An interview was conducted by Mr. Uday Nagaraju (Executive President & Co-founder, Global Policy Insights) to gain perspective from Dr. Sue Onslow (Deputy Director, Institute of Commonwealth Studies) on various aspects of the Commonwealth, which is a voluntary association of 53 independent and equal sovereign states. It is home to 2.4 billion people and includes both advanced economies and developing countries.  

Research: Uday Nagaraju and Neha Dewan

Research Assistant: Aaditi Mehta

●The nature of the Commonwealth as a body has transformed since its inception to its present state. Do you think the underpinning values of the organization and its affiliated bodies have also changed? Are these subject to the realignment of our international norms and structures or does the Commonwealth hold the capacity to influence and shape these global norms?

In her view, the Commonwealth has influenced global norms but not necessarily in the way it is generally perceived. As the original association grew as a direct product of decolonisation, under the leadership of the first Secretary General Arnold Smith, it supported the evolution and development of independent states in the post-colonial era. The idea of values feeding into international discourse can be seen in the individual contributions made by Commonwealth countries to public debates in the General Assembly and within emerging committee structures at the UNO – supporting decolonization and internationalism, promoting social rights and racial rights in Commonwealth states’ opposition to white minority regimes in southern Africa.

The Commonwealth has transformed from its original inception to its present form due to a number of factors. These include the expansion of its numbers, the growing diversity of membership and inclusion of small island developing states (SIDS), the presence of member states which had no formal constitutional ties to Britain. Over its history, particularly since the late 1950s, there has been an exchange of ideas within the Commonwealth on internationalist ideas such as Afro-Asian solidarity, Pan-Africanism, non-alignment, and arguments for restructuring the international political economy to promote development; the Commonwealth moderated the forceful ideas articulated by the G-77 group, and became a trusted advocate for its developing state members. Post-Cold War, there was particular emphasis on democratic rights and governance, based on the Harare Principles of 1991. The 2012 Commonwealth Charter sets out foundational values, and the importance of a range of human rights. Critics have argued that for a number of members, this public emphasis on rights is a departure from the association they originally joined post-independence. Another frequently voiced criticism is that for many Commonwealth members, these rights and values remain aspirations rather than solid achievements in terms of norms and institutions. However, unlike the UNO, the Commonwealth does have structures of oversight and sanction to reinforce and underpin Commonwealth values, represented in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG). (There is an ongoing argument whether CMAG has sufficiently effective ‘teeth’.)

In sum, the Commonwealth’s changing approach and self declared focus as a ‘values based association’ both pre-dates and reflects the shift of international relations as a whole since the 1990s. Certainly, although there are rules and guidelines by which the Commonwealth functions, it is not a formal treaty based organization. Another complication lies in the fact many members comprise dynamic states in transition arguing the greater emphasis should be on development and associated socio-economic values, rather than democratic and human rights values.

The priding element of the Commonwealth is egalitarianism between all member states. Does this asset often become its biggest challenge in becoming a stronger decision-maker and influence in global politics?

The essence of the Commonwealth is indeed egalitarianism and consensus, and a remarkable degree of informality. This inclusive approach to build and maintain consensus can be painstaking, and for outside observers and critics, frustratingly slow. However, when there is a cohort of Commonwealth heads of government who take a lead on a particular issue, substantial advances can be achieved. This was seen in the Malta summit of 2015 on the issue of climate change, which led directly to the success of the COP21 summit in Paris. However, the process of building consensus is increasingly challenging, and challenged in the current media environment, given the speed and spread of social media. Consensus always takes time to build in terms of practice of international diplomacy, and the Commonwealth likes to pride itself that it operates ‘below the radar’. Given social media and new platforms, public diplomacy actors have proliferated. Commonwealth heads and their officials also meet relatively infrequently (given the multiplicity of international summits and meetings, heads also meet each other in other fora), and for a very limited amount of time. Commonwealth Ministerial meetings take place on an extended regular cycle of 2-3 years. This casts particular importance on civil society organisations building collaborative networks and feeding into changing discourses around human rights and values. Other substantial challenges confronting the Commonwealth are changing demographics and reduced public awareness, as well as an apparent particular concentration on London.

Notwithstanding these problems and limitations, there are significant bilateral and multilateral Commonwealth member collaborations – such as historic Commonwealth interest and engagement with climate change debates, the current focus on the Blue Charter for maritime economies, and campaigns against plastic pollution. This effectively extends Commonwealth declared action to environmental and health rights.

●To what extent do you think that all member states and their unique values are represented equally in the body, in spite of differences in demographics, economics or politics?

The Commonwealth typifies diversity: its membership ranges from India as the largest democracy, down to the small island state of Nauru. Indeed, the Commonwealth is often identified as the only multilateral organisation which represents small states. However, this can be problematic as interests of small states are not necessarily those of other landlocked Commonwealth members. Larger states with ‘mature’ developed economies may have their own different regional interests and demographic profiles.

The Commonwealth certainly offers the opportunity for effective action and collaboration. This potential more often than not remains unrealized, and it requires political leadership which is not necessarily a given. It is an interesting point that the Commonwealth always needs one of the larger powers to lead on a certain issue, and Britain as the former ‘colonial power’ has to be particularly sensitive to the need to ‘lead from behind’. This whole process requires political consensus, political leadership, coalescence of interests & political will - and financial backing.

