I think of the modern Commonwealth as a happy accident. If it did not exist it would neither be necessary nor perhaps possible to invent it. Not all member-states value Commonwealth membership for the same reasons or to the same extent. But neither of these truisms are a problem.

Following the transition from empire and the end of apartheid, the association is searching for a meaning. The ‘democratic world order’ thought possible with the advent of The End of History, the Washington Consensus and articulated in the Commonwealth via the Harare Principles – has not yet materialised.

At CHOGMs the Heads of Government review the world situation at length. Their views on world affairs feature prominently in the Communiqués, which invariably record the Commonwealth’s solidarity with Cyprus in its dispute with Turkey and with Belize in rejecting Venezuelan territorial claims, but by convention remain silent about the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.

CMAG – the body set up to deal with serious or persistent violations of the Commonwealth’s fundamental values – may be frustrating, but it takes the Commonwealth a step further than other international organisations. Similarly the Secretary General’s “good offices” are certainly commendable. However, the association has its well recorded limitations. Indeed, non-interference in the internal affairs of its members, even if they flaunt the association’s fundamental values, is very much the hallmark of post-colonial Commonwealth relations.

This leaves us to find the value of the Commonwealth in its ‘framework for informal cooperation between members’ and through ‘the mutual exercise of soft power’. From this point of view, the recent election of a distinguished Indian diplomat to the post of Secretary-General is evidence of the Commonwealth’s profile in the emerging world order.

At a time when India seems set to play a prominent international role, it is not only significant but encouraging that the Indian Government should have regarded the Commonwealth as an appropriate association within which to project its growing influence. This happy accident of history may now have found a new role.

Martin Mulloy is the English-Speaking Union’s Director of Education. The English-Speaking Union is an international charity founded in 1918 to promote international understanding and friendship through the use of the English language.

Transcript:

The English-Speaking Union promotes international understanding through the use of the English language. As we know, one of the unifying aspects of the Commonwealth is this common use of English. In practical terms, how does this use of English unite people from very different Commonwealth countries?

Well, I always think of English now as not so much a language; in fact, there’s a famous quote from a Foreign Minister in Germany who said that English isn’t a language as Portuguese, Greek or Spanish indeed is a language, English has become something more, it is the lingua franca for operating all across the world, and I think it’s just a tremendous vehicle to allow people from diverse cultures and countries to be able to speak to each other.

Newly-admitted to the Commonwealth is Rwanda, as of last week, following in the footsteps of Mozambique, which speaks Portuguese. Do you think this dilutes something essential to the Commonwealth?

No, the very opposite. I have referred to English as a means of communication, and we do know nowadays that a great deal of English is spoken by countries and people for whom English is not a first language, because of its power as a lingua franca. But there is another aspect; I think that perhaps countries like Rwanda, and indeed Mozambique, and I understand there are other non English-speaking countries possibly joining in the future, and I think they join the Commonwealth for a range of reasons, and one of them may be that perhaps countries are like people; they want to belong to communities, and communities which perhaps reflect a set of interests that they feel is important. So, Rwanda joining the Commonwealth is something I see as something positive. The bigger the embrace, the more common the interests, the better. I see this as a positive move.

Finally, a recent British Council study has found that less and less Indians are speaking English- obviously the largest and most populous country in the Commonwealth- and, in fact, there are more English-speakers in China than there are in India. With a rising India, and a rising China, is the use of English really still that important?

I think it most certainly is. The key issue here is the aspect of English as a lingua franca. A Chinese businessman speaking to, perhaps, a Brazilian businessman will be speaking English, more than likely, as the common language of communication. I’ll come back to India in a second. You mentioned China; China is also promoting the use of Mandarin, it has launched, I believe, ‘Confucius Centres’ throughout the world to promote the use of Mandarin. But it takes many, many years for this to happen; I mean English has had several centuries, for a whole host of reasons- political, imperial, business and media, web communications now- to gain an ascendancy. It will take an equivalent for perhaps Mandarin to have that same sort of currency in the world. The same could apply to India, and Indian languages. I understand that there are periods when a country wants to promote its own national identity and culture, and perhaps views English as eroding that. But, equally, English is a part of India, it is an official language, and the question is not how Indians will communicate internally, within India, but how they will communicate externally, with the world at large. English exists as a global entity, as I said at the beginning of this, it’s almost more than a language, in its role. So I don’t see this as a bad thing or a good thing, simply as a natural cycle.

