By Shepherd Manhambara

THE Commonwealth is a British institution which for a long time has been regarded by Africans as well-meaning and benign, always welcoming those countries which volunteer to become its members.
Interestingly the majority of its membership is largely comprised of former British colonies who find it convenient to continue associating with Britain for various reasons.
Membership, for instance, improves chances for some African countries to get some technical assistance, some scholarships and funding for all sorts of projects and development programmes from Britain.
In return Britain which lost an Empire so large that at one time it almost covered a third of the globe, can continue to regard itself as a global power of consequence with the Commonwealth to show for it!
Although the Commonwealth Secretariat is run by Secretary Generals periodically handpicked from various member countries, it is always headed by the British monarch and most members have been happy about this undemocratic practice as testified by the beaming faces of most leaders who appear in mandatory group photos which come out of almost all Commonwealth conferences!
However, any discerning observer can sense there is much more to the Commonwealth which should be of concern especially to Africans for the following reasons:
First: While at the surface level the Commonwealth projects itself as a multi-national, multi-racial and multi-cultural family, in reality it has been used by Britain as a tool with which it can practise its divide and rule strategies.
For instance, in 2003, Tony Blair made it clear that he would attend the Commonwealth Conference in Nigeria on condition that President Mugabe was not invited.
The reason!
Because Mugabe was allegedly violating property rights by reclaiming land originally stolen by 4 000 whites and handing it back to the black majority.
Put differently, President Obasanjo of Nigeria could only be considered a successful host of the conference and a statesman if he agreed to discriminate against one of his own colleagues — which he did!
Second: Although many member countries from Africa were bitterly opposed to the continued suspension of Zimbabwe’s membership over the so-called property rights issue, they soon discovered that as long as the tribal Anglo-Saxon group comprised of Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand remained unhappy about Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme, that suspension would remain in place!
In other words, the much talked about equality of nations of the Commonwealth was more fictional than real as it turned out, to echo George Orwell, that some Commonwealth countries were more equal than others!
Nothing could be done to reverse the suspension, notwithstanding African feelings on the matter!
Third: When Zimbabwe decided to withdraw from the Commonwealth in 2003 in order to resolve its land question once and for all time, it got branded by the Yankees, at Britain’s instigation, as an extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the USA.
In a way both Britain and the USA realised that a radical Land Reform Programme by Zimbabwe would cross the imperial red-line and thus threaten the neo-colonial set up which all along had been generating wealth for both British and American corporate entities.
Fourth: The impasse over Zimbabwe’s land reform exposed a British golden rule which had remained hidden, but central nevertheless in how the Commonwealth operated—that is African countries were free to do as they liked and pretend to be independent even as long as they accepted to be told what to do by Britain on all key issues.
Because Zimbabwe remained provocatively defiant and fiercely independent on its land policy, it had to be taught a salutary lesson through economic sanctions.
And we all know that Britain started planning to attack Zimbabwe militarily so as to kill in its infancy the economic model which Zimbabwe was slowly putting in place by first acquiring all land stolen by white thieves of British origin and handing it over to over 400 000 black families.
Fifth: Almost 15 years later after Zimbabwe’s withdrawal another African country decides to quit the Commonwealth: the reason according to President Yahya Jammeh is — “From colonialism to now, Europeans think they are the gods of Africa and that they should continue to tell us what to do.
“The Gambia is saying no to that…colonialism and neo-colonialism should be kicked out of Africa…because it is not bringing us anything but disgrace, humiliation and insult.”
And the background to this presidential rage is that the Gambia is now known to have four to five billion barrels of oil safely tucked under its soils and has been refusing to accept five percent worth of royalties per year which in turn would entitle a Western company, presumably British, to access the oil for such a pittance.
It appears the British knew long back about the existence of this oil fortune in the Gambia, well before any indigenous Gambians did and had started to label Jammeh a dictator and a human rights violator either to induce him to moderate his nationalistic policies on the economy or to justify a regime change agenda for the Gambia.
Sixth: In light of all the above it becomes clear that the wealth of the Commonwealth is not meant to belong to all and sundry who belong to it, but mostly to the British and their Western allies.
The name of this aggregation of nations is misleading in so far as the wealth in it is not supposed to belong to commoners at all.
The same deception applies to the House of Commons which turns out in practice to belong to British elites and not common people!
Lastly, but not least, although the Commonwealth is supposed to be a voluntary association of independent nations held together by a common vision and values and a common language which happens to be English, in practice it performs a critical ideological function on behalf of British economic interests. In fact the Commonwealth Conferences which are held regularly function as surveillance sessions during which the ideas and thoughts of African leaders are systematically drawn out and evaluated for their usefulness to and or incompatibility with British economic interests in Africa.
In brief, Commonwealth Conferences are strategic in so far as they are used to police the thoughts, plans, visions and even ambitions of African leaders with the ultimate aim of ensuring that the African future which unfolds does not exclude British interests.
Where Uncle Sam has found it necessary to rely on cell phones to spy on leaders of other friendly nations, Albion does this gracefully since African leaders are free to bare their souls and confess their plans before the British in exchange for a royal smile and approval.