Rejoining Commonwealth would be good for Ireland | ||||||||
|
The Republic should consider rejoining the Commonwealth - both for itself and the confidence-building it would help promote with unionists, argues Robert Martin The Commonwealth today is not, as many Irish people imagine it to be, the British Empire in drag; it is not the resurrected cadaver of empire. It is over half a century since Ireland left the Commonwealth. It's time for the Irish to take another look. In 1997, in one of her last public acts as president of Ireland, Mary Robinson suggested that Ireland should seriously consider rejoining the Commonwealth. In 1998, writing in The Irish Times, Fintan O'Toole made a similar suggestion. The Taoiseach recently expressed a similar view. The first step in thinking about the modern Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of 2001, is gaining a clear understanding of what it is not. The simplest way of affirming this is to reflect on what the position would be today if the perception of the Commonwealth as the warmed-over corpse of empire were accurate. If it were, no one would give a damn about the Commonwealth. But many, many people in every corner of the earth do care about the Commonwealth. The reality must be different. Arnold Smith, the Canadian who became the Commonwealth's first secretary general in 1965, described it as an organisation formed by the leaders of national liberation movements. Who were those leaders? Jawaharlal Nehru (India), Julius Nyerere (Tanzania), Kenneth Kaunda (Zambia), Eric Williams (Trinidad), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) and Nelson Mandela (South Africa). Hardly the people one would imagine to be supporters of British imperialism in disguise. And does belonging to the organisation they created mean accepting a sort of recolonisation? The Commonwealth has not been "British" since 1949, when that adjective, with all it implied, was formally dropped from the organisation's name. Many Irish people and, unfortunately, many Canadians have yet to grasp this simple point. Would Commonwealth membership mean that the British queen would acquire some authority over Ireland? Not even remotely. Commonwealth membership does not require accepting the British monarch as head of state. There are 53 countries in the Commonwealth. Of these, no fewer than 32 are republics. Five have their own monarchs. Only 16 out of 53 retain Queen Elizabeth as their head of state. The key figure in the Commonwealth's administrative structure is the secretary general. Four persons have occupied this post - one from Canada, one from Guyana, one from Nigeria and the incumbent, from New Zealand. Still, for what it's worth, the Commonwealth secretariat is located in London. And Queen Elizabeth has the title "Head of the Commonwealth". The idea that this title gives her any authority - authority to interfere in the affairs of say, Uganda, would, I suspect, be both surprising and amusing to the President of Uganda. Neither the name nor likeness of the English queen appears on any of the national symbols of those Commonwealth states which are republics. After understanding what the Commonwealth is not, it is necessary to ask, what is it?. There are, in fact, two Commonwealths: the official Commonwealth and the unofficial - or people's - Commonwealth. The story of the modern Commonwealth began in 1926 with the Balfour Declaration. That document described the Commonwealth as a free association of equal states, "in no way subordinate one to another". The Statute of Westminster of 1931 formally removed any remaining legal fetters on the independence of Commonwealth states. The two countries most responsible for forcing these changes in the Commonwealth were Canada and Ireland. The London Declaration of 1949 removed the word "British" from the organisation's name and set out the constitutional formula which made it possible for republics to retain Commonwealth membership. But the London Declaration came only eight days after Ireland announced that, upon becoming a republic, it would leave the Commonwealth. In 1965 a formal structure for the Commonwealth was adopted. That structure is simple. Policy is set by the heads of government who meet every two years. The Commonwealth Secretariat's job is to carry out those policy decisions. The secretariat includes divisions devoted to Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Information and Public Affairs, Science and Technology, Human Resource Development and Gender and Youth Affairs. The secretariat also administers a fund which is used for investment in development co-operation. In 1971 heads of government meeting in Singapore adopted a Declaration of Commonwealth Principles. Central to these principles were a commitment to equality and a rejection of racism and colonialism. Hostility towards racism and racial division is the touchstone of the Commonwealth. And the Commonwealth's finest hour came in the next decades. It was unstinting in its opposition to settler rule in Zimbabwe and to apartheid in South Africa and in its support for the people seeking to achieve democracy in those countries. The People's Commonwealth is a network of agencies, non-governmental organisations, and ordinary men and women. The range of organisations involved is extraordinary, from the Association of Commonwealth Archivists and Record Managers to the Commonwealth Dental Association and the Commonwealth Trade Union Council.While the unofficial Commonwealth does a lot of good work, what is does may not be as important as how it does it. The Commonwealth's style is unique. We live in a dangerously fractured world. The Commonwealth actively addresses those fractures. At Commonwealth gatherings men and women from all parts of the world meet as equals and in mutual respect to address issues of common concern. In February of 1998 I was at a meeting at the Commonwealth secretariat. We sat around a magnificent 18th century wooden table. We came from Australia, Canada, Gambia, Jamaica, India, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa and the UK. With a handful of exceptions, none of us had ever met before. Our task was to devise a programme for implementation throughout the Commonwealth, to enhance access to justice. The meeting was to last two days. We talked. We exchanged experiences and points of view. And we came up with a programme which was both solid and practical. This is the way the People's Commonwealth usually works. Commonwealth membership would be good for Ireland and good for the Commonwealth. It would mean building on what already exists. As is the case, for example, with Irish aid. All but one of the priority recipient countries for Irish aid are Commonwealth members. Membership would lead to extending the range of direct government-to-government and people-to- people contacts. It would mean copper-fastening current ties and being able to create a host of new ones. I have argued that the perception of the Commonwealth as British is inaccurate and out of date and that the reality is quite different. But like it or not, perceptions, no matter how inaccurate, can be significant. The inaccurate perception that the Commonwealth remains British could be used to Ireland's benefit. There has been much talk of the need for confidence-building measures to encourage the peace process in the six counties of the North. A statement that the Irish Government was committed to rejoining the Commonwealth could be a significant confidence-building measure. The Commonwealth is an international organisation. It is not an alliance. Membership in the Commonwealth would in no way compromise Ireland's much-cherished neutrality. The Commonwealth consists of developed and developing countries, of First World nations and of Third World nations. Ireland would be the only developed, Western member of the Commonwealth to have experienced both colonialism and a struggle for independence. When Zimbabweans speak of colonialism, the oppression of minority rule and the struggle to revive national culture, their experiences resonate with Irish history. There is a natural bond between Ireland and the Asian, African and Caribbean countries of the Commonwealth. It should be strengthened and institutionalised. Commonwealth membership would be the best means of achieving these ends. Robert Martin is a professor of law at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. In 1996/97 he was a visiting law professor at Trinity College, Dublin. From 1985 to 2000, he was secretary/treasurer of the Commonwealth Association for Education in Journalism and Communication.
| ||||||||
|
