May 23, 2004
A BIGGER SPHERE:
Australian foreign policy should not be based on the Anglosphere concept (Michael Fullilove, 14/5/2004, Online Opinion)
[I] would like to suggest that as a foreign policy tool, the Anglosphere is flawed, for at least three reasons.First, history tells us that states make decisions primarily on the basis of their national interests. Cultural and historical factors are of secondary importance only. Iraq provides a modern example of this. While the US drew significant support for its actions from Britain and Australia, the countries bringing up the rear were not sorted by civilisation: Anglospheric countries such as Canada and New Zealand failed to fall into line while Spain and Poland marched in lockstep.
In this context, the Second World War example is, in my view, overplayed by advocates of Anglospherism. It is true, of course, that during the war British and American affairs were thoroughly entangled: high policy was relatively well coordinated, and joint committees and combined boards regulated many everyday activities. Nevertheless, significant differences existed on vital issues such as the timing and location of the cross-Channel invasion, the role of China, free trade versus imperial preferences, and the fate of the colonial empires. Moreover, the Anglo-American condominium declined markedly in the aftermath of the war. Owen Harries has reminded us, for example, of the Suez Crisis of 1956, in which the US publicly denounced Britain and France for trying to seize the Canal back from Gamal Abdel Nasser. This was only a decade after the end of the war – and the people who had run the Allied war effort still ran the world!
There are, of course, many other instances of interests trumping civilisational or ideological sentiment, for example the execrable 1939 pact between German fascism and Russian communism and Nixon’s 1972 recognition of Beijing at the expense of Taipei. Another example from within the Anglosphere was Britain’s decision – much to the consternation of Commonwealth politicians who had grown used to a special economic relationship with the mother country – to join the European Economic Community in 1973.
There is no reason to think that Anglospheric ties would have greater salience now – particularly given the changes to the makeup of the populations of countries within its borders. This is the second weakness in this rather dusty argument. The post-war waves of immigration to countries such as the United States, Britain and Australia have diluted their Anglocentric cultures even as they have enlivened cultural ties to other parts of the world. In other words, it may not seem intuitive for a Mexican-American in California or for a Vietnamese-Australian in Cabramatta to gaze towards Whitehall for political succour.
And this foreshadows the final flaw in the Anglospherist thesis: it ignores the gravitational force-field of regionalism. Each of the US, Britain and Australia is located on the edge of a region which is occupying a greater share of the national mind. The US is being pulled southwards towards Mexico; the UK is being pulled eastwards towards Europe; and Australia is being pulled northwards towards Asia and the Pacific. It is entirely appropriate that these countries should put a priority on improving relations with the region in which they are located – and this regional push will properly affect the strength of extra-regional ties.
Mr. Fullilove seems overly literal about the Anglosphere, which is premised on Anglo-American ideals, not ethnicity, geography, or "interests". The Philippines, Taiwan, Israel, and India are, for instance, natural Anglosphere nations--they have political systems and cultures that are deeply influenced by the ideas and institutions that animate the British and American systems. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 23, 2004 4:06 PM
The two Anglosphere nations which didn't follow "in lockstep" are protected by their georaphic isolation and political irrelevance, and both are heavily under the influence of Leftist (N.Z) or Francophilic (Canada) forces. They can afford to have a frivolous attitude, at least for now. Note that this is a recent development, seeing how both countries were involved in the European wars of the first half of the 20th Century from the very beginnings, well before the US.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 23, 2004 4:55 PMWhat are you going to do when baseball dies out? It's inevitable. It's a sport from the old days when people were content with getting excited every 40 minutes or so. We live in an era when it's much easier to be entertained, because technology and progress have allowed for more reliably frequent thrills. Americans don't have to endure a bunch of guys standing on a field waiting for something to maybe happen.
I guess the simplest way to put it is to say that BASEBALL IS BORING, and we have arrived at an age when people don't have to put up with being bored.
Oh, wait, I forgot -- "hitting a small ball is the hardest feat to accomplish in sport," or whatever it is you're always claiming. Yeah, boy, that'll keep 'em coming through the turnstiles.
NOTE: The above post was duplicated from another thread, in hopes that it will actually receive a response. While the original thread* was related to baseball, this thread, obviously, is not. But I was unsure what other choice I had. I understand that Orrin Judd often responds to his readers' lengthy, thoughtful comments with brief sentence fragments. Understandably, this leaves many readers unsatisfied, because they have spent time and effort to relay their thoughts, only to have them acknowledged with a mere two or three words.
But I realized that possibly there is a logical explanation: Mr. Judd does not check into comments threads very often. Thus I felt compelled to repost my comment here, in a new thread -- one that perhaps has a better chance of eliciting a response from Mr. Judd.
If I have offended this site's operators -- either because of the post's content or because of the off-topic duplication -- then I offer my somewhat sincere apologies.
(*Apparently HTML link coding does not function here. The referenced thread is http://www.brothersjudd.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=12934.)
I now realize there is another possible explanation for Mr. Judd's lack of response to his readers' comments: the tendency for a thread here to appear as a wash of white space, despite its actually containing many posts.
One must often use one's mouse to "highlight" the unseen text to make it appear on the screen. It is a very odd phenonemon. Perhaps some people, including Mr. Judd, click onto these comments threads and see white space, not realizing there are actually many comments "hidden" on the page.
Again, I am simply theorizing.