Former Secretary General of the Commonwealth Sir Sonny Ramphal reflects on his time in office (1975-1990)

In an article for The Round Table published in October 2001, Gott thinks the Commonwealth should encourage us to see imperial history through the eyes of its former subjects. He claims the current British government comments rashly on developments in other Commonwealth countries because it retains an air of empire.

He thinks the British education system should emphasise multiple imperial narratives, ranging from the dominant British narrative of imperial triumphalism to the narratives of aboriginal rebels.

He concludes that the countries of today’s Commonwealth must draw on a range of experiences in their historical teaching. The Empire will never go away, and its legacy continues to create havoc in places as diverse as Israel, Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka. It is important we fully understand its impact on all.

What are your own experiences of learning about the Empire and its legacy?

You can read the full article, free of charge, here, and feel free to leave any comments below

Gott, Richard, What can the Commonwealth learn from its history?, The Round Table Vol. 90 No. 362, 673-677, October 2001]

Established by Royal Charter in 1917, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission pays tribute to the 1,700,000 men and women of the Commonwealth forces who died in the two world wars. In an interview for the Commonwealth Conversation, Sir Ian Garnet, the Vice-Chairman of the CWGC talks about the links between the commission’s work and the people of the Commonwealth today.

Transcript:

What are the origins of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission?

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission started off as the Imperial War Graves Commission, and it’s really due to one man, Sir Fabian Ware, who went to France in September 1915 with the Red Cross, and very soon he became concerned that no-one was responsible for marking and maintaining the increasing number of graves of the casualties of the First World War, on the Western Front. And so eventually he persuaded the authorities, the U.K. authorities, to form a Graves Registration Commission that began to mark and record all the graves in that part of the world. And that grew to become, in 1917, the Imperial War Graves Commission. That Charter that was produced contains the core tasks of the Commission, now the Commonwealth War Graves Commission; they are to mark and maintain the graves of Commonwealth soldiers, sailors and airmen who were killed in the First and Second World Wars, to maintain memorials for those who have no graves, and to maintain records.

How relevant is the Commission’s work to the people of the Commonwealth nowadays?

If you think of the many thousands of Commonwealth citizens, a total of 1.7 million from both World Wars, who gave their lives for the Commonwealth, what we do today, looking after the graves and memorials of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, is hugely important. There are thousands of people whose ancestors gave their lives fighting for the Commonwealth. And, of course, we have to remember, in the First World War many thousands of people who fought for the Empire, as it was called then, considered they were British citizens; they happened to be in Canada or Australia or New Zealand or India, but actually they felt they were fighting for their home country, Great Britain, within the Empire. So all the people today who get in touch with us through our website-and we get upwards of half a million hits a month-visit our many cemeteries-and there are over 23, 000 burial plots around the world, 2000 in France alone, in fact, a third of our casualties are in France- they come to visit our cemeteries to see where their ancestors, where their family members, fought and died, for, not just to say a country, but for the Commonwealth.

What does visiting a Commonwealth cemetery or memorial mean to you personally?

To me, it means how much the Commonwealth meant to the people whose graves I see, and the memorials I see. When I see, to name but a few, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, the many thousands of volunteers from undivided India, it means to me that those people were prepared to come and fight and give their lives for their country and the Commonwealth, and that makes me feel very humble, very humble indeed.

This post was written by Hugh Craft, a senior Australian diplomat and former Director of Political Affairs Division, Commonwealth Secretariat (1979-88)

An international intergovernmental organisation, like the Commonwealth, can be assessed as performing well (or badly) on the basis of two factors: functionality, how it performs in fulfilling its prescribed mandate(s); and outcomes, its results, actions, consequences and the value of its products.

As to functional integrity, the modern Commonwealth’s only prescribed ‘mandate’ is to work for the peaceful resolution of conflict, democratic governance and the rule of law, sustainable economic and social development.

The best indicator of success is that these principles are still relevant to the aspirations of its member states. Yet, strangely, some serious threats to the Commonwealth’s effective future come from member states themselves.

• First, member governments perpetuate outdated and uneven budgetary arrangements, largely unchanged in 60 years and dependent on the British. Key members, developed and developing alike, need to accept greater responsibility for providing their fair share of funding.
• Second, and related, is the relatively recent emphasis by developing countries on constant reviews of the Secretariat, resulting in skewed priorities and fewer resources in the field.
• Third, the Commonwealth needs robust leadership, both from individuals and governments within its ranks. This includes a progressive, imaginative and bold Secretariat, sometimes adventurous in the spirit of Sonny Ramphal (former Secretary-General).

