From a cnn.com article, in regard to Daniel arap Moi’s attempts to extend his rule past the agreed-upon five year limit by means of, I guess, a merger of political parties:
“The British High Commission said Britain would not ‘sit quietly’ if it appeared KANU was serious about its plan and not merely floating the proposal to test reaction.”
What is the British High Commission, and just what besides “moral suasion” and “good offices” and all that stuff arising out of their historical relationship with the area, have they, the British, to say to Moi or anywone else in Kenya that might be heeded? What would, or can, the British High Commission do besides “sit quietly”? Sit loudly? It seems my understanding that Kenya was an independent country is somewhat simplistic.
In some countries the British have Embassies while in other countries they have High Commisions. The two are almost, if not exactly, the same thing. You’ll have to wait for an expert to explain the difference.
Kenya is a member of the British Commonwealth, so after they’ve protested and condemned and so forth, the British can call for a meeting of the Commonwealth and ask them to take action.
Heres what they did after Gen. Musharraf overthrew the government of Pakistan:
“Heads of Government condemned the military coup in Pakistan and called for the restoration of civilian democratic rule without delay. They endorsed the CMAG decision to suspend Pakistan from the Councils of the Commonwealth (as opposed to a full suspension from membership). CMAG was requested to keep the situation under review and to be prepared to recommend further measures should satisfactory progress to democracy not be made. Leaders also urged the immediate release of Mr. Sharif and those detained with him in light of the unconstitutionality of the military regime. The discussion clearly showed the extent of the commitment of Commonwealth countries to the full implementation of the Harare Principles.”
Although this sounds pretty wimpy to us Americans, what with no missiles or bombs or even Carrier Groups to cruise about off their coast, there are apparently economic and diplomatic effects which make such actions at least somewhat less than completely futile.
Last I heard Mr. Sharif had been released and sent into exile and Gen. Musharraf has promised elections for later this year, though it’s hard to say what effect the Commonwealth had as opposed to Americas recent interest in the area.
The use of the term “High Commissioner” dates back to the early days of the transition of the British Empire into the Commonwealth. Originally, all of the self-governing Commonwealth countries were monarchies, sharing the same sovereign.
Sovereign countries send ambassadors to each other, but since the self-governing Dominions shared a sovereign with the U.K., it wasn’t appropriate to send an ambassador. So the practice developed of the self-governing Dominions sending “High Commissioners” to London, to represent their interests. (I believe Canada was the first Dominion to do so.) Similarly, the U.K. sends High Commissioners to the other Commonwealth countries, as explained on the website of the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Definition of Diplomatic and Consular Missions:
Like the U.K., Canada sends High Commissions to other Commonwealth countries, not ambassadors: