![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldIn Saturday's Globe and Mail, Doug Saunders was very critical of the Commonwealth of Nations, especially Canada's role therein.
The Commonwealth, successor to the British Empire, seems, well, amorphous. If the Commonwealth was a viable federation of Britain with its various dominions, that would be fine, I suppose, but what does it do in reality? The francophonie is frequently called the French answer to the Commonwealth, but the francophonie at least has clearly defined missions and goals, starting from the promotion of the French language in the world and then proceeding to democracy promotion and the like.
And as for myself? I respond to multiple identities--Canadian, Ontarian and Torontonian by choice, Anglophone with fluency in French, queer, blogger, et cetera--but the idea of loyalty to the Commonwealth strikes me as silly, like something that I might find in my mother's old schoolbooks from the 1950s and 1960s. It's out of date, and it's best to simplify and make space for new identities. In my humble opinion, of course.
As the Commonwealth celebrates its 60th birthday in London, the Canadian government is doing everything it can to distance itself from this awkward, enormous, ill-defined organization.
And the feeling is mutual: Within the walls of Marlborough House, the Westminster mansion that is home to the Commonwealth secretariat, there is a great deal of anger and antipathy directed toward Canada, which has strongly resisted the Commonwealth's efforts to reach a climate-change pact among its 50 member nations.
“Canada is really hated by Commonwealth members at the moment,” one insider tells me. “They have all but pulled out of the Commonwealth.”
Even if you don't agree with Ottawa's climate position, it's just as well that we're pulling away from the Commonwealth.
On Monday, Canada will begin free-trade talks with the European Union in a bargaining session in Ottawa. If signed, this integration deal will give Canada open markets and free exchange of goods, capital and government contracts with the 27 member countries. It may also provide free movement of skilled workers.
These are exactly the things the Commonwealth once promised. People of my parents' generation imagine that the Commonwealth offers some sort of benefit in visa or trade privileges. Otherwise, why have it? Surely, at least, it lets us import Marks and Spencer goods without tariffs?
It gives us nothing of the sort.
Today, the 450 million citizens of European Union nations have the right to live in Britain, work there and settle there as full citizens, without so much as filling out a form. Canada, as a Commonwealth member, has tight visa restrictions. And if you're from Nigeria or Sri Lanka, you'll have a hard time even visiting Britain or Canada.
The Commonwealth, successor to the British Empire, seems, well, amorphous. If the Commonwealth was a viable federation of Britain with its various dominions, that would be fine, I suppose, but what does it do in reality? The francophonie is frequently called the French answer to the Commonwealth, but the francophonie at least has clearly defined missions and goals, starting from the promotion of the French language in the world and then proceeding to democracy promotion and the like.
And as for myself? I respond to multiple identities--Canadian, Ontarian and Torontonian by choice, Anglophone with fluency in French, queer, blogger, et cetera--but the idea of loyalty to the Commonwealth strikes me as silly, like something that I might find in my mother's old schoolbooks from the 1950s and 1960s. It's out of date, and it's best to simplify and make space for new identities. In my humble opinion, of course.
