Adjunct Fellow Anne Applebaum

If he wins the next election, David Cameron cannot complain that the world has dealt him a bad hand. At least from the purely selfish point of view of British foreign policy, this is a great time to be a Tory prime minister. For the first time in a long time, many of the diplomatic dilemmas faced by Cameron's predecessors no longer exist.

To be precise, the most fundamental diplomatic dilemma of all no longer exists. For the past several years--past several decades, really--the British foreign policy debate has revolved around the need to choose between "Europe" on the one hand, and the United States on the other. Edward Heath chose the former, Margaret Thatcher chose the latter, and there was a price to pay in both cases.

Even Tony Blair, who so dearly wished he could be a good European, was forced to make a choice. He chose America, at least in the context of Iraq, and there was a big price to pay for that, too.

It need not be so in future. In fact, it is possible that the next British prime minister will no longer face any real need to choose between Europe and America at all. In part, this is because Europe has changed. We no longer live in the era of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder, both of whom were deeply suspicious of the "Anglo-Saxon capitalist" world in general and Americans in particular, and were happy to capitalise on the anti-American feelings of their voters for political gain.

Instead, the two strongest European leaders today are Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, both of whom are not only pro-American, if warily and cautiously so, but are also profoundly interested in "Anglo-Saxonising" their economies.

At the same time "Europe"--meaning not France and Germany, but Brussels and the European Union--is a different place. Plans may come and go, treaties may pass or fail, but the truth is that all of Europe's plans for a more federalist future were seriously dampened by the French in 2005, when they voted against the European constitution.

However important the "No" vote in Ireland last week, it still pales beside that French "No": when the French voted against their own diplomats, that was the end of the grandest of European ambitions.

There may still be efforts to create a more "streamlined" European foreign policy, and of course everyone will try to get around the Irish. But in truth, the whole Eurocracy is a lot humbler and less politically ambitious than it used to be. Though there may still be stupid directives coming out of Brussels, no one really believes in a Europe united under a single government, as they once did.

But America has changed too, and will change even more from January. Obviously, we will no longer live in the era of George W. Bush either. So profound is the significance of President Bush's retirement that, at least from a British foreign policy point of view, it almost doesn't matter who wins the US election.

An Obama administration would be composed of people who have been out of power for eight years, who will want to demonstrate their diplomatic skills from the first day in office, and will be delighted to be best friends with whoever is prime minister.

Even John McCain, the US politician who probably has most foreign policy experience, will be desperate to look, sound and act different from Bush, and will be happy to have lots of friends and lots of allies as a result.

Whoever wins, there will be a policy vacuum in the United States. The American administration will initially be distracted by domestic issues, and relieved to hear that others have solutions. If European leaders want to fill the vacuum and provide the solutions, this will be the time to do so. Pretty much every issue, whether Iraq or climate change, will be up for grabs.

The task of a Tory prime minister is therefore clear: make use of this exceptional situation, rally the rest of Europe, bring proposals to the United States and influence decisions there before they take place--and vice-versa.

Indeed, if Cameron wants to seize the moment--to sit down with Merkel and Sarkozy and decide, say, to fight the Taliban differently in Afghanistan, or to make Zimbabwe a bigger priority--he will be welcomed with open arms in Washington. Gordon Brown hasn't done so, and indeed appears to consider foreign policy a waste of time. But this just means that Brown's Tory successor will be even more welcome.

None of which means that the problems Tory diplomats will face are any easier. The world isn't getting easier to predict; on the contrary, as regional and developing powers such as China and India grow stronger, it becomes more chaotic.

But in all of the areas in which Britain has interests and influence, a pragmatic Tory with a historic sense of the significance of the West and Western values--and a certain amount of diplomatic skill--could make a difference.

Look at, say, the continued instability in Afghanistan, the ongoing threat of international terrorism, the resurgence of a Russia that uses gas pipelines as a weapon, the possibility of a nuclear Iran, or human rights issues in general.

All of these are issue best tackled not by "America", on the one hand or "Europe", on the other but by the North Atlantic alliance in tandem. Helped along, of course, by Prime Minister David Cameron, if he decides he wants to take part.

Anne Applebaum is an adjunct fellow at AEI.