America Needs the Anglosphere

May 29, 2025

By Walter Donway

The conflict of our time is not only military, economic, and diplomatic, but political, cultural, and philosophical. The clash is between systems with irreconcilable ideas—or, using the term neutrally, “ideals”—of government, the individual versus the state, human rights, and the rule of law.

Adm. Samuel John Paparo, Jr., head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, recently warned that China’s military exercises near Taiwan signal not just readiness but intent to invade. Xi Jinping has made “reunification” with Taiwan a personal and ideological crusade. We recognize that the “success” of the People’s Republic of China would not merely alter borders or achieve “reunification.” It would mean populations now living under constitutional governments with the rule of law, protection of individual rights, and freedom in education, the media, and economic life would “lose it all”—a catastrophe for what we now view as our birthright.  

The overt aggressiveness of China steadily increases tension in the Indo-Pacific region, where China’s bid for hegemony stirs reactions in democratic nations ranging from unease to preparations in Taiwan for invasion. Yet, as geopolitical tensions have escalated, the response has fallen mostly on individual countries or regional alliances. Certainly, a reply to the challenge must include military and diplomatic counters, arguably by the United Nations (although it includes China and Russia on its Security Council), but a full reply must recognize that what is at stake goes beyond what the military mission or what the structure of the UN makes possible. A “reply in full” to the civilizational challenge demands no less than an organization that can assert with confidence a superior moral, social, and political ideal:  in briefest terms, human rights, the primacy of the individual, and constitutional limits on government power, with the resulting democratic political order and liberal market economy.

The Anglosphere

How to characterize what we are defending? For America and its historically closest allies—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—aren’t we talking about the “Anglo-American world,” with values historically traceable to the British Enlightenment and 19th Century British liberalism? Chief among these values are reason and science in human affairs, the secular polity, religious tolerance, the universality of human rights, the rule of law, property rights, constitutionally limited government, and free and technologically-oriented economies. For these ideals, the Anglo-American nations fought two world wars, the Cold War, and ceaseless specific regional conflicts. Yet we often forget the connection between specific military enterprises and the civilization we share.

The term “Anglosphere”—coined by novelist Neal Stephenson in his 1995 book The Diamond Age—has gained traction as a description of this underlying unity. Many have adopted it, and predictably, given the obsession with “colonialism,” critics call it a white colonialist idea. But concept could also extend to India, South Africa, other African nations, British Caribbean nations, former British colonies in Asia, and other nations with historic roots in British culture and common law.  By this logic, there is a core Anglosphere, an inner sphere of predominantly English-speaking nations, and an outer sphere of nations with English as one major language. Common to all are at least a substantial English-speaking minority, British common law tradition, and some historic ties with Britain.  

The Anglosphere provides a civilizational basis for a powerful, cohesive, democratic alliance (in sharp contrast with the United Nations). Amid rising authoritarian threats, the free world needs both power and principle. And we may not need to invent an organization to represent the ideals of British liberalism. There is a seasoned candidate for the role. Mostly taken for granted, the Commonwealth of Nations, rooted in liberty, law, and self-government, offers a basis for renewed moral and strategic alliance.

The Commonwealth of Nations, Then and Now

The Commonwealth of Nations, formerly the “British Commonwealth” now just “the Commonwealth,” led the world as one of the first modern international associations collaborating not only for trade but to sustain cultural and philosophical affinities. Emerging from the decline of the British Empire, it appealed to newly independent nations that shared historical ties, legal systems, and, in many cases, a common language—nation states spanning every continent except Antarctica and with a quarter of the world’s population. Today, the Commonwealth of Nations comprises 56 member states (the vast majority former territories of the British Empire) spanning Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. If it had the requisite mandate and determination, it might have been the countervailing force in challenging China’s aggression. Unlike the UN, the Commonwealth, with its shared values of democracy, rule of law, human rights, and the market economy, could mount a unified, morally confident diplomatic front—even a strategic counterbalance to China’s rise.

Beyond diplomatic efforts, the Commonwealth’s vast economic network could be leveraged to create alternative trade routes and economic partnerships, reducing the region’s dependence on Chinese investments and influence. The combined GDP of Commonwealth countries in 2021—US $13.1 trillion—is estimated to reach $19.5 trillion in 2027. And that’s without adding the possible American contribution. With US membership, the economic output of the commonwealth might add up to $48.5 trillion with a population of 3.040 billion. This is more than a match for China—let alone Russia or Iran.

