British Commonwealth: Rhetoric Versus Reality
By Amii Omara-Otunnu
October 5th, 2007
.
{Sorry people I had to post this photograph first thing in the morning
-EM Toronto} ADVERTISEMENT
Queen Elizabeth II....Kampala regime eager for "legitimacy" through her
prospective visit next month
space
[Issue Of Principle]
In November, the British Commonwealth will hold its biannual meeting of Heads
of State and Government, otherwise known as Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting (CHOGM), in Kampala, Uganda.
Ironically, the host president, Yoweri Museveni, has violated virtually all of
the stated principles of the Commonwealth, the most important of which are the
rule of law, human rights and democratic pluralism.
To host the summit, Ugandan president, Museveni, has devoted the meagre
resources of the country to build hotels, buy custom-made vehicles, refurbish
roads and hire hundreds of security personnel for the comfort of the
dignitaries, while thousands of people languish in concentration camps and
prisons and the country at large without health care, clean water, food and
proper sanitation.
Three basic questions ought to be asked about CHOGM to raise awareness about
the historical function and the practical usefulness of the Commonwealth to the
great majority of Africans. A historical understanding of the Commonwealth
might also serve an important purpose: arm us with the knowledge to help avoid
some of the mistakes of the past.
To begin with, what is the Commonwealth; and whose interests has it
historically represented? Second, why does a militarist ruler like Yoweri
Museveni mobilize resources to subsidize the comfort of the powerful and
wealthy during the summit at a time when most citizens are yearning for human
security and fundamental rights? And third, what are some of the criteria used
to choose a host country?
To answer the first question, we need to review the history of the
Commonwealth. Its existence is mostly a legacy of British colonial imperialism.
But because of changing circumstances, it has become a curious institution with
chameleon modes of operation. Put plainly, although it might appear
anachronistic, it has assumed its current form for pragmatic reasons to realize
its objectives in changing circumstances.
The official website of the Commonwealth Secretariat publicizes that the
Commonwealth is an association of 53 independent states consulting and
cooperating in the common interests of their people. It further states that it
works on the basis of principles and declarations.
The first fundamental statement of core values is the Declaration of
Commonwealth Principles which was issued at the 1971 summit in Singapore. Among
other things, it stresses the need to foster international peace and security;
democracy; liberty of the individual and equal rights for all; the importance
of eradicating poverty, ignorance and disease; and it opposes all forms of
racial discrimination. The Singapore Declaration emphasizes commitment to the
inalienable rights of citizens to participate by means of free and democratic
political processes in framing the society in which they live.
In the 1991 Harare (Zimbabwe) Commonwealth Declaration, the principles adopted
in Singapore were elaborated and explicitly linked to promoting sustainable
development. And at the 2002 CHOGM in Australia, the Singapore principles were
further amplified, to reaffirm shared commitment to democracy, the rule of law,
good governance, freedom of expression and the promotion of human rights.
To what extent has the Commonwealth been guided by these principles? It is
often one thing to state high-sounding principles and it is quite another to
translate the principles into practical reality. Before evaluation is made of
the extent to which the principles have been adhered to, it is appropriate to
provide a historical backdrop to the present Commonwealth.
To understand how the British Commonwealth evolved and to appreciate its
dynamic modus vivendi, an appreciation of history is a great asset. Professors
Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher, two distinguished British scholars, show in
their seminal work, Africa and the Victorians: Official Mind of Imperialism,
that British approach to Africa was quite consistent for most of the nineteenth
century. They conclude that the British establishment always preferred informal
control when possible and opted for direct formal intervention only when
necessary. By logical extension, the same approach predominated in twentieth
century.
The triple abiding objectives of the modus vivendi were and are: to secure
geo-strategic territories; to exploit and control trade; and to use the profits
of trade to establish a financial hub of the world in London. All three have as
their ultimate goal, the insurance of the welfare of British kin and kith.
In fact, the Imperial Commonwealth was originally instituted to achieve two
principal and over-lapping objectives. These were: to foster the interests and
unity of the British race; and to contain the growth of nationalism among
colonized people. In the twentieth century, it first operated under the rubric
of "Dominion". Before the conclusion of World War II and the independence of
the Indian subcontinent, its membership consisted of Britain, white South
Africa, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
However, in 1948, in the aftermath of the independence of India, Pakistan and
Ceylon (Sri Lanka), the white club reluctantly admitted the so-called Asian
Dominions. With non-white races in the club, the cozy and intimate nature of
the meetings changed to ones characterized by politeness. By the mid-1960s,
during the era of decolonization of African territories under British rule,
Commonwealth meetings became more robust and rather annoying to the original
club members.
