Post on The End of History?

I found this article very interesting and thought-provoking.  First off, I'd like to say that keeping in mind that it was written in 1989 was definitely imperative or else all the comments about the Eastern countries would seem very off.  More specifically though the concept of history ending with the Western liberal democracy, replacing ideology, has its points.  However, I struggled accepting that the "basic principles of the liberal democratic state" cannot be improved upon (2).  Kojeve seemed to believe that the principles could extend or expand spatially, but isn't it possible that some principles can be improved upon enough that it eventually becomes a new concept all together?  I think that theoretical truth can be improved upon, or at least that people won't stop thinking about reform or improvement.  Another question that came to mind was what does Hegel's theory imply about the word "history," since it comes to an end.  History is ideology, since that is the base of all economics and politics?  I do agree that most societies grow on the foundation of their culture and morals, and I do understand that for the most part the ideologies that have developed in the 20th century have failed miserably, but is it right to say that the Western liberal form is perfect and necessary for all societies on the planet?  About Islam, that religion has spanned a great area and its rules and culture in the Quran could, I think, definitely potentionally become a big contradiction for liberalism.  Finally I think that the common marketization doesn't necessarily mean less conflict, in fact, it has often brought about more conflict- war, economic depression etc.  I wonder what Fukuyama would say about this theory now?