Ok I know this isn't techcially history, but it relates to it. I personally think that China will emerge as a world superpower (no real doubt there). India possibly later on in the century, with the US, not declining but losing their status as the only superpower. EU won't become a superpower in miltary terms I believe but possibly ecomonic wise, providing we get all our workers off their backsides. Russia will decline sharply, Possible flashpoints are Taiwan, Caspian Sea area (one of the last untouch gas and possibly oil reserves left, not sure if there is oil so correct me if i am wrong), South Korea, and the middle east.

I think it will move back to the way it was in the 18th-17th centuries, no clear cut superpowers, instead there are four or five (proably more now) major powers, all about equal in strenghth. As for who these will be only time can tell, the U.S., China and India certainly have spots, I could also see a european country or two, japan, and maybe isreal or iran.

I agree that there will be a few major powers, and many minor ones. The unique situation of the Cold War was due to the fact that only 2 of major powers survived WW2 largely unscathed. (USSR was badly damaged in Europe but not in Asia.) With the demise of the USSR, a power vacuum has been left that can be assumed by several states. China is clearly a front-runner in this regard, having an enormous population and access to a wealth of natural resources, as well as a long tradition of education. Its only real threat is from within, due to the tenuous nature of its politics. India is also a clear favorite, with its large, highly educated population. The EU is not much of a unified power yet, but this may change in the future. It can become a major power likewise through a large, educated population. The US, I doubt, will be downgraded, just forced to contend with more competitors.

Others might be Russia and Iran. Both have access to important natural resources and have to be contended with.

The United States and China certainly. They both have large populations, are rich in resources, and are geographically well-positioned. A major power may yet develop in South America, perhaps in the form of an economic union. India won't make it unless they do some draconic population control. I think people underestimate Russia. They have a sizeable population, are rich in natural resources, have a well-educated population, and a lot of influence in Ukraine and Belarus. (They're also in a great position to benefit from global warming.)

I also am not one to count Russia out just yet. If they can get their economy under control, and possibly stimulate population growth, they'll be big once again. Siberia probably has a wealth of gold, oil and diamonds in it, and if Global Warming actually comes knocking in the next little while, it'll be much easier to get at.

I hope there is not need for empires anymore.

Europe, China, India, USA.

I think there would be several major powers (not superpowers) and a few minor ones, like in the Mediterranean in the 3rd-2nd century BC or Europe in the 17th-18th century. A few countries I see as major powers are the USA (their influence had declined but they still have a strong economy and military), China, India and Russia (these three will match the US in economic and military strength by the next century, but will be a lot less stable internally). The Arab-Muslim world will be much more unified and maybe emerge as a major power. As for Europe I think there's too much diversity and conflicting ideas for every country to work together as a single superstate beyond an economic or defence alliance, but Europe will still be a major power. A few minor powers will rise, eg Nigeria, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan.

I think a major hotspot is in between australia and indonesia.
Indonesia is over populated muslim country with lots of little break away provinces who want to leave.

Australia is a big empty western nation. Who likes to support the break away provinces.

Eventually War!

I forsee the U.S./E.U. running world affairs for many years to come. Other powers will emerge, but the atlantic alliance will become more and more vital as time goes on.. and it will be enough to prevent other nations from reaching 'superpower' status.

I reckon whenever a world government enters the scene, things won't be so swell.

The US will continue to be very powerful, but won't be the sole superpower anymore. I agree with Marshal Zukov, the situation will likely look somewhat similar to how the world looked in the 17th or 18th centuries - several large, powerful countries or empires, none quite powerful enough to destroy the others entirely, balancing each other out.

As for who these nations will, the US and China are the favorites, and the most obvious. Barring something drastic happening (A complete collapse in the central government, or a nuclear sneak attack on either - unlikely) that prediction will probably hold true. I imagine India will be rather strong this century, as well - the US would do well to cultivate relations with that great democracy, they would be an excellent ally to help keep China from getting too big for it's britches. Russia could revive itself, but I have my doubts, as their population is spiraling downwards and they need a larger population to take advantage of all their land and resources. (If Christianity or Islam became much more prominent, their birthrates would probably go up)

Europe will likely be strong, but not quite as strong as people are predicting. It's a shame that they are dragging themselves down with their low birthrates and bad social policies which are negatively impacting their economies, Europe would be an excellent ally to the US.

Some wildcards could be Brazil and the Middle East. Brazil is shaping up to be a regional power capable of maintaining order in South America; another country the US should try to court. They need to deal with some corruption problems, however, and with their deforestation problems. The Middle East is unlikely to be much different in this century than in the last couple of decades, but if, and this is a big if, one nation able to seize control of much or all of the ME, then that could spell trouble. With that much oil, they could cause a lot of problems for a lot of the rest of us if the ruling government wasn't friendly to outsiders, which they probably wouldn't be.

Africa will probably get better, but won't be in any position to challenge the US, Europe, or powers of Asia anytime soon.

China will not amerge as a world superpower for anothe 100 years. A nation with so much starvation cannot survive as a superpower. Also the goverment isn't supported by the people. Why people don't support bush they don't support the violent overthrow of the goverment. Based on that and a average income of 6000 dollars per person it is nearly impossible for them to be on the same level as the U.S. China would need to spend money it doesn't have and can't get to elevate itself.

As for the european union superpower. There is no possibility in the foresable future. Due the differing cultures. Greece and Britian will never be in the same state. Also the stature the pope would wan't to have wouldn't be good. Europe will have to become more centralized before this can possibly happen.

Africa will probably get better, but won't be in any position to challenge the US, Europe, or powers of Asia anytime soon.

This is partly because the protectionist economic policies of the developed world are designed to prevent African countries from competing with them on a fair footing. In some respects the world is like a giant game of Civ: the powerful countries get more powerful, and the weaker ones tend to lose what power they have.

China will not amerge as a world superpower for anothe 100 years. A nation with so much starvation cannot survive as a superpower. Also the goverment isn't supported by the people. Why people don't support bush they don't support the violent overthrow of the goverment. Based on that and a average income of 6000 dollars per person it is nearly impossible for them to be on the same level as the U.S. China would need to spend money it doesn't have and can't get to elevate itself.
Their economy is growing at a simply amazing pace - about 12% last year, I believe. Thanks to our trade deficit, pretty soon they'll have all the money and infrastructure they need; we are effectively subsidizing their growth.

As for the european union superpower. There is no possibility in the foresable future. Due the differing cultures. Greece and Britian will never be in the same state. Also the stature the pope would wan't to have wouldn't be good. Europe will have to become more centralized before this can possibly happen.
They don't need to become one in every area to act in concert and be either a great help or a great threat. All they need is a common military and foreign policy department. Sure, in order to become truly unified they are going to need to make a lot of changes, but they are on their way.

This is partly because the protectionist economic policies of the developed world are designed to prevent African countries from competing with them on a fair footing. In some respects the world is like a giant game of Civ: the powerful countries get more powerful, and the weaker ones tend to lose what power they have.
Very true. But Africa has something valuable - almost untapped resources, especially mineral resources. With China and India growing so fast, they are reaching into Africa to find all the metal and timber and other materials they need. I think it's quite possible that Africa will be in a lot better position in 50 years than they are now, based on that fact alone.

Of course, it's entirely possible the warlords will keep all the money and screw Africa over, again.

China will not amerge as a world superpower for anothe 100 years. A nation with so much starvation cannot survive as a superpower. Also the goverment isn't supported by the people. Why people don't support bush they don't support the violent overthrow of the goverment. Based on that and a average income of 6000 dollars per person it is nearly impossible for them to be on the same level as the U.S. China would need to spend money it doesn't have and can't get to elevate itself.

As for the european union superpower. There is no possibility in the foresable future. Due the differing cultures. Greece and Britian will never be in the same state. Also the stature the pope would wan't to have wouldn't be good. Europe will have to become more centralized before this can possibly happen.

what about the USSR they had many of the problems that china now have

Do you see the U.S.S.R anymore.

Obviously:
*USA
Probably:
*PRC
Possibly:
*UK
Probably not but has a slim chance:
*Russia
*India
*France
*Brazil
*Iran
*DPRK
If my friends and I can get some military companies to sell us tanks, airplanes, and other military stuff:
*The Empire (that's the name of our micronation; not affiliated with the Aerican Empire)
But the USA will remain the strongest.

So the UK has much more potential on becoming a superpower than Germany, that's not even mentioned, not even in "probably not but has a slim chance", that has more population, much better average person income, and a more modern system of... well.. about everything?

Edit: Oh, and same for Iran and Brazil?

I'm glad to learn France still has a slim chance to be the superpower of the next century :goodjob:

Obviously China, and India, with other powers being Japan, Brazil, perhpas Nigeria, and Indonesia also, Iran has great potential if it can get over some issues.

Iran has great potential if it can get over some issues.

Like the fact that is being surrounded by a super aggressive super power.

Like the fact that is being surrounded by a super aggressive super power.

Yeah thats the main one, it Iran can survive the next 20 years without getting bombed by the US, (a slim chance) then it has oppurtunities and options for greater economic growth and regional power.

So the UK has much more potential on becoming a superpower than Germany, that's not even mentioned, not even in "probably not but has a slim chance", that has more population, much better average person income, and a more modern system of... well.. about everything?

Edit: Oh, and same for Iran and Brazil?

Germany has no carriers. :p

I agree that there will be a few major powers, and many minor ones. The unique situation of the Cold War was due to the fact that only 2 of major powers survived WW2 largely unscathed. (USSR was badly damaged in Europe but not in Asia.)

