Can the Anglosphere Turn Shared History into a Shared Future?
As competition for world influence grows and America’s
economic and military heft are diluted by the progress of others, American hegemonic
preponderance becomes unsustainable. The risks of imperial overstretch increase
with every passing year. Earlier this semester, I proposed a new American
strategy of indirect preponderance incorporating medium-sized powers in a
“preponderant core” to preserve the basic benefits of US dominance. Today, I propose
another option: formalizing the “anglosphere” into an Anglo Union.
The “preponderant core” created a durable bloc of
ideologically, politically, and economically similar American allies through
targeted integration. However, the plan is expensive and risky, demanding hard
budget decisions and significant changes to the American international order. In
lieu of this, America may pursue a narrower policy of indirect preponderance through
an “Anglo-Union” based on today’s Anglosphere, replacing breadth of membership
with deeper integration. Costs would be high, but likelihood of total failure
would be tiny.
What is the Anglosphere?
First, it bears note that “Anglosphere” has nothing to do
with intolerant fringe ideologies treating “anglo” as an ethnicity or race. As
France has “francophonie,” England
has an Anglosphere. I attempt to apply these shared cultural and political
heritages to improving the security environment.
Unlike francophonie, the
Anglosphere has never been clearly defined. In its loosest form, the
Anglosphere is a group states with English as an official language and some
shared cultural heritage. The most common definition is more restrictive.
Historian Andrew Roberts defines the anglosphere as a group of developed
democracies which meet the above criteria and also have a strong history of
military alliance: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand. Though it is important to avoid reductionist tendencies lumping
distinct cultures together, these countries certainly enjoy an extremely high
degree of mutual cultural intelligibility and trust that is rare among large,
geographically diverse populations.
Why an AU?
The Anglosphere is already fundamentally political,
entailing alliance and cooperation. It therefore represents an unprecedented
opportunity to organize a smooth systemic power shift not unlike the shift from
British to American dominance. Though America’s relative power may be declining
along with other component members’, together they form a formidable entity of
nearly half a billion people which would be difficult to dethrone.
At $21 trillion, the AU economy would account for a third of
global output, four of the ten most traded (and reserved) currencies, 172
Fortune 500 companies, 18 of the fifty biggest banks by assets, nearly half of
world R&D spending, and nine of the Global Cities Index top 25.
Its military would combine America’s gargantuan force with
three more of the top fifteen military spenders for total spending of over $805
billion -- 52% of global military expenditures according to SIPRI.
Politically and culturally, all the AU’s members “punch
above their weight.” The AU would possess two permanent seats at the UN
Security Council and a quarter of votes at the IMF. AU countries all have
specialized influence in dozens of international organizations. Australia, for
instance, often exercises more influence over developing agricultural states in
the WTO than America. And from Peter Jackson to the BBC they all have
significant cultural influence.
What would it look like?
The Anglo Union builds on existing institutions and
agreements to create a coherent quasi-confederation using the EU as a template.
It would be neither as unified nor as ambitious as the EU, but would benefit
from the European experience as it focuses on military, economic, and
institutional integration.
Deeper military integration would allow individual states to
modestly shrink their generalist militaries while specializing to become
functional parts of the larger whole. Over time, bilateral and multilateral
military arrangements would be replaced by a single overarching arrangement.
Economic integration will accelerate. The few sets of
countries that do not already have them will negotiate FTAs. Existing free
trade agreements (FTAs) will be enhanced with an eye towards regulatory standardization.
Eventually an AU Free Trade Area (AUFTA) will replace the network of bilateral
arrangements.
Three issues will be particularly thorny: agriculture, labor
mobility, and Britain’s place in the EU. With price controls, agricultural
liberalization may not be too nettlesome given the unique context. Liberalization
of labor mobility is implausible, but mobility could be boosted by visa and
residency reforms like those in Australia. Finally, until recent uncertainty on
Britain and the EU settles, all bets are off.
Next, unlike the Preponderant Core, an Anglo Union strategy requires
a dedicated institutional framework as well. To make up for its smaller size
the AU must be more integrated, necessitating supranational organization on monetary
coordination, fiscal coordination and limited fiscal union, and partial
regulatory collectivization.
Monetary union is politically impossible; the dollar is
sacred. Absent currency union, a loose version of the European Exchange Rate
Mechanism is preferable. This, with a board of central bankers to coordinate
monetary policy, will strip out the worst effects of currency market
fluctuations and divergent monetary policy.
The EU is also an excellent model for limited fiscal
coordination and union. Given limited exchange rate coordination, the
Eurozone’s broad regulations on debt and deficits will serve the AU well. As in
the EU, the AU budget should reach around 1% of GDP, but revenues should come
from dedicated streams. These will fund AU bureaucracy, infrastructure,
R&D, and emergency assistance to members.
Lastly, America’s overwhelming power requires a governing regulatory
institution modeled after the European Commission: a small group of technocrats,
each appointed by one country but (theoretically) obliged to act in the
interest of the AU as a whole. Technocracy and equal representation grant
legitimacy while small group dynamics allows the US to apply pressure behind
the scenes.
In conclusion...
The Anglo Union is an ambitious project. In some respects it
is even more so than the preponderant core. However, the risks are lower and
potential benefits higher. It does not destroy the existing system, but bears
long-term potential as a guarantor of peace, stability and Western democratic
interests. Shared heritage, language, economic systems, and political values represent
an unprecedented opportunity for cooperation and integration. However, the centrifugal
force of a rising China weakens America’s attractive power. The opportunity is unique, it is vanishing,
and it should not be wasted.
No comments:
Post a Comment