If the Commonwealth wants to attract funding, it needs to constantly lift its performance and maintain a keen sense of focus. But leadership is also needed from governments who understand the value and utility of Commonwealth diplomacy and are prepared to use it.

As to performance, the Commonwealth’s record is mixed but mainly positive. That it exercised a major positive role in South Africa and Zimbabwe in the 1980s is undisputed.  Similarly, its contribution in support of democratic institutions in the Maldives, Uganda, Tonga, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Zanzibar and Guyana are all good examples.

Furthermore, its continuing leadership on small states and its intellectual and political contribution to world economic and trade initiatives are widely recognised.

However, the seeming incapacity of the Commonwealth to play any significant role in critical issues involving member states and which pose major security concerns to the international community remains a major negative. These include the virtual ‘no go’ areas such as the ongoing disputes between India and Pakistan, the civil war in Sri Lanka and the recalcitrant Cyprus problem. Similarly, lingering unresolved issues such as the rehabilitation of Zimbabwe and affirming a constructive role for CMAG as its ‘watchdog’ especially in Pakistan and Fiji, remain.

New challenges bring the chance of wider relevance: its most recent members joining from unexpected sources and the threat of climate change to small island states. Who else speaks for them?

In the end, success for international organisations is judged on the practical, qualitative difference they make on the ground to people’s lives and prospects. There is a renewed interest in multilateralism that provides the Commonwealth with opportunities to prove itself again. The ‘moment’ needs to be grasped to sustain the Commonwealth’s relevance and value into the 21^st century.

Just as the Crown was essential to the evolution of the world’s most successful system of governance, the Westminster model, so it has been at the very centre of the long evolution of the Commonwealth.

No one has put The Queen’s personal contribution as Head of the Commonwealth more clearly than did the thirteen year old Australian youth ambassador, Harry White at the opening of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games:

‘Your Majesty, during the past 54 years of your reign you have been the glue that has held us all together in the great Commonwealth of Nations in good times and bad times. The love and great affection that we all hold for you is spread across one third of the world’s population in our Commonwealth.’

Most citizens of the Commonwealth have known no other Head. Only the elderly remember her father the dutiful King George VI, and the immense feeling of sadness that descended on the Commonwealth on his untimely demise.

It is hard to imagine the end of this present reign, but when it comes there will be again great sadness but recognition, not only in the Commonwealth, but across the world, for her lifetime of impeccable service. Indeed it is probable she will give her name to the long post war era.

Attention will inevitably then turn to the Coronation of the King, and incidentally, to the new Prince of Wales. It is inconceivable that at this momentous time, the Heads of Government would even entertain a suggestion that the central and indeed crucial office of the Head of the Commonwealth should rotate among themselves. This would not only be unworkable, it would be unacceptable. Such a Head of the Commonwealth could never be seen to transcend politics and division as the new Sovereign will immediately demonstrate as the constitutional monarch of not one but sixteen diverse countries.

That the Heads of Government will not immediately accept King Charles III is unrealistic. It is as unrealistic as expecting that when the Archbishop invites the Coronation congregation in Westminster Abbey to do homage and service to him, they would actually refuse.

Admittedly there has been a disgraceful and mischievous campaign against him by rogue elements in the British media, two of whom were convicted for their criminal activities. This campaign has centred on the sort of caricature journalism used against his father, and appallingly, even his young sons. But the fact is Prince Charles commands increasing considerable international respect.

At the recent Group of 20 meeting in London he called – and chaired – a crucial and very effective meeting at the highest levels to preserve the world?s rainforests. Participants included the Indonesian President, the World Bank President, the German Chancellor, the Japanese, Italian, Australian, Guyanese, and Norwegian Prime Ministers, the President of the European Union Commission, Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, the British Foreign Secretary and the Brazilian Foreign Minister. At a time when most are thinking of retirement, he works to fund a whole suite of worthy charities, raising close to a quarter of billion dollars annually.

There can be no doubt that as Head of the Commonwealth he will attract increased international standing for this organisation which by its attachment to principle and enforcement of standards is attracting greater international respect.

Tell us what you think?

