Viewpoints: Does the Commonwealth matter?
The Commonwealth: An important forum or a colonial relic?
The withdrawal of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth and the divisions among
participants at the recent Abuja summit have raised questions about the relevance and
purpose of the body in the post-colonial era.
BBC News Online asked commentators from six Commonwealth member states to
reflect on whether the body does indeed have a role in the 21st Century, or whether it
is a legacy of colonialism which should have vanished with the British Empire. Please
click on the quotes to read more and use the form at the bottom of the page to send us
your opinions.
"Being US-free is a real advantage"
Tim Shaw, Institute of Commonwealth Studies
"The Commonwealth serves no purpose"
Didymus Mutasa, senior Zanu-PF official, Zimbabwe
"Remember it is a voluntary body"
Noel Garson, South African history scholar
"It is by no means doomed"
Shaukat Qadir, retired Pakistani brigadier general
"A real problem of double standards"
Bala Usman
Nigerian political analyst
"It means little to the man on the street"
Eliza Francis, magazine editor, St Lucia
"The Commonwealth does nothing, is nothing, and seems to cause the UK nothing
but problems, so why bother?" Sandy, UK
Click here to read more of your comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Tim Shaw is the director of the London-based Institute of Commonwealth
Studies.
The notion that the body is an ineffectual one in comparison with other
international organisations does not in fact stand up to the force of logic.
True enough, there are a large number of powerful bodies - the United Nations,
the World Bank - but there are very few that are prepared to suspend their members for
not having an acceptable democratic government, and there are few more powerful
statements than throwing someone out.
Zimbabwe, for example, is still a member of the UN, although it has been
suspended from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth also has its own monitoring groups
for overseeing electoral processes - not so the UN.
It also provides a forum for issues that often do not get onto the mainstream
world agenda - one of its main advantages is in fact that the United States is not
party to it and so members can air concerns that they might not otherwise be able to.
The US may be interested in what the Maldives for example is doing to fight
terrorism, while the Maldives itself is more interested in discussing on an
international level how it can stop itself sinking. The Commonwealth provides the
opportunity to do this.
The Commonwealth may have its roots in colonialism but it has long since
transcended this. Nonetheless, it does need a kind of leadership which Britain -
handicapped by history - is unlikely to be able to provide. We should look to
countries like India, South Africa and Canada to take the Commonwealth into the
future.
Click here to return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didymus Mutasa is foreign affairs secretary for Zimbabwe's ruling Zanu-PF party.
The Commonwealth does not serve any purpose in the world today. We joined in
1980 after we gained our independence as a mark of respect to the British but in the
years since it has become clear that the sole purpose of the body is to promote white
interests - that is why it was founded and that continues to be the case today.
Measures taken against Zimbabwe have been imposed to protect the interests of white
farmers.
We have seen some incredible double standards on the part of Britain. Britain
dares to criticise Zimbabwe over the presidential elections in 2002, while Prime
Minister Tony Blair is swanning around hand-in-hand with the US president, who himself
had to go to court to win an election.
I do not believe there are any circumstances in which we could return. What
would be the point? We are more distant from Britain as a result but that does not
bother us.
As for our African Commonwealth partners, our relations with them will not
suffer as a result of leaving the Commonwealth. Trade with our neighbours will
continue. Britain's greatest fear is that we will pull ourselves up while we are
outside of the Commonwealth, and that is precisely what we intend to do.
Click here to return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Garson is professor emeritus at the University of Witwatersrand and a
scholar of South African history in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
South Africa, like Zimbabwe has just done, also withdrew from the Commonwealth
between 1961 and 1994 and as such it provides an interesting example as to what extent
isolation from the body effects change.
In the South African experience, withdrawal did not make much difference. It
retained useful ties with those it wanted to, notably Britain and Australia. It wasn't
until the anti-apartheid era kicked in and the United Nations took a stand with
sanctions that South Africa really felt isolated and suffered economically. Being
outside the Commonwealth had some symbolic significance, but it was really the actions
of other bodies that had the impact.
There are many important organisations in the world today with which the
Commonwealth cannot hope to compete. The United Nations, the World Bank, the World
Trade Organisation, GATT - to name but a few. Nonetheless, we shouldn't underestimate
it.
It is still important. It has cultural significance for one - Commonwealth
science and education programmes and exchanges are still going strong. But it also
provides a forum - the fact that prime ministers, foreign ministers, finance ministers
meet and share views is certainly not insignificant - particularly for smaller
countries which do not otherwise have a chance to speak on the world stage.
The Commonwealth has successfully managed to get over the notion that it is a
relic of colonialism - only people like Mr Mugabe come out with that line. Why would
former colonies and indeed countries which have no historical ties with Britain, such
as Mozambique, keep wanting to join if it was such a colonial, racist organisation?
