Lord David Howell, Deputy Conservative Leader in the House of Lords and Chair of the 1996 Foreign Affairs Committee report on the Future of the Commonwealth, stresses how everyone seems to be noticing the Commonwealth except in the UK. His article gives some ‘Royal Foreign Policy Advice’.

Has anyone noticed how, in the evolving global order of things, the Commonwealth is climbing steadily up the agenda of importance, relevance and potential? The Queen has certainly noticed, and devoted half her Christmas Day broadcast to explaining how the Commonwealth was ‘in lots of ways the face of the future’. Her husband has also noticed, and through his support for the Duke of Edinburgh’s Commonwealth Study Conference (next one due in 2013) is responding precisely to HM’s call for the Commonwealth to gather young people together to ‘bring creativity and innovation’ to global challenges, as well as practical solutions..

The President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy also seems to have noticed, because it was he who turned up at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago to seek stronger support from the Commonwealth network  for his international aims. And so has the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, also attending the Trinidad gathering.

So also have leading Japanese politicians, who now make regular enquiries about Commonwealth events and ask to attend them. So have a lengthening queue of smaller states applying for membership, of which the latest to be admitted is cricket-playing, and now English-learning, Rwanda.

So have a whole raft of international business investors who are moving growing volumes of capital and technology from one part of the Commonwealth to another – e.g from Canada to the Caribbean, from India to South Africa, from Australia to Malaysia – in a criss-cross pattern of south-south capital flows which are replacing the old north-south stereotypes.  

But come nearer home and things look rather different. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) publications studiously downgrade the development of the Commonwealth network in their international priorities, putting the UN and the EU top of the list, and forgetting the ‘C’ in their nameplate.

For the Tories, William Hague has been making increasingly strong statements about the emerging Commonwealth soft power network and its growing significance for British interests, but Hague is not yet in the Government and has yet to contend with the blinkered disdain of the Whitehall foreign policy establishment.

What is it about this colossal trans-continental network, covering almost a third of the human race, that excites the wider world and yet attracts so little interest in London?

First there is history and second there is suspicion of rivalry with other current objectives.

The history problem is that with the end of empire the Commonwealth came to be seen a  sort of compensation, a Britain-centred club or talking shop  for remembering the old days, along with plenty of post-colonial grumbles, a touch of nostalgia and not much else. It was simply not noticed that out of the old chrysalis was emerging an entirely new entity, composed not of  mostly struggling low-income states but of some of the world’s most dynamic and fastest–growing economies and markets, and with booming India, not  Britain as its centrepiece. Nor was it noticed –and still in many quarters has not yet been – that in the information age the subtle commonalties and interfaces of Commonwealth membership were becoming just as important to British national interests and security as traditional hard power deployments – possibly more so.

The other hang-up – that somehow giving a more central place in UK foreign policy to the Commonwealth network distracts from Britain’s other priorities on the world stage, notably effective membership of the EU, of the Atlantic Alliance and the UN, reveals even weaker understanding of the new international architecture. There is no conflict at all between being good Europeans, with strong commitment to regional cooperation and interests, and stronger Commonwealth ties. Perhaps there was once, way back when the UK first joined the European Community, but that was many yesterdays ago in a world of different trade patterns, different communication patterns and different distributions of power.

On the contrary, the UK might well be doing rather better in the unending manoeuvres and tussles over the EU’s future between integrationists and decentralisers, (of which the Lisbon Treaty is only one pause in a constant struggle), if it had put Commonwealth network interests more vigorously to the fore. Besides, the EU and the Commonwealth are two quite different components of the 21^st century global system – the one seeking to consolidate regional bargaining power and solidarity of broadly similar cultures, the other linking together in a fascinating mosaic of formal and informal ties and associations a far wider grouping of powers, cultures and philosophies. (The last UK Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on The Future of the Commonwealth, counted 202 non-governmental Commonwealth organizations and 46 official ones).

Is the expanding Commonwealth network treading on UN toes? Again, the answer is that it offers a different kind of platform on which nations can cooperate – and one which is more friendly and intimate, especially for smaller nations. It should be seen as a necessary 21^st century add-on or reinforcement to the world’s 20^th century institutions. 

