Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Commonwealth, abolition of the
Section C. International relations

The Commonwealth of Nations (or ’The British Commonwealth’ until 1949) is a voluntary association of 54 nations (as of 2013) — each (except Mozambique and Rwanda) having once been a colony, protectorate or dependency of Britain, or of another Commonwealth country. In 1991, the Commonwealth Heads of Government issued the Harare Commonwealth Declaration stating the principles and purpose of the Commonwealth — co-operation in pursuit of world peace, commitment to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, opposition to all forms of racial oppression, commitment to the removal of disparities in living standards among member nations, equal rights for women, the rule of law and democratic government. In recent years, Nigeria, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Fiji have all been suspended — one of the Commonwealth’s strongest sanctions — over military coups. Additionally, newly independent or only semi-recognised states, such as the Republic of South Sudan and Somaliland, have applied to join, welcoming the Commonwealth’s support and stamp of approval.

Pros

[1] The Commonwealth is founded upon an outdated and oppressive colonial system. Now that the European empires have been dismantled, we should base international co-operation on truly international foundations, not on the imperial maps of the past. The Commonwealth fosters neo-colonialism and blinds its members to non-English-speaking culture. If there is a need for an international talking shop and network of trade and technical support for developing nations, it should be truly global, not based on the historic British empire, with the present British monarch as its head.

[2] International organisations (notably the UN and Amnesty International) already exist to promote education, human rights and equality worldwide. The Harare Declaration is simply an empty repetition of these organisations’ principles. Trading blocs such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the EU, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which are based on real economic and political interests, foster international trade. In all its supposed roles, the Commonwealth is merely duplicating functions performed better by other international organisations.

[3] The Commonwealth is a sham. Its members, especially powerful ones such as Britain, will always act in accordance with self-interest rather than in alliance with their Commonwealth colleagues. In 1986, Britain refused to place sanctions upon South Africa even though the Commonwealth voted in favour of sanctions, and Rwanda was allowed to join in 2009 in spite of its dubious democratic and human rights credentials, just because of Britain’s alliance with it.

[4] The Commonwealth is indecisive and impotent. Despite declarations in Singapore in 1971 and Harare in 1991, asserting obvious moral truths about the iniquities of oppression, racism, sexism and so on, the Commonwealth has no means of enforcing its principles or curtailing human rights abuses. The leaked memo in 2010 showing that the Secretary General had banned staff from speaking out about human rights abuses is a perfect example; it is so preoccupied by not offending anyone that it fails to take decisive actions.

Cons

[1] The British Commonwealth is a lasting testimony to how injustice and oppression can be transformed into co-operation and harmony, using the linguistic and historical links of post-colonial nations in a positive way. The nations of the Commonwealth share English as a first or major language and are almost all independently governed by parliamentary systems modelled on the British one. Moreover, Rwanda’s accession in 2009 points towards a new future for the Commonwealth as an organisation based on those values, but without the historical baggage of colonialism.

[2] There is room in the world for many such organisations with particular emphases and interests. Membership of the UN and membership of the Commonwealth are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the Commonwealth performs numerous functions that are simply more about ’soft power’ than economic or military might; for instance, the Commonwealth Games bring nations together, and the Commonwealth Foundation funds valuable inter- cultural exchanges.

[3] Powerful countries such as Britain can afford to ignore the policies and interests of the rest of the Commonwealth, and they sometimes do, unfortunately. But the real beneficiaries are the less developed and less powerful countries (e.g. Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sierra Leone, Tonga, The Gambia), whose heads of state can negotiate with the big world players at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, and can foster bilateral trade agreements and programmes of technical co-operation and education through the NGOs of the Commonwealth network. Moreover, Britain does also sometimes offer assistance to Commonwealth member states, such as its highly successful intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000.

[4] It is acknowledged that the Commonwealth is not an agency for the enforcement of international law — it is a low- budget network of mutual co-operation. The principles of democracy, equality, rule of law and individual freedom are not at all obvious in many developing countries — e.g. in the case of women’s rights or child labour, which the Commonwealth combats through educational programmes. Moreover, suspension from the Commonwealth is a powerful indicator of international disapproval that can also rally other international organisations to take action.

Possible motions

This House would abolish the Commonwealth.

This House believes that the Commonwealth is a hangover from history.

Related topics

Immigration, limitation of

United Nations, failure of the

Should Britain leave the EU?