Cecil Rhodes, the 19th century British businessman and the architect of Apartheid, once said that to be born an Englishman was to have “won first prize in the lottery of life”. On another occasion he said: “I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.”
Due to the efforts of arch racists and colonialists such as Rhodes – who complained he could not “annex the planets” and colonise the stars because they were too far – the English race has spread around the world, forming a virtual Anglosphere.
The US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – or the E-5 – are the five countries of the Anglosphere. Post World War II they became are so closely allied and their intelligence networks so well integrated that you could say the Anglosphere is a single country spread across five separate territories.
It is well known that their militaries are well synced but few are aware that all three US Army Corps have Canadian deputy commanders. Moreover, citizens of the Anglo nations serve as important exchange or liaison officers with top US commands.
The E-5 has jointly fought in almost all modern wars – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Their ability to stick together during conflicts is a key reason why group leader US is able to rush forces into conflict zones.
Because the US is assured of the near total acquiescence of its English speaking siblings, it provides a critical mass of support to actions undertaken by the Americans. It bears pressure on other leading western nations such as Germany and France to fall in line.
The UK, for instance, plays the role of trying to keep the Europeans in line with American policies. In a draft paper dated August 1968, the UK’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office noted that one of its key objectives with regard to Anglo-US relations is “to ensure that the longer-term relationship between Europe (including the UK) and the United States remains as close as possible”.
In this regard, the FCO noted: “The Americans are gifted at representing American national interests as noble ideals which all should follow. Nevertheless it is very much in our and Europe’s interests to prevent the United States becoming a rogue elephant. We have to persuade all the Western Europeans, including in the long run France, that a close relationship with the United States is the only way of preventing this.”
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has revealed the nature and extent of teamwork among the Anglosphere members. The Snowden papers show that most spying projects are carried about to assist the US and allies gather political and economic intelligence country-by-country around the world. The Five Eyes spying network – which scoops up phone, fax and email data on a global scale – has undoubtedly led to commercial, diplomatic and political benefits for all five Anglosphere members.
First among equals
Although the E-5 works closely with the wider western world – as shown in the invasions of Iraq and Libya – there are limits and boundaries within the West. Allies such as Germany, France and Italy are relegated to the status of outsiders who can’t be completely trusted and must be constantly spied on. The E-5 forms the inner circle; they are cousins; they do not spy on each other.
While taking part in a panel at the New America Foundation in March 2015, Gen Michael Hayden, a former NSA and CIA director, said only members of the Five Eyes surveillance alliance have the privileged status of America’s most intimate friends. In his opinion, other nations are shut out of that club indefinitely.
In this backdrop, it’s easy to see why non-Anglo Europeans are a target of Five Eyes spying. One of the reasons cited for continued spying against Germany is that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder “had opposed American policy in Iraq, and who seemed to have a strange and mutually productive relationship with Vladimir Putin”.
However, the Anglosphere isn’t what it used to be. After the triumphant post-Cold War phase, in recent years there has been a palpable sense of economic and military decline in all the five English speaking countries. The rapidly growing clout of the Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) group has also unnerved them.
With their old dominance gone, they can no longer write the rules of global governance any more. Whether at the United Nations, G-20 or APEC, the E-5 are finding it next to impossible to push through policies that favour the Anglosphere. While Russia and China are the heavyweights manning the frontlines, they are getting key support from other emerging powers such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa and Argentina.
In the book America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It, Canadian author Mark Steyn sees the US and England “facing nothing so amiable and genteel as continental-style ‘decline’ but something more like sliding off a cliff”.
American arch-conservative politician and one-time presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan is horrified at the prospect of a diminished global status for the Anglosphere even as much of what was once the ‘Third World’ is roaring up the growth charts.
Buchanan’s book Suicide of a Superpower, about America’s decline, has been called racist and homophobic by critics, but it nevertheless has some grounding in reality. “America is disintegrating,” he screams. “The centrifugal forces pulling us apart are growing inexorably. What unites us is dissolving. And this is true of western civilization…. Meanwhile, the state is failing in its most fundamental duties. It is no longer able to defend our borders, balance our budgets, or win our wars.”
On the other side of the world, The Australian newspaper laments that Canberra has become Asia’s coalmine, dependent on supplying commodity exports to emerging economies such as China: “We are to be attendants to an emerging empire: providers of food, energy, resources, commodities and suppliers of services such as education, tourism, gambling/gaming, health (perhaps), and lifestyle property.”
Perhaps the tipping point – when the Anglosphere’s fear turned into panic – was Russia’s aggressive diplomacy that blocked the US from bombing Syria. This is hardly a small matter. The English speaking world was baying for President Bashar al-Assad’s blood. “Hit him hard” The Economist, the British mouthpiece, headlined.
