Commonwealth of Nations: How Britain is spreading its influence in the world

https://rybar.ru/sodruzhestvo-naczij-kak-velikobritaniya-rasprostranyaet-svoe-vliyanie-v-mire/

At present the Commonwealth of Nations - according to the definition offered by the organization itself - is "a voluntary association of independent and equal sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and cooperating in the interests of peoples and promoting international understanding and world peace, and influencing the international community for the common good through the pursuit of common principles and values".

By 2022, the list of "independent and equal" includes 56 nations, which are formally under no obligation to each other, but adhere to the Commonwealth charter and recognise King Charles III as head of the organisation and English as the Commonwealth language.

By now the population of the Commonwealth of Nations countries exceeds two and a half billion people and, as the Commonwealth "advertising booklets" say, makes up one third of all mankind. And most of it is concentrated on the Indian subcontinent: Bangladesh (165 million people), Pakistan (229 million) and India itself (1.35 billion).

However, the largest contingent of countries in the Commonwealth are African states - 19 republics and two monarchies. Of the members of the European Union, however, only two - Cyprus and Malta.

And yes, for the most part the Commonwealth of Nations consists of former British colonies, but lately this factor can no longer be called decisive. In particular, the organization's charter presupposes a historical connection to a state that already is one as a basis for joining its ranks.

Thus, in June 2022 former French colonies in Africa - Togo and Gabon - were admitted to the Commonwealth. Rwanda and Mozambique, which were not under the British crown, were also admitted earlier.

The proviso of a historical connection with an incumbent member generally provides ample scope for potential expansion of the Commonwealth at one time or another. For example, the US, Ireland, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen or even Israel are now potentially eligible for membership. Rwanda and Mozambique, on the other hand, have historical links to Belgium and Portugal, whose colonies they once were, which allows for even bolder fantasies in this direction.

However, participation in the Commonwealth of Nations looks most beneficial in the first place for small and/or developing countries - the charter of the organisation openly states that "small" and "vulnerable" states should be helped in their development and supported in times of danger.

Why does the Commonwealth of Nations mechanism work in the 21st century?

It is commonly thought that, at present, participation in the Commonwealth of Nations is largely symbolic and more of a tribute to tradition for its members, but this is far from the case.

First of all, this is a fairly well functioning economic space, in which a number of countries simply benefit from membership. In fact, Britain has managed to create a mechanism which does not require huge financial investments, but which brings certain benefits to almost all its participants - first of all, of course, to the British leadership.

However, the economic attractiveness of the Commonwealth should not be exaggerated: the role of member states for Britain as targets for investment has been steadily declining since the collapse of the empire in the 1960s. By comparison, between 1904 and 1913, roughly half of all the kingdom's overseas capital investment came from the British Empire, and already in the 1980s the Commonwealth accounted for 40% of direct investment. Today, Commonwealth countries are even less important than other investment centres.

That said, the Commonwealth plays a certain (and very significant) role in the UK's adjustment to the new international environment, reinforcing its position in major international organisations. In addition, through Commonwealth institutions, the British leadership engages directly with the people and authorities of its member states, spreading its interests, as well as introducing mandatory views on issues of importance to the former empire.

This raises the question of how the British leadership has been able to maintain such a mechanism for many years, and make good use of it? Indeed, not everyone in the Commonwealth remembers British rule as positive, or even beneficial.

By far the most important factor here is economic, with a strong historical basis that can be traced back to the development of systems of British domination in the form of colonialism and neocolonialism.

Few people now remember at all how the system of colonialism became established in particular territories in the first place. For example, it is often said that it was primarily individuals from the British establishment (aristocratic families or those close to them, such as David Livingstone) who were sent to specific territories and established contact with the local population.

The most common scenario involved the establishment of relations with the leaders of tribal communities. A characteristic feature of these communities was the acquisition of power by force (for example, through combat). The British, by establishing contact with such leaders, were in effect offering them the option of escaping from the power factor and gaining permanent (and often hereditary) power. This entailed power and financial support for the ruling class of a community, from which a local aristocracy, loyal to the British throne and indebted to its position, subsequently emerged.

These communities later became, with the help of the British Empire, national entities and the site of the first transnational corporation, the British East India Company. In return, the inhabitants of the new colonies were able to sell their goods within the British Empire and buy British goods at lower prices. Incidentally, in the same way, the British squeezed Spain in its own colonies, offering to buy goods (every bit as good as those of Spain) at cheaper prices than the competition.

In fact, the British created (or modernized) the economic systems in the colonies in such a way that they retained control over the sale of colonial goods.

Subsequently - after World War II - many colonies declared independence from the kingdom. The British authorities, not too obstinate (at least visually), abandoned many of them, granting autonomy to the national elite they had formed. Remarkably, this did not affect the dominions, where the elite was predominantly British to begin with. Thus, the most important territories remained under British rule in one way or another, while the newly "independent" states faced the need to exist independently, deprived of all the preferences guaranteed by Britain and support in marketing their goods in key world markets.

Of course, the welfare of these states fell immediately - and dramatically - and so the leaders logically began to return to engagement with the British on their terms. This period is known as neo-colonialism - a prime example being the accession of many African and Caribbean states to the Commonwealth of Nations.

