Superpowers of the next century!

[DragonEd]

I'd rather be a pathetic, insignificant country than be a part of the United States of Europe. I am saying this both as a Welshman and a Brit. So don't come out with "well you would say that because Wales is insignificant anyway". I know a lot of people across the UK share my sentiments.

To be honest, i think the EU could still become a superpower whilst maintaining it's structure as a grand alliance of sovereign states. If all of Europe openly shared technology (civilian and military), scientific discoveries and ideas and the EU finally stopped it's expansion, then Europe would be a force to be reckoned with.

We would defend each other from external threats and continue to share our unique cultures and traditions. There is really no need for one flag, one anthem, one leader, one capital, one constitution, one military, one currency etc. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

The main argument from most people in favor of "One Europe" is that it would make Europe and it's people safer and stronger militarily. This is simply not true. If Russia or China attacked Greece for example, do you really think the rest of Europe would sit back and do nothing? Of course not, Europe would instantly unite against that common foe. Besides it's highly unlikely Europe will ever be attacked anyway, as long as Britain and France maintain their nuclear arsenals.

The main thing stopping the EU from becoming a global superpower is constant bickering. Let's stop arguing about a pointless constitution and get on with the more important things!

I'm sorry that i went off on a rant about the EU. I tend to get carried away with my posts.

 

[St Exupère]

We would defend each other from external threats and continue to share our unique cultures and traditions. There is really no need for one flag, one anthem, one leader, one capital, one constitution, one military, one currency etc. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

I would agree as long as the need for one set of moral system, or faith, is there. If that ciment is there then the rest if useless and even dangerous. Alas, that ciment is long gone.

If Russia or China attacked Greece for example, do you really think the rest of Europe would sit back and do nothing? Of course not, Europe would instantly unite against that common foe. Besides it's highly unlikely Europe will ever be attacked anyway, as long as Britain and France maintain their nuclear arsenals.

I disagree and here are 3 counter-examples:

1/ Cyprus is invaded by a non-EU Nation and no one protests, even better that Nation is offered a seat in the Union.
2/ The UK sovereignly knights a man and that prompts a high-pakistani official to call for terror attacks on the UK (which almost happen a few days later); has any member of the EU, or EU itself, asked for apology from Pakistan, threatened Pakistan in anyway for having so lowly targeted one European Nation? no, everyone crawls and shuts up.
3/ Economics: recently the major European steel manufacturer was bought by Indian assets, the major European aeronautical manufacturer is under severe similar threat - yet EU shows disunity, pickering and weakness in front of all this, again.

Unless issue n°1 is solved one way or another, the EU will continue to be a joke and will finish either breaking apart, or more likely continue to be a Union that will have nothing European anymore.

SE

 

[DragonEd]

Those are good counter examples. However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not) I do believe Europe would act. Maybe not as a united force, but as a coalition of the more powerful states (UK, France etc).

In regards to your second example; Pakistan never threatened Britain (or any other nation as far as i am aware) with direct military action. If it had, Britain would still not have backed down. We would have still given the knighthood to Salman Rushdie and would have gone as far as counter threaten Pakistan with military action of our own. If this situation or one similar were ever to arise, i'm confident the EU would side with Britain when the chips were down. Likewise, if another European country (EU member or not) found itself in such a dilemma, Britain would certainly take the side of it's continental ally.

Finally, I also have faith in the European economy. You give examples of how European manufactures have been bought by and face tough competition from other powers. But how widespread is this trend? The EU is still a major player in the fields of science, medicine and e-commerce and will continue to hold it's own in many other key areas.

 

[St Exupère]

In regards to your second example; Pakistan never threatened Britain (or any other nation as far as i am aware) with direct military action. If it had, Britain would still not have backed down. We would have still given the knighthood to Salman Rushdie and would have gone as far as counter threaten Pakistan with military action of our own. If this situation or one similar were ever to arise, i'm confident the EU would side with Britain when the chips were down. Likewise, if another European country (EU member or not) found itself in such a dilemma, Britain would certainly take the side of it's continental ally.

