+++++Several people have mentioned a Twilight war taking place between the US and the EU. As an EU citizen I find this a complete non-starter.+++++
Well, Its isn’t now.
I postulate 30-50 years of bad blood and Competition to percolate things properly.
-------
Take, frex, this article from todays Guardian (Note: The Guardian is a very liberal paper – calling someone a guardian reader is about the equivalent of calling someone a pinko commie hippy):
+++++Suppose a champion athlete like Paula Radcliffe had to run 10km through a swamp before she even got to the starting line. This is Europe's position today.
If, after a bruising 30 months of national debates and referendums, the constitutional treaty finally comes into force at the end of 2006, Europe will only be at the starting line of every race that counts: the 100m sprint to provide a credible alternative to US unilateralism; the 1,000m race to foster reform in the wider Middle East before that region's troubles bring car bombs to all our front doors; the 5,000m to become competitive against the rising economic powers of Asia; the marathon we must start running now if we are to prevent global warming spiralling out of control.
It's the results of these big races, not the details of voting weights, the number of European commissioners or the apportionment of sovereignty, that will determine whether our children are more free, safe and prosperous in 20 years' time - which, in my book, is the main goal of politics. The European Union is only a means to that end, not an end in itself. The institutional arrangements codified in the constitution are but a means to create those means.
Is there a thinking man or woman alive in Europe who is not depressed by the prospect of spending yet more years of bad-tempered debate on such mind-numbing details? There we shall be, the so-called "opinion-formers", squabbling over contorted paragraphs and wrestling with tabloid shibboleths. Meanwhile, as the huge abstention rates in the European elections just showed, those whose opinions we are supposed to form have long since switched to another channel, to watch the football - or Paula Radcliffe winning the 5,000m in the European Cup. Who can blame them?
The constitution that emerged from the Brussels summit last weekend is not an inspiring document. It entirely lacks the simplicity, clarity and political poetry of great constitutions. Its preamble, written by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, is an embarrassment, especially when set beside that to the American constitution. The whole thing is too long. It mixes first-order statements about rights and responsibilities with second-order legal arrangements and often vague policy aspirations. On contentious issues, such as the requirements for qualified majority voting or the size of the European commission, it offers awkward compromises that make the EU more difficult, not easier, to explain to sceptical citizens. But it's the best constitution we've got.
It does not drastically alter the way the European Union works already. It should make some parts of the union function more effectively, despite the enlargement to 25 member states. Most of the power stays with the member states, although their representatives can find themselves outvoted on a wider range of issues. With a European foreign minister and a single president of the European council, Europe will have more chance of saying something to which the US might actually listen. These are modest gains; yet for 25 and more European states to cooperate so closely is already a triumph.
The problem for those politicians who now have to "sell" the constitution to their bored or hostile voters is that the case for it depends on unprovable alternatives. What, for example, if we had never had a European Union at all? Radical Eurosceptics, such as the UK Independence party, will claim we could have had a better Europe of sovereign, free, prosperous, closely cooperating democracies: a whole chocolate continent of big and little Switzerlands. To anyone with a milligram of historical nous, this is deeply implausible. For a clear majority of the present members of the EU, the return of freedom after dictatorship and the "return to Europe" have gone hand in hand. Being in the world's largest trading bloc has made us all richer. But you can never prove what would have happened if the EU had not existed.
Less drastically: what if Britain rejects the constitution in a 2006 referendum? The answer will depend on who else has done what in the meantime. If the French also give it the thumbs-down, in a referendum that Giscard says President Chirac must have, then the EU probably would go back to the drawing board. If Britain alone rejects it, and perhaps does so a second time after some further, cosmetic changes, then the other 24 would almost certainly go ahead on their own. Legally, this could put Britain in the splendidly paradoxical position of being the only remaining member of the current European Union. (There is no procedure under the existing treaties for kicking a member state out; so, in extremis, the others would all have to leave and make a new union, leaving little Johnny Bull as the only soldier marching in step.)