Well but all influental man made was in European part. Like when USA would lost all within Alaska and California;)

I hope another one rises, we Americans are spoiled here all alone, although I'd rather it not be China, not my choice and it seems inevitable, but they just make me uncomfortable, I like that they're trying to change, but they're still not that ideal country... not that the US is.. but their army could do alot, obviously, and thats not necessarily a good thing. I don't think India will do well unless they can overhaul reforms, how many people live in poverty there??
so, hey Europe! Rise again! eh? I know you wanna. And South America. Some of you may get a shot, go for it! Australia! keep it real, dont go overkill ok?

So the UK has much more potential on becoming a superpower than Germany, that's not even mentioned, not even in "probably not but has a slim chance", that has more population, much better average person income, and a more modern system of... well.. about everything?


Much better income? They are essentially identical (and England is actually better in nominal values): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
The level of technology is basically equal as well.
Militarily, England is certainly stronger, since Germany is controlled.

I don't think either of such small countries will become a power on its own in the modern world, but neither is really stronger than the other.

USA
China
India

Militarily, England is certainly stronger, since Germany is controlled.

Can you elaborate on that?

Much better income? They are essentially identical (and England is actually better in nominal values): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
The level of technology is basically equal as well.

Germany has more manpower and on industrial power UK is far behind.

Don't forget Poland ;)

Seriously, I think that European age finally ended.

There will be no Superpowers, no China is not gonna be a Superpower and America is no longer a SuperPower anymore
they are replaced by a world Government, and which ever country has weapons capable of Destryoing the World they are Superpowers, wars will only be fought between countries that are poor and have no nuclear weapons

There will be no Superpowers, no China is not gonna be a Superpower and America is no longer a SuperPower anymore
they are replaced by a world Government, and which ever country has weapons capable of Destryoing the World they are Superpowers, wars will only be fought between countries that are poor and have no nuclear weapons

No no no, we're talking about this next century, not 1984;)

Brazil has made spanish a mandatory language in their schools.

If they want to dominate south america, they will have to do it in spanish, because Argentines, Peruvians etc, are not going to learn portuguese.

Personally, I think europe is looking like its doomed for a major downhill slide. The vitality of the US has always been, whatever its circumstances, state of our economy, military, etc. is its fascinating, out-of-nowhere capacity for innovation, whereby it has singlehandedly, practically, created the modern era, and owns all the patents...This trend does not actually appear to be changing. Production in the US always far outpaces avilible markets. CHina emerging is great, with almost infinate markets, and will probably wind up, liek it or not, the new best friend of the US.
Europe has never had that much production. What production there is in wurope, mainly germany, seems to magically have no profit. Mysterious. Anyway, while I hope i dont offend anyone, I think the economic strength of europe has often recently depended very much on the US. Now that the US has a new economic buddy to hang out with who is more hip than europe, maybe europe is gonna get in serious trouble? Well, this is my speculation.
I also think that many places which have been arrested in development because of fundamentally temporary problems, such as africa, must eventually get over them. Africa has amazing wealth in resources, and theres no reason that something in africa cant eventually get around this mess and shape itself to be a new world player. hard to say where right now, but something eventually. Nigeria?

Personally, I think europe is looking like its doomed for a major downhill slide. The vitality of the US has always been, whatever its circumstances, state of our economy, military, etc. is its fascinating, out-of-nowhere capacity for innovation, whereby it has singlehandedly, practically, created the modern era, and owns all the patents...This trend does not actually appear to be changing. Production in the US always far outpaces avilible markets. CHina emerging is great, with almost infinate markets, and will probably wind up, liek it or not, the new best friend of the US.
Europe has never had that much production. What production there is in wurope, mainly germany, seems to magically have no profit. Mysterious. Anyway, while I hope i dont offend anyone, I think the economic strength of europe has often recently depended very much on the US. Now that the US has a new economic buddy to hang out with who is more hip than europe, maybe europe is gonna get in serious trouble? Well, this is my speculation.
I also think that many places which have been arrested in development because of fundamentally temporary problems, such as africa, must eventually get over them. Africa has amazing wealth in resources, and theres no reason that something in africa cant eventually get around this mess and shape itself to be a new world player. hard to say where right now, but something eventually. Nigeria?

So Nigeria will soon be a world power, while Europe will go in serious trouble, right? :lol: :crazyeye: Sorry but I don't believe this.

It's nice to see that Europe's financial markets begin some sort of small-scale emancipation from the United States. Once, they used to say, that when America coughs, Europe has a cold. While Europe and the United States are more dependent on each other than ever (Europe knows this, the US obviously doesn't), it there sure is movement.

However, the EU's problems are numerous. Economic woes and unemployment aside, the EU has a massive structural problem. Since the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, there are 27 commissioners on the Europe Commission, with posts for things that would merit only a sub-department in a national government: Multilingualism, or Information Society & Media.

Thanks to outgoing French President Chirac's political maneuvering, an obviously ill-informed electorate and institutional confusion, the EU 'constitution' treaty has been put on ice for the time being. However, the institutional changes envisioned in the treaty will have to be implemented. If an ever-enlarging EU (with Croatia due in 2009 and Turkey probably some time after 2015) does not find a way out of its current deadlock between national interests, an interventionist Commission and the waning confidence of its electorate, Europe sure is heading for trouble.

Militarily speaking, the EU is among the few powers in the world that have power-projection capabilities. While these capabilities are mainly due to the British and French military, as well as the Germany's army (by the way the largest in Europe, not counting Russia), they are there nonetheless.

Of course, the US is the sole superpower (some, indeed, say hyperpower) and it will remain that way if US military spending goes on increasing like this. The United States have true power projection capabilities, with bases and fleets around the world, a large force of carrier battle groups, a large carrier wing, and, most importantly, a head of state that may act without consulting Congress (which is questionable democracy- and checks and balances-wise).

Russia is re-arming as well. With its boundless resources in Siberia, it surely is an energy superpower that likes to strong-arm neighbours by cutting off the crude and natural gas supply (see Belarus, Ukraine).

Africa? No way. The African Union is far too disorganised to form a political and military heavyweight (sorry, Nigeria ;)).

China surely is a rising star, with an exploding defence budget as well as an exploding self-confidence as Asia's major player - though it might perhaps have to make domestic concessions.

India, "the world's largest democracy". I've read somewhere that India may indeed surpass China in terms of GDP. They are at a geostrategically sensible position, armed with a fleet of carriers as well as some nuclear bombs - and modernizing fast.

In South America, I'd mostly put my money on Argentina or Brazil, though the left-wing populism of a large number of South American heads of state might jeopardize important trade agreements with Europe and the US (the resolution of the Doha Round problems, for instance).


Anyway, my take is that the US will continue to dominate the political landscape though they will have to make concessions to both Europe and Asia, probably to Latin America as well...

most importantly, a head of state that may act without consulting Congress (which is questionable democracy- and checks and balances-wise).
He's not the only one. Most of the head of state can act without consulting the American Congress :p

More seriously, the French president also act without consulting the parliament. He has even more power (in term of right to do things, not about military power at his disposal) than the US president.

He's not the only one. Most of the head of state can act without consulting the American Congress :p

You're sure of that? ;) Anyway, there's Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress) as an umbrella term for all presidential system legislatures. :p


More seriously, the French president also act without consulting the parliament. He has even more power (in term of right to do things, not about military power at his disposal) than the US president.

I agree; but France almost certainly would not act alone, without consulting at least the German government. While France wields some power - both politically and militarily - in its former African colonies, mostly, the French government seems to know the wisdom of consulting with allies concerning important geopolitical decisions. I don't think France would embark on a nearly unilateral adventure like the War in Iraq on its own.

I agree; but France almost certainly would not act alone, without consulting at least the German government. While France wields some power - both politically and militarily - in its former African colonies, mostly, the French government seems to know the wisdom of consulting with allies concerning important geopolitical decisions. I don't think France would embark on a nearly unilateral adventure like the War in Iraq on its own.
We won't make large intervention like in Iraq alone. But we can do regional ones (like in Ivory Coast). We did this with the backing of EU and UHN, to get as much legitimacy as possible.
But for a specific situation, the French president can send the French army on his own decision if needed. It doesn't mean he'll do that, but in case of emergency he has the power to do it.

I think the 3 main 'superpowers' will be...

USA
China
EU

USA will remain strong, China is an obvious choice due to many facts what everyone here is aware of. The EU is technically very very advanced, I feel that in say 50 years they will probably have a unified force, and as such will have great ability to project its powers where needed. This force I believe will be a little more complex, with each nation contributing for agreed peacekeeping etc. However the EU does need political reform so it can take descisions in a more unified manor, this I fell will also come with time. And despite tit for tat disagreements the EU will still be culturally very much one and the same as the US and they will have a very strong Atlantic allience.

I think the 3 main 'superpowers' will be...

USA
China
EU

USA will remain strong, China is an obvious choice due to many facts what everyone here is aware of. The EU is technically very very advanced, I feel that in say 50 years they will probably have a unified force, and as such will have great ability to project its powers where needed. This force I believe will be a little more complex, with each nation contributing for agreed peacekeeping etc. However the EU does need political reform so it can take descisions in a more unified manor, this I fell will also come with time. And despite tit for tat disagreements the EU will still be culturally very much one and the same as the US and they will have a very strong Atlantic allience.

Sounds like your list could be modified:

Oceania
Eurasia
Eastasia

Only Russia seems to be slacking off, making the 2nd less possible. Time to buck up, Russia! :mischief:

Sounds like your list could be modified:

Oceania
Eurasia
Eastasia

Only Russia seems to be slacking off, making the 2nd less possible. Time to buck up, Russia! :mischief:

Exactly! I said so early, in other words.

