Romesh Gunesekera: ‘Its real strength is that the US is not in it’
Posted by AlexT - 25/08/09 at 04:08 pm
The full version of this article by Romesh Gunesekera appeared in the Guardian on 19 July 2002.
‘Commonwealth” is not a word I ever used, growing up in Colombo. There, in the late 1950s, it would have meant little more than New Zealand lamb and Anchor butter at the cold stores. Or perhaps a cricket almanac: a set of fixtures around the world with a common set of complicated rules understood only by the select few. Even “empire”, out of which the Commonwealth was invented, was not in my ordinary vocabulary. Rock’n'roll, more likely.
My first inkling of what the Commonwealth might really mean came only when I escaped the oddly British-tinged Asia I had known and went to live in the Philippines. There, the modern imperial power was visibly America, not Britain, the metropolitan magnet California, not England, and colonial Europe was a shipwrecked dream of Spain.
The Commonwealth was not the English language; that had plainly moved well beyond exclusive ownership by any single entity long ago. Manila proved it. Perhaps then, I thought, the Commonwealth might be a habit. Australians had it, Indians had it, visitors from Singapore, Hong Kong and Kenya also had it. Not a big deal. But, as people said, kind of quaint. A bit of shared history.
As a keen Commonwealth supporter put it to me the other day: “Not everyone in government wants Britain to be seen always shoulder to bigger shoulder.” The strength of the Commonwealth, he claimed, is not in its declarations of good governance, non-discrimination, democracy and human rights. Its real strength is that it is one of the few worldwide associations that the US is not in.
Category : My Commonwealth, The Commonwealth's Relevance, homepage items
Tags: Britain, Colombo, colonial, My Commonwealth, USA
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
The Commonwealth also has a Monarch (the spiritual symbolic Head) and a Secretary General who leads all the secular work.
United Commonwealth of Corruption (USA) just has a president (secular despot or demi god).
The argument for having a Monarch as Head and a Secretary General doing the secular work is now pretty powerful, even irresistible.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:15 am
The Commonwealth is very much a potential escape route from the cultural hemogeny of the USA.
While some may argue that it’s out of the frying pan into the fire – an American hemogeny replaced by a British one – this is self-evidently not the case when one looks at the state of British cultural exports nowadays. No fears on that score.
But the USA does wish to subsume. That is and always has been its primary and overriding policy throughout history – one that Britain has abdicated, and rightly so, over the last fifty years.
The Commonwealth should both allow older, richer nations like the UK and Canada to stand apart from US policy (both economic and diplomatic), and give the younger, developing nations an equal footing in which to build Fair-trade structures without signing over large tracts of land to American (or indeed European of Chinese) interests. It is to the Commonwealth’s shame that over the last few decades unfettered capitalism – if you like, the worst of Imperialism – has been allowed to continue in Africa and Asia without any safety net in place for communities The Shell oil refineries in Ghana being a good example. There are no benefits and plenty of difficulties incurred by having a big ol’ derrick on your doorstep.
Britain is just as guilty as the USA on that score – as are all the developed Member States. But member states have shown the capactity to change policy massively and positively: a heretofore unknown concept in the USA. The Commonwealth has been the vehicle for these changes and can be so again.
The Commonwealth should be brokering FAIR trade agreements – ones which result in reciprocal benefits for the producers and consumers. In this way it can distance itself from the US primarly policy… of self-gratification at any cost.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
An escape from the US yes… but I don?t think Gunesekera is particular fond of either empire, as he sees them, US or British.
The Commonwealth provides an opportunity for Britain not to be eclipsed on a world stage. This is what his keen supporter meant in the last paragraph.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Romesh Gunesekera raises an interesting question: If the USA requested it, would it be allowed to join the Commonwealth?
Apart from requiring recognition of the Head of the Commonwealth, the current membership rules are open enough for it to be possible. They require a prospective member to have “constitutional association” with existing members or “a substantial relationship with the Commonwealth or a particular group of its members”.
While the US would never join an organisation that required it to ‘bow down’ before the British Monarchy or any other symbolic leader, this is not a strong reason to keep the British Monarch or the position of head of state. Retaining an aristocratic European symbol just to ward off the ‘evil empire’ is too simplistic. (Gunesekera is not saying that of course but I know others will)
As I see it, his question is actually about three things.
The strong linguistic, cultural, economic, military links between the USA and Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (In many ways stronger than the ties that bind these four to the Commonwealth);
The USA empire’s ability to dominate any organisation it belongs to; and
Its willingness to sign, but then ignore, any international agreement when doesn’t suit its interests.
Allowing the ‘Eschelon Group’ (so named for their joint Military Global Surveillance agreement)to come together within the Commonwealth would dramatically alter the balance of power in favour of the four existing members (and the English speaking culture that dominates each). Clearly smaller, poorer countries of the Commonwealth would be further disadvantaged.
The USA would also have to show a commitment to the values of the Commonwealth. It might therefore be invited to join if it could prove to the Commonwealth’s it had a commitment to international law and ideally to acknowledging the wrongs perpetrated against every tribal people, nation and country it has ever oppressed, invaded or colonised.
The chances of this happening is very low. Even if one administration began a process like this the next would overrule it.
