A royal salute to the commonwealth
“A royal salute to the Commonwealth” is an article brought in “The Telegraph” on 01/06/2011 written by Peter Osborne, a brattish journalist and political commentator. Peter Osborne presents his view on the Commonwealth, and tells the readers of the potential treats the Commonwealth faces. Osborne is very keen of the commonwealth, and expresses his enthusiasm, by telling how successful the Commonwealth is. The commonwealth have a huge potential according to Osborne. He explains that one third of the entire world population lives in a commonwealth nation, although more than half of the population lives in India, and thus it is bigger than the European Union and NATO.
Peter Oborne starts out with a story of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (Kate and William as known by the popular media). They are visiting Canada, a commonwealth nation. Oborne explains how happy the Canadians are and describes them as having an “overwhelming affection” for the future king and queen. This affection is naturally a symbol for the affection Canada have for The United Kingdom and the commonwealth, that Oborne believes they have. He goes on describing Canada’s and the Brittany’s history together. They have a strong bond that goes all the way back to the early British colonies in North America, and many historical events have chained the two nations together. This relationship with Canada is a symbol of the relationship between all commonwealth countries. All of the Commonwealth countries have a long and close history.
This proclamation almost says it all.
“But I would argue that it is Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's poodle-like relationship with the United States, and the former's slavish worship of the European Union, that now looks out of date, while the Commonwealth is more relevant than ever.”
This proclamation explains the essence of Osborne’s opinion. Osborne is hostile the European Union and USA, and supporter of the Commonwealth. It is a personal opinion, and it shows that Osborne is completely subjective. It is also a quiet radical opinion. You can easily argue that The United States and the European Union is the most relevant, at least in the public mind. The commonwealth is rarely in the news. As explained by Osborne; almost none of the former prime ministers have been focused on the Commonwealth. Only the monarchy have had its focus on the Commonwealth. The queen whose power is merely formal, much like Osborne’s critics would say the Commonwealth is. It is limited how much an international organization can do with the small funding the Commonwealth is getting. It is thereby wrong to say that the Commonwealth is cheap; you get exactly what you are paying for, which is not much. His grounds on which he bases his claim on, is therefore not very strong.
Osborne underlines the good intentions of the Commonwealth. He says that it is “devoted to the promotion of human and democratic values”. This claim is not backed up with anything particular. Actually, you could argue, that England have had a long history of suppressing, and have never been 100% democratic.
Osborne gets his backing in not only Canada, as mentioned, but also in the queen herself. He mentions her as being a big supporter, along with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, of the Commonwealth. This helps his grounds, and increases Osborne’s Ethos. Osborne already have a strong Ethos in his position a renowned journalist and political commentator.
That Osborne is extremely profound of the commonwealth is very clear, but he also admits that it will face treats in the future. He argues that the foundation of the Commonwealth lies on Queen Elizabeth. When the queen dies, he believes that the Commonwealth will be thrown into a crisis. It will have to find a new foundation. This foundation might not even be found in Britain Osborne, suggests that it can be based in any other country, of which India would be an obvious choice. India with the population of a stunning 1,237 billion People according to the World Bank. He subtly praises the Indian democracy simply by mentioning it. He does that to emphasize that England and thereby the commonwealth have established democracy in India. The Economist Intelligence Unit have a system that measures democracy. In this system, India is described as a “Flawed democracy”. His argument that a Commonwealth with a base in India would be a good solution thus falls a bit short.
(If one were to guess Osbornes political standpoint from reading the text, it would be clear that he is a conservative, and a nationalist. Although he criticizes several conservative prime ministers, most notably Margaret Thatcher. He has a strong pride in the history of commonwealth, as described in the beginning of the text, and would very much like to see it reach its former times of glory. He despises any other international organizations, which makes him seem like a nationalist.)
It is clear that Osborne’s goal is to convince the reader that increasing focus on Commonwealth is beneficial to the commonwealth countries, and maybe to give the commonwealth some media coverage. To accomplish this goal he often exaggerates and lets out some facts. He says that 1/3 of the world population lives in the commonwealth, which makes is sound like a huge international organization with many big countries. The European union only have a population of 500 mio. He fails to mention that makes up more than half of the commonwealth population.
Osborne does a nice job of expressing his opinions, it’s discussable whether his argumentation is good, but most of his claims is based on grounds.