Although the rules of interaction in the Commonwealth have changed from time to
time, the central interests to be served have remained essentially the same.
What should be understood and made clear is the distinction between means and
ends. The means by which the British Empire was created was generally through
demonstration of military might as right. It was sustained through
socio-cultural engineering in which imperialism was marketed as benevolence;
and the colonized were expected to aspire to acquire, imbibe, hold and promote
its artifacts as indices of civilization.
The cultural aspects of the British Commonwealth have often been as perplexing
as snares that are well constructed and placed strategically to capture prey.
An integral politico-cultural aspect of the British Commonwealth, which the
British media have marketed as merely symbolic, but in fact arguably the most
potent in the arsenals to effect British ends, is the monarchy.
In the Commonwealth, the Queen, as the representative of the British monarchy,
is regarded as the titular and unifying head of the club. In Africa as
elsewhere in the world, the Queen is more often than not treated with reverence
and curious adulation. Yet the Queen is more than simply a ceremonial head; she
in fact serves a very vital purpose.
In order to gain some insights into the critical function the Queen serves in
the Commonwealth, we might learn by analogy from an unlikely source who wrote
about the role of the monarchy in the political set-up of Britain in late
nineteenth century.
Walter Bagehot, an English journalist of aristocratic background, published in
1867 a book titled The English Constitution. In it, he examined closely how
public business was in fact transacted, as distinguished from the way in which
its transaction was officially described. He found out that in fact the
monarchy together with the aristocracy in the House of Lords, with their
mystique, provided an important dignified façade of constitutional rule in
England. It was this dignified role of the monarchy, exhibited in theatrical
pageantry, which dazzled the population into semi-filial identity with,
mystical reverence of, and habit of obedience to, the ruling class.
Is the role of the Queen in the Commonwealth different from the one portrayed
by Walter Bagehot? We should draw broad lessons from his instructive
conclusions. In particular, we should appreciate the symbolic and "dignified"
role of the Queen in the Commonwealth, which is to dazzle if not mystify the
people. It is fair to summarize that the more things seem to change, the more
they remain the same. Or rather, they remain the same under different guises.
Thus next month, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in
Kampala, it should be expected that the Queen will be entertained with
pulsating African dances and the legendry African hospitality. She will likely
also be treated more or less as a demi-goddess. While the people who dance and
celebrate the occasion might temporarily forget their abject conditions of
poverty and oppression under the militarist dictatorship, the business of the
Commonwealth will be done efficiently by both visible and invisible hands,
largely to foster powerful interests.
To be sure, a number of African elites will play their assigned role obediently
in the well- choreographed drama. The president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni,
will give the cues and provide the lead and then bask in the glow of CHOGM,
which he will most likely construe as international vote of confidence in his
administration. This should be understandable, given his dismal record in the
area of democratic pluralism and the rule of law at home. He needs to
compensate for what he lacks internally, with external approval, complemented
by the military.
>From a rational perspective, therefore, the skewed priorities by President
>Museveni can be explained, though not endorsed. They are intended to win and
>assure external support from forces to which he has mortgaged the interests
>and future of the country. It is the external support, not the will of
>Ugandans, which has become the lifeblood of Museveni's administration. The
>truth is that no country in Africa has received more foreign support, whether
>in terms of financial resources, diplomatic backing, or BBC propaganda, than
>Uganda under Yoweri Museveni. The quid pro quo formula between Museveni and
>the Old Dominion is as old as politics. Certainly, Museveni knows that he
>cannot alienate the forces that keep him in power. Thus he has accordingly
>shown more loyalty to his foreign backers than to Ugandans. They in turn have
>chosen to reward him for his fealty with the privilege to host the CHOGM.
The privilege is, however, dubious. For politically conscious Ugandans and
progressive Africans, the CHOGM in Kampala is more or less a sore historical
reminder of what happened during the Singapore CHOGM in 1971.
Although the principles adopted in Singapore are laudable and are supposed to
anchor the Commonwealth, they are also emblematic of the hydra chameleon nature
of the Commonwealth. This is so because while the Declaration was being adopted
in 1971, the British government under Edward Heath was working to subvert the
principles, by overthrowing through military means one of the Declaration's
champions and the democratically elected president of Uganda at the time,
Milton Obote. In his place, agents of the British government and other foreign
forces installed the military dictator, Idi Amin, whom they praised as a gentle
giant and who set in train a reign of terror, which the Museveni regime learnt
from and perfected.