The Commonwealth historically has relied particularly on funding from the ‘ABC’ members: Australia, Canada and Britain. Since becoming chair-in-office in April 2018, Britain has committed 500 million pounds to a variety of Commonwealth programs and projects. However, some questions emerge on the funding aspect such as:

• Is there going to be sustained British funding for Commonwealth mandated activities and programmes after the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kigale (June 2020)?
• Is the funding necessarily going to ensure that there are significant financial resources for the Commonwealth Secretariat, the organisation’s inter-governmental bureaucracy? At the moment, a considerable amount of UK funding has been directed to UK-Commonwealth member state programmes, rather than through the Secretariat.

To date, these questions have remained unanswered.

The Chairman of the International Relations and Defence Committee in the UK’s House of Lords, Lord Howell often refers to the Commonwealth as the ‘mother of all networks,’ a view he reiterated at a GPI Seminar discussing the Commonwealth in a post-Brexit climate. What is your assessment of the relevance of the Commonwealth in anticipation of Britain’s departure from the European Union? What can be done to ‘reinvigorate the Commonwealth?’

Dr. Sue Onslow agreed with Sir Vince Cable, former leader of the Liberal Democrats and a former UK minister in the Coalition government. Sir Vince argued that not much can be expected from the Commonwealth as it cannot serve as an alternative trading organization to the European Union. Britain’s departure from the European Union is a matter of grave concern for Commonwealth countries in the ACP bloc as it is losing an interlocutor with Brussels, Britain’s significant financial contribution to the EU’s development funds, and the influence of the Department for International Development on EU thinking on development generally.

There has been a great deal of hype around the Commonwealth's advantage in trading relationships, and the supposed associated 19% boost. This statistic does not seem realistic : how could Canada and Botswana's trading relationship be boosted by 19 percent, given these countries are geographically so far apart? There is also the issue of visas: one of the key stipulations of the Indian government in recent trade discussions with the UK was the increase in number of business visas; yet given the current debate on immigration in the United Kingdom, exacerbated by Conservative rhetoric and the party’s declared political agenda of reducing migration figures , this poses a significant challenge. In what way will trading benefits with the UK post-BREXIT accrue to Commonwealth members? Can former strong trading links (dating back to the 1950s and 1960s) necessarily be rebooted in a post-Brexit world? In no way will the Commonwealth resume its former economic and commercial importance to the UK economy. The EU still represents the closest market for Britain and largest recipient (at 44%) of UK goods. The idea of the Commonwealth as an alternative revitalized multilateral trading relationship needs to be handled with a great deal of care, and viewed with considerable scepticism.

As the discussion went on after the interview, Dr Onslow pointed out Sir Vince Cable had carefully considered what exactly BREXIT means to the Commonwealth. In practical terms, there are both the medium and long term issues which need to be confronted. There is much to be said for Britain anchoring itself in the current political and international space: Commonwealth nations comprise many of the new ‘emerging’ economies (while growth rates have been impressive, they represent more of a risk to foreign investors) and the structure and output of the UK economy is not the same as it was back in the 1940s/1950s. With this, in order for Britain to have influence on the global stage, the Commonwealth is an addition but not an alternative to the European Union. Dr Onslow expressed her support for the Commonwealth’s work around governance and democratization, but significant challenges remain on issues such as freedom of expression, the need for public service broadcasting and also an independent media as core pillars underpinning democracy. The so called ‘Fourth Estate’ is under pressure in too many Commonwealth countries.

In her view, there are three areas in which the Commonwealth can actually collaborate and work to create awareness among the people. Three of the key areas are: First, Climate Change. In 2009 Commonwealth support at the heads’ summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, had failed to prevent the subsequent collapse of the Copenhagen process. But later at the Commonwealth heads’ summit in Malta, deliberate and careful collaboration had effectively worked towards the success of COP 21. Climate change and environmental issues are particularly important for young people today. Secondly, Cyber Security: the Commonwealth Secretariat’s work on best practice is acting as an innovator for member governments. Problems come when governments actively seek to manipulate social media to their own advantage. Connected to this is the work of Commonwealth governments and CSOs on Media Freedom as an essential part of good governance, transparency and accountability. Here Commonwealth governments have a checkered track record: although former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt made it one of his core foreign policy strategy goals, supported by the governments of Canada, Ghana, the Seychelles and the Maldives, and leading Commonwealth civil society organisations, to date a significant number of other Commonwealth governments have failed to do so. Thirdly, activism around Gender Rights (for example, education for girls and FGM campaigning), and LGBTQ+ rights, promoted by CSOs and some Commonwealth governments.

The conclusion, however, rests on the fact that if the Commonwealth was dissolved or did not exist, it would be one of those institutions people, governments and societies would miss. The Commonwealth is a quintessential soft power organization: it celebrates people ‘getting on’, working well together and enjoying what they have in common; it promotes networks and networking, and pushes back against narrow identity politics. Values matter in the Commonwealth context, and governments also value the legitimacy membership confers. These factors, plus its convening power, make it very interesting.