Should Britain Opt Out?
Just before the Commonwealth Conference began, a leading British paper asked: "Should we roll out the red carpet and cheer when the Commonwealth leaders arrive in London this week? Sadly, no. For the truth is that several of those who are coming have not the slightest loyalty either to Britain or the Commonwealth."
The author of the above statement then went on to say that Mrs. Gandhi had just said that India would remain in the Commonwealth only just as long as she could get something out of it.
"She [Mrs. Indira Gandhi], like Dr. Kaunda and several others, is coming not to help us, but to stir up trouble by urging that we should make war against Rhodesia. Those countries have no ideals in common with us."
This same article then went on to point out that many of the Commonwealth countries insist on voting against Britain in the United Nations — where 12 Commonwealth nations recently either voted against Britain, or else abstained.
Each year Britain spends about two hundred million pounds ($500,000,000) in foreign aid — mostly on members of the Commonwealth. Besides this, another two hundred million pounds of private capital are spent on these countries annually.
Since World War II, Britain has spent about 350 million pounds on grants, gifts and various types of aid to the Commonwealth countries — nearly all in outright gifts.
This is what Britain, the "Sick Man of Europe," has been doing to help the developing countries — all at a time when Britain can ill afford to help anyone because of her chronic balance-of-payments crises which keep occurring with the regularity — and sometimes it would seem almost with the frequency — of the setting sun.
A London paper recently mentioned that Britain should tell other members of the Commonwealth that they really want to maintain the "spirit of kinship" of the Commonwealth. That the members of the Commonwealth must be prepared to extend towards Britain the same sympathy and understanding which she extends towards them. "And, if these warnings are ignored, we should in due course opt out of the present Commonwealth altogether. In the hope that other members of like mind will opt out too — to form a smaller grouping based on common ideals" — said this paper.
Many in Britain are beginning to see that today's multi-racial Commonwealth has been a constant drain and strain on Britain. This motley Commonwealth is proving to be a pretty lopsided affair for Britain especially.
But Britain, with utmost patience, has continued to delicately walk the Commonwealth's racial tightrope. Britain hasn't fallen off — yet! But South Africa did fall off that racial tightrope, and Rhodesia appears to be about ready to declare herself a Republic, and would undoubtedly have to leave the Commonwealth shortly thereafter — because of strong racial criticism from other members of this motley, British-founded club.
Many in Britain keep asking: "When will Britain become the mistress of her own destiny? When will she ally herself more closely with the old 'White Commonwealth' — who really do have so much in common, insofar as race, religion, language, laws and customs, government, etc. are concerned — and let the other disgruntled members of the Commonwealth go their own way? Let them then fend for themselves."
Many in Britain are tired of letting some of these Commonwealth members "kick them around," especially at the U.N. Britain is getting tired of picking up the check, always, while ungrateful members of the Commonwealth grumble and complain — yet are always wanting Britain to bail them out of their difficulties!
These red-blooded Britons would just as soon see Britain try to rebuild her links with the old, "White Commonwealth" and forget about the "ungrateful newcomers" who have joined the club since 1947.
Zambia's Prime Minister, Dr. Kaunda, has even gone so far as threatening to have Britain expelled — expelled from the very Commonwealth which she built up over the centuries. It looks like Britain's unruly, delinquent children have very little respect for their Mother.
"A Meaningless Facade?"
Once upon a time the Commonwealth was strong — meant much to all its members. Things are different today.
India's former Prime Minister Nehru once called the Commonwealth: "A rather strange and odd collection of nations which has found some kind of invisible link by seeing that practically there is no link." But he was referring to this new, mainly colored Commonwealth — not the old, "White Commonwealth."
Many have not realized that today's Commonwealth is responsible for over one fifth of all world trade; and that about one third of the world's international payments are still financed in sterling.