The weaknesses of the UN system were on agonising display at Copenhagen. The strengths of the Commonwealth system were very visible, for anyone who cared to study them, when they addressed climate issues, security and peace-keeping issues, development dilemmas, common problems from the financial turmoil fall-out and a host of other immediate challenges at their recent Trinidad gathering. When it comes to resolving the core conflict of the age between sustainable future growth and defeating present poverty – which more or less sunk the Copenhagen gathering –  the dialogue between today’s and tomorrow’s Commonwealth leaders seems to offer a distinctly better – and happier – forum for the key reconciliation of purposes the world now requires.

We are seeing here the new international system in action. And if the question is ‘what’s in it for the UK?’, the answer is that it is increasingly good for business. As the balance of global power shifts eastwards and outwards the modern Commonwealth network now links us into some of the world’s fastest expanding markets and largest sources of savings and capital investment, at a time when the limping West badly needs both.  

The Commonwealth is indeed, in the Queen’s phrase, ‘the face of the future’. But are the Queen’s Ministers and subjects listening?

H.M. The Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, highlighted the Commonwealth’s Relevance in its 60th Anniversary Year during her 2009 Christmas Broadcast.  Her speech also featured video interviews with delegates at the Commonwealth Youth Forum in Trinidad and Tobago.

It is sixty years since the Commonwealth was created and today, with more than a billion of its members under the age of 25, the organisation remains a strong and practical force for good. Recently I attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago and heard how important the Commonwealth is to young people. New communication technologies allow them to reach out to the wider world and share their experiences and viewpoints. For many, the practical assistance and networks of the Commonwealth can give skills, lend advice and encourage enterprise.

It is inspiring to learn of some of the work being done by these young people, who bring creativity and innovation to the challenges they face. It is important to keep discussing issues that concern us all – there can be no more valuable role for our family of nations.

I have been closely associated with the Commonwealth through most of its existence. The personal and living bond I have enjoyed with leaders, and with people the world over, has always been more important in promoting our unity than symbolism alone. The Commonwealth is not an organisation with a mission. It is rather an opportunity for its people to work together to achieve practical solutions to problems.

In many aspects of our lives, whether in sport, the environment, business or culture, the Commonwealth connection remains vivid and enriching. It is, in lots of ways, the face of the future. And with continuing support and dedication, I am confident that this diverse Commonwealth of nations can strengthen the common bond that transcends politics, religion, race and economic circumstances.

Sir Peter’s article starts the debate:

“The London Declaration of 26 April 1949, made by Commonwealth Prime Ministers, was an act of statesmanship of rare insight and imagination, as was its approval by King George VI. It paved the way for the emergence of a voluntary forward- and outward-looking association of sovereign, independent governments and peoples, alive to their common values and traditions, and concious of the contribution they can together bring to making the world a better place. The Commonwealth is an international asset as well as a boon to its members”.

Zoe’s article, written from the perspective of the new generation, comes at the 60th birthday from a different angle:

“The Commonwealth must pay particular attention to creating a positive first impression on young people, so that it can be defined through the relevance of its current actions rather than through history books. In a crowded international marketplace, the Commonwealth must identify a Unique Selling Point that will be of long-term value to its members, and prove that it can do things and reach places that other international associations cannot. Its shared commitments and values give the Commonwealth the potential to be a true voice of moral authority on the world stage. Yet until the Commonwealth can truly be defined by its Harare principles, rather than with reference to the historical bonds that originally threw it together, it will struggle to transcend the inaccurate image which young people hold of it. The article concludes by looking forward to the global challenges, questions of membership and expansion, and the sensitive issue of Headship that the Commonwealth will be faced with before its 100th birthday.”

Read both articles for free using the links below, and let us know what you think.

Sir Peter Marshall, The Commonwealth at 60, The Round Table, Vol. 98, No. 404, 535-546, October 2009

Zo? Ware, The Commonwealth at 60: Thoughts from the New Generation, The Round Table, Vol. 98, No. 404, 547-554, October 2009

Sir Paul Reeves, the Commonwealth Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Fiji, says that the suspension of Fiji from the Commonwealth does not mean the expulsion of her people. In an interview just prior to his visit to Fiji on 8-9 September 2009, Sir Paul, who is the former Governor-General of New Zealand, said that he hopes the Commonwealth can continue to offer assistance in restoring democratic governance in Fiji.

