The Commonwealth is not ‘Empire 2.0’ and this is no time to defund it
Patricia Scotland QC (Chris Jackson/PA Wire
Throughout the debate about Britain’s relationship with the EU, Leavers have been often derided as nostalgists eager to pick up the remains of our old empire. Civil servants even coined the term “Empire 2.0” to mock plans to turn away from Continental Europe towards Britain’s former colonies, most of which are members of the Commonwealth. Progressives seized on the term to attack the international club, with the Guardian’s Afua Hirsch describing it as “a vessel of former colonies with the former imperial master at its helm”.
Ironically, one of Boris Johnson’s first acts after Britain officially left the EU has been to defund the Commonwealth Secretariat, the intergovernmental unit at the heart of the club. Following accusations of financial impropriety, Britain has refused to pay its yearly £4.7 million contribution, which is voluntary.
Patricia Scotland, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, has been accused by auditors of bypassing tendering rules for the benefit of a friend. Australia and New Zealand had already suspended their voluntary funding, and there is pressure on Baroness Scotland to stand down.
There is no suggestion that Britain will leave the Commonwealth, which was set up to retain links between the newly independent colonies and the imperial homeland. Many Commonwealth countries have chosen to keep the Queen as their head of state, although some have no links to the monarchy. A few member states were never part of the Empire.
The Commonwealth itself has been criticised for several reasons. One common complaint is that it is a mere talking shop. Amid the Brexiteer rhetoric of Britain looking beyond the EU for new trading partners, many economists have also disputed that trade with the Commonwealth could ever make up for our Continental connections. Others, like Hirsch, see it as an imperial relic.
There is something to all these criticisms. The Commonwealth has far less impact on the residents of its member states than the EU has on its citizens, for example. Its mission statement contains the usual bromides about promoting the economy, democracy, and the environment, but the club lacks the lawmaking, budgetary and political apparatus to make this happen.
The Commonwealth Games, a shrunken Olympics, is the most notable activity the club engages in. This is a step down from pressuring South Africa and Zimbabwe towards political reforms, and more recently the club has been criticised for not standing up to members that flout its charter.
On the economic case for Britain’s engagement with the Commonwealth, geographical closeness remains a major force in determining trade patterns, which is an awkward point when members span the globe. The pull of geography is likely to remain potent in trade, even as the share of British exports and imports accounted for by the EU continues to decline.
A counter to this is that the shared heritage of Commonwealth members, including similar legal institutions and use of the English language, has been found to ease business between countries — even if not as much as free trade champions would like. Closer trade links might require deeper shared institutions than the Commonwealth is willing to consider.
Accusations of imperialism and condescension from the largely-white member states are also made by those not writing for British newspapers of the Left. Commonwealth members in Africa are often resistant to pressure from Britain, Australia or Canada. Hopes for leadership have often been pinned on India, but have been disappointed.
Such criticisms of the Commonwealth therefore have some weight. But after its departure from the EU, Britain would be well advised to see if it can make the best of such international groups, and the historical ties of the Commonwealth make it a good place to start.
The United States’ global leadership following the Second World War, and particularly after the end of the Cold War, is giving way to a more multipolar world. China’s growing economic, technological and military clout will give it greater say over how the world is run, with the EU providing a third voice, depending on how effectively its members can marshal themselves.
Britain’s post-Brexit role is not as insignificant as extreme Remainers believe, nor as strong as extreme Leavers pretend. To influence events outside of the EU, the UK must focus on bilateral relations and international forums such as the Commonwealth, which at their best give small countries a voice and maintain global rules for states to abide by.
In one line of argument EU membership was a cynical admission that Britain could no longer maintain meaningful independence in international relations, and needed the security of a larger trading bloc. Refuting that argument demands that Britain uses institutions like the Commonwealth. It should start by funding them properly, and ensuring that they are well-led.