But the Russian block – with BRICS backing – stymied those plans. The Anglosphere realised the world had changed considerably since 2003, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown, with few countries daring to protest the illegal act.
Crimea and Ukraine are two other instances where the Anglosphere finds itself isolated.
With their dominant status now a thing of the past, the Anglosphere countries are staring at the prospect of international isolation and irrelevance. This is making them close ranks. In this backdrop, the five countries of British origin have been making a number of moves towards integration.
August 19, 2014. Following days of bitter racial riots in the American city of Ferguson, Missouri, the state’s Lt. Governor Peter Kinder lashed out at the rioters for seeking justice in the streets, and bizarrely demanded “Anglo American” justice. “One of the great advances of Anglo-American civilisation is we do not have politicised trials,” he declared.
May 20, 2014. The UK government announced that the US, UK, Australia and Canada are establishing combined space operations among their armed forces. “Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States have furthered their defence cooperation by establishing a partnership on combined space operations,” it said.
January 14, 2014. Canada’s defence department announced the formal signing of a long-term partnership with the US Department of Defence. Among other things “this partnership permits the Canadian Space Operations Centre to coordinate and share unclassified information and data in support of government agencies”.
November 21, 2013. The US Air Force Space Command announced it would relocate a tracking radar from Antigua to Australia. It would also deploy a new DARPA-developed optical telescope there. The telescope is especially useful for monitoring geosynchronous orbit where major spy satellites are located.
September 24, 2012. Britain and Canada announced they will establish joint diplomatic missions and share embassy offices abroad. The proposals involve ‘co-locating’ embassies and sharing consular services in countries where one of the nations does not have an embassy. Australia and New Zealand already have such an arrangement in place.
These developments are part of a growing trend where the Anglosphere is closing ranks to form a more cohesive unit to increase their weight in global affairs. Considering the US is still a very large economy and its military power projection capability is unmatched, there is a good chance the group could bounce back.
Checkmating the E-5 revival
The great rival of the war-obsessed Anglosphere was the Russian-led Soviet Union, which is now history. That leaves the BRICS as the only group with the ability to take on the Anglosphere. For, as surely as day follows night, the Anglos will come swinging back.
So it is imperative that somebody be in a position to stop the E-5 from trampling on small countries and destabilising larger ones. The good news is Russia and China are strongly committed to the BRICS becoming a more political group. Brazil – ever since Snowden revealed the US was spying on Brazilian leader Dilma Rousseff – is also bitterly opposed to the US.
The problem country seems to be India. Earlier this year, it signed a $2.5 billion helicopter deal with the US, which had in December 2013 publicly arrested an Indian woman diplomat and then conducted a shameful – and unnecessary – cavity search on her.
Despite its involvement in the BRICS, India sometimes acts like a fence sitter. One explanation for India’s behaviour is two centuries of brainwashing and Anglicising. Only a brainwashed person could have said what India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in 2005: “If there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English-speaking peoples, in which the people of Indian origin are the single largest component.”
Like Singh, there are plenty of Indians suffering from delusions of Anglosphere goodness, and are prone to make such shameful and factually wrong statements. The good news is they are growing old and will disappear soon. The bad news is the Anglosphere can dangle carrots – such as university education, jobs, green cards etc – before the young generation.
The best defence against the Anglosphere’s re-emergence is for the BRICS to stick together. As they have shown in recent crises such as Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, this rainbow coalition can stop the Anglosphere elites. To be more effective, the BRICS must coalesc e into a political union and join their military forces to form a rapid reaction force. The Anglosphere can only beat small nations to pulp so a militarised BRICS isn’t a bad idea at all.
Mexico in the Trump Era: Trying to Deal with and Overcome Social Dominance
My work with Social Dominance Theory focuses on explaining the most obvious legitimizing myths in maintaining a negative atmosphere between America and Mexico. When it comes to this tension-filled relationnship, there are two varieties of legitimizing myths: hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths, which promote greater degrees of social inequality, and hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths, which promote greater social equality. Depending on the issue or commodity involved, Mexico is faced with both types of challenges when it comes to SDO conflicts with America. (Pratto, Felicia, James Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, no. 4: 741-763.)
