The Tribune

It was wholly predictable that the content of remarks by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex at a recent discussion with young leaders from the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust would cause controversy. In a video released last week and distributed around the world, Harry and Meghan - who are respectively president and vice president of this Trust - were seen talking about the Commonwealth in a way many people consider could undermine it.

Her Majesty The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth which is seen as one of the great successes of her record-breaking reign - and in 2018, she made Prince Harry a Commonwealth Youth Ambassador in order to communicate on her behalf with the two thirds of the citizens of the 54-strong organization who are under the age of 30. However, reportedly he relinquished this role on stepping back from royal duties.

In his openly critical comments the prince said that in order to move forward - which, he stated, it needed to do - the Commonwealth had to ‘acknowledge the past’ and ‘right its wrongs’, even if doing that would be uncomfortable. He added ‘there is so much more still to do’ while Meghan, for her part, said this should be a ‘moment of reckoning’ where people ‘own’ their past mistakes.

Many are puzzled by these remarks because the couple seem to be confusing the Commonwealth and the bygone British Empire. The former is a free and voluntary association mostly of Britain’s now independent past colonies but it also includes, for example, countries like Mozambique and Rwanda, respectively former colonies of Portugal and Belgium - as well as Cameroon which was once partitioned between Britain and France.

Britain, of course, has no power or control over members of the Commonwealth of which there are 15 Realms including The Bahamas (16 with Britain herself added) with The Queen as their titular head of state. Indeed, the whole point of the Commonwealth - known as a family of nations - is that it is a voluntary association of countries on equal terms. So claims of creating some sort of new empire are without foundation and incorrect. Since none of its members is either compelled to join or to stay in it, clearly they see their membership as advantageous or they would leave.

The Commonwealth’s purpose is to promote peace, democracy, human rights and other core values; and it has been described, in a nutshell, as an unparalleled network of professional expertise. The 54 countries have a combined population of 2.4 billion, a third of the world’s total, with a shared language, history and culture, common values and customs as well as common legal systems, institutional frameworks and close trading links. Its members appear to see value in these close links, especially economic ties including aid and technical co-operation; and the smaller countries, in particular, are known to regard the organization as a platform for them to be heard on a wider global stage.

Against this background, the wrongs mentioned by Prince Harry must refer to the Empire rather than the Commonwealth. There are surely dark events in the histories of most countries and Britain is no exception. Her imperial past contained both the good and the bad. The legitimacy of colonialism itself - for example, what is seen as the carve-up of Africa by European powers at the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 - has always been questioned, but the balance of the advantages and harm or downside of colonialism is a difficult subject that remains subject to debate. Some people recognise the benefits of the spread of democracy and good governance together with education and scientific and technological progress, while others see it as oppression, keeping people in bondage and using colonies to extract raw materials and riches.

It is significant that over the years Britain has admitted specific transgressions in her colonial history and has been prepared to express regret and issue official apologies or, in certain cases, pay compensation - to name just a few, concentration camps during the Boer War at the beginning of the 20th century, the Amritsar massacre in 1919, the partition of India at the time of its independence in 1947, the torture and abuse of Mau Mau detainees in Kenya in the 1950s for which the UK paid compensation to some 5,000 elderly Kenyans in 2013 - and, most recently, the unjustifiable treatment of the ‘Windrush’ generation, originally from the Caribbean, which is now under fresh consideration.

It follows any wrongs that need to be righted cannot now be laid at the door of today’s Commonwealth. Of course, in the current global debate about racism the most serious issue is the disgrace of the slave trade. Britain has always been prepared to admit its involvement in this and, as recently as 2018 during a visit to Ghana, Prince Charles said ‘we can never forget that our past has sometimes borne witness to tragedy and loss and, at times, injustice’. He was referring to what he described as the ‘appalling atrocity of the slave trade’ that ‘left an indelible stain on the history of the world’, but it should be remembered Britain had legislated at the beginning of the 19th century to outlaw the slave trade and used the Royal Navy to enforce its ban – and, at the time of a visit to Jamaica five years ago, the-then Prime Minister David Cameron ruled out the payment of reparations to the descendants of slaves in the Caribbean.