The US may be begining its decline now (I hope not i don´t want to be ruled by comunist China or Gas producing Russia). If they wan´t to avoid it they have to take some very serious problems and solve them. The first one is the increasing rising of religious and political fundamentalism, which could have on the long time a big impact on the economic and scientific levels of the US, this would lead to the loss of military power, not to speak of the growing bad reputation that the US is adquiring on the World. Other Problems they need to solve are education (begin by ending the evolution debate to go away from fundamentalism), enviroment, economic competivity(still one of the highest in the world but has begun to decrease), social welfare programs (medical treatment has to reach more people), science (stem cell research should definitely be alowed) and public deficit (begin by reducing Defence spending).

EU is today the biggest econmic power, but it suffers from an excessively interventionistic state that limits its grow and is surely going to made it lose this position against China and the US. Diplomatically and militarily they are weak because they are multiple diferent countries for the outside World.

China is going to be the biggest or the second biggest economic power in wery short time (50 years) but they still have to solve the problem of lack of liberties which can cause great inestability and lack of development outside the special economic areas. They also have to begin to adapt to a more competitive high-tech economy and to reduce their damage to the environment.

India may probably surpass China sometime. Mostly because it is jumping directly to a high tech economy. Some of their most important industries today are computer services and pharmaceutical companies. Their great problems are again inequal development like in china, enviromental problems and the low level of basic infastructures and services.

Russia seems like a temporal great player, mostly thanks to its energy resources. Their power will sink as soon as the world moves to other energy sources, but if they invest their money well, they could improve their economy.

Japan seems provably to maintain its status as great economic power and doesnt seem to be facing any great change. They have done a really great job for reaching this stability.

China's political woes are much greater than most people here seem to think. The centralized government and the regional governments are starting to come unstuck while an amazing level of corruption is to be found at all levels. And nobody there likes communism much to start with. I forsee China overheating in a most amazing way.

Nothing about Africa inspires any confidence in me, superpower wise. Takes more than resources to become a superpower.

The US is heading downhill, but slowly, it'll be awhile before anyone can go toe to toe with em.

East European countries that have joined the EU are rearing to go. Europe's economic influence can only go up. As for the EU becoming more unified, yeah, right.

Hard to tell where Russia is heading, but they do love to blackmail in natural resources, and have europe by the balls there.

India seems to have nowhere to go but up. Up being a regional superpower.

But the future is going to be dominated by climate change, and massive population displacements. There will be wars over resources such as fresh water and still usefull land and I suspect the sanctity of life will be much diminished.

America, China, and a European country.

Hm, china faces their economy over heating, or if they take action against that a loss of confidence in their shares. Thhat aside there isn't much you can do to top such a large, naturally rich, populous nation becoming very powerful.

US
China
<----EU if it unities
India

The US will still have a massive economy and as chian grows that will in turn make the US and EU grow as they have so much invested in china, india benefits from democracy and other things, they will still have the third largest economy in 2050 if they continue their current growth, and their growth has been a lot more sustainable then china's.

OI! Russia doesn't have we europeans by the balls, we will just go elsewhere for our oil and gas, we will have to pay more yes, but the again right across the EU there is a clean energy drive atm.

Brazil, with all that water, and resources, if they get over the corruption problem and educate the poor they could boom, have the rest of latin america pretty much behind them ( who cares about bolivia, really?)

EU, looks to expand ever further, into eastern europe and perhaps the middle east, some of the mediterean wants to make union there to, and it would be europe led obviously.

Africa will/is be bought up by other countries as they try to secure resources.

Sounds like your list could be modified:

Oceania
Eurasia
Eastasia

Only Russia seems to be slacking off, making the 2nd less possible. Time to buck up, Russia! :mischief:

Yep, and the obvious place for Russia and Ukraine and Belarus to join up with is the EU... they are all european after all. Who can guess when that could happen but the juncture of Russian resources and rest of Europe technologies and markets would be such a powerful combination that in say 50 years it could overtake the US. The US is currently exhausting itself with a huge budget deficit and China might not be stable politically as it tries to leverage growth. Remember that oil is going to get horribly expensive in the next 30 years once we have gone past peak oil... and Global warming might start playing havoc with the climate...

Brazil has made spanish a mandatory language in their schools.

The students can choose between Spanish and English.


If they want to dominate south america, they will have to do it in spanish, because Argentines, Peruvians etc, are not going to learn portuguese.
No sane brazilian has any interest in dominating South America. Our government of course does not qualify as sane, and it's childish attempts to become leader of the continent always seem to go hilariously wrong.

The USA is the sole superpower at the moment. At the moment the USA has the largest developed economy with a steady growth and a GDP 5-6 times that of China. The world is largely dependent on America's economy and if it crashes we would have a second great depression.
With an annual military budget of $460B accounting for almost half of the Global military budget ( $960B ) it has the most advanced and most rapidly advancing Military. US Military bases are all across the world enabling control of those areas and quick strikes to any region if neccesary. With a strong Navy, Canada as an ally and a relatively weak Mexico, threats to the mainland are not possible.
America posseses around 8000 nuclear warheads, should it be necessary, more then enough to destroy the world 10 times over.
The American Inteligence system is the most complex system in the world, they know what is going on all the time, they know how the world works, and the plan things for years in advance.
The USA has big cultural influence on the whole world with music, holywood, food etc.
List of US Allies include: UK, Canada, Australia and to an extent all of Nato's members.
Finally the US has a functioning political system and immense ideological influence i.e. Capialism.



China has a growing economy, relatively weak military compared to US and Russia, not many allies, much much less nukes and a lot worse technology for nuke delivery. They do have a big army but that proves little in todays military.
I doubt China will rise to a superpower status any time soon.
Id rather put my bets on Russia.

As a conclusion, I think the USA will remain as the world Superpower and wont decline, but in the future it may have to compete with Russia and China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

The world is changing pretty quickly these days, to a point that the superpowers in 80 years could be called:

- Microsoft
- Google
- NASA
- Bank of China
- Wallmart
- Catholic Church
- Islam
- FIFA
- Sony
...

I mean it is very possible. As we speak many peoples that have existed for centuries, many Nations, are slowly ceasing to exist. For example I believe all those of Western Europe are gone forever - the French, German, English Nations will soon have no meaning anymore, other than define puppet States and Administrations trying to defend a few private interests.

Whether (scenario 1) other peoples of the world will also dissolve and we shall see other superpowers and frontiers emerge (such as those I listed above), or whether (scenario 2) there will be a world-wide nationalist and identitarian "renaissance" is a major question for the current century and I believe no one has the answer. Too many contradictory trends are going to clash violently.

As for Africa and in case of scenario 2, I would not count them out for the dynamism of their population and ethnical sense of identity; they are already fast constituting loose cultural colonies all over Europe at the moment, and the trend is bound to increase rapidly in the coming decades. Sooner that one might think the future of the citizens of Europe might be partly decided in Abuja, Bamako or Nairobi. It is possible that, similarly to the European Nations emerged from the fall of the Roman Empire, African Nations might become more and more powerful on their continents and abroad, with areas of cultural and demographic dominance outside of Africa.

In terms of "Nations" in the classical sense of the word, the most powerful ones I can think of today (scenario 2) are:
- China
- Japan
- Korea
- Vietnam
- Russia
- Iran
- Turkey
- Pakistan

As for the USA:
scenario 1 - I believe at some point "globalization" will turn against them, just like it is right now vs the Nations of Europe. Except in resorting to massive imperialism (which IMO would fail), I do not see how they will eventually fight this negative trend.
scenario 2 - they would need to massively re-organize the way their country is built should the world go towards an era of protectionism and global recession, and the outcome of such change is doubtful - at best

Just a thought...

I don't see where people are getting this idea that russia is a major power any more, they are suffering a demographic diaster, they are population is going down, birth rates are dropping and death rates are not, HIV is starting to get a real foothold now in southern russia. TB has become resistent to drugs becuase of the over use of antibiotics in Russian prisons and is starting to spread, especially where HIV is present.
Yes they do have nuclear weapons, but so does Britain and France, and you can't really call them superpowers

I don't see where people are getting this idea that russia is a major power any more, they are suffering a demographic diaster, they are population is going down, birth rates are dropping and death rates are not, HIV is starting to get a real foothold now in southern russia. TB has become resistent to drugs becuase of the over use of antibiotics in Russian prisons and is starting to spread, especially where HIV is present.
Yes they do have nuclear weapons, but so does Britain and France, and you can't really call them superpowers
So Russia has a small population. Power, if you haven't noticed, isn't measured in manpower alone now. They are the second most advanced nation in the world in terms of military technology, they have probably the greatest supplies of natural resources of any nation in the world, they not only have nukes but the second most advanced delivery systems in the world, and their economy is growing at an astounding rate. They not only are a great power, they are becoming moreso everyday.

So Russia has a small population. Power, if you haven't noticed, isn't measured in manpower alone now. They are the second most advanced nation in the world in terms of military technology, they have probably the greatest supplies of natural resources of any nation in the world, they not only have nukes but the second most advanced delivery systems in the world, and their economy is growing at an astounding rate. They not only are a great power, they are becoming moreso everyday.

Concerning the economic point, if you discount the effects of oil, their economy is nearly stagnant. Moreover, their military technology is Cold War-vintage, whereas, say, China's is modernizing.

Concerning the economic point, if you discount the effects of oil, their economy is nearly stagnant.
Nonetheless its booming. Poverty is dissapearing rapidly, and this is creating opportunities in other fields.
Moreover, their military technology is Cold War-vintage, whereas, say, China's is modernizing.
Yes...by buying Russian technology. Russia too is modernizing. By 2010, GLONASS will be able to do everything that GPS can do, while the Beidou system hasn't even begun to experiment on global coverage, and the Sukhoi 47 will soon be entering production.

Nevertheless, the real new powers are India and China. Russia, Brazil and etc are merely sidekicks.

Concerning the economic point, if you discount the effects of oil, their economy is nearly stagnant. Moreover, their military technology is Cold War-vintage, whereas, say, China's is modernizing.