There were calls for terror attacks on the UK by a Pakistani member of government, that is no small talk. Furthermore, the days of classical military confrontation are long gone. The "battlefield" is moral, cultural, spiritual, even demographic. That, Europeans do not realize.

Finally, I also have faith in the European economy. You give examples of how European manufactures have been bought by and face tough competition from other powers. But how widespread is this trend? The EU is still a major player in the fields of science, medicine and e-commerce and will continue to hold it's own in many other key areas.

I agree it still is, yet losing sovereignity on such very key industrial giants can only be negative and weaken us all. The reality is that today, the EU does not practice some level of economic protectionism like other great powers do, and will do more and more. And I do not believe it will in the future, for this would disadvantage some Nations (such as the UK, but not only).

 

[aronnax]

Those are good counter examples. However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not) I do believe Europe would act. Maybe not as a united force, but as a coalition of the more powerful states (UK, France etc).

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

Guess what, France and England did not help

 

[Steph]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus
Guess what, France and England did not help

*sigh* Why do you keep throwing links at us without trying to show at least of bit thinking, reading your own links and checking they have a common reference or are up to date?
The invasion of Cyprus was in 1974.
Greece joined EU in 1981. Cyprus in 2004.

Why should France and England have helped 33 years ago?

 

[TheLastOne36]

*sigh* Why do you keep throwing links at us without trying to show at least of bit thinking, reading your own links and checking they have a common reference or are up to date?
The invasion of Cyprus was in 1974.
Greece joined EU in 1981. Cyprus in 2004.

Why should France and England have helped 33 years ago?

Aww u beat me to it.

 

[St Exupère]

Yet, since 2004, and since such invasion is still on-going, one could expect a little more pressure than the "come and be our guest in the Union" official position.

 

[aronnax]

*sigh* Why do you keep throwing links at us without trying to show at least of bit thinking, reading your own links and checking they have a common reference or are up to date?
The invasion of Cyprus was in 1974.
Greece joined EU in 1981. Cyprus in 2004.

Why should France and England have helped 33 years ago?

He said and I qoute "However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not)"

 

[St Exupère]

He said and I qoute "However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not)"

No technically they are right, I was not specific enough.
What I meant is that being part of the EU did not help Cyprus free itself from Turkic invasion - on the contrary, I would say. Nor did it spring particular added European solidarity on the matter.

 

[aelf]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,361374,00.html

Ok, so how did that affect the EU's economic power? And are they not now going to have another attempt to iron out their disagreements? Just because there's a difficult political process involved, which is quite in the nature of a democratic system, doesn't mean that they will never be stronger than they are. By your logic, Myanmar would become a superpower more easily than the EU

Take a look at the Weimar Republic - weak coalition government beset by economic problems. Didn't change the fact that it had a solid foundation that promised a quick rebound once the economic problems were over.

If such highly developed countries like UK, Netherlands, France and Germany can not even work out a constitution or even plan a budget, can they actually work together in enough harmony to become a superpower?

And in India everyone agrees with each other? Take note that the EU deals is a collection of countries with separate identities. The fact that they could cooperate to the current extent is, I believe, already unprecedented. India, on the other hand, has quite a few problems to resolve before it becomes the kind of stable democratic country that you find in the West.

India on the other hand has both a budget and a constitution and has taken part in several victorius wars so does that make them more or less effecient.

at the bolded part. Europe colonised much of the world, including India, so that makes them much more efficient

America has 50 something states and I dont have a map of Jesusland

And America is in a similar situation with India because? Do you know any other map besides that of Leekuanyewland?

Seeing that India is considered poor, no it does not suprise me that some states are poor. Are you trying to say they get no funding? India is still developing and is a huge country. Being only 50 next year and still in indrustrialisation. Again it does not surprise me some states have weak, maybe corrupt goverments.