In wide ranging other remarks, he said that he thinks that?conflict resolution, support for small states, and climate change should be the Commonwealth’s focus?for the 21st century. What do you think about what Sir Paul said? Let us know by leaving a comment below…

Savage, a co-founder of the New Zealand Republican Movement has written the following contribution to the Commonwealth Conversation:

There is a belief perpetuated in Britain and other Commonwealth countries that the British Empire was of benefit to the world. The greed and racism are forgotten. The invasions, wars, political oppression and genocide are downplayed. The poverty and inequality it created are conveniently ignored.

The damage caused by Britain’s imperial project is not something many British people want to accept. The overall approach is a self-deluding calculation. Weighing up the positive and negative, the overall achievements were positive. The empire was a good thing.

This ongoing debate about the Empire’s historical merits is relevant to the commonwealth conversation. It reminds us of the attitudes and values the Commonwealth has been left to deal with. Self-delusion was an integral part of the imperial project. Institutional inequality and a commitment to democracy could only co-exist if elaborate self-delusions were maintained. Without the historical fictions and cultural myths, the contradictions inherent in the whole project would have been exposed. The fa?ade of civility and ‘progress’ would have crumbled.

The Commonwealth is still dealing with the imperial legacy. It is now working to empower commonwealth citizens; to improve living conditions and enlarge political freedoms. To do this, however, it must also deal with the delusions and contradictions inherent in its own political structure. The privileged role of the Monarchy is the most obvious contradiction.

Recent comments by Danny Sriskandarajah, director of the Royal Commonwealth Society, highlight the issue. Arguing for a commonwealth with a post-colonial identity, he none the less maintains the fiction that ‘The Queen is almost universally adored all over the Commonwealth.’ The same myth ‘that everyone loves the Monarchy’ – is used by Professor David Flint, National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy as a reason why Charles should be the next head of the Commonwealth.

Such deference to the royal family is ingrained in the culture of both the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth secretariat. There is an unwillingness to accept that the British Monarchy was at the heart of the whole imperial project: That the royal family prospered at the expense of the commonwealth and that their political privileges represent the outdated and dangerous belief that hierarchy and inequality are beneficial.

Britain is now one country among many. There is no sound reason why the British head of state should be any more important within the Commonwealth than that of India or Nigeria or Malta. The Royal Family certainly does not deserve such a privilege.

The Republican Movement in New Zealand is cooperating with republican movements in Britain, Australia and Canada. The four groups want the same thing – an end to the constitutional inequalities inherent in having the Monarch as head of state. While each group campaigns in its own country, the overall republic project, if taken to its logical conclusion, must also include the Commonwealth.

Queen Elizabeth should abdicate her position as Head of the Commonwealth right now. By giving up her position she demonstrates to the Commonwealth that both democracy and equality are the guiding principles of the commonwealth. If this is too hard a task for someone who still believes in the fiction of imperial progress then it falls to her son to demonstrate it. Charles must stop campaigning to become the next head of the commonwealth. There is no longer a role for his family in the Commonwealth’s political structures.

The opinion expressed in this article is that of the author and may or may not coincide with the views of the Republican Movement of New Zealand.”

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 Declaration was agreed in 1949 at a meeting in Ten Downing Street of leaders of the eight Commonwealth countries which were then independent. It enabled India to remain in membership as a republic, creating the title Head of the Commonwealth and conferring it on King George VI.

Hitherto the head of state of all Commonwealth countries was the British monarch and there was no provision for a republic.

The Commonwealth is hugely misunderstood by its peoples, but nothing causes more confusion than this matter of the Headship, as the results of opinion polls commissioned by the Royal Commonwealth Society in seven member countries have just shown.

The common assumption is that the Headship is vested in the British monarchy. It is not. Under the 1949 declaration it was vested in the person of the King. He was accepted as the symbol of the free association and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.

George V1 died less than three years later. When that happened the Commonwealth still consisted of just the same eight members and on the nod Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth.

In fact Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India pre-empted any discussion by sending Elizabeth a message within hours of her accession in 1952 welcoming Your Majesty as the new Head of the Commonwealth.