Putin has really reorganised the country for the better. Outsider influence has been minimised, internal problems are being resolved, selling precious oil, gas and weapons the economy is rising and Russia is the World Military Superpower.
Russia has the world's top of the line tanks, fighters, helicopters, armored units, Nuclear Warheads such as Topol etc.

What China has is outdated Russian technologies from the Cold War. It is being modernized of coarse but mostly depended on Russia.

Putin has really reorganised the country for the better. Outsider influence has been minimised, internal problems are being resolved, selling precious oil, gas and weapons the economy is rising and Russia is the World Military Superpower.
Russia has the world's top of the line tanks, fighters, helicopters, armored units, Nuclear Warheads such as Topol etc.

What China has is outdated Russian technologies from the Cold War. It is being modernized of coarse but mostly depended on Russia.

This is in a theoretical world where the United States doesn't exist, right? Because last time I checked, the Russians haven't been in the lead of anything since Sputnik.

The next ten years are crucial to the development of the 21st century, as many nations will be under governments which were elected or otherwise formed in a distinctly 21st-century milieu, relatively uninfluenced by the concerns of the 1990s.

If things keep going the way they're going, military power will become increasingly irrelevant. Already we see that total war between great powers is simply not an option, because in any total war situation, everybody loses (i.e. nuclear war). Sub-total conventional war is simply too costly, and the opportunity cost is far too high; why should China spend billions attacking the US and then spending even more billions trying to rebuild whatever it is was destroyed when they could make still more billions by not going to war and just selling the Yankees gewgaws and laptops?

The fact is, the more the Great Powers trade with one another, the more they limit their options to just economic and "soft" power (political influence, clout in international institutions, etc.)--which favors Europe, with its well-developed economy, good international reputation, and large bloc of nations (read: UN and WTO votes) which will probably continue to act as individual nations for as long as humanly possible. In addition, it is the only power that is physically expanding (though this may or may not mean anything).

The US is also well-positioned for such a world. Among other things, it is the chief catalyst of the globalization which drives this integration. For another, it can usually count on European support thanks to the commonality of US and EU interests and the resurgence of Atlanticism with the political trifecta of Merkel, Sarkozy, and Blair/Brown (they're both very pro-American, though the latter doesn't care for the Iraq War); given the relative popularity of Merkel, the fact that Sarkozy must stay for the next five years (barring anything weird), and the sympathy of the only realistic PM in the next ten years (David Cameron) to Atlanticism, I think that Atlanticism is here to stay.

India could also do well in this system. Nations generally listen to India because they want to, not because they're afraid (USA, China) or have nothing better to do (Europe, at the moment), on account of the image India projects as a Third World success story. It has positioned itself as a heart of trade and commerce, shunning dirty industrialization for God-knows-what. It has strong trade links to all major players, as well as to Africa.

China, which would traditionally be considered the most likely to succeed, has to tread carefully in order to avoid becoming the next Japan--touted and then floundering. It has military capacity, but, as explained above, it cannot pursue its current strategy of economic integration without limiting its military options. As the Chinese economy expands, it relies increasingly on foreign investment, much of which comes from the areas where China would seek to use its military--the West, Japan, and Taiwan. Taiwan in particular has built itself what is essentially a mile-high wall by providing such insanely large quantities of cash to Chinese businesses, and by making itself such a ready and willing supplier of starting funds to the mainland. The one country that China would like to invade is ironically the one country China cannot invade; it's too lucrative. Thus China must seek to expand its sphere through economic means. However, they will find it difficult to do so in their region: South Korea, Japan, and Thailand are already firmly under American influence; North Korea nobody wants to deal with; Laos is poor; Vietnam is generally pissed off at China. Thus they must expand to Africa--not a bad choice, really, it's the only territory that could go either way--but they must contend with the West, which doesn't want China to get anything, and India, which has established trade links with Africa from the sixties and seventies, established as part of Nehru's grand strategy for the Non-Aligned Movement. In short, China has the obvious advantages, but may find itself unable to take advantage of them.

This is in a theoretical world where the United States doesn't exist, right? Because last time I checked, the Russians haven't been in the lead of anything since Sputnik.

I did not say Russia is in the lead in anything. If you read my posts carefully you would have noted I said the USA is the sole Superpower in the World.(See post 51) Russia is a Military Superpower, in other words it is the only country in the world that can more or less compete with America militarywise.

@Lockesdonkey It seems you know what you are talking about, Can you expand your thoughts on Russia ?

@Lockesdonkey: I don't think China will remain dependent on foreign investment for much longer. It's other asian countries (and beyond Asia) that are becoming dependent on trade with China. The way things are going china won't need to invade Taiwan to take it over...
India has the advantage of being less feared than China, true, but that is because nobody yet takes India's ambitions seriously - and with good reason, I believe. It can't even control the totality of its own territory, it's fully surrounded by hostile neighbors, and its government has a history of failing to achieve the goals it sets.

I agree with Lockesdonkey that "If things keep going the way they're going, military power will become increasingly irrelevant." Reading all those posts it seems that the three dominating factors for being a future super power are military, ressources and population. In my opinion this is too much based on "hard" facts.
I think global influence will be more and more transported by three other "soft" factors:
1. economic power, and i mean more the power of knowledge, technology, innovation and financial influence than ressource-export based economic power like the recent russian economic renaissance.
2. cultural values: I don't want to sound like the "clash of civilizations"-Huntingdon, but a World-Super-Power can only have influence if it can provide ideas, social and cultural values. In the Cold War this was a huge factor. I can imagine various types of such values, the religious ideas being at the moment the most dynamic ones in some world regions.
3. Will and capability to solve the real, most dramatic world problems: The future Super Power must deal with the consequences of climate change, with the down sides of globalization, with third world poverty and with the conflicts that rise from the factors 1 and 2.
All mentioned super powers have deficits in one or more of these factors.

Great Powers have always had economic power to some degree or another, for the simple reason that huge armies require horrendous upkeeps, ie a large economy backing it up. The exceptions are rare and instructive.

And economic Power without a military arm to back it up, well, history never has favored those very much. To boldly state that that is about to change, it may be very Star Trek, but not very real-politiek. Economically linked nations may be less inclined to go to war with each other. That is competely different from won't. Might has an ugly tendency to make itself right.

And it's often the threat of military intervention where a military shines politically as Power. Far more usefull than actual intervention.

I think the key limiting factor will be the energy requirements to project military power beyond regional status to superpower. Without major technological revolutions in energy, the world is likely to become a patchwork of condensed regional powers. Superpowers will potentially hold onto their power, but only by being very frugal about where they spend it.

Their economy is growing at a simply amazing pace - about 12% last year, I believe. Thanks to our trade deficit, pretty soon they'll have all the money and infrastructure they need; we are effectively subsidizing their growth.

@Lockesdonkey: I don't think China will remain dependent on foreign investment for much longer. It's other asian countries (and beyond Asia) that are becoming dependent on trade with China. The way things are going china won't need to invade Taiwan to take it over...


While it is true that China will become decreasingly dependent on foreign investment over time, the importance of this fact is negated by two factors: one, that no nation can completely be free of foreign investment, even if it wanted to be, and two, that even after the outside world ceases to become critical to China's internal infrastructure building (which won't happen for at least another ten years), the outside world is still a market for China. When was the last time Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target invaded your house to steal your money? It's much less costly to just sell you things.

India has the advantage of being less feared than China, true, but that is because nobody yet takes India's ambitions seriously - and with good reason, I believe. It can't even control the totality of its own territory, it's fully surrounded by hostile neighbors, and its government has a history of failing to achieve the goals it sets.

Hmm. I'll analyze this point by point:

1. "India can't control its territory." India is also more diverse than China. Most of China, at least, has a common cultural identity, and literally everyone learns a single standard language at school. China also does not have to deal with federalism or democracy, both of which are in effect in India (the former out of necessity, the latter out of good fortune). In essence, the situations of India and China are not comparable. Furthermore, the parts of India that India cannot control are either involved in border disputes (the most important, Kashmir, may be with Pakistan, but others are with China), and it must be noted that India administers substantial chunks of land that China claims for itself. In addition, the parts of India that India cannot control are rather small and for the most part economically irrelevant (for the moment). India could probably enforce control over these lands soon, but is more interested in the general betterment of the country.

2. "India is surrounded by hostile neighbors." By which you mean Pakistan and China, neither of which desires war with India. India could take Pakistan in a fight any day of the week, and their dispute is mostly posturing. China and India might go to war, but both would be reluctant--they're part of the same economic supply chains. Beyond that, who else? Bangladesh? In addition to the fact that Bangladesh loves India, half the Bangladeshi army is in the Congo or Liberia or other such places on UN peacekeeping operations. Nepal? That would be like Canada invading the US. Bhutan? Myanmar? Don't make me laugh. The hostility of India's neighbors is irrelevant; they can't do anything because in the two areas where it matters--war and economic transport--they are impotent (India has the perfectly serviceable Arabian Sea to get its oil if Pakistan ever decides it would be cool to tempt fate and close the pipelines).

3. "India fails to achieve goals." Cite your sources, dear friend. Sure, they may not meet the claims they make, but you have to remember--India is a democracy. Either the people making these statements have to get elected or their bosses do. As anyone who lives in the US of A knows, politicians tend to get carried away in their statements.

On the other hand, India has shown a remarkable ability to meet long-term strategic goals. And by long term, I mean very long term; many of the plans of which I speak were laid down by Nehru and Nehru's planners forty to fifty years ago and are only now coming to fruition. India spent years slowly but carefully building on the infrastructure left by the British Raj, and encouraging native industry (Tata comes to mind). My mother, who grew up in southern Africa shortly after independence, often talks about how in the 1970s, many Zambians would rather buy a Tata car than a European car, because any idiot could fix the Tata and the Tata just plain lasted longer. It ran crappily, sure, but it ran forever. To say the least, this made India look very good in Africa.