It might seem crazy to imagine the United States joining a descendant of the British Empire, from which we declared independence in 1776. On March 21, though, in an all-too-characteristically offhand post on Truth Social, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote  that he liked the idea of the United States joining the Commonwealth. He was responding to a report in the Daily Mail that King Charles III would make a “secret offer” of associate membership. “I love the King,” added Trump. It signals at least a latent interest in such an alliance, however symbolic. And a catalyst was and is sorely needed!

Despite its impressive scope, the Commonwealth’s influence on international decision-making is negligible compared with the United Nations, or even the Davos-based World Economic Forum! The UN, with 193 member states, claims universality, but can neither command nor uphold ideological consistency or commitment to philosophic ideals. The UN Security Council includes the Russian dictatorship and China’s totalitarian communist regime. UN member states are autocracies and tribalist nations. Iran, with its permanent jihad, persecution of religious minorities, and execution of homosexuals, sits on UN bodies supposed to promote human rights. The UN can only mouth moral or political principles while serving as a global forum where autocrats and democrats share equal standing.

A Legacy Overshadowed

The Commonwealth, by contrast, built on shared philosophical, cultural, and political principles. And while its influence has waned, its members have acted repeatedly to expel or suspend nations that violated fundamental values of the Commonwealth. South Africa was pushed out during apartheid and was only readmitted when it dismantled the racist system. Nigeria was suspended after a military coup in 1995 and reinstated in 1999 when democracy was restored. Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 due to election fraud and human rights abuses and withdrew rather than meet democratic standards. Such actions demonstrate that the Commonwealth, unlike the UN, has enforced principles and set expectations for governance.

As it expanded and diversified, the Commonwealth added to its core ideals racial equality, opposition to racial discrimination, and political equality of individuals. With these philosophical and historical roots, the Commonwealth could step into the vacuum of global forces for liberty, law, and limited government.  It could act as a counterweight to authoritarianism—unlike the UN or the European Union. Because the Commonwealth is not bound by geography or bureaucracy but by shared history, it could unite the liberal democracies and coordinate policies on trade, security, and human rights. Among its members, major economies like Canada, Australia, the UK, and India are a natural counterweight to China’s economic clout.

The CANZUK proposal—a free-movement and trade agreement among Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK—has gained traction, including recently in response to the “Trump tariffs.” Expanding economic cooperation across the Commonwealth could provide a stable alternative to volatile global trade networks. A reinvigorated Commonwealth could create a network of top-tier universities, research institutions, and other collaborations to further position itself as a global leader in intellectual exchange. Already, students from the Commonwealth flock to British universities and British professors do stints in Commonwealth institutions. The Institute of Commonwealth Studies offers fellowships at several academic levels, including for study at the Consortium for Human Rights. (As an aside, however, in 2022 the largest percentage of foreign students in British higher education were Chinese. A Commonwealth refocused on civilizational conflict might alter this trend.)

Could the Commonwealth, with a combined population now of 2.7 billion, also be a second, values-based defensive alliance to complement NATO? Shared military training programs, intelligence-sharing agreements, and security pacts could enhance the sovereignty and stability of its members. The Commonwealth nations do participate in joint security efforts—from counterterrorism operations to naval patrols in the Indo-Pacific. Expanding this cooperation could strengthen liberal democracies against global threats.

From Empire to Partnership

The early concept of a “commonwealth” emerged as the British Empire transformed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The 1884 Imperial Conference introduced the notion of self-governing dominions within the Empire. The idea was that Britain’s former colonies, rather than seeking complete independence, could remain part of a voluntary association with cooperation among them. The 1926 Balfour Declaration established that dominions such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were “equal in status” to Britain, leading to the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which granted them legislative independence.

The modern embodiment of the Commonwealth officially began in 1949, when India chose to become a republic but to maintain Commonwealth ties. The 1949 London Declaration officially dropped “British” from the Commonwealth’s title, so that new republics like India could join while recognizing the British monarch as the “symbol of the free association of its independent member nations.” It was a turning point; membership no longer was restricted to nations recognizing the British monarch as their head of state. Instead, membership rested on shared language, political systems, philosophical values, and cooperation.

Jan Smuts, a prominent architect of the Commonwealth, envisioned it as a unique association rooted in shared values of freedom and equality. In a 1917 speech, he articulated this vision: “The British Commonwealth of Nations is a true union of equal nations, not a unity of one under the dominance of the other.” He believed that the Commonwealth represented a new form of international cooperation, distinct from traditional empires, emphasizing mutual respect and shared ideals. Richard Cobden, the 19th-century British statesman and advocate for free trade, also foresaw that the something like that Commonwealth could be a vehicle for promoting economic freedom and peace. He stated: “I see in the British Empire that beneficent instrument by which civilization and commerce are to be carried to the uttermost ends of the earth.”