It seems many people are both disappointed and surprised that, while declining to mention anything positive about the Commonwealth, the Prince should now be saying, in effect, the overarching priority of the organization should be to atone for its alleged wrongs. Such remarks are ill-informed and historically inaccurate. His stance is also inconsistent with what his grandmother has been trying to do over the years to foster links and co-operation. It is noteworthy, too, that the Commonwealth has a good record in confronting colonial oppression; for example, in helping to bring about the end of apartheid in South Africa and of white minority rule in Rhodesia in the 1970s.

The Commonwealth is all about consensus, co-operation and working constructively, through the close links at the heart of the organization, to improve the lives of its citizens and to contribute to global peace. Long may this worthy and unique body on the world stage continue to flourish – and there is no need to start raking over its past history!

Remembering when Britain’s fate lay in the hands of The Few

Historians often tend to exaggerate claims of the significance of certain events that, for one reason or another, they favour. But there is no reason to doubt claims that the Battle of Britain, which began 80 years ago this month - July 10, 1940 - and lasted until October, was a decisive turning point in the Second World War and that it was a unique chapter in the nation’s history. No less an authority than Britain’s wartime leader, Winston Churchill, wrote in his official account of the war that in the summer of that year the country’s fate indeed hung in the balance as it faced invasion by Nazi Germany.

Hitler recognised that, having conquered the rest of Europe, his plans for an invasion of Britain, called Operation Sea Lion, depended on winning air supremacy above the English Channel and the chosen landing places on England’s south coast. Both he and Churchill knew the Germans had to destroy the Royal Air Force before launching an invasion. At that point, it seemed Britain was almost down and out following the large-scale evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk in May the same year with the loss of most of its equipment.

According to Churchill, in such circumstances the German leader could not conceive Britain would not accept a peace offer after the collapse of France. But, wrote Churchill, Hitler did not understand the separate resources of an Island state and the will of the British people to fight on rather than surrender to the power of Germany’s hitherto all-conquering war machine. It is self-evident a successful invasion of Britain and German occupation would have fundamentally changed the course of the war and of the history of Europe, but for that to happen the Germans needed mastery of the skies. It was a struggle between the British and German air forces on which the lives of the British people - and perhaps the freedom of the world - depended.

The evidence shows that what became known as the Battle of Britain was regarded as a ‘close-run affair’ and the RAF emerged triumphant by a narrow margin. Despite the Germans’ numerical superiority in both fighters and bombers, the RAF was well equipped with the famous Spitfires and Hurricanes and succeeded in repelling most of what the German air force, the Luftwaffe, threw at it – including the bombing of London and other cities known as the blitz. Churchill also commented that Britain’s radar system and sophisticated ground-control network, which gave early warning of Luftwaffe raids, made a significant difference. But the cost was high - with the RAF suffering the loss of more than 500 pilots and aircrew, mostly young men in their 20s including volunteers from other countries.

The eventual outcome was Hitler called off the invasion permanently and Britain was saved. In paying tribute to those concerned, Churchill praised the stamina and valour of the fighter pilots, called the ‘Few’, who, in his words, remained unconquerable and supreme - and this led to his inspiring words in the House of Commons that have become famous: ‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few’.

Is it time for a wily old Fox?

Without being aware of the latest developments, I understand The Bahamas is still in the frame for membership at some point of the World Trade Organization. So it is interesting to note that its Director-General – a Brazilian, Roberto Azevedo – is leaving his post in August thus cutting short his second term in office by a year. The reason for his early departure is not clear but it is presumably connected with the general view that the WTO needs to be reformed and its rules updated to take account of changes in the international economy as the world moves towards greater protectionism. It could also be that President Trump’s impatience with multilateral bodies might have contributed to the WTO’s credibility being undermined.

Britain, with its large economy and international political clout, may seek to play - post-Brexit - an enhanced role in the organization as the nation tries to secure its future role on the global stage, including new trade partnerships.

In competition with several candidates from other countries to become the new Director-General, the government has proposed a strong contender in the person of Dr Liam Fox, a former UK Secretary of State for International Trade with wide experience of global politics, who would be well placed to bring about reform of the WTO and to oversee and direct its traditional role of helping to negotiate multilateral trade deals and settle trade disputes. It has also been suggested he would be able to build bridges with the US.

Dr Fox is reported to have stressed the importance of using trade to promote peace and human progress, and it will be interesting to follow developments.