Commonwealth: whose wealth?

There has been no shortage of news about the Commonwealth in the past two months. But how does the Commonwealth impact or benefit the ordinary African? In this article, Regina Jere-Malanda analyses the historical, political and economic essence of the Commonwealth, and asks: what is in it for the ordinary citizens of member countries?

**********

Nyezani is a remote village in the eastern Zambian district of Chadiza. Right opposite it, separated by a narrow gravel road, is the village of Cuimba, which is in Mozambique. Same people, same indigenous language, same culture and same colour; but because of the gravel road, different citizens, different political systems, different histories, different currencies, and different "official" languages. However, the villagers of both Nyezani and Cuimba have something else in common which they do not know about: they are members of the Commonwealth, the Zambians have been for 40 years and the Mozambicans for nearly a decade. But no one in either village, not even their chiefs have heard of the Commonwealth. When it is explained to them that the Commonwealth exists for their benefit, they understandably wonder: in what way?

The usual sanctimonious moralisation of the Commonwealth as a promoter of democracy, human rights and the rule of law is the most hyped reason why the Commonwealth is good for Africans. But is it really?

As the Zimbabwean foreign minister, Stan Mudenge told parliament in Harare on 10 December 2003: "Questions are being asked what benefits we derive from the Commonwealth as Zimbabwe.

My short answer is, materially, not much. In the last couple of years, the benefits to Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation have been rather modest. In the two years before suspension, we contributed [pounds sterling]300,000 to the Fund, and in return we received assistance valued at [pounds sterling]700,000 from various divisions in the [Commonwealth] Secretariat.

"There used to be Commonwealth scholarship programmes and preferential treatment of Commonwealth students in each others' countries. But Mrs Thatcher did away with that scheme. [And] the Commonwealth preferential visa arrangements are as good as dead."

Put simply, the Commonwealth's relevance does not show in people's lives and until this is proven otherwise, the organisation will remain an empty shell to many ordinary citizens of member countries.

Following recent events, the Commonwealth has been championed as an organisation that Africa cannot do without. But among its proponents, there is growing mass amnesia about the Commonwealth's historical baggage.

Officially, the Commonwealth, "is a voluntary association of 53 [54 when Zimbabwe was a member] sovereign states, which work together to achieve international goals. Spread over every continent and ocean, the Commonwealth's 1.7 billion people make up 30% of the world's population".

But the real history of the Commonwealth, should by itself, be a good enough reason to jolt 21st-century Africans into reviewing their membership of an organisation whose roots so starkly remind them of colonial abuse and exploitation.

It is fashionable in the British media and its offshoots in Africa to discredit reports that highlight the role and impact of Britain's imperial devastation of its colonies who today make up the members of the Commonwealth. But the facts are there for all to see!

Even the name itself--Commonwealth--comes with heavy baggage even though the Commonwealth Secretariat says it was influenced by the term, "Commonwealth of Nations" used in a speech in Adelaide in Australia on 18 January 1884 by Lord Rosebery, who later became British prime minister between 1894 and 1895.

In 1926, the Imperial Conference held in London adopted a report by Lord Balfour that defined British "dominions" as: "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another, united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."

Thus, in 1931, according to the official record, when today's "Commonwealth of Nations" was founded under the Statute of Westminster with five initial members--the UK, Canada, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland--they remembered Lord Rosebery's Adelaide speech of 1884 in which he had used the term "Commonwealth of Nations". (For the record, Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949, and in the same year, Newfoundland became part of Canada).

But the above explanation is only half the truth. Because, the "Commonwealth" had been the name of the republican government that ruled (first) England and then the whole of Britain and Ireland between 1649-1653 and 1659-1660. The "Commonwealth" was also used to describe the period in Britain between 1653-1659 when Oliver Cromwell became Protector. It was also used as the official designation of Australia (the Commonwealth of Australia), and the four states of the USA (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennyslavania and Virginia) and Puerto Rico.

Therefore, when Lord Rosebery used the term "Commonwealth of Nations" in 1884, he already knew that Britain had been ruled by a "Commonwealth" between 1649 and 1660. In effect, the name "Commonwealth" is so deeply rooted in British folklore, history and colonialism--and all the baggage it amassed on the way. In fact, many historians acknowledge that today's Commonwealth evolved from the ruins of the British Empire, and without it the history of the Commonwealth itself would be incomplete.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

According to the official records, as British direct rule ended in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean in the 1960s, the newly independent countries (except Burma now Myanmar) "voluntarily" joined the Commonwealth and accepted the British Crown as the symbol of their association. As such, even today all member states recognise the reigning British sovereign as head of the Commonwealth.

In 1958, Queen Elizabeth II, the head of the Commonwealth, defending the raison d'etre of the organisation, explained it thus: "The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new concept--built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty and the desire for freedom and peace."

These are noble ideas no doubt, but, in reality, what do they amount to? Even with history aside, the basic truth is that from tiny Tuvalu to Nigeria, Canada to Singapore, Commonwealth members have very little in common. The very fact that the majority of the members have no real wealth to write home about, proves the point. Many of the people interviewed by New African for this article pointed out that unless the gulf between the haves and have-nots of the Commonwealth is bridged, the organisation will remain irrelevant to the lives of the ordinary citizens of member countries.

