We are currently discussing Europe US.

If one had read the earlier posts, one would have realised it.

Therefore, once that is discussed we will move systematically rather than confuse the whole issue, rather than meander like a Spanish Blue Bottom fly from one heap to another.

I presume the serious posters are not there to make a presence statement as if answering to a roll call in a primary school class.

Off topic posts have been removed.
SexyBeast have been given a temporary ban.

Please read the reply above before you post in here again.

Thanks.

This is what President Bush has to say on US Europe:

Bush rejects move to boost EU might
ALEC RUSSELL

Washington, Feb. 19: President George W. Bush set strict limits on the EU’s global ambitions last night, saying that there was no need for the Franco-German goal of forming an alternative superpower.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, his first with a British newspaper since his re-election last year, he pointedly rejected a call by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for Nato to be overhauled. Schroeder’s words have been widely interpreted as an attempt to give the EU’s fledgling foreign and military bodies more muscle.

“I disagree,” Bush said. “I think Nato is vital. Nato is a very important relationship as far as the US is concerned. It is one that has worked in the past and will work in the future just so long as there is that strong commitment to Nato.”

Echoing Tony Blair’s repeated calls for Europe and America to work together, Bush had emollient words for Europe’s leaders before his visit next week.

He implicitly acknowledged that the time for the unilateralism of his first term was over. His message next week would be that America needed Europe on its side and could not “spread freedom” alone.

Despite a series of unresolved disagreements he was clearly determined to bolster hopes on both continents that they could rebuild some of the relationships that were shattered in the bruising transatlantic rows of his first four years in office.

“My trip to Europe is to seize the moment and invigorate [the] relationship,” he said. “We compete at times but we do not compete when it comes to values.”

Bush will become the first American President to visit the European Commission and, given his supporters’ deep misgivings about the EU’s ambitions, he had remarkably warm words for European integration.

“I have always been fascinated to see how the British culture and the French culture and the sovereignty of nations can be integrated into a larger whole in a modern era,” he said. “And progress is being made and I am hopeful it works because one should not fear a strong partner.”

Asked about the draft European constitution, he cited the difficulties that the US had faced in formulating its federal system of government. But there was no hiding his view that the EU should not try to counter-balance the power of America.

He delivered a pointed rebuff to Schroeder who suggested last week that Nato was no longer an adequate body for consulting and co-ordinating the vision of its members. “I look forward to talking to him about exactly what he meant by that,” Bush said. “Some have said we must have a unified Europe to balance America. Why, when in fact we share values and goals? As opposed to counter-balancing each other, why don’t we view this as a moment when we can move in a concerted fashion to achieve those goals?”

The President said it was up to him to “do a better job of explaining the common goals and the fact that by working together we are more likely to achieve them for our own security”.
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

This indicates the line of thinking that is an indication of the US viewpoint. In fact the meetings of President Bush with each leader in Europe would be an indicator how the US - Europe equation will go.

There's another thing to consider, which is the convergence of different economic marketplaces in the global economy.

One good example of this is US and Western European businesses transferring some of their operations to India to take advantage of a far cheaper labour market. The Indian workers are as equally qualified and skilled but do the same job for far less. This has lead to India being labelled an up and coming Knowledge Superpower:

http://www.newscientist.com/special/india

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

Before we hit the world order, let's segmentise the discussion for ease of comprehension and contributiuon since we can flit from continent to continent.

The issue is solely US and its role in the Coming World Order till 2020.

While other Nation maybe vying to be Global Powers, but we would do well to keep it US Centric and if we are to discuss the influence of such challengers we could dwell as to how they can hinder it or assist it and what would be the counter to it and this could also be cranked in.

The United States can completely blow it diplomatically, and still be a major global player. Helluva location we got here. The USA isn't going to completely blow it of course. Even if somebody surpasses the USA in overall power, the USA can still tip the scales of balance almost anywhere in the world. Lack of immediate threat from its neighbors means that the USA is free to run all over the planet. The rest of the world tends towards balance. If China grows stronger, Japan, Indochina and India race to keep up and vice versa. If Russia gets stronger, Europe will build up their own strength to offset any possible threat. Many many more examples could be cited.

Let's first tackle Europe and its Equation with the US.

Europe can be discussed under the four points I mentioned and Islamisation which I think you or Whisper mentioned.

Islamisation

Let's look at Islamisation.

There is the threat of Islam swamping Europe and skewing the political and cultural fabric.

Therefore, to obviate this a Euro -Islam culture has to be enforced so as to nullify the radicalism that is prevalent in their lands of origin.

Theocratic schools should be banned and secular education enforced. Religion and religious teaching should be kept within the four walls of the home. Embarrassing as it may appear, but the French way of forcing a common dress in schools and Preachers of all religions forced to impart their God's word in French, would go a long way to build the a common French identity.

