Engelsk A – studentereksamen
B: A royal salute to the Commonwealth

The text ”A royal salute to the Commonwealth” begins by looking back at the history between Britain and Canada, showing the strong band between the nations by referring to the visit of King Edward VII in Canada, and later when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (William and Kate) visited Canada.

The British journalist and political commentator Peter Osborn has written the text. He is wondering if the Commonwealth organization still has its value and importance and what the future should bring for Britain concerning the Commonwealth of Nations. Throughout the text he argues the keeping and protecting of the Commonwealth questioning the influence of the European Union and the United States.

Again an argument for Commonwealth is that Peter describes the organization as promoting humane and democratic values, but separates from neo-Conservatism because it doesn’t use force to promote these values.

There’s been one central reason for the success of the Commonwealth, which is Queen Elisabeth. In the text she is described as the ”talismanic figure” and ”the heart of it all”. When she passes away it leaves a large position to fill.
And Peter Osborne fears this huge gap. Who should fill the position when the perfectly fit applicant for the job, Nelson Mandela, isn’t here anymore? If the Commonwealth is handled in the wrong way, Peter fears that the institution may collapse.
In addiction the Conservative politician and former foreign secretary, Michael Ancram has made a radical statement about Britain having to be aware of keeping the Commonwealth centre in London because it ”leaves it open to accusations of carrying the shades of empire”.

Peter criticises the two former Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Edward Heath (both Conservative): “Over the past few decades Britain has been unlucky in its leaders”. They are being criticised for not understanding or respecting, being blind and hostile towards the British history and almost portrayed as traitors because they’ve turned their backs on the traditional network of alliances. The two former Prime Ministers has had an uncritical connection with the United States, which have served Britain badly over the past two decades and made it possible for Britain to join the European Union which has a high cost compared to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth band has only been held together by the massive charisma of Queen Elisabeth.

In addition Peter points out the absurdity that no foreign secretary has visited neither New Zealand nor Australia (two of the oldest Commonwealth allies) for 17 years. It’s clear here that Peter finds that Britain, through a longer period of time, has let the Commonwealth “family” down – and you don’t leave your family behind!

The only bad thing Peter mentions about the Commonwealth is that the organization has a lack of administration compared to the European Union and NATO. But this criticism he turns around and uses as a strong argument against the other organizations by saying the European Nation and NATO is out-dated because “the nature of diplomacy is changing very fast”. The power is moving away from being bipolar to multipolar which means that Peter sees the Commonwealth as ideally suited to the new world. The criticism of the Commonwealth being an old-fashioned relic is a misconception, according to Peter.
The new world is informal too and that’s also a positive argument for the Commonwealth, because the organization is described as a family: “When the second line to the throne travels to Canada, it is like visiting family rather than some foreign country”.

You can compare this situation with the questioning of the Commonwealth to what’s happening in Denmark and the monarchy. For a long time the Danish monarchy has been praised and loved by the Danish folk. However, now a group of people are questioning if there should still be monarchy, where some are born to be kings and queens.
The spokesmen for the monarchy believe the royal family is of great importance for Denmark as they travel around the world advertising for Denmark. At the same time the monarchy is keeping Denmark connected to the Faroe Islands as well as Greenland.
If Denmark weren’t supporting Greenland their country would be a mess. The same goes for Britain. If they stopped supporting the rest of Commonwealth, the other countries may turn into a mess too. The reason being that some of the other Commonwealth nations don’t have the democratic tradition and the ability to govern them. At the same time the Commonwealth gives the smaller nations an international platform where they can express them equal with the other nations.

One thing that catches my eye is Peter’s argumentation being very one-sided. He only sees the European Union and the United States as dead weight. Therefore he doesn’t realize all the opportunities these communities create. For example we have the freedom of trade between the European countries. Even though countries in the Commonwealth are more likely to trade with each other I find it very strange for Britain not to be a part of the European Union.

Still, I can understand Peter Osborne’s frustration with the British leaders not showing any effort to keep the relationship between them and the other Commonwealth nations, but calling them “hostile” and “blind” is in my opinion taking it too far.
Finally Peter praises the Cameron’s government because it has started to interact with the Commonwealth nations. What the future will bring is only known by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge because they have the capacity to do great things.