Lessons from the Commonwealths
One sunny spring day in London’s Parliament square, many peculiar flags were flying proudly outside the seat of British democracy. The occasion was Commonwealth Day, which is marked every year in March. This year the Commonwealth of Nations, which was originally established as the British Commonwealth in 1929, celebrates its 58th anniversary.
It is not clear to what extent, if any, the founders of the CIS considered the example of the British Commonwealth when they searched for the best way to bind the remnants of the Soviet Union together into a new loose association. Nonetheless, both commonwealths share a common origin, founded on the ruins of empires that were forced to undergo a major transformation in order to adapt to a new, complex and globalized world. In this transformation, however, the two commonwealths have chosen distinctly different paths.
On one hand, the Commonwealth of Nations, whose membership has grown from five countries to 53, has established a strong identity and an international profile, bringing together nations with extraordinarily diverse geography, culture and history. A number of states that have never belonged to the British Empire - such as Mozambique - have joined, other are waiting to be accepted. In the economic sphere, the Commonwealth’s GDP is about $7.8 trillion, or 16 percent of the total world economy, and accounts for 20 percent of global trade. However, the Commonwealth has not become either an economic union or a powerful security and political player. Moreover, it enjoys much less prestige and prominence in the UK itself. Unlike the once-celebrated Empire Day, Commonwealth Day is barely noticed by the British public.
The CIS, on the other hand, has a much smaller membership of 12 states that hold much more in common, including geographic proximity. The peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, which took most of the last decade, is often noted among the successes of the CIS. particularly Article 5 of the Belovezh Treaty, which recognized new states within their existing borders. The CIS also preserved visa-free travel and helped deal with the uneasy issue of Soviet-era debt. Recently, however, it has become engulfed by a profound existential crisis. Just a few weeks ago, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov admitted: “The CIS has failed to become either a full-fledged integration mechanism, or an influential international organization.” In fact, the organization is seen by some as a talking shop and by others as Russia’s geopolitical tool. A number of statesСlike GeorgiaСare considering leaving, while othersСlike UkraineСhave actually never ratified its charter. In its short history, the CIS has already been through several failed reformations and it now appears that even Russia, one of the main engines behind the group’s integrationist drive, is losing interest in it. But before we bid farewell to the CIS, perhaps it is worth examining what lessons might be learned from the experience of its UK-led counterpart.
Historic Legacies
The Empire is the Commonwealth of Nations
Lord Rosebury, January 18, 1884
The key test for any organization is determining whether, if it did not exist today, it would have been invented. For commonwealths, the test is somewhat different. Why, for example, did the British Commonwealth survive, while the Dutch-Indonesian Union and the French Union and Community, which used the British Commonwealth as a model, are no more? The answer is both complex and simple. The British Commonwealth succeeded in putting its historic legacy in the past, without degrading its achievements and strengths, in order to integrate itself into the modern world without imposing integration within. The Commonwealth was always transparent about its real aims and objectives, flexible to accommodate diverse interests and has proven powerful enough to lead the difficult transformation of its key player - the UK - from the imperial power into a consensus builder and advocate of the group’s least powerful and poorest members in other international forums.
There is no doubt that the Commonwealth was first created by the British to comfort those who felt the loss of empire. As time passed, the imperial nostalgia of the old generation gave way to legitimate aspirations of the new generation of British elites to preserve the UK as a global player in international affairs. Therefore, the Commonwealth, not being a sphere of influence of the British in a geopolitical sense, remains the symbol of its international role as a force for good in the world, rather than as a domineering superpower. Other, smaller, members of the Commonwealth use it to increase their international profile in order to receive development assistance.
Despite the fact that some states continue to feel resentment about the imperial history - particularly India and Zimbabwe - there is a common understanding that the Commonwealth is an instrument that can help overcome the troubles of the past, such as the racism, economic exploitation and humiliation of imperial rule, while preserving the positive heritage, such as its bureaucracy, legal system, accountancy procedures, business practices and remnants of trade ties, as well as the English language, that can help member states integrate into the wider international community.