Much of Europe is already industrialised and a lot less corrupt. India may be a superpower one day, but chances are Europe will be greater for a long time more.

*sigh* Why do you keep throwing links at us without trying to show at least of bit thinking...?

Don't be surprised. It's a common technique used in Singapore schools.

 

[aronnax]

Ok, so how did that affect the EU's economic power? And are they not now going to have another attempt to iron out their disagreements? Just because there's a difficult political process involved, which is quite in the nature of a democratic system, doesn't mean that they will never be stronger than they are. By your logic, Myanmar would become a superpower more easily than the EU

It doesnt. Now, you just admit the EU bicker quite alot and have problems. You said they were going to iron out their problems. Now if the EU does that, stick with it and contiune to be best friends. Then I will say EU will be the next Superpower maybe even faster than China. Now I am still unconvinced because I think their main obstacles is that there are too many countries to make a decision. And for you convience this is what I think makes a superpower.

My logic to what makes a superpower is
1.occupied a continental-sized landmass
2.had a large population
3.stable administration
4.a superordinate economic capacity
5.plenty of supplies of food and natural resources
6.military supreme and influential
7.clear sense of national identity


Both India and EU have that. Well almost....

And in India everyone agrees with each other? Take note that the EU deals is a collection of countries with separate identities. The fact that they could cooperate to the current extent is, I believe, already unprecedented. India, on the other hand, has quite a few problems to resolve before it becomes the kind of stable democratic country that you find in the West.

Okay I agree with this

at the bolded part. Europe has colonised much of the world, including India, so that makes them much more efficient

Europe was never a country. But seperate European countries did colonise the world. Whatcha saying?

And America is in a similar situation with India because? Do you know any other map besides that of Leekuanyewland?

You dont make sense here


Much of Europe is already industrialised and a lot less corrupt. India may be a superpower one day, but chances are Europe will be greater for a long time more.[/QUOTE]

 

[Steph]

He said and I qoute "However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not)"

This is relevant once Cyprus became a member of EU, not 30 years before.

 

[DragonEd]

England and France might not have helped Cyprus, but Wales did. It's a little known fact that Wales sent it's most powerful (and only) warship to liberate Cyprus. Sadly, it sunk on the way when a gust of wind tipped it over. All 3 crew members were rescued safely though.

P.S. Don't go looking for this on Wikipedia, it's been taken off there due to an anti-welsh conspiracy. I suspect crab people are behind it!

 

[Marla_Singer]

Okay, so firstly we should wonder what makes a superpower. The power of a country is determined by its ability to have an influence, either regional or worldwide, on other countries.

The population and the land area are not directly factors of power. Their influence is only undirect. There are only two big categories of direct influence :

• Trade exchanges : implying natural ressources, level of GDP, trade barriers, etc...
• Politics and diplomacy : implying hard power (military), soft power (bilateral agreements, diplomatic network), etc...

Now that the two big categories are determined, here are some of the obvious criterias helping to determine one country's status of power :

Economically speaking, the most obvious are GDP, exports (but also imports as the US have shown on the monetary market), influence in the WTO (not only on one's own but also through coalitions), economical and monetary agreements with other countries.

Politically and diplomatically speaking, the most obvious criterias are detaining nuclear power or not, permanent membership in the UN Security council, the number of military base abroad, the capacity to lead military operations anywhere on the planet, of course the size of the military, the size of the diplomatic network (number of embassies), the political and security agreements between different countries.

The EU is very specific in the meaning that it's totally united considering the economical sphere of power, and totally divided considering the diplomatic and political sphere of power.

Indeed, the EU is represented as a single entity at the WTO. It also represents a single market (there's no inside tariff), and it has a single currency (sorry for you Brits but the pound is getting more and more insignificant). On the other side, Britain and France are both permanent members of the UN security council (not the EU), each country is fully sovereign towards its own military, every country has its own diplomatic network, and also its own security agreements with other countries.