Not just economics

We should also pay attention to the fact that most Commonwealth members (even those that are not former colonies or protectorates) are similar to Britain in several respects, one of which is the class division of society in these states.

This can be seen in various forms and is especially evident in India, with its caste system. Incidentally, in all the colonies, it was members of the upper classes of Indian society who enjoyed the greatest privileges in the British Empire, both in its past and present forms.

In the dominions - even such large and "democratic" ones such as Canada and Australia - the situation looks different and at the legislative level there is no rigid system determining the different strata of the population. But the actual absence of a social lift by which a given citizen can improve or change his or her own situation (not even so much financially) betrays the existence of such a class system.

That said, there is simply no better alternative for the potential restructuring of economic and social institutions in the Commonwealth at the moment - the mechanism therefore persists on its own, and not just through the direct efforts of British leadership. Although it plays a significant role as well.

The situation is a little different for small island Commonwealth members such as those in the Caribbean. Such a system of social structure is not typical of them due to their different level of socio-political development. However, in this case, the inability to meet all their needs and ensure their independence on their own plays an important role, and here the UK acts as the guarantor of the real survival of these state formations.

In this case, the British leadership, as already noted above, does not indulge Commonwealth members in excessive funding, supporting them mostly by acquiescing to certain political actions. As for the economic factor, for the most part the kingdom's dominions not only support themselves, which is particularly evident in the case of Canada and Australia, but are also responsible for the financial "support" of the more vulnerable Commonwealth members.

Control and influence

The interaction between the head of the organisation, represented by the British monarch, and the many members of the Commonwealth is formally conducted through several non-governmental organisations. These include:

Commonwealth of Learning (based in Canada), responsible for developing educational programmes and promoting a system of grants to the most vulnerable members of the Commonwealth;

The Commonwealth Foundation - based directly at Marlborough House in London - is responsible for engaging with civil society representatives in Commonwealth countries;

The Commonwealth Secretariat, which is responsible for the provision of unification and also serves as a link between the British leadership and other members.

The real governance and engagement with the territories goes both directly - through British officials at various levels or through open investment - and indirectly. For example, through the leadership of the Dominion countries, through shadow financial operations, and through international non-governmental organisations, many of which were not only originally established in Foggy Albion, but still receive tranches from the British treasury to this day. We will look at a few examples of the "work" of these organisations below.

Amnesty International

Amnesty International is an international non-governmental organisation founded in the United Kingdom in 1961. The official purpose of the NGO is "to study and act to prevent and end violations of the rights to physical and psychological integrity, to freedom of conscience and expression, and to freedom from discrimination in the context of its work to promote human rights.

In fact, Amnesty International's leadership and activists have intervened (directly or indirectly) in the political processes of numerous countries, including Australia, the Czech Republic, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Russia and Nigeria.

Amnesty International is mostly engaged in creation of a negative media image of this or that country as well as gathering materials of varying degrees of legality for subsequent accusation of this or that state from the tribune of major international organisations. The main task is to constantly highlight negative events, often greatly exaggerating their scale and possible consequences.

In particular, Amnesty International's reports are believed to have been used to legitimise the US war in the Persian Gulf. The organisation circulated the story of a Kuwaiti woman who was known to the US Congress only by her first name, Nayyira. She said that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, she stayed behind to volunteer at a local hospital and saw Iraqi soldiers steal incubators with babies and leave them to freeze to death.

Amnesty International experts corroborated the story, slightly exaggerating the number of dead children to more than 300, which was basically more than the number of incubators available in all the city hospitals in the country.

Naira's testimony was broadcast on ABC's Nightline and NBC Nightly News, with an audience of between 35 and 53 million Americans at the time. Subsequently, US senators have repeatedly quoted Naira's testimony in their speeches in support of the use of military force. President George W. Bush himself repeated the story no less than ten times in the weeks that followed.

After the war was over, it emerged that the woman had lied, the story had been fabricated and her name withheld because her father was a delegate from the Kuwaiti government at the same US congressional hearings.

In Congo in 2000, the organisation also played a role. In its report on the country, Amnesty International exposed the repression allegedly being carried out by the official government. The Congolese authorities denied the allegations and pointed out that this was the Western misconception, which was broadcast all over the world media, but had little to do with the real situation.

In particular, the report described reprisals against opposition politicians, journalists, human rights activists and trade unionists. However, most of the abuses took place away from the conflict areas. In particular, the nature of the war in Congo, which was blamed on the illegal invasion of the country by Rwanda and Uganda, was not generally taken into account in the document. However, Amnesty International did not take these factors into account.

The government also pointed out that the organisation ignored the principle that governments have the right to adopt heightened security measures. In addition, Amnesty International human rights defenders have not documented human rights abuses in areas that have been occupied by rebels - that is, almost a third of the country.

Roughly the same accusations were made against Amnesty International in Egypt in 2019. The country's authorities have also accused the NGO of bias and publishing biased information. In particular, the organisation published a tweet stating that "Cairo, the capital of Egypt, is closed" and that Egyptian security forces had "set up checkpoints throughout the city and blocked all roads leading to Tahrir Square and closed four nearby metro stations, preventing people from exercising their rights to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly." In fact, this claim was based on the closure of several roads and four of the 53 metro stations in Greater Cairo due to maintenance work on them.