The Commonwealth also serves as an instrument for member states to exert influence over Britain itself. The Commonwealth helped to transform Britain just as much, if not more, than it helped other member states to develop. It was within the Commonwealth that British civil servants and thinkers searched for and found the new post-imperial identity that could be shared and supported by the nation as a whole. The Council of the Commonwealth became the arena where Britain learned to negotiate its way through the rise of nationalism across its former dependent territories, where it had to descend from its moral heights after the Suez crisis and where it had to accept and eventually champion the anti-racism agenda vis-a`-vis apartheid in South Africa. Modern British foreign policy was shaped by the impact of these battles just as much as it is now being shaped by the challenges of maintaining special relations with the United States over policies in Iraq.
Multi-polarity inside the Commonwealth
Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared - this must some day become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Although the Commonwealth of Nations remains primarily the “British Club” - after all the queen is the Head of the Commonwealth and the only formal qualification for membership are full independence and acceptance of the Queen of England as “the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the head of commonwealth” - the era of Anglo-centrism in the Commonwealth has long been left behind. The reason why the Commonwealth has managed to modernize itself is that it has left the room for multi-polarity to manifest itself within the organization and used it to strengthen, rather than divide, the association.
The source of this multiplicity is primarily economic. The modern commonwealth contains 13 of the fastest growing and most dynamic economies in the
Moreover, the Commonwealth has not become a geopolitical bloc. Instead, it became a necessary and desirable bridge between many blocs being constructed around the world. It has left space for its members to join other powerful regional alliances.
There is a degree of military cooperation, some states even host British troops, but there are no limits on what relations member-states may have with other international players, including in the security sphere. On one hand, many of the Commonwealth nations are contributors of troops to UN peacekeeping operations outside of Commonwealth areas. On the other hand, British troops are not involved in some of the most protracted conflicts within the Commonwealth itself, such as Kashmir or Sri Lanka. A number of crises have shown the limitations of the Commonwealth as a security player. Following an invasion by the United States 1983, Grenada, a Commonwealth member, requested support from the Commonwealth. The governments of both the UK and Canada tried to apply pressure on the Reagan administration, but these efforts had a very limited impact.
The Commonwealth has not sought to duplicate the work of other international bodies, like the UN, but to identify and build upon those areas where its shared traditions give it a comparative advantage.
The only collective action that the Commonwealth has attempted to enforce, with limited success, was temporary suspension of membership from the Commonwealth Council. This action was taken against Nigeria and, most recently, Zimbabwe, on the grounds of suspension of democratic principles and constitutional norms in these states. Although this action had only a very limited impact, it is nonetheless important to recognize that increasingly it is common values, rather than economic integration or military alliance, that holds the modern Commonwealth together. In its 50 year history, the Commonwealth transitioned from a gentlemen’s club to an organization based on mutually-accepted rules and norms. Even as much in this system remains imperfect, the transformation is one of its most important achievements.
Beyond Integrationism
It is easy enough to define what the Commonwealth is not. Indeed this is quite a popular pastime.
Elizabeth II
The Commonwealth is known for its flexibility and pragmatism. It never aimed at recreating the Empire or at creating a new integrated entity under British rule or influence. The Commonwealth does not intend to be an organization that takes joint decisions subsequently requiring mandatory implementation by its members. Quite the opposite, the non-prescriptive, non-binding nature of Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings declarations enables the Commonwealth to be resilient as well as responsive to its members’ preoccupations. It has resisted adopting a Mission Statement out of fear that it would be too restrictive. The most effective instrument of the Commonwealth is that it often works quietly and passionately behind the scenes. Informal and voluntary linkages between Commonwealth member states is probably one of greatest sources of strength and the reason why it has survived many crises.
Another important source of strength is that it has become a peoples’ commonwealth. As the Commonwealth is just one of a number of regional and international organizations to which its member countries belong and no longer constitutes a top priority for many of its governments, it falls increasingly to the Commonwealth NGO network to maintain linkages. There are some 202 Commonwealth professional, educational, developmental and leisure organizations. Often run by volunteers with few resources, they have staying power, command genuine commitment and can be highly effective. They conduct “soft” activities, such as granting scholarships and sponsoring educational exchanges - which are extremely important for introducing new generations to Commonwealth values - and act as think tanks, developing and lobbying for contemporary and updated commonwealth agenda. The role of the Commonwealth Secretariat is to make sure that the work of states and NGOs are complementary.
Another important factor shaping the Commonwealth’s identity is migration. Over the years, the organization opened a path for many talented individuals from Commonwealth countries to come and work in the UK. Some went back, many did not. The existence of the Commonwealth meant in practice that migrants could more easily integrate into British society, having been raised with some elements of common heritage and language. An additional benefit to the UK has been that these diverse commonwealth cultures are now deeply integrated into British national identity.