The Guardian, Friday 19 July 2002

When I was asked to write this article, I rang up friends and family and did a quick vox pop: “What did it mean to you to grow up in the Commonwealth?” There were lots of silences. Then: “The Commonwealth? You mean Jamaica/Australia/Barbados/Kenya/India/Canada?” The question seemed bizarre to all of us. I dug further: “No, the Commonwealth. What does that mean to you?” The words flooded back: archaic, meaningless, colonialism, imperialism. And repeatedly: “What does it mean to me? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.” I suspect it means very little to a lot of English people as well. . .

But let me provide a definition of my own. A footprint from the past. Yep, that’s right. A footprint in the sand of the island that nurtured me, that taught me who I was and who I always will be. One thing that all members of the Commonwealth have in common is that they all have a particular link with Britain’s imperial past – as trust territories, protectorates and colonies. In short, we once belonged to somebody. Perhaps that is why we don’t try to remember, and why we feel nothing. . .

The fact that many, many residents of the Commonwealth feel no connection with this “strong but elastic link” to an imperial past is, I dare say, not particularly surprising. . .

Click here to read the rest of Leone Ross’s?article on The Guardian website.

And then let us know what you think below?. . .

Dr. Kenneth Kaunda

Fraser said that ‘if Zimbabwe was one of the Commonwealth’s greatest successes, it is also one of its greatest failures’. Kaunda said that the ‘road to recovery that we are now witnessing in Zimbabwe shows that she belongs to the Commonwealth’. Neither predicted that the country to which the Commonwealth gave birth in 1979 would end up leaving in 2003.

In interviews conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society, Fraser and Kaunda said that the Commonwealth can achieve great things if only leaders would make better use of it and take it seriously as a forum to enact change.

The Lusaka Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) took place 30 years ago this week in August 1979. Paving the way for Rhodesian independence, it was a turning point in the history of southern Africa and a defining moment in the life of the Commonwealth.

After a two day retreat at the historic meeting, leaders emerged with a commitment to genuine majority rule in Rhodesia and a promise from British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to hold a London conference Lancaster House  ‘that led to Zimbabwean independence in 1980. The Lusaka Declaration on Racism and Racial Prejudice was a clarion call to equality, and remains a fundamental Commonwealth document today.

Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister of Australia from 1975-1983, said:

The Lusaka conference was critical. It showed that the Commonwealth could achieve things that many other organisations could not. If the Commonwealth is to survive as an effective organisation, it should not be shy and retiring. Current leaders, and a strong Secretary-General, must put more effort in to make sure that the Commonwealth achieves its potential.

Dr. Kenneth D. Kaunda, President of Zambia from 1964-1991, said:

The Lusaka CHOGM showed the Commonwealth’s commitment to peace and justice. We actually achieved something, rather than just talking about what should happen. As Heads of Government then, we took the Commonwealth very seriously. We now need to strengthen the organisation, and raise its profile.

Dr. Danny Sriskandarajah, Director of the RCS said:

Lusaka was the Commonwealth at its best. In the 1970s and 80s, the association showed a radical dynamism that today?s leaders would do well to remember. Through the Commonwealth Conversation, the largest ever public consultation about the future of the Commonwealth, the RCS hopes to help the association recapture the spirit of Lusaka.

Read the full transcripts of the Fraser and Kaunda interviews

Thirty years after the Lusaka conference which pushed the British Government and Zimbabwean nationalists towards a settlement that led to independence, Trevor Grundy has written that the Commonwealth Conversation is trying to revitalise an organisation which saw its heyday in the seventies and eighties.

The Conversation comes almost exactly 30 years after the famous August 1979 CHOGM in Lusaka, Zambia, a gathering of Club leaders who used their influence to persuade the British Government to arrange a constitutional conference in London (Lancaster House) which effectively ended the seven-year Rhodesian War that claimed at least 30, 000 deaths.

Central to the success of the 1979 CHOGM was the presence of Queen Elizabeth 11, the determination of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to act as a bridge between Britain and the Africans and the leadership of President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Dr Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia.

At the end of that historic CHOGM, Zambia’s music loving leader Dr Kenneth Kaunda partnered Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a waltz that has become part of the Commonwealth legend. Thereafter Kaunda always referred to Mrs Thatcher as “my old dancing partner.”

Will the Commonwealth ever see such historic moments again? Or is its ability to influence on the world stage permanently diminished?

Trevor Grundy’s article originally appeared in The Zimbabwean, a newspaper written for and by Zimbabweans in exile.