all have our own opinions there. I'd like to try to keep the focus here on what sequence of events led to a situation in which such a division in world opinion could take place. So... any thoughts?

I'd put down a lot of the new European attitude to a new sense of solidarity and self-confidence that has come from unification - even something as simple as establishing a single, and growingly strong, single currency has made a noticeable change in attitudes here.

You will note that the only EU member country not in the EMS employing the Euro is the yUK, which has increasingly become sidelined in European politics in the last 5-6 years due to the lack of commited involvement in Europe - a "we'll have the nice bits but the yukky bits we'll not bother with" duality which has frustrated and annoyed politicians for a long time. For some reason, the yUK government still thinks it means something in Europe - poor, deluded idiots: they are now totally out of synch. Soon, the US really will be the only country willing to exchange trade on an equal basis since the yUK has preferentially dealt with the US since Maggie (Spit, Spit) Thatcher, to the detriment of the relationship with Europe which should have been expanded upon at the earliest opportunity.

As Patrick concisely pointed out earlier, with "Wing Nut" jammed so far up Bush's arse as to be a third leg ("I'm Jake the Peg Diddle iddle iddle Um, With the Extra Leg Diddle iddle iddle Um") it's unlikely that the damage can be reversed in the near future, possibly ever. There is no compensation mechanism of a balancing social, cultural or economic power to go against the US since the fall of the USSR other than China, and - now - Europe? Perhaps the observed lack of former world unity is a natural consequence of the self confidence of a union of growing economic and political powers working together without needing to be dependent on the US to buoy up the world's economy (it's certain dragging it down at the moment for Gawd's Sake). Plus, Bush has pissed on the EU so many times following 911 (steel, bananas, meat, RAM tariffs, etc) it's not hard to see why politicians here might be willing to stick it up Bush and Powell's nether regions to say "Thank You!!!" in a suitably meaningful fashion (I doubt Bush would even notice).

Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of a new, tri-partite world power balance, the US/UK alliance, Europe, and China. Who knows how it will come out?

At the moment though, I just wish there were some British MPs brave enough to put forward a motion to propogate a Vote of No Confidence against the present British Labour government. That would be brave, wouldn't it? Risking your job for something you believe in - or am I being too bloody optimistic here

"This is the 51st State of the USA" (The The, "Heartland", circa 1986 - written when Ray-gun and Fatcher were bosom pals out to nuke the world to buggery)

If that hasn't blown my security clearance now, then I don't know what will. That's another 6 months out of work, I supppose (sigh)

You will note that the only EU member country not in the EMS employing the Euro is the yUK, which has increasingly become sidelined in European politics in the last 5-6 years due to the lack of commited involvement in Europe - a "we'll have the nice bits but the yukky bits we'll not bother with" duality which has frustrated and annoyed politicians for a long time. For some reason, the yUK government still thinks it means something in Europe - poor, deluded idiots: they are now totally out of synch.

I think you'll find that the majority of the UK government are actually keen to join the EMS as quickly as they can. The fact is that at the moment if they put the vote to the UK population (which they have commited themselves to doing) then they would lose. Whenever the Euro is discussed in the popular press it is presented as the filthy Europeans wanting to take the Pound away.

The far more important issues such as whether the UK and European economies are in sync is rarely discussed.

At the moment though, I just wish there were some British MPs brave enough to put forward a motion to propogate a Vote of No Confidence against the present British Labour government. That would be brave, wouldn't it? Risking your job for something you believe in - or am I being too bloody optimistic here

Even if one of them did, the rest of them would vote like sheep for the government.

I just read this and thought it was fairly interesting as far as the changing attitudes toward the U.S.:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cl=c1

This is a very interesting perspective... It's a little hard for me to read through some of the editorial-cartoon-style barbs and quips, but let me try to translate a little, and you can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

1) The EU, with the exception of the UK, seems to be coming together, both economically and idealogically.
2) The US hasn't been trading freely with the EU, or has been imposing some kind of tariffs.
3) There is resentment amongst EU members towards the UK, apparently due to the fact that the UK wants to do their own thing.
4) The EU is on the virge of establishing itself as a new superpower, and no longer feels the need to follow the US's lead.
5) The lack of a single, common enemy (the Soviet Union) has caused a situation where the US needs a "foil" of sorts, and the EU might be settling into that role.

If any or all of the above are true (and who am I to argue) it certainly does create an interesting scenario. Some questions immediately come to my mind...

1) Why does there seem to be so much resentment towards the US right now from the EU? I am sure all of the economic stuff you're talking about (tariffs and such) was well-covered in the news, I just don't follow economic news very closely. Is it solely a result of the economic issues (along with Bush's recent foreign policy blunders) that has caused this? Or was this building up during the Reagan, Bush the First, and Clinton years as well?

2) Has there ever been any extended period of time where there were *three* distinct superpowers in world politics? It seems to me that, while a myriad of parties might exist early on, eventually, each party settles into one camp or another, resulting in two distinct sides. This seems to be what happened during both World Wars, the Cold War, etc. I'm obviously leaving out those who stayed on the sidelines during these times. My point is that you're kind of painting a scenario where the world divides into three camps, and I'm wondering if you anticipate this going on for a long time. I personally have always seen the EU members as friends of the US, and would hope that whatever wounds Bush is opening right now can be repaired.