Over the years since then the UK could have had four or five monarchs. After all, in the 50 years between Victoria and Elizabeth there were four kings. It turned out that the present Queen has already reigned for 57 years, spanning almost exactly the decolonisation of most of the Empire.

The London Declaration laid nothing down about the duties of the Head of the Commonwealth. He/she is simply the symbol.

The Queen has therefore created her own role and she has done so with enormous success.

Down the decades she has never, publicly at least, put a foot wrong. Conscientiously, she has met, and in many cases got to know very well, most of the presidents and prime ministers of the 53 Commonwealth member countries.

She has travelled to every Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) overseas since 1973, each time holding meetings and hosting functions for the leaders, and then departing as they begin their proceedings. Only since 1997 has she actually begun to address the conference beforehand.

In 1979, before the tense CHOGM in Lusaka, Zambia, that tackled independence for Zimbabwe, Mrs Thatcher advised the Queen not to travel. Aside from the political problems, the rebel government of Southern Rhodesia had been staging cross-border raids on Zambia.

The Queen, however, reminded Thatcher that on Commonwealth matters she took advice from all member governments, not just the British, and to Lusaka she went.

As she toured Zambia she received such a warm reception her presence helped to defuse much of the pre-conference political tension.

So what happens when the Queen dies?

Because of the lack of understanding of the London Declaration it has been generally assumed that Prince Charles will succeed. Yet that does not follow.

The downside would be that if this did happen it could help perpetuate the image of a British Commonwealth, which the organisation must totally throw off if it is to be seen as a truly international body.

When the time comes all Commonwealth countries will need to consult.

Over the years a great many confidential papers will have been written within governments, in Whitehall and in Buckingham Palace, none of which we will be released until long after change has come about.

There may be no satisfactory solution to the problem. If the position of Head of the Commonwealth is to be retained many weeks or even months of consultation will have to take place and that can hardly happen until the vacancy arises.

The possibility of a rotating Head has been floated. The opinion polls showed most people in India as many as 50 per cent – favoured that solution. But rotation could create real problems because it would politicise the position. Occasionally a Mandela figure might be available, but such people are a rarity.

With a secretary-general does the Commonwealth need a Head? Generally, other international organisations do not have such a figure.

Does anyone have any different ideas?

This article was written for the RCS by veteran Commonwealth journalist Derek Ingram.

Watch Lord Janvrin, former Private Secretary to H.M. The Queen, explain the Commonwealth’s unique role in bringing people together in an era of globalisation.

Q: Lord Janvrin, how do you think the Commonwealth can be relevant and add value?

Janvrin: I would like to make three points. The first is that we live in?an era of globalisation, and I think the Commonwealth is a unique organisation that spans continents and countries in different levels of development. It has a real role to play in helping people understand some of the global issues of climate change and?the economy in this day and age.

The second point is that I think it works best at a people-to-people level -the associations, the sporting levels -which bring people from all these countries of the Commonwealth together and where they can exchange views and compete together. These are the kinds of activities which are the real strengths of the Commonwealth.

My final point is that we shouldn’t take the organisation for granted. We need to ensure that younger people understand the importance of the Commonwealth and he role it can play in todays world. And thats why I certainly welcome the idea of the Commonwealth Conversation.

Do you agree with Lord Janvrin? Why not post a comment below?

The Guardian, Friday 19 July 2002

“I was born too late and missed the dream of empire. Its shadow, the Commonwealth, coincides with my life, but rarely connected with it. Perhaps if I had grown up only a few years earlier, as my elder brothers and sister had, in the 1950s, then I might be able to regale you with memories of Empire Day races, of standing up for God Save the Queen in cinemas, and teachers pointing to the world map on the wall and showing those countries around the world that were British – the pink bits, as everyone seems to remember them?

What supposedly bound that Commonwealth together was a mysterious shared identity – Britishness. To be fair, Britishness was, in the parlance of today, a difficult concept to market in postwar Australia. Over time it became almost impossible?.

These days we are left with little that can be called Commonwealth: a Noh theatre of organisations and ceremonies whose origins and meanings seem long lost in a history too distant. The very name CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) sounds like a consumptive’s dying scallop?”

Click here to read the rest of Richard Flanagan’s article on The Guardian website.

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