 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / June 2006Nations' reasons for non-membership of the Commonwealth?
A discussion has arisen on another (travel) newsgroup as to why those ex-Brit Empire nations who did not join the Commonwealth made that decision. Some thoughts have been swinging around, some of which are epitomised in one later post as below. Any thoughts from here? ====================================== > > Iraq, Kuwait etc. were only English post 1st world war, and weren't > > exactly wanted. The Trucial states, as they were known were only > > protectorates I believe and there was no local involvement in > > Government. > > Generally speaking, this seems to be true of most of the "non-joiners". They > were bits of the former Turkish empire or Germany's African colonies given > into temporary British care after the First World War. The Irish Republic's > decision can, as suggested, probably be attributed to history (war of > independence, partition, etc.). It would be interesting to see what happened > if Scotland ever gets independence from the "Auld Enemy". :-) From Surreyman: Nope, nope, nope and nope. Iraq was due to WWI of course, but Britain's presence in the Gulf was long before then. Dates of Brit formal 'takeovers' ('influence' is usually rather before then) are, for instance: Kuwait, 1899 UAE, 1892 Bahrein, 1880 Yemen, 1802 Oman, 1861 As to influence within local government, the British presence was usually totally dominant. Egypt was 'only' a Protectorate for instance. The WWI ex-German African possessions all remained within the Commonwealth in fact. Most 'leavers' appear to be Islamic/Arab, of which not one is a member, I think. This is despite the fact that very good relationships remain with most, and that this was long before '9/11' etc. I would not think it's purely a religious thing, since other Islamic nations are members. It's not only due to possible 'colonial experiences' since some who 'suffered' are members, and others who enjoyed normal, even excellent, relationships are not. Incidentally, I have just noted that Eire was indeed a member until 1949, so presumably Partition was not the reason there? It's generated interesting thoughts which, in some 50 years of being interested in the subject, I have never really considered! It's worthy of some time. I might well contact the non-member embassies and see, at least, what the 'official' reasons might be. Surreyman > Incidentally, I have just noted that Eire was indeed a member until 1949, so > presumably Partition was not the reason there? I have heard that Ireland is the only country to ever leave the Commonwealth and not rejoin it again later. Allan > > Incidentally, I have just noted that Eire was indeed a member until 1949, > so > > presumably Partition was not the reason there? > > I have heard that Ireland is the only country to ever leave the Commonwealth > and not rejoin it again later. Yep, that's right, except for 'changed' members such as Newfoundland, Tanganyika, Zanzibar etc. However, Zimbabwe was suspended, then made their own decision to leave, and has not yet returned ........... Surreyman > > I have heard that Ireland is the only country to ever leave the > > Commonwealth and not rejoin it again later. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However, Zimbabwe was suspended, then made their own decision to > leave, and has not yet returned ........... How can Newfoundland be said ever to have left the Commonwealth?  SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) > > > I have heard that Ireland is the only country to ever leave the > > > Commonwealth and not rejoin it again later. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How can Newfoundland be said ever to have left the Commonwealth? .Cos it used to be a mighty Dominion and a member in its own right, but is now just a bit of Canada! :-)) Surreyman > > > Yep, that's right, except for 'changed' members such as > > > Newfoundland, Tanganyika, Zanzibar etc. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > .Cos it used to be a mighty Dominion and a member in its own right, but is > now just a bit of Canada! :-)) As a province in Canada where there is a division of powers written into the constitution, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador still has vestiges of the sovereignty it had as a dominion (and which it lost under the Commission of Government regime to which it had to submit to get the UK to bail out its arse). In 1949 Newfoundland's sovereign changed from the "George VI, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions across the Seas, King...," to "George VI, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories, ing..." -- same guy, same fancy hat, different file. At no time did it leave the Commonwealth, it just ceased to be a participant in CHOGMs or their 1930s equivalent. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) > > > > Yep, that's right, except for 'changed' members such as > > > > Newfoundland, Tanganyika, Zanzibar etc. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > CHOGMs or their 1930s equivalent. > -- Yeh - fair enuff! :-)) OK - relinquished its individual membership etc.! Surreyman > I have heard that Ireland is the only country to ever leave the Commonwealth > and not rejoin it again later. You could say "Ireland is an exception," but then the 3 or 4 dozen Commonwealth members seem to offer more exceptions than "rules" -- as has been usual since imperial conferences began in 1887. It was the proclamation of a national republic that took Ireland formally out of the Commonwealth, like India and Pakistan and a decade later South Africa, by which date the precedent had been invented that republics could apply to rejoin and like India hope to be accepted. In the case of Ireland, the original 1921 agreement guaranteed the free flow of people and capital between the UK and the Irish Free State: Britain even let Irish nationals vote in British elections. Formal Commonwealth membership offered Ireland no incentives equal to what had been uniquely guaranteed. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > It was the proclamation of a national republic that > took Ireland formally out of the Commonwealth, > like India and Pakistan and a decade later South > Africa, by which date the precedent had been > invented that republics could apply to rejoin and > like India hope to be accepted. I don't think there was ever much doubt of India's reapplication being rejected. Too big and too many Indians living in the UK. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.