As the 19th century came to a close, Great Britain stood as the premier country in the world. The century was labeled “Pax Britannica” and the world experienced nearly a century of peace from a major European conflict. The Napoleonic wars were but a distant memory and peace and prosperity appeared universally. For the average European and American, paradise was being ushered in and the world future never appeared brighter.
For many British statesmen, certain realities began to sink in. Both Germany and the United States were outstripping Great Britain's industrial output, German military power threatened to dominate the European mainland, and her Navy threatened the Royal Navy's monopoly over the sea lanes. In a recent piece for National Review, John O’ Sullivan wrote, “At this early stage of imperial decline, Britain had three grand strategic options: the imperial, the European and the Atlantic.”
Of the imperial option, O’Sullivan continued, “Imperial consolidation was the most obvious solution. If her far flung possessions- comprising a quarter of the world- could be transformed into a single political economic unit, Britain would remain a global hegemon.” The imperial option originated by British statesman Joseph Chamberlain was essentially the modern day Anglosphere without the United States. Chamberlain’s vision began with the premise that many in the colonies as well as numerous citizens of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand viewed themselves as Britons abroad. In both World Wars, a large number of colonials volunteered for duty. Nearly ten percent of New Zealand's population served overseas in the first Great War and nearly three million Indians chose to fight for King and Empire in the Second World War.
For various reasons, this vision failed to take hold. The first is that many in the colonies preferred a nationalist route and were not keen on the idea of being absorbed into a Greater Britain. The second was that many of these nations did not want to surrender their control of trade and tariffs policy to each other or to Britain. London wanted to maintain the general free trade policy that served Britain well while other nations wanted some protection for their embryonic industries.
The final drawback was racial, for as John O’ Sullivan observed, “For an imperial federation in a democratic age would have meant the political dominance of India.” Racial attitude of the days prevented the possibility of India dominating a federation of the English-speaking people, for Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and even Britons themselves were not ready for Indian leadership.
The second option was the European option, which meant that England would tolerate German domination of the continent as part of an informal Protestant alliance of Imperial Germany, Great Britain and the United States. Some thinkers of the age promoted the idea that Germany, the United States and Great Britain were natural allies.
Article comments
1 - Aaman
A very mainstream view of events in the last century. For some aspects not traditionally covered, take a look at Carroll Quigley's books - Tragedy and Hope, etc.(094500110X)
2 - jimbo
This is a very good overview, but some things are missing. Both British and American policy post-WWII was to build a united Europe as a bulwark against Russia. The end of the Cold War gave France and Germany, both resentful of the "special relationship", the opportunity to turn the EU into a bulwark against the anglosphere. This presents the UK with a dilemma. For now, the US is so powerful that the UK's military contributions are only symbolic. Commercially, the UK is much more tied to the EU than to either the US or the Commonwealth. The UK also feels that it must participate in the EU to prevent it from turning into an anti-US center. Where are the other supposed members of the Anglosphere? Ireland strongly supports the EU because it is a way to get out from Britain's shadow. Canada tends not to support the US for the same reasons. Australia is strongly allied with the US because it fears Asian demography. Rather than the Anglosphere, perhaps the US is becoming the de facto leader and protector of "outlier" nations such as Japan, Israel, Australia, the UK, Singapore, Taiwan, and maybe India, that have strong democratic economies, but fear and are feared by their neighbors.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
The article was well written, but I'm forced to agree with Jimbo. One reads what Chris Rose writes and sees an England tied to the EU rather than it Atlantic "Big Red Dog" in Washington.
At this point, it is the US that is the 'leader" of the "Anglosphere" but many nations within it will use regional alliances to shake free of Washington's influence.
But I do not think any of this will last very long....
4 - Christopher Rose
I believe that, in the hopefully not too distant future, after the completion of the regional economic and/or strategic blocs currently forming (NAFTA, EU, ASEAN, and so on), there will one day be a more coherent and effective United Nations (or similar, less riven body) looking out for the better growth and development of all of our species on this planet.
What's going on right now is just a lot of jostling for the best position for the forthcoming dance.
Wish I could as easily believe it will happen in my lifetime...
5 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy: I guess your view is heavily influenced by the forthcoming end of it all. Somewhere between 2020 and 2030 isn't it?
I swear I'm gonna live 'til then just to see what happens. And January 1st 2031, I'm coming to Israel for you to buy me a drink! If you don't have the decency to live that long too, I'll kill ya! lol
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Be careful what you swear to Chris.
If G-d gives me to live so long, and I have the money in my pocket, I'll be glad to buy you a drink - even two.