Commonwealth conundrum

Dr Charles Mubita The Commonwealth is the second largest international organisation after the United Nations, with an approximate membership of about 53 former British colonies, all of which recognise the British Monarch as their head. The Balfour declaration at the 1926 Imperial Conference states in part that Britain and its dominions agree that they are "united by common allegiance to the Crown". It prides itself in the notion that it is built on "shared language (English), institutions, challenges, aspirations and values such as democracy, freedom, peace, the rule of law and opportunity for all". The origins of the Commonwealth lie in the British Empire. From the 16th century, Britain invaded and subjugated other lands. It was once said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because up to the beginning of the 20th century Great Britain ruled the largest empire in history. When World War II broke out, British colonies fought alongside the UK. They helped Britain and its Allies to win in 1945. The modern Commonwealth replaced the British Commonwealth in 1949. By 2011, it had 54 members with a total population of nearly 2 billion, mostly of former British colonies. Other non-British colonies such as Namibia, Mozambique, Rwanda, and others who did not share the "common language" with the British joined the Commonwealth and became "united in common allegiance to the Crown" when they became republics. Interestingly, not all former British colonies are members of the Commonwealth despite the "common language" threshold. Among these are the USA, Ireland and to an extent Palestine (and what has become Israel). It should be noted that 13 states of the present USA were British colonies. However, the idea of serving a monarch and having an allegiance to the British Crown did not sit well with Americans, taking into consideration the acrimonious war fought by Americans against British colonialism. The Commonwealth is funded by assessed contributions from all its member governments. The annual budget for the Commonwealth Secretariat funded from the coffers of member governments stands at about UK£ 50 million. The UK has remained the dominant power in the Commonwealth, giving directives through the various offices. The 'old Empire' carried forth its special trade rules with its colonies. These rules allowed, as they do today, the British to buy goods from its colonies cheaply while compelling the colonies to import British goods at exorbitant prices. The 1950s and '60s shook the British Empire as more countries were becoming independent. Therefore, the need arose for the British to retain their control over the empire through the Commonwealth. Critics allege that the Commonwealth is a colonial relic, a neo-imperial conspiracy, toothless bulldog and nothing else but a collection of not very important states brought together to serve British interests. Others believe that the Commonwealth is a British foreign policy success story through which the Britain gets consolation for its lost empire. George W. Bush once remarked that "The British have more than 50 votes at the UN. We only have one". This sums up the purpose of the Commonwealth in relation to British hegemony. Protagonists hold the Commonwealth as a British foreign policy success story and cite the queue of prospective members as evidence of its vibrancy and continuing relevance. Without it, they argue, many impoverished small states, who make up the majority of its membership, would find it difficult to network and build strategic alliances in the competitive modern world. That remains the only "plausible" benefit of being a Commonwealth member. Question remains: whose wealth and common to whom? Where on earth is the evidence that the wealth among these countries is common? Instead, what we have is Britain, which has become glaringly rich on the sweat, blood and riches of those with whom it purports to have something in common. By joining up the Commonwealth, member governments only retain their common subject's statuses of her Majesty the Queen of England, sharing a common colonial heritage - forever glorifying her Majesty by organising huge celebrations on the occasion of her birthdays, disguised as fund-raising projects for charitable causes. We just had one in Namibia and in all Commonwealth countries recently on Her Majesty's birthday. For the Commonwealth to be regarded relevant, wealth should start flowing in the reverse direction. Natural resources of former British colonies should primarily be enjoyed by the nationals of those countries. Then we might slowly have some form of commonwealth. For how long are we going to allow the British and other imperial powers to continue milking our economies at the detriment of the poverty afflicting out people? Hopefully someone will one day list the benefits of Namibia's membership of the Commonwealth - other than a networking platform or free visa for our privileged elites.