Ideologies that promote or maintain group inequality are the tools that legitimize discrimination. To work smoothly, these ideologies must be widely accepted within a society, appearing as self-apparent truths. Hence, we call them hierarchy-legitimizing myths. (Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle, 1994, 741)There is substantial evidence that social dominance orientation (SDO) has several consistent attributes: (a) it can be measured reliably, (b) it is stable over time, (c) it is higher among men than among women, (d) it is higher among those who support hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and is lower among those who support hierarchy-attenuating ideologies, (e) it is higher among those who support hierarchy-enhancing policies and lower among those who support hierarchy-attenuating policies, (f) it is higher among those who choose hierarchy-enhancing social roles and lower among those who choose hierarchy-attenuating social roles, and (g) it serves to orient new social and political attitudes. (Pratto, Felicia, James Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle,1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, no. 4: 741-763)
In general, America stakes great pride in its reputation for steadiness, reliability, commitment to a positive-sum global order in which all countries that play by the rules can prosper, soft power, identification with the advancement of democratic values, and an image as a dependable ally and country committed to solving the world’s toughest problems.In the past two years, however, the U.S. policy towards Mexico has changed from this course and is now leaning toward support of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths. This contributes to normalizing group-based inequality, which helps to destabilize partnerships. A particularly ugly hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth was the campaign rhetoric uttered by now President Donald Trump, who labeled certain Mexicans as rapists, criminals, and “bad hombres.” This rhetoric still degrades and negatively impacts the latest immigration debates in the United States.
On January 23, 2017,Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum Regarding the Mexico City Policy: I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2009, for the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning), and reinstate the Presidential Memorandum of January 22, 2001. Along with his earlier ugly verbalization, this order reinstates and dramatically expands the “Mexico City Policy” adopted under previous Republican administrations since 1984. This policy is also widely known as the “Global Gag Rule” due to the restrictions it places on how non-state organizations use their own non-US government private funds.
On February 7, 2017, the US State Department released a “six-month review” of the implementation of this policy, even though it admitted that six months was not nearly enough time to truly assess any effective change. Among the policies meant to be enforced: hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths that would make it more likely that Mexican asylum seekers would demonstrate credible fear about returning to their home. Add on to this environment the blunt imagery of building a ‘wall’ along the southern U.S. border with Mexico and it is obvious that current American foreign policy is utilizing these hierarchy-enhancing myths to create an atmosphere where Mexicans are meant to feel subordinate if not outright inferior to Americans. This was only intensified by the failed attempt to achieve a policy compromise on immigration earlier this year where approximately 800,000 ‘Dreamers’ (children of illegal immigrants born in America and having no negative criminal record whatsoever) would be allowed to legally remain in the United States. The White House and Republicans in the U.S. Congress could not ultimately create the compromise they themselves said they were hoping to achieve. Indeed, some of the leading figures on Trump’s team who voiced opposition to strengthening innovations in border security were ultimately fired, creating an administrative environment where people openly felt they had to follow the groupthink or be let go. As a predictable response to all of these political inconsistencies and outright open hostilities, Mexico can theoretically exercise multiple opportunities to establish and maintain closer relations with American economic and political competitors, most notably Russia.
To the detriment of harmonious international relations, the current American policies toward Mexico have comingled human social injustice with the threatened cancellation of The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was originally intended for increased commerce and trade and meant to be a positive for all of North America. NAFTA was originally signed by Mexico, Canada, and the United States in 1994 and has led to greater North American economic/financial integration and stability. The extensive U.S.-Mexican border area, an increasingly efficient supply-chain management industry, and millions of Mexican migrants now living in the United States (legally and illegally), have all contributed to Mexico’s growing positive integration with the U.S. economy. At present, America is Mexico’s largest global trading partner. Mexico is America’s third-largest, behind China and Canada. Mexico supplies approximately one third of America’s crude oil. Thus, Mexico works diligently with many vital U.S. trade/business interests that are have historically been enthusiastically supported by most Republicans. These should be potential negotiation strong points for Mexico, reminding the American Congress that it would not just be Mexico to suffer should relations between the two nations continue to worsen.
Mexico can and must respond to these threats by attempting to redefine its own national interests and economic options with the United States. The dominance of the U.S. in its own regional neighborhood is difficult to overcome. But the current administration, and its continued use of hierarchy-enhancing social dominance position, is clearly a trend Mexico cannot support and must strive to actively undermine. Of the two varieties of legitimizing myths discussed earlier, it is the hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths, which promote a sense of social equality have to be embedded within any and all political gestures coming out of Mexico City toward Washington. If Mexico does not find a willing or cooperative partner just to its north when it comes to this benevolent policy, then it will have little choice but to pursue its own Mexican version of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths, casting America in a much less flattering light and seeking to establish Mexico’s own form of social dominance vis-à-vis Americans in general. The fact that this will seem almost implausible to most Americans simply illustrates just how deep the implied assumption of social dominance and inequality has become to Mexico’s neighbor to the north.
