> GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATE
>
> France and India Contemplate Strategic Alliance
> January 15, 1999
> SUMMARY
> Russia, France, China, and India all agree on the need for a counterbalance
> to U.S. global hegemony. Russia, France and China have cooperated in the UN
> against U.S. initiatives, and Russia and France are both strengthening
> relations with India. However, the inability to bridge the gap of hostility
> between India and China may prove to be the Achilles heel of this bifurcated
> anti-U.S. alliance.
Stratfor's angle at present seems to be:
The 'excluded ones' team up: Russia + China + India + ?Indonesia + ?
Europe finds its own way: France ?+ Germany + ?
One contradiction in their analysis is that one of the arguments is that their argument for the first team-up (Russia, etc) was that it was a convenient way of avoiding having to be subject to the US's 'human rights' card in trade negotiations. Doesn't this argument also suggest that there is a weakness in trying to wed the two teams though? Won't the 'human rights' card be a much a threat from the EU as from the US?
Assuming that this problem is overcome, this seems to be a fairly high-risk strategy - Russia, China, Indonesia are hardly models for socio-economic stability. Are the pay-offs worth the risks for Germany and France? Or, are the downsides of US domination bad enough to make the risks of this deal look worthwhile?
>From far away, the US seems a lot more stable politically than either the
EU, or any of the 'developing economies'. The bi-partisan consensus and
successes of the US police-state seem to be difficult to beat at this
stage. The US seems utterly insane, but stable.
Is Stratfor just trawling for threats?
Peter -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk : PGP key available Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower. - Karl Marx
NOTE: I do not speak for the HGMP or the MRC.