They sign up freely, and leave freely.
Click here to return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaukat Qadir is a retired Pakistani brigadier general and founder of the
Islamabad Policy Research Institute.
The problem with the Commonwealth is that it appears irrelevant to so many
people. It has been unable to influence world events in any way, whether positive or
negative.
Pakistan was suspended from the body after a coup led by General Pervez
Musharraf. President Musharraf would like to be readmitted to the body purely for
symbolic reasons - it would prove that there have been democratic developments and
provide greater legitimacy. But the Commonwealth itself has no great political sway
and in that sense is of no real interest to him. Pakistan has other friends in the
world.
But that is not to say that the Commonwealth is doomed. People always point to
the United Nations as a rival power which has stripped the Commonwealth of its reason
to be. But just look at some of the problems the UN is having in terms of credibility.
One of the reasons that we are seeing attacks on UN buildings and workers around the
world is that increasingly it is seen as a lackey of the United States.
The Commonwealth isn't, and that is its greatest strength. But it needs to get
its act together. Britain needs to distance itself from the United States, and take on
a key role in steering the Commonwealth.
It is the only country in the position to do this and it should not worry about
the old allegation that the Commonwealth is a relic of colonialism. That's history,
and Britain needs to throw that off. The Commonwealth should do exactly what the name
says - spread the wealth and forge a proper political voice with clout on the world
stage.
Click here to return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bala Usman is from the Centre for Democratic Development Research and
Training (Ceddert) in Nigeria. He tried to submit a petition to the most recent
meeting asking for Britain and Australia to be suspended for breaching Commonwealth
principles over their role in the Iraq war.
There is a real problem of double standards within the Commonwealth - it is one
rule for some members and one rule for others. Britain and Australia launched an
illegal war against Iraq - contradicting the principles of the Commonwealth's
Singapore and Harare declarations - and there has been virtually no opportunity to
press the two countries on the matter.
These double standards do not however render the Commonwealth redundant. It can
and should be a useful forum for the English-speaking world, bringing together Africa,
Asia and the Caribbean in a unique body. That is something to be celebrated.
But that is not to say it could not be improved: there does need to be more
equality within the body. I for one would like to see a rotating Commonwealth
figurehead rather than the position being confined to the British Queen.
The Commonwealth should be a forum - a place in which there can be debate and an
exchange of ideas, maybe even a place to cut Britain down to size. No-one expects the
Commonwealth to ever take on a legislative role, but it would be excellent to expand
its consultative capacity.
Despite all my reservations I do want the Commonwealth to continue: I want it to
be something my children and grandchildren can make use of too.
Click here to return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliza Francis is the editor of St Lucia's twice-weekly news magazine, The Star.
Commonwealth summits attract very little interest - and the issue of Zimbabwe
seems very remote indeed. Nonetheless, it has started people thinking - what does it
mean to be a member of the Commonwealth? What is the importance of Mr Mugabe deciding
to leave the body?
For most people, being in the Commonwealth is barely something that registers.
It leave the man on the street cold. It is totally unclear what we gain from
membership.
In this sense, it is hard to understand why people say that Commonwealth
membership is of particular use to the smaller countries as a means of expressing
their opinions on the world stage.
People in St Lucia do not think of the Commonwealth when they think of
organisations in which they have a voice. It is a distant body - a hangover from a
time past - which means little to the majority here.
Click here to return
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are your thoughts on the future of the Commonwealth? Please scroll down to
the form below to send us a message.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinions we have received.
What the body has done is just signing a contract that will inflict pain,
misery and suffering to the common Zimbabweans
Richmond Msowoya, Malawi
The commonwealth cannot win the battle by suspending Zimbabwe from the
Commonwealth. Mugabe and all top government officials will still live the type of life
that cannot inflict a single pain in their daily living. What the body has done is
just signing a contract that will inflict pain, misery and suffering to the common
Zimbabweans.
Richmond Msowoya, Malawi
I think that the time has come for African leaders to wake up from their slumber
of Master Slave relationship. African states constitute a large number of the
Commonwealth but their voices are not heard. Mugabe rightly said that; has the issue
of Northern Ireland and Britain ever been discussed at the Commonwealth. Africans must
wake up and show that we are no more in the days of Mungo Park.
Kwame Sei, US
The Commonwealth and what it stands for only serve to benefit humanity
Allyn, USA/Canada
As a Canadian living in the US I feel that the Commonwealth has more
significance than I realized. Some criticize it for it being archaic and mundane, but
I see it differently. It helps us voice ourselves internationally outside the sphere
of US in an association of like-minded democracies who share a similar heritage. The
Commonwealth and what it stands for only serve to benefit humanity than detract from
it.
