The Bahamas is a Commonwealth Realm. Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state.
Isn’t it the UK’s responsibility to lead the international relief effort?
I’ve been checking the BBC News and not much is being said. They’ve reported on Dorian and the damage. Why isn’t the PM out front, leading the recovery and putting together a plan?
The US should contribute to the international relief effort. The long term planning and leadership should be the UK’s job. Imho
Is anyone else surprised that the UK isn’t visibly taking charge and calling for an international response?
No. The commonwealth isn’t much more than a social club for ex-colonies at this point. Sharing the same head of state isn’t really relevant, and I think the roles per country are considered separate.
With that in mind it would probably be inappropriate and bad diplomacy to “take charge” of another sovereign nation’s rescue efforts.
Of course, offering significant assistance is the right thing to do, and I’d encourage that from all nations who have the ability to do so.
No. The Bahamas is independent of and equal to other Commonwealth Realms… like the UK.
There’s no more duty to help than there is a duty for Bahamian help to resolve Brexit. Presumably the Queen of the Bahamas might want to send along a Prince to visit and encourage relief efforts while she stays at her castle in a separate realm where she holds a separate title.
It would not be the UK’s responsibility to lead the aid effort for a disaster in Canada or Australia or New Zealand. The Bahamas has exactly the same constitutional relationship to the UK as those other realms do.
I expected a strong response similar to the US and Puerto Rico. We had troops there coordinating a response, setting up large generators, distributing food & water. I know many say the US should have done even more.
I don’t understand the relationship of the Commonwealth realms if protecting and supporting each other isn’t a understood responsibility.
I remember Thatcher’s strong response to the Falklands. Come hell or high water Britain was going to set things right.
The Bahamas are in serious trouble and there’s no real leadership or action from Britain/UK.
I’m not sure you’re processing what folks are saying. Puerto Rico is a United States territory. The Falkland Islands are a United Kingdom territory. Their relationships are a lot closer.
The Bahamas is a 100% independent sovereign nation.
I had always thought of the Commonwealth as an organization of states lead by Britain. They are what is left of Britain’s colonial empire.
Just a lifelong impression. I’ve never had a reason to read much about it.
This is the first time I’ve seen one of the former colonies in serious trouble. Dorian inflicted massive damage. I hope the Bahamian gov is up to the task of rebuilding.
There’s already concerns China sees this as a chance to get a foothold in that area.
No. The commonwealth is loosely a collection of countries that have historic ties to Britain (typically colonialism). South Africa is a member, for example. But in no way “led” by Britain.
Some of that also is the ‘ask first’ respect. Yes they are sovereign, however they have a relationship that is beyond allied, but not as unified United States which negates sovereignty. There is dignity and respect given but also caring and help when requested. It is not the PM’s place to do such a thing and is equal status of the PM coming up with a plan for Porto Rico - UNLESS they ask for help, then it becomes imperative (for their commonwealth, not PR).
Foreign and Commonwealth Office - diplomatic co-ordination
Department of International Development - disaster relief specialists
Royal Fleet Auxiliary - RFA Mounts Bay (logistics ship, with landing craft dock and helicopter) was pre-positioned in the Caribbean for hurricane season, packed with supplies and personnel from
Royal Navy
Royal Marines
Royal Logistic Corps
Royal Engineers
Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
Royal Corps of Signals
So it’s not accurate to say that nothing is being done.
Really? Did you really think the UK was still governing Canada, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malaysia, Belize, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and a few dozen other countries?
Certainly not. Britain’s colonial empire ended long ago. All of the former colonies are independent.
I did believe Britain had a key leadership role in the Commonwealth. Leadership does not mean giving orders to the members. Leadership would mean calling the Bahamian gov and offering to coordinate the relief effort and get international support.
I learned today that Britain is not a leader in the Commonwealth.
The odd thing is that Rwanda was never in the British sphere of influence, being a German and then a Belgian possession before independence, but they successfully applied to join the Commonwealth anyway. Mozambique, a Portuguese colony, did the same.
There is clearly some perceived value in membership - soft power, mutual support, networking, the biennial Heads of Government meeting/piss-up…
Queen Elizabeth is the Head of the Commonwealth, and Britain does take a leading role in the organisation, but Britain isn’t the leader. It’s a mutual support group, in a lot of ways, I think.
Exactly, and the UK has no more obligation to them than we (the US) has. They’re part of the Commonwealth just like the UK is, but that doesn’t carry any actual obligations or anything- hell, India and Pakistan have gone to war with each other, and they’re BOTH Commonwealth members.
In a sense it’s “what left”, yes, but it’s a very loose non-political association with no real lines of authority or responsibility, except that the British monarch is the symbolic head of state of each sovereign nation in the Commonwealth. In practice this only means that each nation’s political system is based on the model of a constitutional monarchy, but even there the role of the monarch is purely symbolic and is represented by a local official such as the Governor General. Canada, for instance, broke the last of its tenuous ties with the UK with the full patriation of its constitution in 1982. There was a funny story many years ago in which the head of a minor political party in Canada (the Green Party) wrote to the Queen to ask her to intervene in a controversial political matter involving constitutional issues. The Queen’s secretary replied with a letter which stated, with exquisite politeness, the basic message that “we don’t think you quite understand how this works”!
The UK should and probably will help with rebuilding in the Bahamas, but only because it’s a rich country, not because of any formal obligation.
That last half isn’t actually true in some cases. South Africa is for example a member, but the British monarch is not the head of state, symbolic or otherwise. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that was the case also for some of the other members, including non-ex-colonies like Rwanda or Mozambique.
Nope. There are 53 nations in the Commonwealth, of which sixteen are “Commonwealth realms,” constitutional monarchies with the Queen as head of state. The remainder are mostly republics, although there are in fact a handful of other monarchies in the Commonwealth. Brunei is a member of the Commonwealth, for example, although the Sultan is an absolute monarch; so is the King of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland).
The Queen is however symbolic head of the Commonwealth as a whole (“Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”).
