Airstrip One

Jamaica and India: other natural allies

Returning to the theme of the Anglosphere, I wish to address some points raised by Iain Murray. I have shortened many of them because of space. I don't think that I've misrepresented him, but if you want a full rendition I would point you to his excellent post. His comments are in italics.

Jamaica. Sure it has a massive crime rate and is the source of a lot of problems, but that doesn't make it in any way different from New York or Brixton, for that matter. ... If New York and, to a lesser extent, Lambeth can do it, Jamaica can.

I hope Jamaica does make it, but this is not the point. If Jamaica is a disproportionate source of drugs because of the relatively lax immigration regime from the island to Britain, should the immigration be choked off with stricter rules? If so then this is certainly a step away from the Anglosphere as Jamaica has relatively lax rules because she is seen as so similar to us.

As for the Queen's status, that's pretty irrelevant to the anglosphere

But the monarchy is a link between these two components of the Anglosphere, and a link that is being broken. When Australia proposed scrapping the monarchy it was put in terms of cutting Australia free from the "mother country" and making her an Asian state.

Turning to Emmanuel's second criticism of the concept, that it is simply substituting America for Europe as far as Britain goes, that's a problem with some British conceptions of the Anglsophere idea, but it's not one I share

I don't doubt that most Anglospheracists wish to retain the independence of the various parts, but most advocates of British entry into the Common Market had little idea that it would turn into the European Union. Why is the Anglosphere any different?

Mutual defence agreements, trade pacts ... can all be worked out without prejudice to either side.

Although I'm sceptical of any market direction from governments I do not tend to worry overly about trade pacts, but defence pacts are a different matter. Defence pacts dictate where our troops go and what our defensive capabilities are. It is vital that we base our military capability on our strategic situation and not that of others.

NATO made sense when we had similar strategic interests in containing the USSR, but the world has changed.

no "pooling" of power a la Europe would be possible as long as America is involved, as that would almost certainly be unconstitutional.


They said the same about gun control and Federal government involvement in education. I'd trust our armed forces to keep our independence over another country's supreme court.

Britain is a powerful country. It would be more than able to hold its own in negotiating the agreements,

Which curiously mirrors what the Europhiles say.

The Anglosphere is predicated on the idea that our shared systems of common law, democracy, language and culture all make it easier for us to work together, in trade, defence and other spheres, than with countries that do not share these traditions.

In some areas our shared systems are a massive advantage. Higher education, for instance, would probably benefit greatly from more academic and student exchanges. Doubtless the world of political punditry is aided greatly by sending America Iain Murray and ourselves receiving Christina Odone.

Legal similarities also help in the service sector. But even here our orientation is also a function of our time zone, as we trade in the major European currencies and South African equities. This is even more the case with bulky primary and manufactured goods which are a function of proximity, with cars produced in Europe even if they are made for Japanese or American companies.

And defence, that is something entirely different. Although language and law will help set trade patterns, they do not set strategic priorities.

Strategic priorities are a function of geography. If Indonesia were to invade Australia, it would not make weaken Britain's defences or strengthen any threat to us. Language and culture is as insignificant in defence as culture is.

France, thanks to Clive, has no real stake in affairs in India. Britain, thanks to history and immigration, does.

However, Britain would be under no greater external threat if India (or for that matter Pakistan) were over-run tomorrow. History is past news, and the place of immigrants in our society is past news.

Here endeth the cold heartedness.

Now, can someone please explain this curious entry on the Samizdata log? It mentions the Anglosphere cult and Mr Bennet, but I have little idea what it actually means.