Concern over the future of the commonwealth of nations

[autisticdragonkin]

http://www.economist.com/news/inter...ll-have-be-tough-dynamic-and-crafty-if-oddest
As queen Elizabeth gets older it is unclear what the future of the commonwealth is going to be or if it even serves a purpose anymore

The stated purpose of the commonwealth is to help promote democracy and human rights of which some argue that it has done a good job in but others argue that it has failed to achieve

The leadership of the commonwealth will not automatically pass on with the british monarchy and it was once thought that it would go to Nelson Mandela. It is unclear what will happen when Queen Elizabeth dies

(for those who don't know the commonwealth is an international organization consisting of former british colonies)

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Charles went on a fairly big diplomatic push a few years ago, to the point various members of the secretariat actually do want to see him as the head of the Commonwealth, at the end of the day it's good to have some level of non-offensive, non-interventionistic continuity, which the British Monarchy still represents. The economist article is a little ungenerous, especially as Elizabeth increasing unloads duties to either William or Charles, allowing them a safer chance to "rule" in a way she never got.

Indeed, Elizabeth was highly fortunate to have lived in a time when a parliamentary bruiser like Churchill was around to advise her.

There's also nothing to say that a more "instantly popular" member of the monarchy couldn't be the new head. William or indeed Harry could both easily fit the bill. Harry has a lot more traction with certain commonwealth states due to his more hands on nature being lower down the inheritance stakes.

The simple fact is that the Commonwealth is actually very much Elzabeth's thing, she has helped shape it to a certain point, and in spite of people decrying that the commonwealth has been "dead" for eight years, the organization has continued to expand, seeing Rwanda join the club, which also cements the precedence for non-former british imperial countries to join the organization. It even saw its first formal written constitution under Sharma, again making the article a little disingenuous.

The reality of the Commonwealth of Nations is that it is a very British affair. It's all about quiet and subtle mediation, influence and brokering as well as just advising local people if they wish to advance some local or even international matters.

The Commonwealth is thus highly successful at brokering peace and agreements and it doesn't scream about the matter every twelve seconds as The Economist so desperately wants because to do so in this day and age is very un-british.

For example, Commonwealth Mediators were present for the Kenyan Powersharing deal in the wake of the violence and probably prevented a brutal civil war. All without anybody even noticing.

Compare this to the constant glitz of various US led efforts in the Middle East, where expectations are high and thus the chance of failure even higher.

One of the more interesting quiet interventions in recent years was on the issue of Somaliland, where the Commonwealth (using minimal people) were advising the government on how to better register voters and to ensure legal codes would be up to scratch for application to the African Union, United Nations and Commonwealth of Nations, with an estimation of about 2012 being a time they could have started to make applications.

For some reason the European Union got involved and decided to overcomplicate matters trying to go for fingerprint scanners and other expensive high technology that a country that isn't part of the money markets can't afford and thus we're here four years on.

The "larger" nations among the Commonwealth like the prestige that the organization brings, and a lot of their wider influence comes from the fact they can converse rapidly with the other members on equal terms. If they did decide to up and leave, they would find their influence significantly curtailed due to the loss, or restriction, of those organizations vanishing. They have the right to do so if they wish, and the chances of trade drying up or plagues of frogs descending upon them is hilariously stupid, but they will find that losing those offices (without any kind of replacement) will see a dip in influence when it came to diplomatic offensives.

All of this points to an organization that is more British than the current british government (and the last two prior ones) It is thus a shame that a number of British Prime Ministers increasingly feel the need to Americanize their diplomacy and rather than coming off as more glamorous they instead come across as hideously patronizing.

Baroness Scotland will be an interesting choice with a slightly more unique perspective than the previous holders of the post, the fact that she intends to use the first two years of her post to argue for what is very much an internal affair for members is slightly concerning and she could soon find herself fighting organized opposition instead of slow and quiet influence (which the commonwealth does best). She might be successful, she might not.

 

[millais]

Aren't they just going to keep it around if only to keep organizing the Commonwealth Games so they can play cricket and rugby and all those other rubbish sports that no one else cares about?

 

[Vitriol]

The only country in the commonwealth that even comes close to the UK in terms of influence worldwide is India. And there are no Indian politicians atm with the level of diplomatic experience or international prestige of Charles. It is possible it will move into a eu style rotating presidium but i think its more likely Charles will become head as King Whatever when he succeeds.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

The only country in the commonwealth that even comes close to the UK in terms of influence worldwide is India. And there are no Indian politicians atm with the level of diplomatic experience or international prestige of Charles. It is possible it will move into a eu style rotating presidium but i think its more likely Charles will become head as King Whatever when he succeeds.

I think this is perhaps the big thing. There's currently one super power in the world, the USA, and one Global Power. The UK.

This is largely thanks to economic clout and prior influence on the world. As much as the USA has been the supreme power of the Western World, we're very much still living in the shadow of the world of the British Empire, with a very long shadow and many laws, similar cultural traits etc.

The "Rise of the Rest" is still quite a long way off due to various factors.

India and Nigeria should be taking a more leading role in the Commonwealth, that being said the Indians had this opportunity over the past eight years and while Sharma has been good at his post, he's also felt at times more like a janitor, keeping the club going rather than actually trying to do something with one of the biggest supra-national blocs in the world.

The main issue is that of corruption.

While the UK and other long standing "white settler" colonies such as Canada and Australia have some form of corruption it is both manageable and tends not to penetrate too deeply into key areas of government such as law enforcement and the civil service.

This isn't the case for Nigeria and India, both still suffer from rampant and blatant corruption, with Nigeria's economy being just 1/3 of its size based on population due to this factor.

Favours have to be given, palms greased, funds siphoned, while in places where this is not necessary this is either actively combated, or properly legislated for (namely declaration of interests and lobbying.) this is the biggest factor holding back what could be two very influential and key players in the Commonwealth.