Christopher Farai Charamba Political Writer
WHEN the final ballots were tallied on June 23, 2016, and it became known that 51.9 percent of British citizens wanted the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, a large number of people around the world were astounded.

This referendum would set in motion a series of events including: Theresa May becoming the second female Prime Minister on July 13, 2016, the UK invoking Article 50, the official notice of withdrawal from the EU on March 29, 2017, and a snap general election, which saw the Conservative Party lose a number of their seats in parliament, on June 8, 2017.

As things stand, the UK edges ever closer to March 29, 2019, the date when they officially leave the EU, with no clear suggestion of what terms they will be exiting the regional institution. Last month, a House of Lords European Union Committee criticised the UK government for not having a deal in place as the date approaches.

Their report, published December 7, 2017, looked at the implications of a “no deal” exit and stated that such a position not only has negative economic effects, but impacts security, immigration, data exchange and travel. Research conducted indicated that in the short term, there would likely be a 20 percent rise in food prices, grounded airline flights and a loss of up to 75 000 jobs if the UK were to revert to WTO trade rules from their current position with the EU after Brexit.

The committee argues that the UK government has until October to have a deal in place for both their parliament and the EU parliament to be able to discuss and vote on it.

While Prime Minister Theresa May is adamant that Brexit will take place, there have been calls for a second referendum particularly if a deal cannot be agreed upon. UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson reportedly shares former UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s position on a second referendum instead of a ‘soft Brexit’ or no deal.

This year will prove to be a trying one for May and her government. Whatever steps they take will need to be justifiable to the British people, but also acceptable to the EU. Currently, there is a lot that the UK needs to do to position itself for the fallout, big or small, from Brexit.

If the UK is to remain a major international influencer politically and economically following Brexit, one avenue they could focus their attention is the Commonwealth. This bloc comprising 2,4 billion people in 52 countries, with a cumulative GDP set to reach $13 trillion in 2020 has sizeable and varied potential in the global sphere.

As far back as 2012, four years before the Brexit referendum, the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee put out a report dubbed ‘The role and future of the Commonwealth’ In it, they noted the debate concerning the UK’s position within the EU and commented that “the economic opportunities presented by the Commonwealth certainly play a part in that debate.”

The report urged the UK government to develop a clear and co-ordinated strategy for engaging within the Commonwealth, cognisant of the fact the bloc had waned in visibility and that countries within it were not taking full advantage of economic opportunities within the grouping. It broached the idea of a Free Trade Area within the Commonwealth, recognising the effects it may have on trade within the EU.

Now that the relationship with the EU is already in jeopardy, there is cause to re-look the role of the Commonwealth in the UK’s agenda, and the April 2018 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in London under the theme ‘Towards a Common Future’ will likely give a clearer signal to its level of importance.

In terms of growing and strengthening the Commonwealth, there seems to be interest from the UK for Zimbabwe to return to the bloc after a 15-year absence. UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson stated that the return of Zimbabwe would be an “honourable and noble aspiration for the Commonwealth”, however, it is contingent on various processes including free and fair elections and Zimbabwe applying to return.

The UK’s interest in re-engagement is also evident through the two high level envoys to Zimbabwe in a space of three months, FCO Minister for Africa, Rory Stewart and permanent under-secretary in the FCO, Simon McDonald. On agenda, it is likely the issue of returning to the Commonwealth was there and it will be interesting to see how Zimbabwe navigates this issue. It would be interesting to see if the country is invited to the 2018 CHOGM and in what capacity.

Before making or taking up any offers, it would be prudent for the Government under this new dispensation to do a cost benefit analysis of re-joining the Commonwealth. The new Foreign Affairs and International Trade Minister Retired Lieutenant-General Sibusiso Moyo has expressed his inclination towards economic and transactional diplomacy and therefore a feasibility study will yield the pros and cons of being part of the body.

One of the potential benefits to Zimbabwe is the Commonwealth Trade Advantage. According a 2016 Commonwealth Secretariat trade policy brief, while the Commonwealth is not a trading bloc, but a voluntary association of countries, intra-Commonwealth trade had risen to over $600 billion in 2015.

They noted that, “Commonwealth members, tend to trade, on average, 20 percent more and generate 10 percent more foreign direct investment flows than otherwise.” Overall bilateral trade costs between Commonwealth countries were 19 percent lower on average than with other countries.

Zimbabwe is in a position where it needs FDI to resuscitate a number of industries as well as markets for its goods. Re-joining the Commonwealth could provide an opportunity for both and in addition to that, it would go a long way to redressing the image of the country in the eyes of the world.

There are a number of other things that the Government needs to do before FDI can come flowing into the country, but being accepted by the Commonwealth would give a signal that there is a new dispensation in Zimbabwe as there are certain requirements and standards that need to be met before membership is reinstated.

On the flipside, there is an ideological argument against the Commonwealth. In 2013, Gambia withdrew from the body labelling it a neo-colonial institution. Others have argued that a post-Brexit focus on the Commonwealth by the UK is an attempt to re-establish the empire as their influence is currently diminishing.

The relationships within the Commonwealth are unbalanced with a larger number of developing countries, all former British colonies. The question of benefit and who gains more thus arises once again.

For Zimbabwe, it is also important to consider what they have to offer and what they are willing to part with. The preconditions to joining already indicate that should Zimbabwe choose to return, it will not entirely be on their own terms and one wonders what other costs the country might incur.

Both the UK and Zimbabwe find themselves in interesting positions this year, one fighting to maintain relevance in the international community and the other on a path to re-establish themselves in the eyes of the world. The Commonwealth could provide an avenue for both to satisfy these permanent interests.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey