Chapter 9: How Anglophone Views Shape World Politics

English-speaking countries, particularly the UK and the US, hold great power in world affairs. Their views and interests strongly influence how countries relate to each other, how alliances are formed, and even how conflicts are seen around the globe. Often, this influence reflects their own goals and ways of thinking, not necessarily a balanced world view.

Seeing the World Through Their Own Eyes

A key trait of how these countries, especially the US, act on the world stage is that they often seem unable or unwilling to see things from other nations’ points of view. It’s like they assume everyone else shares their values or should ignore their own history and interests.

You might hear questions like:

• “Why don’t the Russians understand that NATO expanding isn’t a threat?”
• “Why don’t the people in Afghanistan see how good our way of life is?”

These questions often ignore how others might see the situation based on their own experiences. This way of thinking can lead to:

• Telling Others What to Do: A habit of lecturing other countries on how they should act or what they should believe, as if they have a special right to do so. [TODO: Example: US consulate asking Indian port authority to disallow Russian ships].
• Lack of Respect: Saying or doing things that ignore the independence or dignity of other nations. [TODO: Add specific “Colin” example context if available].

[TODO: Context/Source for Michael Keaton “chimp with a machine gun” analogy regarding Anglophone dominated world].

America’s Global Power and Strategy

The United States holds enormous power worldwide, often called “hegemony.” But critics say America’s plans for using this power often lack clear, long-term thinking. Instead of careful strategy, actions can seem like quick reactions or just displays of power, sometimes leading to poor results in places like:

• Afghanistan
• Iraq
• Ukraine [TODO: Add source/link for American hegemony: https://youtu.be/sFHqyFtvkwE] [TODO: Revisit/Expand “American Strategy” section based on user note]

Sometimes, it seems like Anglophone foreign policy assumes that other countries only respond to force or pressure. [TODO: Elaborate on what Anglophone societies seem to ‘understand’ in foreign policy].

The Power of the US Dollar

American power isn’t just about the military or culture. The US Dollar plays a huge role. Most international trade happens in dollars, and many countries hold dollars as savings. This global demand gives the US government special advantages.

It can borrow money more easily and cheaply than other countries to pay for its spending, including its large military and foreign aid programs. This unique position, sometimes called an “exorbitant privilege,” allows the US to influence others through money – funding projects, giving aid tied to specific demands, or punishing countries with financial restrictions (sanctions). This financial power supports America’s ability to push its views and interests worldwide, often presenting actions that benefit itself as good for everyone, while making other countries dependent.

NATO: Alliance or Modern Colonialism?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) started as a group of countries promising to defend each other against the Soviet Union. But today, as NATO has grown and taken on new roles, some question its purpose. They see similarities between NATO and how colonial powers acted in the past.

How NATO Might Resemble Old Colonialism: Think about how companies like the British East India Company gained control. They often started by offering protection to local rulers. Over time, these rulers became dependent and lost their independence. NATO also offers protection. Countries that join might spend less on their own armies, saving money (a “peace dividend”). But this can make them reliant on the alliance and less able to act alone.

If a country doesn’t have a strong military of its own, it might feel forced to go along with NATO decisions, even if they clash with its own interests. Joining NATO also often requires countries to change their systems to match Western ways. Some see this as a subtle form of control, influencing a country’s politics without ruling it directly – a kind of ‘soft’ colonialism.

Old Goals vs. New Reality: [TODO: List original stated purposes of NATO: 1. Keep Europeans from fighting? 2. Socialize European military? 3. Cheap version of nuclear bomb?] Critics say NATO today does more than just defense. They argue it sometimes promotes Anglophone interests disguised as global security or spreading “our way of life.” [TODO: Elaborate on ‘our way of life’ as a euphemism].

Countries Dependent on the USA?

Because so much power is held by English-speaking countries, especially the US, some argue that many other nations act like “vassal states.” This means they might be officially independent allies, but in practice, they often put alignment with US interests ahead of their own:

• UK: [TODO: Explain specific reasons/examples for UK]
• EU: Often seems to follow US foreign policy goals.
• Japan: [TODO: Shinzo Abe context?]
• South Korea
• Australia
• Canada
• The USA itself?: One could argue that powerful groups within the US (like the military industry or foreign policy experts) sometimes push agendas that don’t truly benefit the average American citizen (seen in things like ongoing poverty despite national wealth, or constant high military spending). [TODO: Refine this argument/examples].

Russophobia: An Ongoing Negative View of Russia

In Anglophone countries, there’s often a strong, almost automatic negative feeling towards Russia, sometimes called Russophobia. This existed before the current war in Ukraine and doesn’t seem to change much regardless of events.

• [TODO: Insert quote from S. Jaishankar on this phenomenon if found].
• The Ukraine-Russia War: Anglophone news and commentary often give a simple story: Russia is the aggressor, end of story. They might downplay factors like NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders, internal issues within Ukraine, or how Western actions might have contributed to the conflict. This one-sided view ignores complex realities and may treat leaders like Vladimir Putin as simply evil or irrational, rather than as leaders making strategic choices (even if those choices are seen as wrong). [TODO: Write the detailed ‘Anglo version’ vs. ‘more comprehensive’ view as planned in draft].

Wider Effects and Future Path

When Anglophone views dominate world politics, it has broader consequences:

• Skewed International Bodies: Organizations like the United Nations might be pushed to favor Anglophone interests.
• More Conflict?: Seeing war as a primary way to solve problems might become more common, sidelining efforts to find peaceful solutions.
• Nuclear Double Standards: Anglophone countries with nuclear weapons often lecture others about not getting them, while keeping their own and sometimes hinting they might use them. [TODO: Add specific examples].

Some observers believe these powerful Anglophone societies might be facing a slow decline. They face challenges at home and growing pushback against their influence abroad. [TODO: Expand on “Anglophone Trajectory - Societies in decline”].