All Commonwealth countries (except Canada) belong to the sterling area — plus a number of nations who aren't members of the Commonwealth: The Irish Republic, Iceland, Jordan, Libya, Kuwait, South Africa and South West Africa, Western Samoa, the independent Sheikhdoms of eastern Arabia and the People's Republic of South Yemen.
When Britain declared war in World War I and II, the Old Commonwealth nations were automatically drawn into the fracas. Not so today. It is true that there are a number of defense treaties existing between the various members of the Commonwealth. Neither Britain nor any other country has the power to automatically involve the other nations in any national dispute with another Commonwealth nation. Britain was powerless to intervene in the war between India and Pakistan. They turned, rather, to Russia to help them settle their differences.
It is true that the Commonwealth governments, whatever their differences, still do work closely together in many ways: Here are a few fields in which they help each other: education, medicine, law, administration, scientific research, industrial planning, marketing techniques, architecture, agriculture, forestry, the arts, broadcasting and tourism.
And there are many benefits which accrue from being a member — especially if you are one of the poorer, under-developed and technically untrained nations. Most of this assistance is a one-way street — going out from Britain to these developing countries.
It is true, as Sir Kenneth Bradley put it, that the Commonwealth "exercises a stable force in the world" and is of some value in "bridging the gulf between the races and the gap between the developed and the developing world."
Sir Kenneth denies that the Commonwealth is "a meaningless facade."
Future of The Commonwealth?
What will happen to today's sprawling, multi-racial, seemingly impotent, disunited Commonwealth?
Almost two thousand years ago a very wise man enunciated a principle which applies to today's divided Commonwealth: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matt. 12:25).
The unruly, undisciplined children lost respect for the "Mother-country" years ago — and are sadly divided! Though Britain continues vainly, gingerly to walk the Commonwealth's racial tightrope, great difficulties lie ahead. British home legislation restricting colored immigration into Britain has only increased hostility from certain colored member nations.
What can Britain do? Can she please all this motley assortment of undisciplined nations? Will they really listen to her voice?
Or, has the "British Lion" lost much of its growl so that it is no longer feared and respected in other nations, or even in the Commonwealth itself?
Was Dean Acheson right when he said that Britain had lost an Empire, but hadn't been able to find her world role?
To some few Britons, it is disturbing to see Britain's present financial and political difficulties. And it distresses them to see Britain's waning power, prestige and influence in world affairs! It hurts them to see once-proud Great Britain — past-master of the world's greatest Empire — become a second-rate power. (Now Britain says she will soon withdraw from east of Suez — leaving a vacuum for further communist aggression)
And it also disturbs some of these red-blooded Britons to see that the very Mother-country of the Commonwealth has lost nearly all control over her very undisciplined children.
But, as for most Britons, they couldn't care less — so long as they can have the good life — plenty of beer, cigarettes, food, a "telly" — and can crowd into the gambling places and amusement centers so they can forget the past glories of a faded Empire. The younger generation of Britons are bored to tears with Britain's "great and glorious past."
Only a very few Britons have learned the lesson of General Gideon, the Commander-in-chief of ancient Israel's army. He cut his army down from 32,000 to only three hundred.
Better to have a few select brave ones who are dedicated, wholeheartedly, to the cause — than 750,000,000 critics and complainers who always have their hand out — but are not willing to put their shoulder to the wheel to do their vital part.
Will Britain learn her lesson? Will she yet be able to salvage the Commonwealth — and turn it into something of substance — something really worthwhile for herself and for all members of the club? Can Britain infuse the Commonwealth with spark, muscle, spirit — with new life?
If you really want to know what will happen to this "British-reared family of nations"—then you should write and request two free books:
The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy, and The Wonderful World Tomorrow — What It Will Be Like.
These books will reveal how the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-descended peoples of the British Commonwealth of nations — after first learning a vital lesson — will yet be instrumental in helping the peoples of India, of Africa and of many nations to overcome their poverty and ignorance and attain wealth and true greatness in the wonderful world tomorrow!