In fact, with modern education, some Islamic mindset is changing. They have serious doubts about the concept of jihad (if Time magazine is correct) TIME states:

A survey carried out by the Mori agency for Eastern Eye, Britain's biggest selling Asian newspaper, shows that 87% of the Muslims polled are loyal to Britain, even though 64% oppose the U.S.-led strikes against Afghanistan.

It should be mandatory for immigrants to undertake a psychological test as also some type of a test to sift the wheat from the chaff.

That much for the Islamisation and it being secondary to the national identity.

Another worrisome aspect that can affect global strategy is that Islamic nation because of their oil wealth have heavily subscribed to the US and European economy.

So long as the Muslim faith continues to reproduce and convert faster than any other religion or culture, they will eventually overtake Europe and other lands from within by a shear majority of numbers. The United States is not immune to this trend, but is less vunerable because Americans are not all completely sold on the idea of 1-2 children families as an unwritten rule.

Economy

The Islamic countries have invested vast sums of money upfront which can be controlled; yet vast amounts that are laundered cannot be controlled. What are the ways and means that can be employed to ensure that the Islamic countries do not have the leverage to play the European economy to suit their purpose?

In so far as the US and Europe equation and also the global equation, what should be done to ensure that the WTO is fair to all countries and competitive so as to make the economy nd the equations more predictable?

What are the means by which, within the WTO arrangement, US continues to call the shots.

One of the above board ways is cornering the oilfields or at least influence its fortunes and then using the oil prices and productions to manipulate the markets. I have explained this in details elsewhere with reference to the Defence Policy Guidance and the National Energy Policy.

Various means will continue to exist to try to push the United States influence out. The United States remains the wealthies nation in the world, overall, and that makes pushing us out is very difficult to justify in economic terms.

Russia

The US has organised the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2003. This led to the Revolution of the Roses and other former USSR states freeing itself from the sphere of Russia. Therefore Russia feels threatened.

What are the means by which the fear of being encircled can be reduced. The negative offshoot is that Russia is cosying up to Iran over the nuclear question and Russia is a nuclear power. This could result in a stand off.

Therefore, what should be done in the short term and what in the long term?

Russia has the entire Cold War to look back on as a legacy of prejudice and fear of the USA. It will take more than one generation for that to die out completely. Additionally, it is much easier to blame the USA for any number of their internal problems, thus perpetuating the hatred of the USA.

Russia and China both seem to have forgotten the underlying purpose of the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: The fewer nations with nuclear weapons, the less likely it will be that humanity destroys itself in a fit of stupidity. China could stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions dead, but they just let them go without a thought. Russia and China are both sticking up for Iran. The world must decide whether or not the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is worth defending. Based on current reactions, most of the world just doesn't care.

How Europe could be brought back to the old form of Europe US Relations

Once upon a time, Western Europe and the United States shared one very important thing: A common enemy. Now they do not have a common enemy. At the very least, not a clearly defined one.

Thor ( I hope you don't mind the short name)

That works, he's my favorite God of Thunder.

In general, the world seems likely to end up with 5 critically important world powers: The United States, Europe, China, India and Russia & company (once they rebuild their strength). The world of Islam is a definite maybe for a sixth world power, but they are setting themselves up screw that up right now. All but one of those powers are stacked right up against each other...

Its good to be the USA.

Since there are no more posts forthcoming on Europe, we may move on to the Middle East.

Middle East

Governance will be the key driver in shaping Middle Eastern developments. The story of failure and crisis in the Middle East has been largely a story of ineffective governance. Political Islam, which threatens to be more long-lasting than other ideologies such as Nasser’s brand of Arab nationalism or various discredited versions of Marxism, will aggravate the problems of governance. The core concept of the new radical brand of political Islam involves returning Islam to its roots and dispensing with "moderate" regimes.

Current political systems are largely patronage-based, centralized, and ineffective in delivering physical and economic security. The social contract undoubtedly will break down in some countries, though the identification of tipping points is difficult. For example, the Saudi social contract is unlikely to endure for the next 16 years. Other "moderates" such as Egypt could be overturned and a new radical regime could emerge. Stimulated by international counterterrorist pressures, extremists are likely to turn inward, attacking the regimes that once tolerated them. Iraq —depending on its evolution towards democracy or descent into radicalism or civil war— could act as a positive or negative influence elsewhere in the region.

Other possible shocks or wildcards include war or peace between Israel and the Arabs and a jump or drop in oil prices. A new war might entail use of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons, possibly initiated by Syrian employment of chemical weapons. Another crushing Arab military defeat at the hands of Israel would exacerbate the disillusionment of Arabs with their ineffective regimes. The death of Arafat could, however, set in motion events leading to a settlement as is current.

Increased oil revenues could weaken or at least postpone popular pressures for political and economic change in producing states, bolstering stability in the short term but weakening constituencies for needed reform. A drop in oil prices would have the opposite effect.

