What does it mean to be part of the British Commonwealth in reality? I live in a Commonwealth country and you occasionally see odd little Commonwealth exceptions like this:
That makes it sound something like the European Union, however there don’t appear to be any real world bonuses except odd little exceptions in law. I know a guy who was born in Britain but raised here and he has grown used to being harassed on every visit because of his accent and made to wait for an hour while they apparently confirm his passport is not fake.
It has even lead to political conspiracy theories when immigration restrictions on Indian citizens were relaxed, which would allow them to stay and vote here.
In all honesty, it’s nothing more than a club of nations, much like the UN or the Council of Europe. All the countries are completely independent, sovereign states, but they meet every 2 years to talk about their particular issues and concerns, and Queen Elizabeth II is recognised as the ceremonial Head of the organisation.
16 of these countries are Commonwealth Realms, which merely means that Elizabeth II is also their formal Head of State. Again, they are all completely independent, sovereign and equal states, but they happen to have the same person occupying their highest office, is all. The UK itself is just another Commonwealth Realm, but it just happens to be the one which the Queen lives in permanently.
Some countries (the UK for example) treat citizens from Commonwealth countries differently when it comes to voting rights and other issues if they move abroad - in the UK, they get the right to vote in UK general elections even if they have no UK citizenship. There’s no Commonwealth regulation that enforces this, it’s just something the country in question has chosen to do.
So yeah, it’s a talking shop, really, but actually quite a valuable one; I’ve heard from a number of people from poorer Commonwealth countries that the Commonwealth is one of the few international organisations where the richest and the poorest countries meet on an exact equal basis, and it’s also seen as a badge of honour to be in it, as it indicates a level of democratic stability and respect for human rights.
Some have discussed giving it a specific ‘mission’, but I think this misses the point - without a mission it appeals to all in a broad, hazy but overall positive sense; ‘politicising’ it, I think, will make it weaker and less relevant.
It’s a huge hodge-podge. The Commonwealth is merely a loose “family” of countries who have inherited cultural and legal links of varying degrees of strength from Great Britain. As each country separated from direct rule by GB, it did so in a unique way specific to its own needs, so there is no one size fits all “rule” to express the relationship between any particular former colony and GB, or between any former colony and any other such colony. Some retain the Queen as Head of State in name only (eg, Australia and Canada). Some don’t (eg Malaysia, which actually has its own system of monarchy). There are only a very few countries that still allow appeals to the Privy Council in London.
Being a Commonwealth member country used to have benefits in preferential trade agreements with GB and each other, but that is now moribund and trade is negotiated on a case by case basis pretty much treating Commonwealth kin like any other country.
The unifying events are the Commonwealth Games, which serves to remind people that it exists, and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which can exert international moral pressure. For example, the Commonwealth exercised sanctions of various sorts against African countries like South Africa during the apartheid years, and expelled Fiji.
And that’s about it, short of descent to the excruciating details.
One bit I just realized is that commonwealth nations instead of using the word ambassador and embassy use high commissioner and high commission. So it is the American embassy and the British high commission, I just wrote it of as a oddity initially.
To be pedantic, it seems Commonwealth countries have high commissions to only OTHER Commonwealth countries. To countries outside the commonwealth they have embassies.
So it’s the Australian embassy in Tokyo but the Australian High Commission in Ottawa.
Another benefit is that a lot of Commonwealth countries have working holiday visa arrangements with each other for 1-2 year stays before people turn 30.
Mozambique and Rwanda joined the Commonwealth in '97 and '09 respectively, despite never having been British colonies, territories or domains.
There must be some reason that attracted them, those that wish for membership (eg Palestinian Authority, Madagascar, Japan!) and the rejected nations (eg Cambodia) to join the organisation…
It can have real benefits for certain groups, students for instance, but you really know about benefits if you obtain them, otherwise its mostly not that relevant to most people’s lives.
It used to be quite an Economic zone in its own right, Sterling Area and while that is in the past, the increase in the economic power of India and S Africa means that it could conceivably so become one again.
As it is, there are quite significant cultural and social links within.
So why has the USA never joined the Commonwealth? They don’t mind having countries that fought for independence, and it seems like this minor benefits outweigh the minor drawbacks. Plus, Special Relationship and all that. Also, the US tends to like to have membership in similar organizations worldwide. Have they ever applied and been rejected?
The logic being that since ambassadors are exchanged between heads of state, it makes no sense for two countries with the same head of state (the Queen) to exchange ambassadors; instead, they exchange high commissioners, those being theoretically to represent the governments involved, rather than the heads of state. The custom has of course survived the abolition of the monarchy in most of the Commonwealth countries (e.g. India has a high commission in Ottawa, not an embassy). Some of the republics send high commissioners in the name of their heads of state, not the government.
Before the Balfour Declaration, there was no need for high commissions because the dominions were subordinate to the UK. Once the dominions and the UK were equal to each other as countries, there came the need for diplomatic missions, and the first British High Commission was opened in Ottawa in 1928.
In any event, embassies and high commissions (and papal nunciatures, for that matter) are legally equivalent to one another.
(The use of the title High Commissioner for a diplomatic representative of a Commonwealth governor followed Canada’s sending to the UK of a personal representative of the Prime Minister, who was given the title of High Commissioner in 1878. As this was before the Balfour Declaration, the role was not quite the same.)
The US would have to acknowledge Her Majesty as Head of the Commonwealth if they joined. Even though that would. Of have any constitutional significance, I imagine it would be pretty hard for Americans to accept - wouldn’t it seem like undoing the Declaration of Independence?
But (1) they do recognize her as Head of the Commonwealth, and (2) that has nothing to do with sovereignty.
I mean, I guess the answer is “they wouldn’t get anything out of it that they don’t have anyway,” or else “tradition,” but I don’t see why they wouldn’t at least consider the possibility.
Sure, but the US currently acknowledges her as Head of the Commonwealth in a “relations amongst equals” sort of thing. If they were to join, then the President of the US would be ranking behind the Queen in terms of precedence and seniority, not as her equal.