In essence, Commonwealth members inherit the English language, the British judicial, governmental and administrative systems, and by and large--dress. In short, the economy, politics, culture, education and life of member states are all shaped in the concept of the long lost British Empire. Interestingly, countries such as the United States and Israel, who also have colonial and imperial links with Britain, have chosen to remain outside the Commonwealth.

So, how does it work? The Commonwealth has no written charter or formal treaty. Instead, its governing features are found in a few basic procedures, its periodic declarations of principle and placing moral pressure on members who violate its principles--the rule of law, human rights and good governance. And it sends observers to monitor elections--some with gusto as in Zimbabwe where British and other interests are at stake, and some half-heartedly as in Sierra Leone and The Gambia where British and allied interests are not threatened

All in all, the most important feature of the Commonwealth--which was strangely ditched in Abuja 2003--is that decisions are taken by consensus, not by majority view. In Abuja, however, the Commonwealth, pushed around by its rich white members--Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand--did away with this long-standing procedure of consensus, and used "majority view" to extend indefinitely Zimbabwe's suspension.

Yet, if Zimbabwe had not quit and was to be re-admitted, it had to go through a triple consensus--first on the committee of six set up by CHOGM in Abuja; then the chairman-in-office, President Olusegun Obasanjo, and the Commonwealth secretary general, Don Mckinnon, must agree (consensus) that all was well in Zimbabwe; and then CHOGM itself must have consensus that Zimbabwe should be readmitted.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In theory, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), held every two years, is the supreme body of the Commonwealth, but Abuja 2003 proved otherwise--i.e, what the "white Commonwealth" wants is what goes!

On the economic front, member countries are supposed to have ties through trade, investment and development programmes. Originally, Britain gave preferential tariff treatment to raw materials and manufactured goods from Commonwealth countries, but this was abandoned in 1973 when Britain joined the European Economic Community (now the EU). Today only the "white Commonwealth" enjoys this privilege. Before CHOGM 1999 in Durban, South Africa, the Commonwealth was driven more by a developmental agenda, but, thanks to the strong arm tactics of Don Mckinnon (then only the foreign minister of New Zealand) who chaired a committee looking for a new way for the Commonwealth, the organisation watered down its developmental agenda in favour of a political one.

In reality, though, the Commonwealth has no real political power on the world stage. It has no economic clout either, and this is evidenced by its budget--one of the lowest budgets among such world bodies. For example, its 2002/3 budget was a mere [pounds sterling]11,436,070 to cover the Commonwealth Secretariat and its activities, and another [pounds sterling]22.3m for the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation (CFTC).

A total budget of just over [pounds sterling]33m for an organisation whose members are largely poor (with an average per capita income of under 5 US $), means that the Commonwealth does not have much to give to its members. Don McKinnon, who was re-elected secretary general at Abuja 2003, has admitted that the Commonwealth has been unable to channel significant funds to poor member countries.

Its highly publicised Commonwealth Science Council (CSC) which promotes the sharing of scientific knowledge and experience among member countries only had a meagre budget of [pounds sterling]912,005 in 2002/3. The [pounds sterling]2m spent every year on the Commonwealth Youth Programme--which aims at "empowering" young people in member countries--pales into insignificance in an organisation that has more than half of its 1.7 billion population under the age of 25. Those who go to study in the richer Commonwealth countries are made to pay overseas fees (averaging [pounds sterling]9,000 per year in the UK for example).

So, is there any financial gain in belonging to the Commonwealth, and if so who actually gains? New African research reveals that the rich Commonwealth block dominates between 75% to 90% of all African metal and mineral output and refining, with almost all the mining companies headquartered in Britain, Canada, South Africa or Australia.

Naming 27 of these companies recently, the American Almanac revealed that at least one of them--a giant in South Africa--controls one-quarter of all of Africa's raw material output. "Since Africa has little manufacturing or infrastructure, this places the life-or-death existence of most African nations, including the export earnings of several nations, in the cartel's hands," said the Almanac.

The Commonwealth cannot run away from the fact that its African members are still intricately entangled in the direct effects of what gave birth to the Commonwealth itself: colonialism--principally, the extraction of natural resources and cultivation of cash crops whose prices are still controlled by the "markets" of the West (read Britain and its powerful allies).

African members of the Commonwealth have seen little change in this sad state of affairs. In many instances, things have gone even worse. Despite the vastness of the Commonwealth in terms of its potential economic market, there is little trade among member countries. Trade remains oriented in the direction of the former colonisers to Africa's detriment.

In the end, one is left to ask: the Commonwealth, whose wealth is it anyway? The answer appeared to have come from Queen Elizabeth Il's speech marking Commonwealth Day (10 March 2003): "What we have in common makes the choice of this year's theme for Commonwealth Day: 'partners in development'. We are reminded daily that we live in an interdependent world. And yet there exist great global inequalities, with millions living lives of deep poverty and deprivation, which present a great and constant challenge to the notion of the Commonwealth. Under these conditions, peace is often more difficult to sustain." Nobody could have said it better.