Most likely, however, Britain would be joined in a rejectionist lobby by several other states not belonging to the original, core European community of France, Germany, Italy and Benelux. In that case, some of the core countries, led by France and Germany, would almost certainly try to go ahead on their own, in a self-styled vanguard group. But the rejectionists would not take this lying down. If they included, say, Britain, Poland, Denmark and perhaps two or three more Scandinavian or east European countries, they would have the power to form a countervailing alliance. Europe would split, not unite. Some framework institutions of a European Union would remain, but these might gradually weaken into irrelevance, like the Holy Roman Empire. Real politics would take place elsewhere, and 2004 might then be seen by future historians as a high watermark of European unification - never again to be reached.
These more or less likely alternatives to the full, union-wide acceptance of the constitution have one thing in common: they would all result in Europe being preoccupied for still more years ahead with its own internal arrangements. Another American administration would have come and gone, a couple more Arab states would have plunged into chaos, the Chinese economy would have grown another 15 or 20%, rising carbon dioxide emissions would be further overheating the planet, and we Europeans would still be faffing around like a household of old maids, eternally squabbling about the arrangement of the furniture in their front parlour.
So enough is enough. The furniture and the architecture of this European Union are far from perfect, but they'll do for now. To adapt Churchill's famous remark about democracy: this is the worst possible Europe, apart from all the other Europes that have been tried from time to time. Tomorrow, we need to get out of the front door and face up to the challenges that will determine the fate of our children. Otherwise, in 2024, as our then grown-up children leave their small, highly fortified apartments and drag their way through the boiling heat or the blackened snow; as they dodge the nationalist gangs fighting with immigrants on the other side of the street; as they then queue up for hours to beg a half-time job from the local Chinese employer; so they will turn to us and ask: "What did you do in the great peace, Daddy?" And what shall we answer?+++++
But I think that’s a fairly accurate summation of how your British pro euro thinks.
Note how one of the main functions of Europe there is to provide another axis to resist US ‘unilateralism’. Really. Its what its set up for – to form another powerblock. Most would hope it can do this job peacefully (and it may not get to 'do the job' at all), but I could envision a future where things go wrong and the competition turns nasty.
There are real fault lines there which Could lead to conflict in a few decades time, and can be exploited for wargaming purposes.
Frex, to draw a scenario from the headlines, what if the US decides to basically withdraw from peacekeeping duties since they can’t guarantee legal protection for their soldiers. After no end of troubles their role as worlds policeman is usurped by the EU (leading to an increase in confidence in ass kicking ability of, and self importance of, Euros).
So, in 2040 or so, when the US shows interest in taking a foothold on some of the few remaining oil reserves through Peacekeeping Intervention, when they haven’t shown any interest in the last thirty years, and when the EU wants that same foothold, we get our nice war.
Or something.
-----------
Meanwhile, I just don’t see Russia as a threat.
Possibly I am biased or something (my brother in law is Russian, and I’ve spent a lot of time there in the last couple of years, but I can’t see them standing on the world stage for a long time to come.
The change over from communism to free market was completely bungled, and as a result everywhere that isn’t Moscow or St. Petersberg has basically regressed to subsistence level farming and a barter economy.
The west has also lost (most of) its mystique to the average ex-Soviet. They wouldn’t want to take it over if they could. They have their own house to put in order first. (lots of Russians do emigrate - but lots (especially from Moscow) return when they don't find the outside world much different, and get homesick).
So while Mr. Putin is authoritarian with the best of them, what they like about him is the stability he offers after a period of great change. I can’t see them going for a war party any time soon.
----------
Most of the major weapon systems we see today are expected to remain in service until around 2030-2035.
So you can get to about 2070 while remaining only one generation ahead of current systems.
Kinda. The DD(X) thing might be packing DEWs and railguns and bears (oh my!) before it goes out of service.