Beyond that, the more recent strategies--such as the liberalization instituted by Manmohan Singh back when he was Finance Minister--appear to have worked as well or better than planned.


@Lockesdonkey It seems you know what you are talking about, Can you expand your thoughts on Russia ?

Russia is a wild card. The other powers have ideas about what they want to do--not Russia. Vladimir Putin--and by extension, the person he picks to replace him--is a chess player. He sees this as a grand game, where you go for the advantage, move the way the wind is blowing. America successful and popular? Go down to Crawford and "bare your soul" to Shrub. America stuck in the mud in a country even you can barely find on the map? Announce that America's policy has been terrible. Europeans smiling at you? Let the gas flow. Europeans helping your neighbors wiggle out of Rodina's grasp? Well, I suppose that Berliners will now mean frozen jelly doughnut. That's how it works. Russia fundamentally follows a "tit-for-tat" strategy, responding the the event immediately previous, avoiding initiating plays; however, its eye is always on the future, preparing the best strategy for each and every possible situation six, seven, even eight moves down the line.

1. "India can't control its territory." India is also more diverse than China. Most of China, at least, has a common cultural identity, and literally everyone learns a single standard language at school. China also does not have to deal with federalism or democracy, both of which are in effect in India (the former out of necessity, the latter out of good fortune). In essence, the situations of India and China are not comparable. Furthermore, the parts of India that India cannot control are either involved in border disputes (the most important, Kashmir, may be with Pakistan, but others are with China), and it must be noted that India administers substantial chunks of land that China claims for itself. In addition, the parts of India that India cannot control are rather small and for the most part economically irrelevant (for the moment). India could probably enforce control over these lands soon, but is more interested in the general betterment of the country.

Also wanted to adress this, China has just as much a problem with parts of its territory as Russia has with Chechnya and India has with Kashmir. China has, for reasons I can't comprehend insisted on holding on to its territorial possesions in Tibet and Uyghurstan. While problems in Chechnya and Kashmir are calming down and clearing up, things have gotten significantly worse in Uyghurstan, especially as Islamic Fundementalism is getting involved in the struggle, as opposed to the tradition Turkic/Uyghur Nationalism, and therefor an increase in violence, funding, supplies, and training.

The safest bets are today's economical superpowers , Eu and Usa. However China has several technical advantages that also make them a potential superpower . There is some political uncertainty however , if they want to battle corruption and if they believe in industrialization and how easy will it be. The political situation in China may be a problem or it could be improved in the future , for the time being i believe it will be a problem.

one, that no nation can completely be free of foreign investment, even if it wanted to be, and two, that even after the outside world ceases to become critical to China's internal infrastructure building (which won't happen for at least another ten years), the outside world is still a market for China. When was the last time Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target invaded your house to steal your money? It's much less costly to just sell you things.

Yes, but that kind of dependence works both ways. China won't have to invade (or even threaten to) any country to bring pressure to bear upon it. The balance it that China is not getting increasingly dependent on other countries, quite the opposite.



The hostility of India's neighbors is irrelevant; they can't do anything because in the two areas where it matters--war and economic transport--they are impotent (India has the perfectly serviceable Arabian Sea to get its oil if Pakistan ever decides it would be cool to tempt fate and close the pipelines).


Oil, certainly. Natural gas, no.
And, surrounded by hostile neighbors, India cannot do what traditionally defines a "superpower", project power upon other countries. Not counting Bangladesh, Nepal and Butan.
Also, India cannot take on Pakistan in any war any longer - not if it values have its bigger cities standing.


3. "India fails to achieve goals." Cite your sources, dear friend. Sure, they may not meet the claims they make, but you have to remember--India is a democracy. Either the people making these statements have to get elected or their bosses do.
(...)
On the other hand, India has shown a remarkable ability to meet long-term strategic goals. And by long term, I mean very long term; many of the plans of which I speak were laid down by Nehru and Nehru's planners forty to fifty years ago and are only now coming to fruition. India spent years slowly but carefully building on the infrastructure left by the British Raj, and encouraging native industry (Tata comes to mind).


Ok, I must agree with you here.

I don´t fully agree that military power will not be so necesary. Wars between mayor powers are defintely something of the past, such a war would not be only a risk of mutual nuclear destruction but also an economic suicide. War between mayor powers and "poor countries" is probably going to be less frequent. But Rouge or failed states like Iran, North Korea and Somalia are still going to exist at least for the next 40-70 Years. The use of modern and future military forces not more to figth wars but to act as a deterrent, carry precision strikes against small concrete objectives (terrorist, WMD productions facilities, etcc...) and to act in emergenci cases like Katrina or Sumatras Tsunami.

What is going to be definitely true is that ALL nations will be more dependant of foreing invests and markets than ever. This is one of the most important reasons why international relations are changing dramaticaly.

If I have to choose who is going to be the next superpower I would bet for India. India is as oposed to China a democracy, and really ads to the stability of a country. In a democratic sistem there are clear rules about how things should work. Today´s chinese leaders seem to know what they are doing but can the same be said for the next ones, in a system in which the will of the party is rule nobody knows what the next ruler could do.
India produces two times more university graduates than Europe, this doesn´t seem surprisingly until you realize that India has two times more population than Europe but is considered a third world country. This means that the percentage of university graduates in India is slighly less than in Europe. While
China has a scarcity of well prepared proffesionals, India is training a great number of Doctors, engineers, Scientiss, Bussinesmen, Lawyers, etc...
A consequence of this is that while China´s economic grow relies heavily on low-value products that require great quantities of workers, India is going directly to a high tech and services economy based on areas such as computer science, pharmaceutic and others.

If I have to choose who is going to be the next superpower I would bet for India. India is as oposed to China a democracy, and really ads to the stability of a country.


You know, the opposite might well be true in some cases. As an example, the chinese may have been luckier in 1990 than the russians.


India produces two times more university graduates than Europe, this doesn´t seem surprisingly until you realize that India has two times more population than Europe but is considered a third world country. This means that the percentage of university graduates in India is slighly less than in Europe. While
China has a scarcity of well prepared proffesionals, India is training a great number of Doctors, engineers, Scientiss, Bussinesmen, Lawyers, etc...


I don't know where you get your statistics, but those are very wrong. From the UNESCO database (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/), 2004 data:

School age population - tertiary education, total:
China: 101684177
India: 100778666
US: 20499567
United Kingdom: 3737727
France: 3856521

Enrolment in total tertiary. Public and private. Full and part time. Total:
China: 19417044
India: 11852936
US: 16900471
United Kingdom: 2247441
France: 2160300
North America and Western Europe: 32870246

As you can see, the percentage of university graduates (over the total population) in India is much less than in Europe (11% vs. ~60%). China has already more tertiary education students than either Western Europe or North America, India is quite behind.

Considering this data, then if indeed China has a scarcity of professionals and India doesn't this leads me to believe that the chinese have a more technology-oriented economy than India.

Except that China, for better or for worse, has committed itself to old-fashioned industrialization, at first picking up the slack from Europe and the American Midwest, then pulling it from their hands with great force. They want to be the workshop of the world, and the world is content to let them achieve that goal. India has other ideas. The prevalence of English nudged India in the direction of helping Americans and British out in long-distance services; the IITs' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology) heavy emphasis on engineering and technology, and the high-quality professionals they produce, means that large numbers of Indians are very attractive to Western companies, who then take them to work in the US, Canada, or Europe. And while many stay in the West, a large chunk either return to India or start trans-Pacific businesses hiring younger Indian engineers.

In addition, India wishes to be a financial center, whereas China, which sees itself as not needing one (Hong Kong!) is not as invested in the idea.

I think we need to take Africa more seriously as a major power in a generation or two. Historically, Africa was so sparsely populated, that there was nothing for an empire builder to conquer. That is no longer true.

The untapped resources have been cited a couple times. The political disunity as well. What has not been mentioned, and is critical in several emerging situations, particularly India and China, is the education base. I think it was Confusius that said, "If you plan for a century, educate children." South Africa in particular has excellent science and engineering.

For central and southern Africa to emerge as an economic power, several things have to happen: viable trade across borders; availability of education to the equatorial population; evolution of some world class manufacturing companies; settling of tribal frictions; mobility to jobs, evolution of a single business language. None of these are over the top, and a couple are in sight already. South African cell phones are seen deep into the jungle these days. Trucks traverse most of the continent. English is already everyone's second language of choice.

One area that may become politically important is the role of Christianity. Africa is more Christian than Europe now, and much more devout. It is a commonality that spans both tribes and countries. Rivalries, nationalistic and tribal, are still a very serious problem in a lot of local situations, but the sides can talk through their churches. Those we talk to, we trade with. Those we trade with, we acculturate to. Money is the great leveler.

Can you imagine the effect of a pan-African monetary system? Since the Euro has been a clear success, it might happen.

J

Can you imagine the effect of a pan-African monetary system? Since the Euro has been a clear success, it might happen.

J
While not all of africa, all of central africa uses the Central African Franc.

I don't see Africa as likely to produce a native Great Power anytime soon; the nations are still too poor, too weak, and have a massive disease problem. However, South Africa is already taking on the mantle of a global Middle Power, and Nigeria and Kenya might do so as well. If the dominant power in Africa adopts a strategy of offshore balancing, they may use these nations as the executors of their African grand strategy and give them some say in the shape of that strategy.

Norway, no doubt about it...their time has come.