Considering this, I can see currently only 5 global powers:

• The United States
• China
• France
• The United Kingdom
• Russia

Now here are my reasons... These 5 countries are all nuclear powers, they are all permanent members of the UN security council, they have all a military capacity making them able to intervene in distant battlefields, they have all a very strong diplomatic network at a global scale, and finally they are all key trade exchange players (the UK and France through the EU). You can find other countries reaching some of these criterias, but only these 5 reach all of them.

Anyway, let's check which countries have the potential to become world powers in the upcoming century :

• China : It has become a key player through its massive exports. Its GDP will most likely exceed the one of the US during the 21st century. Furthermore it starts to become very influent politically speaking in third world countries (predominantly Asia and Africa).
• The United States : few things to say, they have everything to remain a strong world power.
• The European Union : several signs tend to prove that after the economical integration, the EU will get into a political integration. The current period is actually crucial to know which direction will be followen, but I would keep that one as most likely. The big question mark is about Turkey's integration. If Turkey gets in, then Europe won't become ever a united political power.
• India : the Indian economy keeps growing, there are few reason why it won't become a power, however, I still believe it will remain less powerful than the three above (though it depends on the EU political integration being made or not).
• Russia : Russia should succeed to maintain its world power status. Its economy will probably continue to develop, and might exceed again those of Western European countries individually such as Germany, Britain, France and Italy. However, I can't see how it could reach the same influence it had after world war 2.
• Japan, Brazil, South Africa : If these countries succeed to become permanent members of the UN security council, then they will necessarily become world powers. If not, they should remain regional powers.

 

[Mirc]

• The United States
• China
• France
• The United Kingdom
• Russia

I've never understood this, and I've seen it sometimes. Why is France or the UK more of a superpower than Germany? It has a lot bigger industry (like being such a huge producer of cars), more importance in politics, a lot more GDP, more developed infrastructure and it's the biggest country in Europe, excepting of course Russia with which no country in the world can compete in size.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I've never understood this, and I've seen it sometimes. Why is France or the UK more of a superpower than Germany? It has a lot bigger industry (like being such a huge producer of cars), more importance in politics, a lot more GDP, more developed infrastructure and it's the biggest country in Europe, excepting of course Russia with which no country in the world can compete in size.

Actually, in size, France is the biggest in the EU... Germany is more populous though.

Anyway, as I've stated in my post, population and land area doesn't determine power. They can help undirectly, but they don't determine it, otherwise the Netherlands would have never controled Indonesia. So if you had read fully my post, you wouldn't ask such a question.

Ok, so we live in a world where "countries" are recognized as the only independent administrative entities. That means that no rule that hasn't been agreed by one country can be applied inside its own borders. Given that, the power of a country is determined by its ability to exert power on other independent countries (through negociations, military strength, etc...).

Germany has been constrained at the 2nd world war to heavy sanctions which have massively harmed its power abilities. Untill the fall of the Berlin wall, neither West Germany nor East Germany had even an independent foreign policy. It's only with Gehrardt Schröder that Germany has started again to talk independently.

This being said, why Germany isn't more powerful than britain despite having cooler cars ? Well, Germany isn't a permanent member of the UN security council. Permanent members have two great advantages that are not shared by any other countries. They participate to all UN strategical debates, and they can put their veto on any of them (especially those against their own interests). Globally, it means that the UN can take any decision it wants against any country on the planet except the 5 permanent members (and those these 5 permanent members consent to protect).

This is huge. Globally, it means that the only countries which are not constrained to anything internationally speaking are the 5 UN permanent members. For instance, if they want to devellop a nuclear arsenal, they can. And guess what... all of them did. If one of the 5 UN permanent members wants to militarily intervene anywhere in the world, it also can.