Maybe I'm just naive.

I just read this and thought it was fairly interesting as far as the changing attitudes toward the U.S.

Thanks for the link. This is a very good perspective on what America seems to be doing wrong these days.

>Soon, the US really will be the only country willing to exchange trade on an equal basis

Why would they all of a sudden start doing that? They haven't ever before. I live in Canada, and it's very obvious here that the USA ideal of "free and equal" trade means "no tarrifs on exports, but tax the hell out of those imports". Like steel, lumber, grain, ...

Cheers

I just read this and thought it was fairly interesting as far as the changing attitudes toward the U.S.:

Maybe some points I would disagree with, but an excellent article.

Thanks,

4) The EU is on the virge of establishing itself as a new superpower, and no longer feels the need to follow the US's lead.

I can't really see how they could achieve that without the UK. Aside from the UK, only France really has any viable independant defence capabilities. Most European states generally only maintain a token defence force, and do not have nuclear deterrents. Without the UK, other European states would have to increase their defence spending significantly. To put this into perspective;

In reply to:

---

2001 Defence spending. (US $billion, at constant 1998 exchange rates and prices...whatever that means).

(US 281.4)
France 40
UK 37
Germany 32.4
Italy 24.7
Spain 8

---

(Source

No one else in Europe spends anything on defence that is worth discussing.

It's my observation that the UK enjoys sitting in the political void left between the generally socialist Euro states and the capitalist US.

It's hard to conceive of Europe being a superpower when one of the biggest proponents of Europe acts like a selfish brat all the time. I've lost count of the times over the years when I've been in a pub with friends discussing whatever it was that the French had just done (blockading ports, refusing to relocate an asylum center that was being used as a halfway house to the UK, claiming a monopoly on wine, cheese, whatever). And I've lost count of the times that the general conclusion was 'Fuck the French"

I don't think that with Dubya in the 'hood that diplomacy stood much of a chance of achieving a peaceful solution in Iraq. But the French closed the door on any effective second UN resolution.

Here's an interesting article that I found tonight.

Somewhat tangentially, Newsweek published a story a while back, Why Do They Hate Us, that I think did a good job of showing where US and, in general, western foreign policy in the Middle East failed and how.

I can't really see how they could achieve that without the UK. Aside from the UK, only France really has any viable independant defence capabilities. Most European states generally only maintain a token defence force, and do not have nuclear deterrents. Without the UK, other European states would have to increase their defence spending significantly.

I think that European defence spending would suffice (especially were it better coordinated - e.g. JAS39 Grippen, Rafalle (sp?) and Eurofighter/Typhoon: at least one too many), as long as it is actually used for defence. I, as European (though not yet 'EU-ean' ), don't have ambitions for my continent to be a global empire - just to be able to fend off other assorted empire builders. Sadly, some American official's babbling about 'justified' use of nuclear weapons in Iraq makes one consider at least token strategic deterrent* necessary. (Isn't this terrible: I am at the moment actually more concerned about American WMD than, say, North Korean...)

Besides, perhaps we could forge some useful defence alliance with Russia and some other CIS countries relatively cheaply.

That said, I would, of course, like UK to realize that Atlantic is much wider than, ahem, La Manche (sp?) .


*) Note that nuclear weapons is called 'deterrent' if it is ours, 'WMD' if it is not.

I don't see the current situation between the U.S. and Iraq as the sole cause, I see it more as "the straw that's broken the camel's back" than anything else. In my mind, there must have been some previous circumstances and trends which have been contributing towards these shifts, and I'm at a loss as to what those might be. I figure there are probably some cultural factors, some domestic political factors, and, almost certainly, some economic factors. I just don't know what they would be, because I have enough trouble following what's going on across the street, much less across the globe.

I think you've posed a great question here, but I hesitated to respond because I didn't feel like I had anything cogent to say. One thing came to me, though: whatever else can be said for good or ill....if the ballot in Palm Beach County had been different and Al Gore was now sitting in the Oval Office, would we now be launching Tomahawks at Baghdad?

I'm honestly not trying to inject the rightness/wrongness of this war and I know that some folks would consider it a Real Bad Thing (tm) if Gore was in office and we *weren't* invading. I bring it up to question the "straw that broke the camel's back" notion. It is conceivable to me, under different political circumstances, that we could be pursuing a strategy that didn't break the camel's back *quite* so much.

It is still one hell of a question, though. What are the alignments? Are they new? What is being left behind?

There are a lot of countries that are awash in misery right now, whether because of war, disease, or famine or some combination thereof. From a political standpoint, though, the ones that stand out as having some bearing globally are those where religious differences divide the countries and regions. Specifically I'm referring the the Nigerias and Algerias and Phillipines and the sharp divisions between Islamist parties and other groups.

As concerned as I am about what I consider to be the dangers to western "liberal democracies" from humorless crypto-fascists like Ashcroft, I have to say that the ascendency of super-hard-core Sharia-oriented political movements and governments forms what I think is the biggest potential divide across the globe. So, if I had to take a pessimistic view of your question and draw a map of the world ten years out, I would probably divide it into:

-"The West" North and South America with parts of Western Europe (Catholic, Judeo-Christian, nominally/marginally "democratic") and some defensible outposts (Au/NZ...).
-China (big and repressively self-determined)
- Everything else

Boy, do I open the floor for dissenting opinions!