Commonwealth is good for nothing
March is a time of celebration for one of Canada’s longest-standing memberships.
In 1949, eight countries came together to form the modern Commonwealth. Canada was one of the original eight, and a leader in the formation of this voluntary association, for which Toronto’s Arnold Smith would serve as the first secretary-general.
Today, the Commonwealth has an eclectic membership of 54 countries, pursuing a vision of “a Commonwealth that is mutually respectful, resilient, peaceful and prosperous and that cherishes equality, diversity and shared values.”
Commonwealth membership is celebrated with the Commonwealth Games, Commonwealth Day in March each year, and elaborate summits. But is Canada’s spot in the Commonwealth worth the time and investment? One of the best ways to answer this question is to judge the association by its own aims.
One of the leading goals is moral instruction and development — to help members become upstanding members of the international community, advancing “the rule of law, gender equality and universal human rights.”
How is this well-intentioned club doing in its pursuit of principle?
It is home to many of the world’s leading human rights abusers. Amnesty International reports are filled with human rights abuses committed by Commonwealth members, and most member countries, covering 90 per cent of the Commonwealth population, still criminalize homosexuality.
Twenty-four members are not even classified as free countries by Freedom House’s global freedom scores, and this includes every member to join within the last 25 years.
While it may be argued that these are exactly the countries which could benefit from the moral guidance the Commonwealth strives to offer, what it really demonstrates is the association’s feebleness.
Lacking enforcement mechanisms for its ethical dictates and prescribed governing practices, and with little capacity to transform the attitudes of member countries, the Commonwealth is engaged in a futile moral mission.
Since our tenure as a moral instructor is not proving so fruitful, what about the economic benefits of membership?
Canada’s economic profile is very different from most Commonwealth members, and our economic interests are often mismatched as a result.
Only a tiny portion of Canada’s trade, less than five per cent, is done with member countries, and our top Commonwealth trading partner, the United Kingdom, is responsible for just two per cent of our total trade.
Like most member countries, Canada’s situation makes regional integration outside the Commonwealth more effective, and our deep economic relationship with the United States accounts for the vast majority of our trade, with China being our next biggest trading partner.
Finally, what about tradition? Does the Commonwealth have redeeming value as a body which embodies aspects of history Canadians want to keep alive?
Simply put, no. That something has been done, does not mean it should continue, nor does appreciating our past require Commonwealth membership.
Arguments based on tradition are also losing currency with Canadians more generally. Seventy-two per cent have no attachment to the monarchy, and only 29 per cent would vote to keep it in a referendum.
Canada has much thinking to do about what we want out of our long-standing relationships, and whether any of that is being achieved.
When it comes to the Commonwealth, the tens of millions of dollars Canada contributes each year to this obsolescent club could instead be spent improving the lives of Canadians in need.
And that would be something to celebrate.