Lessons for the CIS
Unlike the British Commonwealth, the CIS has traveled a very short path in its transformation. Unfortunately, its experience thus far offers little assurance that this commonwealth in its present form is likely to survive another 30 years. Its story is one of failed expectations, disappointment, rivalries and nihilism. The CIS is associated with endless meetings of state leaders and governments and with thousands of adopted decisions that remain unimplemented, or even unimplementable. Moreover, the CIS is seen as Russia’s attempt to legitimize its geopolitical ambitions in the near abroad and to keep others out. Finally, far from welcoming wider integration, the CIS is seen as an instrument to keep its members from interacting with other organizations, forcing them to adopt commitments they never intend to keep. As the CIS goes through yet another debate about its future, some lessons from the British Commonwealth could inform the discussion.
First, the CIS should stop pretending to be yet another integrationist project like the EU. Instead it should be recognized as an entity that is bound more by its historic legacies than by a common vision of the future. Some within the CIS are ready to see it perish rather than conceding to abandon its integrationist mission in favor of a largely symbolic, loosely associated and progressively less important institution. But the chances are that the CIS cannot escape becoming what it really is - another commonwealth. Its main priority should be to appreciate the commonly shared history of its members and deal with its historic legacies by identifying clearly the strengths that unite these countries, rather than by unconstructive, divisive debate about the past. There are quite a few positive legacies that immediately come to mind - infrastructure, education, science and technology, shared experience of post-Soviet transition and the Russian language as a regional lingua franca. All these elements should be reinforced rather than being taken for granted. Agreeing on this common heritage and finding ways to help preserve it and pass on to new generations would be significantly more valuable than anything the group has achieved thus far.
Second, the CIS should adopt a flexible approach rather than trying to build a bloc among such diverse regions as Central Asia, the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe. It should create a framework in which each of the CIS member states could become an ambassador of the Eurasian agenda within the many wider international organizations to which they seek to integrate. If Ukraine, Moldova or Georgia seek closer ties with the EU, while Russia remains an important power on the UN Security Council, and the Central Asian states build relations with ASEAN, these relationships could reinforce the CIS rather than cause its demise. The CIS should become a vehicle to facilitate, rather than suppress aspirations for integration in the wider international community. Any attempt to lock member states into one sphere of influence is inherently futile in today’s globalized and interdependent world.
Thirdly, the modern CIS cannot survive as a merely Russia-centric organization. It should instead transition towards a balanced internal multi-polarity. The first trends are already appearing. On one hand, Kazakhstan is emerging as an economic power, leading the way in implementing economic reforms. On the other hand, countries like Georgia and Ukraine are emerging as promoters of a new normative agenda.
However, it is important to remember that just as Britain plays a unique role in the Commonwealth of Nations, Russia has a special responsibility within the CIS. Therefore, in order for the CIS to continue, Russia has to show its willingness to change, to build consensus rather than impose it, and to have a genuine interest in promoting stability and prosperity within CIS states, even if this will undoubtedly mean diminishing their dependency on Russia. In this sense, the end of energy subsidies is a step in the right direction, although this should have been done in a more transparent and gradual manner.
A very important lesson from the British Commonwealth is that the CIS should not become a commonwealth of bureaucracy, which means little for the ordinary people. In the long run it cannot survive without becoming a “people’s commonwealth.” For this to happen, it has to gradually develop values such as the rule of law, a greater role for civil society and respect for basic human rights. There should not be any illusion that in the contemporary world any organization could have a future without adopting, however gradually, these norms and values, even if for many CIS states democratic systems remain a possibility only in the distant future.
Finally, the CIS should focus on promoting people-to-people contact, making this as important, if not more important, than its inter-governmental meetings. In this regard, scholarships and NGO contacts, including those from traditional community groups as well as professional associations should be developed and sufficiently funded.
There is no doubt that the British Commonwealth has a lot to learn from the CIS as well, like the fact that its Secretariat is not in Moscow, but in Minsk and that there is a much more concerted effort underway to harmonize legislation in many areas which could be an important vehicle for cultivating common interests. Perhaps the first step should be to initiate a dialogue of commonwealths. It could adopt the theme of this years’ Commonwealth day: “Respecting Difference, Promoting Understanding.”
Oksana Antonenko is a senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