I don't see Africa as likely to produce a native Great Power anytime soon; the nations are still too poor, too weak, and have a massive disease problem. However, South Africa is already taking on the mantle of a global Middle Power, and Nigeria and Kenya might do so as well. If the dominant power in Africa adopts a strategy of offshore balancing, they may use these nations as the executors of their African grand strategy and give them some say in the shape of that strategy.
Demographically, culturally, histrocially and even religiously as it was pointed out, African peoples are well-positioned to submit Europe within the century. At least Western Europe. No one has commented my post and the fact, obvious to me, that a civilization is going to finally disappear sooner that most think. It is highly predictable that Europe will again divide in 2, again West vs East (roughly), this time the East being the only part faithfull to its origins and civilization while the west will be under always increasing influence of Africa, and islam. I do not believe any resistance to such trend will succeed, though they will happen.

So yes definitely, Africa is going to shape the world of this century more than ever since a very, very long time. We are already seeing signs of Western European sovereignity slowly shifting towards Africa. This is going to be more and more visible in culture, music, political polls, migration and industrial policies, and religion.

You know, the opposite might well be true in some cases. As an example, the chinese may have been luckier in 1990 than the russians.



I don't know where you get your statistics, but those are very wrong. From the UNESCO database (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/), 2004 data:

School age population - tertiary education, total:
China: 101684177
India: 100778666
US: 20499567
United Kingdom: 3737727
France: 3856521

Enrolment in total tertiary. Public and private. Full and part time. Total:
China: 19417044
India: 11852936
US: 16900471
United Kingdom: 2247441
France: 2160300
North America and Western Europe: 32870246

As you can see, the percentage of university graduates (over the total population) in India is much less than in Europe (11% vs. ~60%). China has already more tertiary education students than either Western Europe or North America, India is quite behind.

Considering this data, then if indeed China has a scarcity of professionals and India doesn't this leads me to believe that the chinese have a more technology-oriented economy than India.


Sorry, you may be rigth, I probably confused the numbers I heard on the radio once.
But even this dates reflect this reality, maybe not so drastic, that India has a great number of University students for a country that is suposed to be very poor. It has a number that is very near to the US and China.
It is still true however that the Indian economy is moving towards a high tech based economy.

About Russia, you are rigth that it didn´t went so good, but we are speaking about a country that had to do a drastic change from a comunism dictatorship to a democratic free market society. India is a democracy since it gained independence in 1947. The greatest change they have to face is to move from an state controled economic system to a free market one.

EDIT: Man, crack is whack. Disregard this post.

i dont know about china, because the US is the reason that it is growing. if the US falls most of the contries that trade a lot with the US will decline to, like china and india. and for me i do not want America to fall.

From Neo Hitler's fine template:

Probably:
*USA

Possibly:
*UK
*China

Probably not but has a slim chance:
*Russia
*India
*France
*Germany
*Brazil
*Iran

Demographically, culturally, histrocially and even religiously as it was pointed out, African peoples are well-positioned to submit Europe within the century. At least Western Europe. No one has commented my post and the fact, obvious to me, that a civilization is going to finally disappear sooner that most think. It is highly predictable that Europe will again divide in 2, again West vs East (roughly), this time the East being the only part faithfull to its origins and civilization while the west will be under always increasing influence of Africa, and islam. I do not believe any resistance to such trend will succeed, though they will happen.

:crazyeye: Do you base this opinion on anything? :crazyeye:

Do you base this opinion on anything?
Yes: a close look at the evolution of the youth, as well as "popular culture", in particular in a country such as France and to some extent Belgium, Holland, Germany. They lead the trend, I see no reason other Western European countries will not follow - the UK being a different case altogether. Unless there is a major shift in History (basically a war and/or a regime change), such trend will naturally and much quicker than most think, bend Western European sovereignity towards Africa. The main legal tool that will enable this is dual-citizenship between both continents, which is becoming increasingly common to the advantage of Africa.

The main legal tool that will enable this is dual-citizenship between both continents, which is becoming increasingly common to the advantage of Africa.

As a Frenchman would know...

As a Frenchman would know...
Hey, I am not trying to be particularly vindicative here but merely to put forward a fact that the destinies of Western Europe and Africa are now tied, will be more and more, and probably towards the advantage of African culture and Nations because this trend is rather one-sided. This will have major geopolitical implications, one of which could be the rise of African Nations; I have noticed that few anticipate this - especially in North America and Eastern Europe. That's all I am saying and I am not commenting on this fact - though I have my own opinions about it.

Hey, I am not trying to be particularly vindicative here but merely to put forward a fact that the destinies of Western Europe and Africa are now tied, will be more and more, and probably towards the advantage of African culture and Nations because this trend is rather one-sided. This will have major geopolitical implications, one of which could be the rise of African Nations; I have noticed that few anticipate this - especially in North America and Eastern Europe. That's all I am saying and I am not commenting on this fact - though I have my own opinions about it.

One thing I have got to say about Africa and the future: I believe that the Sahara Desert will become much more of a positive aspect to the countries that have territory in that expanse of land. I think the land is too large to be held as insignificant forever.

That doesn't make any sense.

At the very best, you're talking about an increase in North African culture in many west european nations. So?

That doesn't make any sense.

At the very best, you're talking about an increase in North African culture in many west european nations. So?

What makes no sense?

At the very best, you're talking about an increase in North African culture in many west european nations. So?

No: first it is not only about North Africa but maybe even more so sub-saharan Africa; the largest migrations towards Europe are now from there, and demography trends are extremely high there, average in North Africa and extremely low in Europe. Sub-saharan African migrations to Europe (and maybe to North Africa itself!) will not only increase, they will explode. This is mathematical. Second, I am talking as in all cases of cultures penetrating rather peacefully another civlization, of conversions to such more dynamic cultures, especially since inter-mariages are booming. Conversions that can have many aspects (from religion to less radical shifts) but that will, on a mid-term, radically change the face of Western Europe. This has already started, for those that can see, but it suprises me still how so few notice.

Any cultural change is alright as long it doesn't lead to more extremism and foolishness. But maybe I'm dreaming.

Any cultural change is alright as long it doesn't lead to more extremism and foolishness. But maybe I'm dreaming.

Whether a "cultural change" is "alright" is purely a subjective point of view; however such change is never neutral and always profound, with durable influences on both the societey and its individuals, and geopolitics at large. And as far as one can be objective about it, it will always benefit more to some than to others, since such change is never unanimously praised, accepted or welcomed - even when it happens more or less peacefully. There is always a "loser", so to speak.

Whether a "cultural change" is "alright" is purely a subjective point of view; however such change is never neutral and always profound, with durable influences on both the societey and its individuals, and geopolitics at large. And as far as one can be objective about it, it will always benefit more to some than to others, since such change is never unanimously praised, accepted or welcomed - even when it happens more or less peacefully. There is always a "loser", so to speak.

Yeah, that's a fact of life. But if the winner brings more discord and reverses human progress, that is very unfortunate.

African people will not submit Europe , though there may be some few riots , no Europe will (Had) Submit Africans which will now be Europeans. And here is a small solution to the aging problem , sooner or less , immigration though may need a few generations before some become Full citizens in belief also.

Though there may be some problems it can also be advantageous for a European country.

The way i see it , Europe will enjoy a quite hegemony over the following years. The only thorns over that may be conflicting interests over Turkey , Ex Russia influence countries , the middle east and Usa puppets. Mainly, because Europe doesn't act Globally with military expedition as one unlike Usa and it's allies. Therefor Usa can annex trading parters of Eu countries and Eu can do nothing than bark. However , the strongest economy , doesn't depend on military domination . And so even if peaceful hegemony could be a fact Turkey is a thorn that may bite many in the ass. The unreliability of this country forces me to label it as a potential danger to all it's neighbors.

Considering each "countries " past and it's today actions it is easier for EU to buy from Middle East and easier for Usa to destroy Regimes that won't Trade with them . I am uncertain which strategy would be more efficient in the Long Run.

And China , they are a completely different kind of power than the other ones.

Yeah, that's a fact of life. But if the winner brings more discord and reverses human progress, that is very unfortunate.

1/ at first, such a change always brings discord and disunity, which can and often does lead to violence and/or deep political recomposition such as territorial partitions (but not always)
2/ asserting such a thing as "human progress" is completely subjective and basically every "civilization", or independant school of thought, will have different opinions/answers on what it means
3/ when everyone on the planet agrees on what "human progress" means, then there will be only one civilization, and one Nation, left - to speak in civ terms; this also could happen more quikcly than most think, see scenario 1 above...

African people will not submit Europe , though there may be some few riots , no Europe will (Had) Submit Africans which will now be Europeans. And here is a small solution to the aging problem , sooner or less , immigration though may need a few generations before some become Full citizens in belief also.

Let's not confuse citizenship with nationality, economic sphere of influence with cultural/social sphere of influence. Yes African migrants into Europe are European citizens and yes, on puely economical terms, this can be a huge benefit. Yet the cultural, social changes these new ctizens are bringing along will have impacts, influences and consequences beyond what most imagine. A close look at a country like France or Belgium can give some idea, but I guarantee that it will be more and more spectacular in the future. The geopolitical implications will be both immense and distabilizing. For example in 50 years time, current trends remaining "equal", an average French citizen if such a Nation still exists will feel culturally much more related to Mali or Algeria than Poland or Ireland. Political implications of this will be huge.

For instance, I believe the EU will not survive much longer as (the embryo of) a political entity. At best, it will remain an economic trade zone that will continue to expand east and south. All those thinking of the EU as a major geopolitical force will, IMO, be proved completely wrong. Geopolitically the EU might have as little relevance as the Hanseatic League used to, or as ASEAN has today; its destiny is to split I believe, for it is weak and more and more diverse.

On Turkey you are very right: it is a key country, and a strong one. It can either go back towards one form or another of European domination (which can maybe be peacefully achieved, and which is in line with its historical goal) or turn towards the islamic world, turn its back to the West and lead at least the sunni part of islam in a geopolitcal way - which has also been, at least partly, its historical goal. This decision should be taken soon and I believe it will be the 1st, whatever some members of the EU might say about it.

