(I seem to remember that there’s at least one country in the Commonwealth that applied for entry and was not part of the old British Empire…)
It is prevented from membership, because the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth, and something really basic in US law prevents the Queen from having even figurehead authority over any US affairs.
(I’m pretty certain that there are both republics and monarchies in the Commonwealth. Some of the monarchies have Queen Elizabeth II as ruler, and others don’t…)
Someone in the rest of the Commonmwealth doesn’t want it to…
(Fear of lopsidedness in the resulting organization if the US joined? Desire for a non-US organization to counterbalance the influence of the USA?
U know Independance day? well the original independance day, IIRC, was when the states decided they wanted nothing to do with England and the rest. (they won a war i believe)
but then, i don’t pay attention much in social studies, so don’t quote that…
like Wump said. A long and bloody war (the Revolutionary War) was fought to make certain all crown authority was terminated. Those who wanted to be part of the British Empire either fled or were driven out, mostly to Canada. Another war was fought (the War of 1812), for many reasons, but one of which was to ensure that any claims of British sovereignty (i.e. over our seamen) were strenously opposed. We decided early on that WE AIN’T HAVING NONE OF THAT, for better or for worse.
Ouch! My brain hurts! Don’t you guys know any US history? Let alone the history of the rest of the world?
Just precisely what do you think the Commonwealth is? What was it set up for? And why on earth would the US be a member nation?
Wump are you really saying that the US was a Commonwealth before the war? Which war? If it is the War of Independence, then the Commonwealth didn’t exist that far back!
You mean the US is not in the Commonwealth? And what about all these people running for Governor-Gerneral? And all my coins with a picture of the Queen on it?
I hope I don’t get pulled over by the Royal Los Angeles Police Department on the way to work tomorrow.
FWIW, England can’t really be described as a political entity in itself, so couldn’t really become a state of the US (I assume that’s what you mean), unless it seceded from the union and set up it’s own parliament. Curiously, this issue has been addressed, both at committee level in the commons and by, IIRC a senator (I could be wrong here), Phil Gramm. I’m not sure what his interest in the subject is, but I believe the US International Trade Commission was asked to prepare a report on the UK (or more likely GB) joining NAFTA, although of course that is somewhat different from becoming a state.
I was wondering wherther there is antyhing that would prevent the USA from becomong part of the Commonwealth if it so wanted.
Perhaps my OP was not sufficiently precise–I am aware of the War of American Independence.
As well as other minor details, like the fact that a lot of people in eastern Ontario until recently put the letters UEL after their names: United Empire Loyalists, the ones who lost the Revolution…
I see the advance guard of Canadians in California is already beginning to have a beneficial effect!
<memo to Prime Minister>
Phase One appears to be successful! Next stop, Sacramento… and then it won’t be long before California and the west coast are back where they belong, snuggled in the protective arms of the Dominion, next to British Columbia.
</memo>
The answer is largely (1), although (3) would also apply if it ever wanted to.
The Commonwealth is little more than an international club whose main purpose is to promote good will between those countries which formerly made up the British Empire. It only dates from the late 1940s when the granting of independence to India and Pakistan began the real process of decolonisation. Other former colonies, such as Australia and Canada, had been granted almost full automony before then, but most had remained monarchies with the British monarch as their head of state. India and Pakistan both became republics and so the Commonwealth was devised as an alternative to a vestigal link via the Crown. Some countries which have left or been expelled have subsequently been readmitted. The Queen’s position as its Head is purely ceremonial.
I suspect that there is no legal reason why the U.S.A. could not be admitted. It is just that there is no obvious reason why it would want to. The existing members would also almost certainly refuse to admit it. Successive British governments have usually regarded the Commonwealth as little more than an irrelevance. For some of the other members, its main advantage has been that it is one international organisation which is not dominated by a superpower. Attempts by Britain to act as first-among-equals have usually been resented.
On the other hand, the Commonwealth does give citizens of the various member states a bit more freedom to move around among the member states than non-citizens have.
To illustrate: a friend of mine from Canada was able to get a teaching job in Malaysia without huge amounts of redtape and an international incident being involved. Another friend from Canada left grad school and went out to live in Australia for a year, just to “find himself”.
Whereas when I (a US citizen) moved to Canada for grad school, I had to get a student visa, a work authorization which forbade me to work outside my department at the university, and I had demonstrate how I intended to support myself i.e. I was not allowed to become a burden on the state. Had I come from a Commonwealth nation, I suspect the rules would have been somewhat less stringent.
Why is it that when the USA became independent, ties to the Crown were severed, while Canada and Australia became independent without severing those ties?
or: Canada’s independence seems to be of a different nature than the USA’s independence. Please clarify.
> Why is it that when the USA became independent, ties to the Crown were severed, while Canada and Australia became independent without severing those ties?
Because those two countries didn’t fight wars for their independence. Doesn’t anyone read history?
Speaking of history: I live not far from the Brandywine Battlefield State Park in southeastern Pennsylvania. I was mentioning this to my friends in Toronto, who is a member of the Canadian Army Reserve, specifically the “First American” regiment. He said, “Oh yes, my regiment fought in that battle.” I said, “The ‘First American’?.. Oh right, on the other side.”
Don’t know how much this contributes to the thread, but for what it’s worth…
There is an island group in the Pacific which has never been under British control that is applying for membership of the Commonwealth. As soon as I extricate its name from the load of junk currently clogging my brain, I’ll post it.
So, in theory, the US could join the Commonwealth. Of course, they’d have to change the Constitution to allow the Queen to be head of state, and that wouldn’t happen in about a million years. But, then, I did say “in theory.”
(1) “Because the United States has its own head of state.” You mean, like India?
(2) “Because the United States is an independent republic.” 18 Commonwealth members were republics when my Funk & Wagnalls was published.
(3) “Because the United States won its independence in a bitter and freshly-remembered struggle.” Compared to India’s or Rhodesia’s independence struggles? I don’t think so. (No, Rhodesia was never part of the Commonwealth, but Zimbabwe is.)
So, no, I’ll submit that there is no formal reason why the U.S. cannot be part of the Commonwealth. It does not amount to a surrender of sovereignty; the Queen has no more authority to run Australia or Tuvala than does the U.N. Secretary General. Nor is she even the de jure head of state of many of these countries.
Looking at my Commonwealth list, http://www.thecommonwealth.org/ , I can think of another bunch of places which have a claim to being former British colonies. I suppose they are not because the British didn’t claim to own them, but if you look at the Middle East, you’d have to admit big chunks of it have been under British control at one time or another, mostly due to being carved off of the Ottoman Empire: Egypt, Israel, various parts of the Arabian peninsula. How about Iran, for the mid-WWII occupation by Britain?
It’s not that big of a deal, but my point is, plenty of countries have been run by Britain that aren’t in the Commonwealth.
No fair, Uncle George! How come you let them go, but you won’t let me! [/ranting and crying]