And this opens huge perspectives. For instance, if Romania wants to discourage Russia to invade, then it just has to sign a deal with the US saying the US would join the war in case Russia attacks. Romania buys few US jets, and the deal is done. Germany couldn't do so, France and Britain could, but Romania considers the US as a better pal, obviously.

International relationships are about perpetual negociations, France and Britain both have a lot more cards in their hands to negociate with another country than Germany has. So to put it in a nutshell that's why they are more powerful.

 

[Steph]

I've never understood this, and I've seen it sometimes. Why is France or the UK more of a superpower than Germany? It has a lot bigger industry (like being such a huge producer of cars), more importance in politics, a lot more GDP, more developed infrastructure and it's the biggest country in Europe, excepting of course Russia with which no country in the world can compete in size.

To complete what Marla said:

If you list the coutry by GDP, PP, International monetary fund:

5 Germany 2,436,004
6 United Kingdom 2,006,078
7 France 1,835,696

Germany is indeed first, but it's not so much more that it dwarf France or UK.

Some other interesting fact: here is the ranking of countries according to their EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone (seazone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources).

United States 11,351,000 km²
France 11,035,000 km²
Australia 8 148 250 km²
Russia 7,566,673 km²
Japan 4,479,358 km²
New Zealand 4,083,744 km²
United Kingdom 3,973,760 km²
Canada 2,755,564 km²

Germany EEZ is ridiculously small here. Although probably a little bigger than Lesotho or Liechtenstein


Now population:
14- Germany 82,314,900
19- France 64,102,140
22- UK 60,209,500

There again, Germany is first. But it's nothing like China or India.

However:
- France and UK are permanent SC members, with veto right. Germany is not.
- France and UK have nuclear weapons. Not Germany.
- France and UK have aircraft carriers, and plan to build new one. Not Germany.
- France and UK can project forces anywhere in the World, Germany cannot.
- French and English are languages present worldwide, on the 5 continents.

All this make Germany a stronger regional power (in Europe, especially now that the EU has been expended eastward, the center switched more to Germany than France), but it is relatively weak as worldwide power.

 

[Provolution]

I think putting France in the top five is a result of a mix of nostalgia, conventional political science doctrine and a belief in the francophone vision.
France is a major power, but not a global power, and overseas territories and aircraft carriers do not alter that.

I would add something about projections of greatness, something we can attribute China, Russia and Brazil.


So, my top list would be:

1. USA (big surprise=
2. China (big surprise)
3. Great Britain (Great Surprise, but can be explained about global economics controls, financial institutions, political intelligence, special relationship to the US as well as the Commonwealth, Echelon and so on)
4. Russia (Yes, Abramovich and Beresovskij left Russia with their money, and did not go to Paris, they went to London)
5. Brazil, the latin American dark horse coming up very quickly in some 15 years.

Japan, France, India, Japan and Saudi Arabia would come next.

 

[Marla_Singer]

@Provolution :

I'm sorry but I have strong difficulties to understand how exactly the Uk is more powerful than France is. Probably you're the guy who has any kind of nostalgia.

Economically speaking, their GDP are very similar (slight advantage for the UK), their exports are very similar (slight advantage for France). Both are EU members, both are UNSC permanent members, both are nuclear power.

Frankly, differences between both countries are marginal. The UK foreign policy is more tied to the US, but that makes of it more a kind of follower than a real leader. Furthermore, I fail to understand how being part of Echelon is a genuine sign of power. Quite the opposite, I would say that it seems to prove even more that Britain has put itself fully behind the US strategically speaking. France has more of an independent voice, foreign countries tend more to consider France as a diplomatic alternative than they do for the UK. Of course, that doesn't make France more powerful since it could be simply considered as a matter of choice, but it certainly doesn't make it less powerful.

As for the commonwealth, it's frankly as much a joke than is francophonie. Even countries such as Australia or New Zealand are fully behind the United States, they don't care of the UK.