Cobden's vision underscores the potential of the Commonwealth to spread liberal economic principles and global prosperity. It sounds exactly like the steady, negotiated progress vouchsafed to those who share fundamental principles, guiding values, and cultural commitments.

The Commonwealth at War

The peaceful goals of the Commonwealth don’t mean that it can’t also fight. In the tormented 20th century, Commonwealth nations proved crucial in global conflicts, particularly in both World Wars. In World War I, soldiers from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, and the Caribbean fought alongside British forces. India alone contributed some one million troops, many of whom served in the trenches of the Western Front, in Mesopotamia, and the Middle East. A remarkable but often overlooked contribution came from African Commonwealth troops. The King’s African Rifles and other units fought in East Africa, with troops from Kenya, Uganda, and other colonies engaging in grueling jungle warfare against German forces. These soldiers, often denied full citizenship or equal rights in their home countries, fought with distinction.

During World War II, Commonwealth forces were critical from the Battle of Britain to the jungles of Burma and the deserts of North Africa. Australia and Canada played key roles in the Pacific theater, while Indian troops were instrumental in defending British territories from Japanese invasion.

Beyond military contributions, the Commonwealth provided economic and industrial support, with countries like Canada and Australia supplying food, steel, and munitions to sustain the war effort. The Commonwealth, then, was far from merely a symbolic alliance; it was a military and economic bastion against aggression aimed at democracy. This story raises an important question: could it become a geopolitical force once again?

The Ideal—and the Reality

The vision of the future laid out here counts more upon a broad historical perspective and ideals than present realities. There is a Commonwealth Secretariat Strategic Plan 2021/22–2024/25 and it does acknowledge the importance of individual rights, the rule of law, economic solidarity—among a plethora of priorities such as climate change, opportunities for women and girls, digital transformation, sustainable development, COVID-19 follow up, and governance of smaller nations. The section on human rights merely urges members to be active in the United Nations Human Rights Council. If anything, the planners appear reluctant to leave out anything that could “deepen and broaden the ongoing reforms to make the organization more relevant, vibrant, joined-up and visible.” Current “crises” include COVID, poverty among women, “sustainable ocean action,” and “gender mainstreaming”—to name a few. The rundown on “threats and opportunities” does not mention China, Russia, or resurgent Islamic fundamentalism. There is continual reference to “tools, “mechanisms,” “results management,” “key delivery strategies,” and how the plan will be “operationalized.”

Certainly, the phrase “principles and values” appears again and again in the document. These are the “strengthened rule of law, democracy, peacebuilding, human rights, public institutions, and electoral processes enabled by value-based leadership.” Is the gap, then, unbridgeable between the Commonwealth’s own contemporary self-perception and the role I have sketched here as rallying the Anglosphere to its true crisis and opportunity in a world of aggressively clashing civilizations?  It is unbridgeable if the urgency and fundamentality of the clash are never mentioned. You cannot make real the imperative of your own legacy of Enlightenment ideals without mentioning totalitarianism, Islamic fundamentalism, and authoritarianism. Twice in the 20th Century, the Commonwealth faced-up to such threats only when alien ideologies had become war machines on the move.      

            Yet we increasingly face such threats in the 21st Century. Confronted with rising opposition to individual liberty, economic freedom, and constitutional government, the renewed Commonwealth envisioned here might assert, promulgate, and, when necessary, fight to defend fundamental civilizing principles. Call them the ideals to which Winston Churchill summoned his countrymen in “their darkest hour.” Call them the legacy of the Age of Enlightenment. Call them the heritage of the West. Just don’t call them “multiculturalism”. This is the opposite of the moral agnosticism practiced by the UN, which sees all members states as equal no matter how they are governed.  

Looking down the road, one can imagine a Commonwealth that upholds such standards with moral authority appealing to new members willing to rise to its standards. (Technically, any fully qualified country can join the Commonwealth.)  Global in scope, unlike the European Union, and rooted in ideals, unlike the United Nations, it could become a beacon for those seeking liberty anchored in shared principles. Born from the British Empire, the Commonwealth stands on ideals, the only valid foundation of leadership. It could lead again.

Walter Donway was senior program officer of The Commonwealth Fund, a New York City foundation that operates the Harkness Fellowships, established in 1925 to bring outstanding graduate students from the English-speaking Commonwealth nations to the United States.