Let's not confuse citizenship with nationality, economic sphere of influence with cultural/social sphere of influence. Yes African migrants into Europe are European citizens and yes, on puely economical terms, this can be a huge benefit. Yet the cultural, social changes these new ctizens are bringing along will have impacts, influences and consequences beyond what most imagine. A close look at a country like France or Belgium can give some idea, but I guarantee that it will be more and more spectacular in the future. The geopolitical implications will be both immense and distabilizing. For example in 50 years time, current trends remaining "equal", an average French citizen if such a Nation still exists will feel culturally much more related to Mali or Algeria than Poland or Ireland. Political implications of this will be huge.

For instance, I believe the EU will not survive much longer as (the embryo of) a political entity. At best, it will remain an economic trade zone that will continue to expand east and south. All those thinking of the EU as a major geopolitical force will, IMO, be proved completely wrong. Geopolitically the EU might have as little relevance as the Hanseatic League used to, or as ASEAN has today; its destiny is to split I believe, for it is weak and more and more diverse.

On Turkey you are very right: it is a key country, and a strong one. It can either go back towards one form or another of European domination (which can maybe be peacefully achieved, and which is in line with its historical goal) or turn towards the islamic world, turn its back to the West and lead at least the sunni part of islam in a geopolitcal way - which has also been, at least partly, its historical goal. This decision should be taken soon and I believe it will be the 1st, whatever some members of the EU might say about it.



Let's not confuse citizenship with nationality, economic sphere of influence with cultural/social sphere of influence. Yes African migrants into Europe are European citizens and yes, on puely economical terms, this can be a huge benefit. Yet the cultural, social changes these new ctizens are bringing along will have impacts, influences and consequences beyond what most imagine. A close look at a country like France or Belgium can give some idea, but I guarantee that it will be more and more spectacular in the future. The geopolitical implications will be both immense and distabilizing. For example in 50 years time, current trends remaining "equal", an average French citizen if such a Nation still exists will feel culturally much more related to Mali or Algeria than Poland or Ireland. Political implications of this will be huge.


Either i am underestimating the cultural significance of African immigration or you are overestimating it . Actually i believe , by having a good interpreting system , African immigrants can blend with French/English /add , on cultural levels also.

The problem is only there when the interpreting system is problematic. Maybe in France for political reasons they support those riots and the African identiy. Maybe Royal party. But i think it is an achievable process to interpret slowly immigrants to a new culture . Given enough Educat ... Brainwashing everything is achievable.

So i agree there may be some danger for destabilization but i don't think it is so evident.


For instance, I believe the EU will not survive much longer as (the embryo of) a political entity. At best, it will remain an economic trade zone that will continue to expand east and south. All those thinking of the EU as a major geopolitical force will, IMO, be proved completely wrong. Geopolitically the EU might have as little relevance as the Hanseatic League used to, or as ASEAN has today; its destiny is to split I believe, for it is weak and more and more diverse.

Geopolitically Eu is very powerful unless you don't count Trading and Economic power as a Globalization and control parameter. I agree that militarilly Eu will not " ever" act as one , economically , Politically and as a Global government though it is is a different story. The one currency , Global and Political realities of Eu , and so on will lead more and more countries to enter the Eu axon as i call it. Trade is only going to get better based on the patronage of Eu. Also you are underestimating Eu ability to control ,threaten and integrate other countries into it's system. The benefits are so many that i don't see Eu "ever" being disbanded or losing it's place. What many fear is lack of Progress , however if Eu evolved so much in so little time it is possible it will evolve more in the future. When we see middle east countries to start selling Oil in Euros than Dollars , then we see Eu as a taking direct benefit and influencing the Global policy of each country.
There are thorns , but they are thorns. Money makes the world go around and if it works at making money it will continue to exist as it does.




On Turkey you are very right: it is a key country, and a strong one. It can either go back towards one form or another of European domination (which can maybe be peacefully achieved, and which is in line with its historical goal) or turn towards the islamic world, turn its back to the West and lead at least the sunni part of islam in a geopolitcal way - which has also been, at least partly, its historical goal. This decision should be taken soon and I believe it will be the 1st, whatever some members of the EU might say about it


While i understand all your positions on this country , i will never accept the 1st for National , for Political and humanitarian reasons. While 50% of my country is controlled by Turkey troops since 1974 when they invaded , i can't even bother to look at any Eu interests. What Eu is trying to do but can't decide as an entity , is to enter Turkey into a long series of talks and take control of the country's trade routes , and use a potential good market. However Eu doesn't wish Turkey to become a full member. What i called as Thorns do.

In this case my cause could also be seen as a thorn to Eu global policies so the term thorn doesn't correspond to any moral relative word but only if it is a problem to Europian Union domination.

That's funny, St Exupère is supposed to live 86 km from me, but reading him I have the feeling he is from another planet.

That's funny, St Exupère is supposed to live 86 km from me, but reading him I have the feeling he is from another planet.
Salut voisin! so what is so "from another planet" about the potential scenario described here?

That's funny, St Exupère is supposed to live 86 km from me, but reading him I have the feeling he is from another planet.

:lol: Me too, though he lives much farther (1972.5 km) from me.

I don't know where you get your statistics, but those are very wrong. From the UNESCO database (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/), 2004 data:

School age population - tertiary education, total:
China: 101,684,177
India: 100,778,666
US: 20,499,567
United Kingdom: 3,737,727
France: 3,856,521

Enrolment in total tertiary. Public and private. Full and part time. Total:
China: 19,417,044
India: 11,852,936
US: 16,900,471
United Kingdom: 2,247,441
France: 2,160,300
North America and Western Europe: 32,870,246

As you can see, the percentage of university graduates (over the total population) in India is much less than in Europe (11% vs. ~60%). China has already more tertiary education students than either Western Europe or North America, India is quite behind.

Considering this data, then if indeed China has a scarcity of professionals and India doesn't this leads me to believe that the chinese have a more technology-oriented economy than India.
You make a valid point, but I dont think it is a major one.

India's power in education can be seen in its marketability more than its raw numbers. Indian professionals have penetrated, extensively, the highest levels in the industrial world. For example, the impact of Indian doctors on medicine in the USA is widely acknowledged, and out of proportion to the numbers. Similarly accounting and software design.

It is having an impact in the subcontinent as well. India's middle class is growing rapidly, and the results can be seen in the growth of liesure and consumer spending.

Comparing to the Chinese is difficult, since they are not exporting expertise. It is useless to compare graduation rates, since advancement is driven by a relative few. Culturally, the competition seems to becoming intense. They may drive each other to the top. At the moment, however, I see no clear leader.

J

Salut voisin! so what is so "from another planet" about the potential scenario described here?
Hmm... Where to start from... Almost everythiing?

Hey, I am not trying to be particularly vindicative here but merely to put forward a fact that the destinies of Western Europe and Africa are now tied, will be more and more, and probably towards the advantage of African culture and Nations because this trend is rather one-sided. This will have major geopolitical implications, one of which could be the rise of African Nations; I have noticed that few anticipate this - especially in North America and Eastern Europe. That's all I am saying and I am not commenting on this fact - though I have my own opinions about it.

Stupid comment drunk when I wrote it.

Are you on drugs.

He has a valid point. Why don't you stop being juvenile and repudiate it with your reasons?

1/ at first, such a change always brings discord and disunity, which can and often does lead to violence and/or deep political recomposition such as territorial partitions (but not always)
2/ asserting such a thing as "human progress" is completely subjective and basically every "civilization", or independant school of thought, will have different opinions/answers on what it means
3/ when everyone on the planet agrees on what "human progress" means, then there will be only one civilization, and one Nation, left - to speak in civ terms; this also could happen more quikcly than most think, see scenario 1 above...

I don't claim that I have a universal idea of human progress, but I think most reasonable modern people hold that the separation of politics and religion is more progressive than the alternative. And the sort of discord I'm talking about is the rise of intolerance, which can happen on both sides.

scy,


Either i am underestimating the cultural significance of African immigration or you are overestimating it . Actually i believe , by having a good interpreting system , African immigrants can blend with French/English /add , on cultural levels also.

Maybe you are under-estimating it, but even more so maybe you are over-estimating what is left of "French identity" and its will to continue to exist per se, ie having a destiny of its own. Sure, blending happens but IMO happens in such a way that I am sure that in 50/70 years time France will look and feel more African than European to a Pole, a Russian or an Argentinian. And I mean culturally.


But i think it is an achievable process to interpret slowly immigrants to a new culture . Given enough Educat ... Brainwashing everything is achievable.

My point here is not even to talk about achievability, degree of violence... but simply to point-out that the current migration trends in Europe (mainly Western) will have geopolitical implications of the magnitude of those that followed the north and eastern migrations of Europe from 4th century ac, onwards. All of this can happen "peacefully", though violence is likely.


So i agree there may be some danger for destabilization but i don't think it is so evident.

Again, this is true but is not the point I wished to make in terms of power perspectives and geopolitics for the century to come.


Geopolitically Eu is very powerful unless you don't count Trading and Economic power as a Globalization and control parameter.

Trading is politically very powerful... provided you intend to use it to your advantage. To my knowledge, the EU does not have (today) a protectionnist/discriminatory vision of economy and trading, but rather an unbiased and global one - bar some exceptions such as agriculture. Basically today, in all trade meetings and treaties around the world, Europe is in a weak position and by the years its geopolitical/economic position is worsening in terms of sovereignity and capability to act. The recent take-over of European steel by Indian funds and interests was a remarkable example of what I am trying to say. The EU is much, much weaker and divided than most imagine today. It lacks will, it lacks a power to discriminate, to forge itself a destiny in opposition to other powers and blocks surrounding it. It is not even able to open a discussion on its borders, it is hardly ready to protect and/or defend its borders.