Tom Cotton: What’s the Reason for AIPAC’s $ 4.5 Million Support for the Young Senator?
In recent months, news sources in the United States have reported the possibility of the appointment of the young Arkansas senator, Tom Cotton, as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the US National Security Advisor. 40-year-old Cotton is considered the youngest American senator, and, of course, many of the active Israeli lobbies in the United States count on his role-making in American political-security equations. In April 2015, the New York Times admitted that the Zionist lobbies’ financial support for Tom Cotton was much higher than that for other Republican senators. The New York Times has announced that the amount of this financial assistance was around $ 2 million.This is while some informed sources in the US say the AIPAC lobby has spent $ 4.5 million for Tom Cotton to insure his winning against “Mark Pryor” in the 2014 Senate elections.
In August 2013, Tom Cotton, with AIPAC’s green light and support, entered the political scene against former Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor. In the meanwhile, some prominent personalities and politicians in the Republican Party of America, such as “Marco Rubio” and “Mitt Romney”, by the order of AIPAC leaders, had also fully supported Tom Cotton.
Eventually, Cotton won 56.5% of the vote (against 40 percent of Pryor vote), and thus defeating his rival, entered the Senate. However, the main question is, what’s the reason for this huge, unnatural support of Zionist lobbies, AIPAC in particular, for Tom Cotton? In other words, what capacity did these organizations and lobbies see in Tom Cotton, that they have been willing to use their full power to help him enter the US Senate? Is AIPAC’s goal of such widespread support merely Cotton’s gaining the Arkansas seat in the Senate? The answer to this question is negative.
A security analyst in the United States who didn’t want his name to be revealed told our reporter:
“Given the young age of Cotton compared with other American politicians, and his commitment to Tel Aviv, the Israeli authorities have tried to use him as an influential factor in US domestic security and foreign policy. AIPAC has always named Cotton as a trend-making agent in its calculations. This Zionist lobby’s recent attempts for Cotton’s presence as the CIA Director can also be analyzed in the same vein.”
This analyst added:
“It is likely that the AIPAC lobby would ask Cotton not to run for the Senate in the congressional elections in 2018, so that he can be employed by the US government as the National Security Advisor, or CIA Director in Trump’s government.”
In January 2015, Tom Cotton played an important role in leading and managing the anti-JCPOA movement in the US Senate in the midst of nuclear talks between Iran and the members of the P15+ 1. On March 8, 2015, Senator Cotton wrote and sent a letter to Iranian leaders. In this letter, it was insisted that any nuclear deal without the approval of the US Congress would only be valid until the end of Obama’s presidency in 2017, and the next president may easily cancel it. Another 46 Republican senators also signed the letter.
The existing evidences suggests that such a letter was ordered by the direct order of the AIPAC lobby, and was designed to negatively influence the negotiation process. However, Tom Cotton’s commitment to the AIPAC lobby, and beyond that to Israel, is much more than that.
Accordingly, Cotton is consulting AIPAC before making any decision in the field of US domestic and foreign policy, and asks for the views of the lobby’s leaders. Even in cases which AIPAC doesn’t express its views on critical issues to American senators, Cotton has the duty to indirectly impose AIPAC’s stances on senators and even on key members of the House of Representatives. It is not without a reason that Tom Cotton is named as the main AIPAC piece in the Senate. For the thorough financial and political support of AIPAC leaders and Israeli authorities, Cotton has turned into Tel Aviv’s agent in the Senate (in the current period), and generally in the political scene of the United States.
Decoding Pompeo’s words at US senate
The CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who is nominee for Secretary of State, has recently mentioned meaningful words in his hearing at the Senate on Iran and the nuclear deal. In his words, he acknowledged that Iran was not after nuclear weapons even before the nuclear deal, nor will be in the future.
On the other hand, he has announced that he is seeking to fix and correct the nuclear deal with Iran! This is while the US President Donald Trump is scheduled to announce his final decision on Iran’s nuclear deal by May 12. “I want to fix this deal,” Pompeo said. “That’s the objective. I think that’s in the best interest of [the United States].”
At his recent Senate hearing, Pompeo has emphasized that as CIA Director, he didn’t find any evidences that Iran has violated the nuclear deal. At the same time, he believes that Tehran can’t expand its program shortly after the US withdrawal from the nuclear accord. He emphasized that his goal is to correct the nuclear deal with Iran. Pompeo said:
“If there’s no chance that we can fix it, I will recommend to the president (Trump) that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal,” he said. “Even after May 12, there’s still much diplomatic work to be done.”