2020 will find more international actors in the Middle East, particularly countries from the Far East with oil and gas requirements, but the United States will remain the unrivaled power, and the resolution of some of the most thorny and uncertain questions depend on US policy choices. The role of peacemaker and enforcer will not get easier even if the Middle East begins to democratize. As shown by the turn of events in Algeria in the early 1990s, democratization does not translate automatically into moderation and pro-Americanism and could as easily give a boost to radicalism.

Therefore, what would be the US role in the Middle East in the global world order?

Special interests for oil companies are probably too thoroughly entrenched in the US political system, but what happens if the USA wises up and converts to an alternative non-fossil fuel source that they don't need to import? Methanol or Ethanol alchohol would be excellent examples as the USA has the greatest grain surplus on the planet, and you use what we have in abundance (corn and wheat) to make those two types of alcohol fuels. Additionally, either choice is superior to Gasoline for torque and horse power output, polute less, and rely on a renewable resource. Alcohol fuels would be the least complicated conversion for existing vehicles since there is very little changes to make for it.

I think that the Middle East has used oil wealth as an excuse for not bothering to develop and modernize.

I think that the wisest and least likely course for the world of Islam to take is to abandon the desire to model government after the Koran. It hasn't not proven to be anything but a detriment to any nation that has tried it and the door is opened to very radical interpretations. Some other form of government and somebody needs to clean house with their media sources or they are never going to catch up. With their current media, the people of the Middle East will not truly realize that they are responsible for their own success or failure and they can't blame everyone else for circumstances they create for themselves.

Alternate fuels are yet to be commerically viable. Even they are, the finances to convert the world industries, vehicles, aircraft, ships etc has to be considered.

It is for note that though there is the brouhaha about Islam being a 'bloc' in the quest for global powerplay. this is not feasible. There is the concept of 'ummah' (universal family) in Islam where all Moslems are one Nation, but in the modern world, the racial and ethnic differences cannot be wished away.

Bangladesh is the ideal example. East Bengal, which was Moslem predominant joined Pakistan because of a common religion i.e. islam. But soon enough the Punjabi domination and unfairness to usurp power disillusioned East Bengal (known as East Pakistan). The country divided inspite of ummah and Islam.

Koran cannot be changed or re-intepreted. Therefore, the rules that govern Islamic societies including justice and social interplay, are archaic and medieval. The mindset thus remains in a timefreeze. Hence there is no progress or modernisation. This suited the obdurate monarchies and dictatorships of the Middle East since an unquestioning citizenry is better for governance than one that questions or demands equality and rights as also a better life. More than creature comforts, justice, fairplay and the dignity of an individual more essential i.e the' freedom to breathe and live'.

This situation will not change even if Freedom and Democracy is brought it. it will only exist in the form of a facade since Islam will still govern supreme in the lives of all citizens. What is essential for the Middle East is the essentials of institutions that guarantee justice, fairplay and equality.

Oil will still be a major input till 2020 in the world. It will be necessary to ensure the safety not only the oilfields but also the trade routes and oil transportation seaways.

On the guarantee of free flow of oil will depend the world economy. A skewed world economy will lead to world strife, making the world a tinderbox. With more nations and maybe even terrorists having the nuclear knowhow, the world will become a real dangerous place.

To police the trade routes and seaways, only the US has the wherewithal in the form of 'muscle' to enforce the same. It will also be in the US interest to do so to remain the sole global superpower and the arbiter of world destiny. This is a heady opiate.

Hence in the Middle East, the US will have to set up the infrastructure to not only monitor the US interests in the Middle East, but also have the infrastructure readily available within the tactical timeframe to intervene to set right any imbalances that may occur that appears to imbalance the engines of world economy.

Originally Posted by Peter Pan

Alternate fuels are yet to be commerically viable. Even they are, the finances to convert the world industries, vehicles, aircraft, ships etc has to be considered.

I don't care about the airplanes and ships since I don't know enough, but I do know automobiles. Put it this way. Any American who has ever gone to a county or state fair and watched the Tractor Pull has seen alcohol fuel in action (it is preferable because more torque and horsepower can be had than you would get from diesel and gasoline). Any American who has ever watched NASCAR has seen alcohol burning engines in action. Low end drag racers use ethanol as well. The conversion process? Change out a few minor parts made of materials that are corroded by alcohol, and some other minor insignificant adjustments. Easily done. The conversion process is already VERY WELL KNOWN and people do it all the time. There just aren't very many gas stations with an Ethanol pump.

Logistics of making alcohol. Again, people make it all the time. Essentially, we're talking Moonshine. If a hillbilly hick with only scrap copper tubing and other odds and ends to work with can make the stuff, how difficult can it be to produce enmasse? Breweries already make the lesser proof alchohol enmasse anyways. It's not difficult to convert over, but special interests in the oil business will never let it happen.