Posted by: ride at May 23, 2004 7:49 PMride:
Surely you appreciate that Orrin's "brief sentence fragments" are pregnant with profundity and richness for those who take the time to contemplate them fully. I have no doubt our descendants will quote with the frequency we now quote Shaw and Wilde. I believe they often take him hours to compose and he could well be working on a gem of one in response to you this very minute. On the other hand, he also could be off for a day or two.
Posted by: Peter B at May 23, 2004 8:54 PMJust say something, Orrin, so these two can shut up.
Posted by: joe shropshire at May 24, 2004 12:37 AMride:
I see this bug too. There is a bad interaction between Movable Type, the popup window and/or MSIE such that somehow either InvalidateRect() is not getting called or the resulting WM_PAINT message is getting discarded. It could also be the video driver (ATI Catalyst 4.5 on my box).
Posted by: Gideon at May 24, 2004 12:38 AMThe reason the concept of the Anglosphere resonates with conservatives in smaller countries is that they have a sense that they are part of something larger than their respective nations. That something is very concrete, historically proven and under attack. This is also the reason their grandfathers tended to be pro-British imperialists and faced regular accusations that they were subservient colonials.
Progressives will reort that they, too, are part of something larger (the UN-led world community governed by international law). That is not a concrete reality but an abstract fantasy that allows them to pretend they face the rest of the world as equals and confuse words and naive apocalyptic thinking with actions. But is is a very appealing message to the citizens of small countries. And why not? You get to go to all these important meetings and speak out with the big guys on an equal time basis.
The Anglosphere can be a very hard political sell in countries like Canada and Australia because, at a practical level, it implies a deference to the U.S. and a stifling of critical voices. It is so very easy for opponents to throw sovereignty scares at the general public or accuse proponents of being lackeys--not fitting behaviour for free and independent peoples. The tendency of many American conservatives to be loud and unabashed about the priority of US national interests doesn't always help.
We go through this every time there is a proposal to allow the US military to use Canada for cruise missile testing, Arctic surveillance or whatever. The importance of the matter is quickly drowned out by fear-mongering and specious but heated debates about control. Conservatives (I'm using the term very loosely)are thrown back on the defensive and usually make the mistake of letting the other side set the agenda. They end up making silly promises that the US has agreed to share all information and full control (Right!). Meanwhile, the talk shows are full of screamers fulminating about our independence, the plight of our native peoples, etc.
I agree the Anglosphere is best thought of as a loose community of interests rather than an alliance or even a diplomatic roadmap, partly because in most countries a change of government will cause a total change of perspective, or at least rhetoric. But if there ever was an idea that needed to be talked about and promoted more at all levels and over the long term, this is it. Anybody know a rich foundation looking for a mission?
Posted by: Peter B at May 24, 2004 9:58 AMride:
Understandably, this leaves many readers unsatisfied, because they have spent time and effort to relay their thoughts, only to have them acknowledged with a mere two or three words.
And why is that? Oh, yes:
It's a sport from the old days when people were content with getting excited every 40 minutes or so.
Whereas the point of modern society is to keep us all excited all the time, rather like a kennel full of miniature dobermen.
If you don't like it, it's a big internet.
And linking works fine for me.
Posted by: mike earl at May 24, 2004 2:52 PMAre the left-wing Progressives in this country part of the Anglosphere?
And isn't it really based on the convenience of a shared language, and no stronger than that?
Posted by: Genecis at May 24, 2004 3:26 PMMike:
I have no idea how you did that, but my sides are still aching.
Posted by: Peter B at May 24, 2004 3:50 PMride --
1) Get your own blog (ridePoot or RidePoop?).
2) Stop reading BrothersJudd.
3) Wait for OJ to comment on your blog.
4) Respond with two or three meaningless words.
Problem solved.
As to HTML on this site all you have to do is code it right and it works every time.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at May 24, 2004 5:23 PMThe idea of the Anglosphere does not rule out conflicts of interests within it. Our stance in the Suez crisis is not a shift in policy from our WW II cooperation with Britain. One of the concessions that we obtained from Britain for our support, captured in the Atlantic Charter, was that Britain would proclaim the rights of the colonial subject states to self determination. We have always been wary of British colonial power.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 25, 2004 1:23 AMBaseball, along with OJ's haikus, require liberal imbibation of the brewer's wares to appreciate fully.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 25, 2004 1:28 AMThe Anglosphere seems more of an acknowledgement of the collective success of Britain's colonies, rather than any cohesive philosophy.
"Anglosphere" nations naturally share many interests and goals, and so are far more likely to support each other than any other random assortment of nations, or ones grouped by geography, or former colonial masters.
The governing and economic management systems used by Anglosphere countries, having proven vastly superior to the alternatives, seem likely to propagate widely, and so the Anglosphere might someday be just a racial and language grouping.
ride:
It may be "inevitable" that baseball will die, but it might take far longer to die than you believe.
Part of baseball's (unknown to me) "thrills" involve the COMMUNITY of "baseball", not just on-field action.
People obsessively track every action and sequence that occurs on the diamond, even things that players themselves don't track or care about, such as "batting for the cycle".
Then, they argue with friends and strangers about what those actions meant, and whether someone else would have done it better, or should have made a better decision.
People also care about ancient baseball history, such as the "Curse of the Bambino"... How many alive today were witness to the fateful trade ? Yet, it the legend lives on.
THOSE are the real, and long-lasting, "thrills" of baseball.
As for the on-field action, the baseball establishment isn't adverse to spicing up the actual games, as when they effectively decided to allow players to take steroids and other performance-enhancing supplements.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 25, 2004 7:17 AM