The one currency , Global and Political realities of Eu , and so on will lead more and more countries to enter the Eu axon as i call it.

As it exists today the EU is the embryo of a world-wide free market ruled by international bodies. In other words, there is nothing European about the EU, it is just a Union - a loose, free-market based Union.


Trade is only going to get better based on the patronage of Eu. Also you are underestimating Eu ability to control ,threaten and integrate other countries into it's system.

Take Turkey: the EU has no position, and no will to have any on whether Turkey should or not be in Europe. The discussions are purely administrative and technocratic. The essence of the EU is to have no positioning of its own on real, touchy and thorny issues.


The benefits are so many that i don't see Eu "ever" being disbanded or losing it's place.

Again this is not the point; the point I make is that the EU is not European, and will not exist as a geopolitical power in the way the USA, China and others do.


While i understand all your positions on this country

I did not state any "position" on Turkey of my own; just said that the EU will be divided and un-democratic about Turkey's membership, and that because of its weakness the EU as a whole will never oppose to Turkey's entry. It is Turkey that sets the pace here, and the EU will either bend and accept Turkey's entry, or break apart because of its divisions on this thorny issue such as many others. Just look at the current embroglio regarding visas to the USA - even on this the EU is incapable of having any sort of real sovereign power.

All this being said, I am only describing what I believe is a strong trend; trends can and do change, especially when surprising events do occur. And they always do.

Cheers

aelf,


I don't claim that I have a universal idea of human progress, but I think most reasonable modern people hold that the separation of politics and religion is more progressive than the alternative.

"modern"? or did you mean "western"? Church and State seperation is purely a christian concept; it became separation of religion and politics when the West stopped being christian roughly a century ago, more or less. It is not a concept that carries the same relevance, or meaning, in other civilizations.


And the sort of discord I'm talking about is the rise of intolerance, which can happen on both sides.

Again, "tolerance" is a purely subjective term that would have you define some kind of norm of what is acceptable (or tolerable) and what is not. Based for instance, on "human rights". Your standpoint will always be subjective, and your tolerance will look very intolerant to other civilizations that have based their sens of right/wrong on something different.

^ St Exupere,

The biggest thing with which I totally don't agree is that there is going to be a big gap between Western and Eastern Europe. I believe it's going to be EXACTLY the opposite way. I just came back from Germany, and I travelled almost 40 hours by bus. When I got to Romania, I've seen literally HUNDREDS of trucks from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and when I got home 3 people asked me for directions in English. And I'm not even talking about Hungary, there almost 1/2 of the cars on the big highways have foreign numbers.

What I am trying to say? This area has more connections with Western Europe than it ever had since the Roman Empire split. The idea that there is going to be a big gap between them in the future is total nonsense to me.

"modern"? or did you mean "western"? Church and State seperation is purely a christian concept; it became separation of religion and politics when the West stopped being christian roughly a century ago, more or less. It is not a concept that carries the same relevance, or meaning, in other civilizations.

Again, "tolerance" is a purely subjective term that would have you define some kind of norm of what is acceptable (or tolerable) and what is not. Based for instance, on "human rights". Your standpoint will always be subjective, and your tolerance will look very intolerant to other civilizations that have based their sens of right/wrong on something different.

True. That doesn't prevent me and many others from believing in these things, though, Western or not. I guess Islamics (not just Muslim) would rather live under Islamic law. That's what they believe in.

scy,


Maybe you are under-estimating it, but even more so maybe you are over-estimating what is left of "French identity" and its will to continue to exist per se, ie having a destiny of its own. Sure, blending happens but IMO happens in such a way that I am sure that in 50/70 years time France will look and feel more African than European to a Pole, a Russian or an Argentinian. And I mean culturally.


My point here is not even to talk about achievability, degree of violence... but simply to point-out that the current migration trends in Europe (mainly Western) will have geopolitical implications of the magnitude of those that followed the north and eastern migrations of Europe from 4th century ac, onwards. All of this can happen "peacefully", though violence is likely.


Again, this is true but is not the point I wished to make in terms of power perspectives and geopolitics for the century to come.


Trading is politically very powerful... provided you intend to use it to your advantage. To my knowledge, the EU does not have (today) a protectionnist/discriminatory vision of economy and trading, but rather an unbiased and global one - bar some exceptions such as agriculture. Basically today, in all trade meetings and treaties around the world, Europe is in a weak position and by the years its geopolitical/economic position is worsening in terms of sovereignity and capability to act. The recent take-over of European steel by Indian funds and interests was a remarkable example of what I am trying to say. The EU is much, much weaker and divided than most imagine today. It lacks will, it lacks a power to discriminate, to forge itself a destiny in opposition to other powers and blocks surrounding it. It is not even able to open a discussion on its borders, it is hardly ready to protect and/or defend its borders.


As it exists today the EU is the embryo of a world-wide free market ruled by international bodies. In other words, there is nothing European about the EU, it is just a Union - a loose, free-market based Union.


Take Turkey: the EU has no position, and no will to have any on whether Turkey should or not be in Europe. The discussions are purely administrative and technocratic. The essence of the EU is to have no positioning of its own on real, touchy and thorny issues.


Again this is not the point; the point I make is that the EU is not European, and will not exist as a geopolitical power in the way the USA, China and others do.


I did not state any "position" on Turkey of my own; just said that the EU will be divided and un-democratic about Turkey's membership, and that because of its weakness the EU as a whole will never oppose to Turkey's entry. It is Turkey that sets the pace here, and the EU will either bend and accept Turkey's entry, or break apart because of its divisions on this thorny issue such as many others. Just look at the current embroglio regarding visas to the USA - even on this the EU is incapable of having any sort of real sovereign power.

All this being said, I am only describing what I believe is a strong trend; trends can and do change, especially when surprising events do occur. And they always do.

Cheers




Maybe you are under-estimating it, but even more so maybe you are over-estimating what is left of "French identity" and its will to continue to exist per se, ie having a destiny of its own. Sure, blending happens but IMO happens in such a way that I am sure that in 50/70 years time France will look and feel more African than European to a Pole, a Russian or an Argentinian. And I mean culturally.


I think you have a blend image of French culture when what i am saying i don't care how the culture will change by adding Africans to the system as long as those Africans identify themselfs as French and Europeans. And i think , this is happening , at least in England , by not extreme-Muslims. A few generations after their won't be any gap. That is the culture that i am referring . I don't get how it would look more than an African , country , explain that . As long as it isn't a destabilization factor , i don't care.



My point here is not even to talk about achievability, degree of violence... but simply to point-out that the current migration trends in Europe (mainly Western) will have geopolitical implications of the magnitude of those that followed the north and eastern migrations of Europe from 4th century ac, onwards. All of this can happen "peacefully", though violence is likely.

A lot migrations happened the previous years and i think , the problems are not as bad as we assume. There are problems , Indeed , though. And some countries to face bigger problems than others and on them , yes the problem may be big but not in all Europe. The problem has less to do with migration rates and more with the birth rates of the immigrants that surpasses those of Europeans . It isn't easy to tell if this will be a problem.




Trading is politically very powerful... provided you intend to use it to your advantage. To my knowledge, the EU does not have (today) a protectionnist/discriminatory vision of economy and trading, but rather an unbiased and global one - bar some exceptions such as agriculture. Basically today, in all trade meetings and treaties around the world, Europe is in a weak position and by the years its geopolitical/economic position is worsening in terms of sovereignity and capability to act. The recent take-over of European steel by Indian funds and interests was a remarkable example of what I am trying to say. The EU is much, much weaker and divided than most imagine today. It lacks will, it lacks a power to discriminate, to forge itself a destiny in opposition to other powers and blocks surrounding it. It is not even able to open a discussion on its borders, it is hardly ready to protect and/or defend its borders.

Europe is the strongest Economy on the Planet and has the largest population on the planet. It may not always globally act as one but it doesn't have to Globally act as one. I will not argue how will Europe act towards it's neighboors , i will just say that what matters most is the effect that Europian Nations have in the entity that is called European Union. Bulgaria , Romania for example , their entry was best thing that ever happened to them in recent times. Few countries will resist entering Eu , considering the political benefits.
That means more and more countries industrialize and enter an axon of rich countries with the Help of Eu money. The situation is set to improve more and more in the future.
The one currency of the strongest economy in the Planet is reason enough for any country to change it's policy towards all Eu nations , because all use the same currency.


I don't think Europe is under a need to protect it's borders although i agree it can't act Globally in the way the other superpower does , to protect it's interest. And they don't want to. But what i am arguing is , do they have to ?



But i guess you agree a bit of the above but what you don't "like" is that Eu doesn't act as a sovereign power. I guess if European Nations do not agree on one issue , several of them create axons , teams based on their interests and so i agree , there is division in Eu. However , trends change , like you said.
But i also think that their are common Eu interests and in that case some of Eu members create an opposition to that interests if it's against theres. That is why i described the Thorn , because it isn't always two opposing Euorpian teams but one European one and an other one that fights for Other Interests. Which is better , as there is less division on the interests of Europeans.



Quote:
Originally Posted by scy12 View Post
The one currency , Global and Political realities of Eu , and so on will lead more and more countries to enter the Eu axon as i call it.
As it exists today the EU is the embryo of a world-wide free market ruled by international bodies. In other words, there is nothing European about the EU, it is just a Union - a loose, free-market based Union.

European Union also tries to act as one Mega -Government and European laws overcome National laws. Their European policies on Health , Education and so on and there is also the European court . The economical and immigrant policies are also very important. I see Eu more like a world government rather than just one economical union. And ofcourse Countries would want to enter for the political gain of expressing their opinion in political and other matters of such organisation. European Union is a baby and look how it is , it is unimaginable , how it may evolve. The abolishion of all National goverments all the creation of a Federation ( if it isn't already d