Milton Obote was overthrown with the assistance of British agents because he
asserted his independence and refused to be a conduit for British interests to
the exclusion of the welfare of Africans. It was in Singapore that Milton Obote
took the then British Prime Minister, Edward Heath, to task for the lack of
robust action against Ian Smith's contempt for the democratic rights of
Africans in Zimbabwe, as legally symbolized in his Unilateral Declaration of
Independence (UDI) in Zimbabwe, then Rhodesia, and for the British plan to sell
arms to apartheid South Africa at a time when the Black majority were
systematically denied fundamental rights.
It might seem confusing to the politically and historically naïve that Obote
was overthrown for standing up for what were formally accepted as the
principles of the Commonwealth. A reference to the Robinson and Gallagher
thesis, cited above, should help solve what seems a puzzle. The truth is that
the rhetorical principles of the Commonwealth, designed for public relations,
have often been at variance with the action of the Commonwealth, which is still
driven by the old idea of the British Dominion.
It was Obote's challenge of Britain on issues of Pan-African significance that
drew the ire of the "mother country", which resulted in his ouster from power
in Uganda. A half a decade before, the great champion of Pan-Africanism, Kwame
Nkrumah, had been demonized and ousted from power for similar reasons and in a
manner not different from the overthrow of Obote.
This leads to the third question posed above: what criteria are used to select
a host country. It is apparent that symbolic geographical rotation is one
criterion. Beyond this, it seems that an essential criterion is good standing
with the Old Dominion rather than fidelity to the principles for which the
Commonwealth is retailed to stand for. This is a conclusion arrived at from
analysis of the practice of the Commonwealth. How else can Uganda hosting CHOGM
in November be explained, when the current regime has violated practically all
of the principles enunciated in Singapore, elaborated in Harare, Zimbabwe and
amplified in Australia?
It must be remembered that the hosting of CHOGM by Uganda was confirmed in
Malta about two years ago, at the very time when Museveni was showing total
contempt for the rule of law and principles of democracy. In fact, during the
period, Museveni did not only trump up charges and lock up the leading
opposition leader in the country, Dr. Kizza Besigye, but also used his secret
police to intimidate the judiciary. He also changed the constitution of the
country to permit him to be in power virtually for life. Moreover, at the time,
Transparency International Index showed that corruption among the ruling elites
had reached epidemic proportions.
These were in addition to the fact that Museveni authorized Uganda's military
forces to invade, occupy and plunder the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
in blatant violation of the UN Charter, international humanitarian and human
rights laws. Indeed, in December 2005, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
ruled against Uganda for contravention of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and
ordered it to pay damages of $6-10 billion to the DRC for illegal invasion of
the DRC.
In light of Museveni's record of violating the principles of the Commonwealth
and the Charter of the United Nations, how should Africans construe the vote of
confidence given him to host the CHOGM summit in Kampala? For most reasonable
people, it must mean that the Commonwealth takes African welfare and interests
as expendable; and that it uses the principles of the Organization simply for
public relations.
All of these remind us that as CHOGM draws closer, it should be understood that
the British Commonwealth is not simply a relic of history but also an
institution that assumes many different guises to advance various interests.
However, whatever view we might have about its historical role, the
Commonwealth would be of practical relevance to African people if its
operations are informed by rights-based principles to advance the causes of
social justice, the rule of law, human rights and democratic pluralism.
As a general rule, the credibility and usefulness of the Commonwealth have
often been severely undermined when ethical principles were or are compromised
for the sake of raw power politics and strategic advantage. To redeem itself,
the Commonwealth should learn from the African Union (AU), which twice denied
the president of the Sudan the privilege to host the AU Summit because of the
violations of human rights in the country.
The Commonwealth would therefore be better served by applying uniformly to all
its members the principles adopted in Singapore, and refined in Harare and
Australia.
A good beginning might be for CHOGM in November to demonstrate courage and
speak up against the violations of its stated principles by the host president,
Yoweri Museveni. Otherwise, what might seem like the Commonwealth's penchant to
make a mockery of its avowed principles should be taken as deliberate strategy
to foster conditions and support individuals keen to keep Africans in permanent
servitude.
Given the sacrifices Africans made and continue to make in the struggles to
improve their lot by throwing off the yoke of formal imperialism, it is not
unreasonable to demand for an organization that reflects the interests of the
great majority of Africans and also responds to the aspirations for the
enhancement of their human dignity and self-worth.
Black Star News columnist Professor Amii Omara-Otunnu is UNESCO Chair in Human
Rights, Executive-Director of the UConn-ANC Partnership and Professor of
History at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. His column appears bi-weekly
online and in the newspaper.
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Moderator
Abuja Nigeria.
P.S.
FOr conference, Press Release and other Event coverage
Call. AbujaNig on +2348075671223 or email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Snail Post: Box 8551, Wuse Abuja NIGERIA.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abujaNig/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abujaNig/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
