The Biennial Commonwealth Summit takes place in Kampala, Uganda 22-24 November amidst the usual controversies that have surrounded these summits whose importance in a world in which Britain is nothing more than post imperial middle power whose claims to global leadership is no longer based on its imperial past but in recent years toadying to the USA (one of its former colonies!) The association of the organization with British colonialism has always been difficult for many radical anti colonialists to accept. However it is significant that apart from the USA that never joined most of Britain’s former colonies chose to join after their independence even countries with radical nationalists and militant anti imperialist governments like Nkrumah’s Ghana or Ghandi’s India. Instead of leaving the organization what has happened is that countries in Africa with tenuous or no direct links to British colonialism like Mozambique, Namibia and Cameroon have either joined or have some associate membership. Rwanda’s application to join has been pending since 1996.

The justification has always been that though these countries were forcibly colonized by Britain that experience has led to a number of shared institutions, histories and above all, English as their official language that could be the bases for technical, political, economic, cultural and diplomatic interface that goes beyond Britain. The Commonwealth, in typical British pragmatism, has been adjusting to the changing fortunes of Britain as a declining imperial power. It has evolved from White British Commonwealth, through British Commonwealth, to now simply, The Commonwealth. It has grown from being simply an adjunct to British diplomatic and political interests into an organization where former colonies can and do strike back and isolate Britain on many issues. Under Margaret Thatcher and her belligerent position in cosying up to Ian Smith (who incidentally died , as the Queen was heading for Uganda , Wednesday 21 November) and his ‘internal settlement’ in 1979 and her ignoble support for the apartheid regime, the British government could not get the support of the majority of the members of the Commonwealth. Indeed in spite of British support apartheid South Africa was expelled from the organization and only resumed membership after the country was liberated from Thatcher’s friends. To the right wing politicians and their media hirelings in Britain the Commonwealth is an anti-British organization therefore they query why Britain had to be providing the large support it gives towards running it.

The Commonwealth has also provided a means for the cheapest form of diplomacy for many poor countries and statelets to also fly their flag. In these countries the Commonwealth’s development cooperation, technical support and cultural exchanges are very crucial in providing capacity building on skills to the nationals and their governments. In these countries the Commonwealth perform much needed and therefore appreciated tasks that the best of UN system wide support do in many countries.

However the good work of the Commonwealth whether through education grants, training for different kinds of professionals, supporting judiciary, etc do not make headlines. One reason is that they are relatively quite modest. The other and more important reason is that the politics of the organization is what interests most people. It is Just like the way many people unfairly write off the UN because of their frustrations with the opportunistic power play in the security Council.

The focus on Commonwealth politics is not a misplaced one though they need to be tempered with due regard to other useful tasks it performs. In many cases I think there is an exaggerated expectation of what the Commonwealth can achieve. It is a talking shop with no real enforcement powers beyond expulsion of erring members. And that option has been rarely used. Zimbabwe withdrew before it could be expelled. But the exit of Zimbabwe has not diminished the controversy around the conflicts in the country within the Commonwealth. It continues to divide the organization with perceptible clear racial lines that pitches the majority members against the old White Commonwealth members (namely Australia, New Zealand, Canada and their mother country, Britain). They take a more hectoring line on Zimbabwe while the African, Caribbean and Asian countries tend to be more conciliatory towards Mugabe. The British simply do not have any moral or political right to lecture anyone about Zimbabwe. Their own inconsistencies also make them vulnerable to charges of multiple standards. The Zimbabwe conflict is parallel to Pakistan’s and the way Britain has been responding to Pakistan’s PERVERSE General Musharav is different from the way they talk to or about Zimbabwe. Why is it that what is good for the goose is suddenly not good for the gander? What has Musharaf lost by being expelled from the Commonwealth? It never affects its relations with London or his biggest backers in Washington? Although British hypocrisy does not mean that President Mugabe is right to be beating up his opponents and muscling the media, it gives his apologists ammunition to clobber opponents as agents of British colonialism and makes it even more difficult for Africans and African leaders in particular to be openly too critical of Uncle Bob and the excesses of his regime.

I thought Gordon Brown was more strategic and smarter than his predecessor, Blair, and would not be as sanctimonious as him but he has proven to be same, same. His threat not to attend the Africa-EU summit in Lisbon next month if Mugabe was invited has isolated him. He will soon discover as Blair did not just in Africa but also in the Commonwealth where even Britain needs friends. He should ask Mckinon, the Commonwealth Secretary General, about his experience at the AU summit in Accra in July. At a Pensioners’ Luncheon with the Leaders he looked on as these retired citizens praised Mugabe and demanded he address them. The wealth has never been common but it is no longer predictably British either. But when would it wean itself from the British Nanny by transforming into an organization that can welcome continued participation of Britain but can also do without it, as and when necessary.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/