That said, it is worth noting that Amnesty International did not make similar remarks to France when dozens of metro stations and bus routes in Paris were closed weekly for an entire year due to the Yellow Vests protests.

In Iran, for example, Amnesty International circulated information in 2019 that at least 106 civilians were killed by Iranian security forces during the protests. The organisation later revised the figure, stating that the death toll was higher at 304, claiming that unarmed protesters were deliberately killed by the authorities, who gave the green light for violent repression of dissent.

In reality, however, many citizens were killed by armed rioters, in addition, many of those killed turned out to be alive, and some, though indeed dead, died in towns where there were no protests at all.

Oxfam

Another UK-based international organisation, Oxfam is now comprised of 21 organisations in over 90 countries around the world. It was founded back in 1942 in Oxford as a local famine relief committee and has been involved in helping those affected by humanitarian crises around the world ever since.

The mechanism of the organisation's work is interesting: since its foundation, major Oxfam offices began to appear in the present and former British dominions and territories - Canada, Ireland, Australia, the US and others. Through these large offices, the organisation spread its influence, sending volunteers or resources to "crisis spots" in Asia, Africa, Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean.

For the most part, Oxfam's activities have created avenues for laundering or hiding the illicit capital of British elites, and have done little to actually solve humanitarian problems. Moreover, its staff have repeatedly been caught up in scandals, to put it mildly.

For example, one of the most high-profile scandals occurred in 2018 when Oxfam was accused of covering up its staff's involvement with prostitutes (mostly minors) during the Haiti earthquake response.

An internal investigation uncovered further evidence of sexual exploitation, intimidation and the creation of pornographic material. Oxfam Belgium head Ronald van Hauwermeiren admitted that he not only used prostitutes but also brought them to a villa in Port-au-Prince, the rent for which was paid from donations received by the organisation.

The investigation also revealed that similar events took place at Oxfam's mission in Chad in 2006. Its chief was also Ronald van Hauwermeiren.

The UK government promptly announced a complete review of cooperation with this humanitarian aid organisation, which, however, has not prevented it from continuing its activities to this day.

Save the Children

The other largest recipient of UK government funding is the charity Save the Children. It is currently an international organisation, but was founded in 1919 in the UK - six months later Save the Children had a branch in Sweden, through which its main work was carried out.

The official aim of the organisation is to improve and change the conditions of children in developing countries and countries with frequent armed conflicts. Save the Children currently operates in nearly 120 countries around the world and receives funds from such organizations as BlackRock, Pfizer, Wrigley, Chevron, Amazon, WWF and many others. Save the Children's high position in the ranking of international philanthropists allows potential investors to cut taxes and launch projects related to charity (sometimes very indirectly) in developing countries. For example, in partnership with Pfizer, the organisation supplies vaccination drugs to African countries, which subsequently often served as a basis for accusing these structures of illegal medical trials.

Sex scandals tainted its reputation too. In 2018, for example, it was revealed that the organisation was among more than 40 NGOs whose staff had coerced children and adolescents in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone into sex, taking advantage of their desperate condition.

Members of organisations including Médecins Sans Frontières, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Rescue Committee and many others were among those implicated in the report.

In some regions, it appeared that "benefactors" had even made the practice of exchanging humanitarian aid for sexual services commonplace: it was perceived by the local population as a given. An investigation revealed that the practice had been going on since at least 2002 and had become more widespread over the years.

Humanitarian workers often demanded sex from young girls and boys not only in exchange for food but also for other basic items: clothes and shoes, soap, materials for building shelters, textbooks and pencils, as well as access to educational programmes and temporary jobs.

However, as in the case of Oxfam, such allegations have not particularly affected Save the Children's activities. The organisation's total income for the year to the end of December 2021 was £1.1 billion, up from £962.8 million in 2020.

And the prospects?

As noted earlier, the scope for potential expansion of the Commonwealth is formally almost unlimited. However, the UK authorities have no real economic need for most Commonwealth members, but are expanding the Commonwealth out of political necessity. A kind of practical implementation of the principle "if you do not control something, your competitor will". In essence, direct or indirect control is required over as many territories as possible, ideally all. Which is, in fact, what globalism is all about.

In this regard, it is naive to believe that the mechanism described in the article is directed only at certain members of a particular Commonwealth of Nations - work to establish control and spread a certain influence (which can only be called British in words) is ongoing and affects almost all countries in the world - including Russia.

As for the current members of the Commonwealth of Nations, it is highly unlikely that in the coming years many of them will be able to abandon the economic and political arrangements that effectively preserve the Commonwealth in its present form. That said, it is highly doubtful that the financial outlay on the real improvement of the lives of most of the union's countries will somehow increase significantly on the part of the kingdom. Instead, they will continue to be territories that are exploited for next to nothing by transnational corporations that make fabulous money from cheap labour, natural resources and all sorts of illegal operations.

(Translated from Russian by Laura Ruggeri)