Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,857
Reply with quote  #1 
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/morally-bankrupt-un-is-a-disgrace-next-to-the-commonwealth/news-story/ef9d396f262620e670a356170216d92b

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie Phillips
This week, 53 Commonwealth heads of government are meeting in London for their biennial conference. For years the Commonwealth, the multinational body that arose from the ashes of the British Empire, was regarded with indifference by successive prime ministers. Brexit has changed all that.
 
Now the government views the Commonwealth as a valuable potential source of increased British trade and influence.
 
At the same time, there’s controversy over whether Prince Charles should become its head on the death of the Queen, whose deep commitment to her “family of nations” has been such a distinguishing feature of her reign.
 
Cue attacks on the Commonwealth as a useless relic of discredited imperialism and supine monarchism. Professor Philip Murphy, director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, says it can survive only by severing its links with the royal family.
 
In an article a few days ago, he scorned the notion that the Commonwealth could be of the slightest use after the “unmitigated disaster” of Brexit. His new book, The Empire’s New Clothes: The Myth of the Commonwealth, accuses it of hypocrisy, irrelevance and meaninglessness.
 
Strikingly, the UN is never subjected to this kind of attack, even though the consequences of its deficiencies as the designated policeman of the world are of far greater importance.
 
The chemical weapons attack in Syria has exposed yet again the chronic failure of the UN to uphold security, freedom and the rule of law. Although Russia brokered the 2013 deal guaranteeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, its ally President Assad has continued to use them. Yet the UN has not sanctioned Russia for this. Instead, it remains a member of the UN Security Council where last week it again blocked an investigation into Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
 
Worse than this, in a grotesque development Syria will next month assume the presidency of the 65-nation UN Conference on Disarmament, the very body that produced the treaty against chemical weapons that Syria has traduced.
 
The UN routinely makes a mockery of the very values it is pledged to uphold. Members of the UN human rights council include such notable exponents of democracy and human rights as China, Cuba, Egypt, Qatar, Pakistan, Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. At the conclusion of its four-week session last month, the council had passed one resolution on North Korea, one on Iran, two on Syria and no fewer than five on democratic Israel. How many resolutions were passed on human rights abuses in China, Cuba, Egypt, Qatar, Pakistan, Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Zero.
 
No one bats an eyelid at this. The charter of the Commonwealth commits it to upholding democracy, human rights, international peace and security, freedom of expression, the rule of law and so on. Its member states may be imperfect but at least the Commonwealth tries to hold offenders to account if they cross its red lines.
 
In 1995 it suspended Nigeria after it executed nine environmentalists; in 2002 it suspended Zimbabwe (which eventually left) after violence during the presidential election; in 2006 and 2009 it suspended Fiji after a military coup and the abrogation of the constitution; and in 1999 and 2007 it suspended Pakistan for imposing dictatorial powers.
 
By contrast, the UN treats tyrants as legitimate players on the global political stage. The problem is inherent in the belief that the UN’s world membership confers legitimacy. Much of the world, though, is run by tyrannical regimes. The notion that including bad people in a global body will draw their poison is a fantasy. The reality is that the tyrants hold the democrats hostage.
 
Far from embodying nostalgia for imperialism, the Commonwealth’s historic links with Britain mean its members have a cultural tie to our values. The UN is based merely upon abstract ideals of peace and justice to which member states may have no cultural affinity at all.
 
Moreover, the royal link is not an anachronistic offence against democracy. It is essential to guard against the institutionalised abuses of the UN. The monarchy is a unifying factor precisely because it stands above the political fray. Its one concern is to keep the Commonwealth show on the road. By contrast, the UN is a gladiatorial arena where the biggest bullies win.
 
The Commonwealth is attractive to countries that are not aggressive but value freedom and security. Australia and New Zealand rate it as useful in helping maintain peace and stability in the Pacific. Singapore and Malaysia see it as important in helping bolster them against China.
 
According to Professor David Martin Jones, of King’s College London, the Commonwealth may now get a new lease of life. It could be reinvigorated in particular by India, whose free-trader prime minister Narendra Modi sees it as important to the fledgling superpower’s long-term interests.
 
The UN is morally bankrupt. It is not fit for purpose. It never will be while it treats human rights abusers as legitimate members and allows them to operate with impunity.
 
What we need instead is a United Democratic Nations which treats dictators as pariahs. Given that’s not going to happen any time soon, however, the Commonwealth is probably as good as it gets.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote  #2 
Shouldn't this be in the Off Topic section?  It doesn't really address the monarchy.
__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,857
Reply with quote  #3 
It is relevant because the role of the Royal Family in the Commonwealth is being debated right now.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,875
Reply with quote  #4 
I'd have to agree with David, though Ethiomonarchist's objection was reasonable as the main thrust of the article was to attack the UN. But there was sufficient content on the monarchy for its inclusion here to also be reasonable. That aside, according to the BBC we can hope for good news shortly on the future headship. I will certainly be very pleased if things work out that way. It would be very much the best decision for the Commonwealth itself as well as the monarchy, in my opinion. Though to be honest I care about the latter a great deal more than I do the former.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,857
Reply with quote  #5 
In fairness, anything related to the politics of Britain and the Commonwealth has a direct or indirect relevance to the monarchy. This includes the Culture Wars posts I make, since it has a direct bearing on our heritage.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,875
Reply with quote  #6 
The decision has indeed been announced. Also denounced, of course, with all the petty-minded spite you'd expect from republicans and reverse racists everywhere. I won't bother to link to any of that, though. As for the reports that the CHOGM decided to do anything about over half of its members criminalising gay people just for being gay, I can't link to any of them, since it decided no such thing. And quite probably never even discussed the issue. I don't really see the Commonwealth having any great value as a bastion of democracy, and as a bastion of human rights it is a non-starter. But as long as it is around it is only right and proper that the British monarch, the monarch also of fifteen other member countries, should be at its head.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,857
Reply with quote  #7 
Keeping it within the Royal Family is the common sense thing to do. There would be no Commonwealth without the Royal Family.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,857
Reply with quote  #8 
http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/future-of-commonwealth/

Good article except for one thing: the Commonwealth is something the EU can never be.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.