Allyn, USA/Canada
Commonwealth is irrelevant. India should exit the group. It is a relic of the
past. In this century, you don't need Britain to guide other countries. Big bodies
like commonwealth cannot address day to day concerns.
Vish, India
After many years of membership I think Mr Mugabe should not have pull out from
the commonwealth. But at the same time the commonwealth should not interfere to the
countries internal affairs. Both south Africa and Nigeria said that the elections was
fair.
Mousa-Alagy Jeng, Sweden
Even if the Commonwealth is just a 'club'; for world leaders and citizens,
clubs give a sense of belonging and legitimacy
Joel, Trinidad and Tobago
Most people seem to see the Commonwealth as irrelevant, and I did also. But in
the political world it does serve a purpose. It monitors elections, promotes democracy
and human rights, brings world leaders together, and does more. While ordinary people
may not participate in the Commonwealth or see its need, for world leaders it is a
club with a purpose. Even if the Commonwealth is just a 'club'; for world leaders and
citizens, clubs give a sense of belonging and legitimacy. When people see their
country kicked out of the club, it sends a message that something is wrong with their
government. And in Zimbabwe that is clearly the case.
Joel, Trinidad and Tobago
African countries should all sign out from commonwealth.
Chipango Chinyeka, Zambia
It appears that the Commonwealth does little for anyone, apart from being a
trans-continental forum. It lacks the mandate to enforce much. However there are a
couple of positives in the availability of scholarships, technical co-operating,
somewhat less travel restrictions between member states, to name a few. Overall it
probably should continue to be in existence.
Ranil, Sri Lanka/Zim/USA
It is still relevant and its function should be to set the moral standards the
way the Queen is doing for the British. It should not be used to intimidate the very
same disadvantaged group which was dehumanized during the colonial era, lest it
revives unhealed wounds, which would further compound into more disunity and progress
for the involved races.
A. Misoi, Cyprus
I can't see any point in the Commonwealth even existing. If Blair really thinks
he can criticise Zimbabwe for its poor human rights, and insists Zimbabwe should not
come back to the Commonwealth while Mugabe is in power, then why is it that the UK
government has got good relations with Iran, the country with the worst human right
record in the world?
Sam, UK
It is not irrelevant as such when we consider such issues as good governance,
but the manner in which it is dominated by white countries means it may become
irrelevant just like the UN where the US and Britain are calling the shots.
Ozias Moyo, Zimbabwe
Commonwealth? What's the point - all the members seem to hate us and lecture us
with the same old boring argument about colonialism so why don't we just leave them to
whine about the past so we can move forward with our real friends and allies. These
European and North American relationships are mutually beneficial. The Commonwealth
does nothing, is nothing, and seems to cause the UK nothing but problems, so why
bother?
Sandy, UK
The Commonwealth clearly is an archaic institution that serves no real purpose
in the 21st century. Britain decided long ago, for good or bad, that its future lay in
Europe. Thus, we should participate fully in Europe so we have an accountable
democratic institution that does have relevancy to us.
John George, UK
It stands to the honour of Great Britain's quest for democracy that this body
exists - nations from all corners of the world stand side by side, overcoming
inequalities, faces from every race and religion and economic standpoint on the
planet, stepping out of the shadow of imperialism - together with common goals. To its
credit, the Commonwealth nations have been able to face the past - name it for what it
is - with the kind of grace and humility seen no where else in the world - and use it
as a force for good embodied with hope for the future.
J. E. Seaman, USA
We as Zimbabweans are suffering because of Mugabe's continued rule. We don't
think the Commonwealth is serving its purpose. Joining such a body is unnecessary. The
body has come to be a platform where former colonial power Britain and its white
racist cousins bully the former colonies for their own interests. Although Mugabe is a
failure in Zimbabwe it does not mean he has not done anything good for his own
citizens. He brought us education, freedom, although he has also brought us poverty.
The UN should be the body to oversee world affairs. We say down with the Commonwealth
and down with Mugabe.
Patrick Tsodzo, youth chairman for NGO Crisis Zimbabwe
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/TTwplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
**********Keep Hope Alive!!!*************
Win upto =N=150,000.00 ... Essay Competition 'HOPE PROJECT" ...see the ===>>>
http://www.iseehope.org
Nigeria arise to rebuild Hope
++++++++++++++
Nigerians for Nigeria, rebuilding a Country where No man is oppressed.
- ---
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********Keep Hope Alive!!!*************
Try a faster browser for
FREE....https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/buy-opera.html?AID=659398
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------
This service is hosted on the Infocom network
http://www.infocom.co.ug