A simple decoding of Pompeo’s remarks suggests that, despite the opposition to the nuclear accord, he is trying to deal differently with this issue as the future US Secretary of State. Some analysts also believe that Pompeo has adopted such an approach to face the US Senators’ relative opposition to the White House’s withdrawal from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).
In any case, according to Pompeo, Donald Trump may not make a final decision on the nuclear deal with Iran on May 12, and he will continue to consult with his European allies on what he calls “fixing the flaws of the JCPOA”.
Pompeo’s remarks indicate that the White House hasn’t come to a determined and clear decision on how to deal with the JCPOA yet. On the other hand, numerous consultations by representatives of the four countries, the United States, France, Britain and Germany, continues in silence.
Western sources have argued that these countries are consulting on the three controversial issue, namely “the Sunset clauses”, “limiting Iran’s missile power” and “extensive inspections of Iran’s military sites”. These sources claimed that the only remaining disagreement between the four countries is over deletion of the so-called Sunset clauses from the nuclear deal, and thus putting permanent limitations on Iran’s nuclear program.
Pompeo is currently the CIA director, and ironically, he was one of the foremost critics of the Iran nuclear deal when he served as a House Republican from Kansas. Trump fired Secretary of State “Rex Tillerson” over the raised disagreements, and picked Pompeo as his successor in March, just two months before the deadline on May 12 to decide whether to bring back sanctions that former President of the United States waived when the JCPOA was first implemented.
Before this, many Western politicians and analysts saw the nomination of Mike Pompeo for secretary of state by Trump as a sign of Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Beyond that, John Bolton’s appointment as US national security advisor also sent a clear message to the international system that Trump is about to pull out of the nuclear deal with Iran.
John Bolton is now silent about the fate of the JCPOA! The silence seems very meaningful at the current time. It’s obvious that John Bolton is one of the main opponents of the nuclear deal with Iran, and he doesn’t even believe in negotiating with the European Troika on maintaining the JCPOA.
The important question, however, is whether Bolton’s silence reflects the continuing paradoxical and vague approach of the US towards the JCPOA? Or did Trump ask him to be silent in this regard and wait for the final results of their talks with Europe?
American senators still don’t have a clear picture of Trump’s final decision about the JCPOA. Meanwhile, some Republican senators like “Rand Paul” and “Jeff Flake” are worried about the costs and consequences of Trump’s decision to refuse joining other members of P5+1.
Most US senators tried not to mention the nuclear deal with Iran in their speeches during recent weeks. This is while some senators such as “Tom Cotton” and “Ted Cruz” strongly encourage Donald Trump’s government to pull out of the nuclear deal with Iran.
First published at our partner Mehr News Agency
Mexico in the Trump Era: Trying to Deal with and Overcome Social Dominance
My work with Social Dominance Theory focuses on explaining the most obvious legitimizing myths in maintaining a negative atmosphere between...
Reducing Carbon Emissions, Let Soil and Trees Do the Dirty Work
By now, most of us are familiar with the role forests play in absorbing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases...
Algerian controversy over Salafism puts government control of religion on the spot
A controversy in Algeria over the growing popularity of Saudi-inspired Salafi scholars spotlights the risk governments run in a region in...
Strong outbound tourism demand from both traditional and emerging markets in 2017
Virtually all source markets reported higher tourism spending in 2017, reflecting continued strong demand for international tourism across all world...
A European approach on Artificial Intelligence
The EU Commission is proposing a European approach to make the most out of the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence...
Pakistani Gwadar Port: A double-edged sword for Iran
Authors: Vahid Pourtajrishi & Elaheh Shirvani Gwadar port is located in the province of Baluchistan in Pakistan and on the...
Will the EU split into the East and the West?
On March 1, 2018 the European Parliament has adopted a resolution initiating a disciplinary procedure against Poland. Warsaw is accused...
Tech2 days ago
The Ethical and Legal Issues of Artificial Intelligence
Newsdesk2 days ago
Bangladesh: World Bank Increases Support for Clean, Renewable Energy
Newsdesk2 days ago
Mher Sahakyan on “Belt & Road from the Perspective of China’s National Security”
Middle East2 days ago
A Mohammedan Game of Thrones: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Fight for Regional Hegemony
Newsdesk2 days ago
New Funding for Mindanao Trust Fund to Strengthen Peace and Development in Southern Philippines
Americas3 days ago
Decoding Pompeo’s words at US senate
Tech3 days ago
Busting the Blockchain Hype: How to Tell if Distributed Ledger Technology is Right for You
South Asia12 hours ago
Pakistani Gwadar Port: A double-edged sword for Iran