If the power of the United States is a worry to most of the member states (as it is to every nation on earth) then perhaps Commonwealth members could concentrate on demonstrating a stronger commitment to democracy, international law and equality then the USA has. In order to ensure such values are always in the ascendancy within English speaking discourse.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Savage’s comments are correct – and the parameters that the USA would have to fall into are pretty much impossible for a nation with the existing mentality that the US corrently possesses. Though there is something wonderfully entertaining about the idea of Monarchy as a ward against America, much as garlic wards off vampires. (This metaphor becomes more appropriate at every reading)
I think the primary function of the Commonwealth is to balance the interests of the powerful members and the less powerful. It is a moral organisation, and should not allow the world’s only superpower, with its fundamentally amoral policy, into the fold. Remember Kyoto…
August 29th, 2009 at 10:39 am
To an extent, those echoing the sentiments of remaining with the Commonwealth from Jamaica will ring true to some veterans in Fiji.
At least Jamaica did get raped by military opportunist like Fiji who now have slid back into World Poverty Index as one of the very poorer nations.
During the rule of Commonwealth in Fiji, the nation had been protected from the harsh realities it faces now.
At least Jamaicans can boast of being taken back under the Commonwealth fold. As for Fiji, the Brits would not even give Fiji a second chance as it is infested with problems brought upon it by military thugs. And the sad thing is the ordinary people & business enterprises suffers the consequences of military dictatorship. Meanwhile, these military opportunist get to drive flash cars, earn good salaries, run the Nations coffers to the ground by borrowing large sum of money from foreign powers who have no vested interest in human rights abuse being committed by the military regime.
At least Fiji citizens be they in Fiji or living abroad will fight on to attain the freedom of their beloved country Fiji.
Down with the military dictator & his regime.
At the very least the Commonwealth can stop pussyfooting and take a tough stand against Fiji.
August 29th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Amendment:
Para 2. above shud read, quote, “Atleast Jamaica did not get raped by military….
FT
August 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The strength of the Commonwealth, he claimed, is not in its declarations of good governance, non-discrimination, democracy and human rights.
A lot of Commonwealth countries bear testimony tothe fact that DECLARATIONS of good governance, non-discrimination, democracy and human rights aren’t enough whether the US or any other member is in it or not.
For the oppressed people in some of the Commonwealth countries, internal oppressors prove to be more lethal than external oppressors.
Fourth World Colonialism, Indigenous Minorities And Tamil Separatism In Sri Lanka, Bryan Pfaffenberger (Virginia University), Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 16, 1984:
”Despite the withdrawal of colonial power from Third World countries, forms of oppression that might well be termed “colonial” still persist in many of them ? the oppression wrought by nationalist Third World governments whose regimes fail to respect the rights of indigenous minorities. For ethnic and regional minorities in many Third World countries, the arrogance and injustice of these governments matches ? and often exceeds ? those of the departed European colonial regime. The island nation Sri Lanka presents a case in point.”
August 29th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I totally agree with bobski(45).
Having the queen as the Head is inconsistent with the evolution of our thinking in social sciences – when millions are being denied even their basic rights by their own oppressive governments how can one have all these ”rights by birth” – and when individuals are trying to reduce their ecological footprinting, what does the Queen think of her ecological footprinting when we are all splitting our heads about how to save the planet for our future generations?
August 29th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Oops, sorry.
I was going to post the above comment under the thread on the Queen.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Prof Galtang said:
”external colonialism:democracy::
internal colonialism:human rights”
International community, please please please take note. Please don’t let intrastate conflicts grow too long.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Experienced researchers of conflicts say intrastate conflicts are much more vicious than interstate conflicts and need third party to resolve them.
Commonwealth countries, please note.
September 20th, 2009 at 6:44 am
I agree that one of the Commonwealth’s strengths is that the USA is not in it. This allows countires another chnace to persue foreign policy and other arrangements away from the sometimes intimidating influence of the United States.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:05 am
?Not everyone in government wants Britain to be seen always shoulder to bigger shoulder.?
So the greatest strength of the Commonwealth is that it allows the Britain to be #1 for a change instead of always being overshadowed by the US ….
RFLowings said: “Though there is something wonderfully entertaining about the idea of Monarchy as a ward against America”
I couldn’t agree more and I certainly find it incredibly entertaining to watch the idea that some people are born better than others trying to hold off the idea that all people are created equal.
But if you’re cheering for Monarchy you might want to check the score.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
the Commonwealth makes England feel important.
Well it did in the 60s and 70s.
Ask a nigerian or a kenyan which nation they love or like or feel culturally attracted too.. the answer is the US.
I doubt the poll results for India – young girls their talk about paris hilton and britney spears.
England and the Commonwealth has had its day on the world stage.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
DevonM,
Where are you from? I doubt much of what you say.
In a trivial sense, I doubt it because as any fule know, it’s the UK or GB rather than the politically meaningless “England”. This is not the mark of someone with much understanding of British affairs.
In a more serious sense, I doubt it because the Commonwealth is less heard of and less celebrated in the UK than it is in many of the other Commonwealth countries. This is hardly the mark of a nation drunk on the ego-trip of colonial memories!
So no, I very much doubt that the Commonwealth exists to make the UK feel important. Most people here don’t even know it exists, and certainly wouldn’t recognise its flag.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
One great thing about the Commonwealth is that it is so diverse, yet still held together by history and a will for the future.