Dear Editor,
Our foreign minister Tangara recently lost his bid to become the secretary general of the Commonwealth. Apparently The Gambia did not lobby hard enough. What’s wrong with us?
I think it was basically for the same reason Professor Kah lost the ITU bid. And it was for basically the same reason only six heads of state attended the OIC summit. We need to do better.
Personally I do not care much for the Commonwealth. But I must admit, although it is largely a symbolic organisation, it has an overall surprisingly positive impact today considering its imperialist origins.
It evolved out of the white-settler colonies of the British Empire who had gained dominion status by the early 20th century. I think Canada, was the first of these colonies to graduate from literal colony to dominion (meaning a country that enjoyed near complete de facto independence domestically, but whose foreign policy was still largely directed by London).
In the early 20th century, Canada was joined by Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland and after 1921 the Irish Free State. These Imperial dominions had full control over domestic affairs in practice (in theory London could’ve meddled, but didn’t); however, not over foreign policy.
When Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, for example, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and Newfoundlanders were automatically at war.
The First World War was a transformative experience for all of the dominions. Imperialist war became less romantic, and in many countries there was a growing sense that perhaps they should manage their own affairs a little more.
What followed in the post-war period was an interesting state of affairs in which the Irish and South Africans were the most anti-imperialist of the imperial dominions. They favoured maximising their independence from London as much as possible. Australia and New Zealand were by far the most pro-imperialist while Canada for example, was in the middle. They didn’t want to cut the chord with Britain, but had lost their earlier enthusiasm for British imperial adventures.
The British Commonwealth (forerunner of the modern Commonwealth of Nations), was founded in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster.
The Statue gave the dominions de facto control over their foreign policy as well (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa made a point of issuing their own declarations of war against Germany in 1939). By the end of the second war, Britain could no longer afford her empire, Prime Minister Clement Attlee wanted to create a welfare state (which would cost money) and thus decolonisation became inevitable. If it hadn’t been for the rushed way in which Ireland declared itself to be a republic in 1948 they probably would’ve been allowed to remain a Commonwealth member.
The Commonwealth was transformed into a club of former British colonies, of which the most notable absences are the United States of America, Republic of Ireland and State of Israel (I suppose Iraq could join too).
A minority of Commonwealth members have kept the shared monarchy, Queen Elizabeth II is officially the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, The Bahamas, Papua New Guinea and some other places, but most member-nations are republics. The only real standard for membership is not abusing human rights too badly, which is why Zimbabwe and Pakistan have been suspended/expelled in the past.
Indeed, membership in the former British Empire is no longer a prerequisite as former Portuguese colony Mozambique and the former German, later Belgian colony of Rwanda were both admitted in the last generation (for them it was about reorienting their respective foreign policies).
I’m a pan-Africanist and a republican, but I support The Gambia’s membership in the Commonwealth. It’s largely a fraternal organisation that promotes human rights and hosts sporting events. It’s not incredibly relevant in world affairs, it’s no NATO after all, but it’s hardly a bad thing. I see no reason why it couldn’t even out-live the British monarchy, to be honest. To its credit, sometimes it has taken important moral stands, for example when it made racial equality a prerequisite for membership in 1961 (leading to the withdrawal of South Africa; they’d be back in 1994 thankfully).
Saul Fatty
Bundungka Kunda
Kanifing Municipality
Re: US Elections Special – Trump, Harris storm battleground Wisconsin
Dear Editor,
My African-American brothers and sisters and my Muslim brothers and sisters and my Latino brothers and sisters in the United States. We all saw how unstable the world was during the presidency of Donald Trump.
Another term of Trump will see the same instability in America and all over the world.
Under a Trump presidency, the American Constitution will face significant challenge and America’s long cherished democracy will face an existential crisis.
The rule of law in America will be imperiled. A Donald Trump presidency will be the gravest recipe for disaster for America’s future and American interest around the world. America’s security and foreign policy will be under the gravest threat. That is why you should not vote for him.
Omar Loum
Keighley, Yorkshire
