Talk:Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria

Prospective members

I have two qualms with the 'Prospective members' section as it is:

Whilst the original purpose of this article was to list countries that could qualify under the first Edinburgh criteria (that is, having constitutional links to another Commonwealth member), I think it ill-advised to treat it as though that were the only requirement. Many (if not most) of the existing countries that qualify under Edinburgh would fail miserably under Harare, making a mockery of the idea that these countries all qualify. The disclaimer must be given greater weight, although I struggle to see how that would be executed without incorporating the change into the section title or adopting the inherently POV practice of individually assessing each country's Harare credentials.
Although I initiated the expansion of the list, I have now reconsidered. Fundamentally, the criteria are assessed by the CHOGM, which rules on whether the constitutional links meet the standard required. Yes, Tangiers (1661-1684) and Tortuga (1631-35) were briefly British in the seventeenth centuries, but I doubt that such qualifications would have any bearing on the CHOGM's decision today. Even periods of possession of Minorca (1714-83) and Weihaiwei (1898-1930) would have trouble persuading any reasonable person that Spain and PR China belong in the Commonwealth. Thus, the measure should be interpretated as the CHOGM would: direct constitutional predecession or personal union. Under that definition, Libya, Senegal, and France would still qualify, but Haiti, Greece, and Honduras wouldn't.

Any approval or amendment of either point would be appreciated. Bastin 18:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional links to members

So this means that Portugal would be eligible, since it has a constitutional link with Mozambique. Or how about not only Portugal, but all the other EU members which have a constitutional link to the UK by being in the EU? TharkunColl 07:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is very much the point I was trying to make above. Taking a very literal interpretation, that would be one valid conclusion (indeed, they have constitutional links to 3 members: Cyprus and Malta, too). However, membership is decided on a case-by-case basis, and only those that would pass that discretionary test would be allowed in. It is simply implausible that they would. Similarly, it's a ridiculous statement that Germany or the Netherlands would be eligible for their past personal unions or that Honduras would qualify because it incorporates a tiny sliver of the Mosquito Coast.

Portugal is a more interesting case (Mozambique is in, Angola and East Timor want to join, Portugal once controlled most of East Africa; Goa is a state of India; Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is the world's oldest alliance, and so on). Nonetheless, I think it unlikely that anyone prominent would really say that Portugal qualifies.

To reverse this orgy of original research, I suggest that a proper scouring of reliable sources be done. I'm sure there have been lists of the obvious ones (the likes of Egypt, Republic of Ireland, and Burma), so that leaves just the Nicaraguas and Togos. If a constitutional expert thinks they qualify, then they should be included. Otherwise, they shouldn't be. Related to this, Eritrea was previously under qualifying countries, despite the quoted source by Victoria te Velde-Ashworth stating that Eritrea doesn't qualify. Bastin 12:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that when Norway applied it was rejected on the grounds that it had its own monarchy - something that is no longer grounds for rejection. Norway and the England have a long history of close relations and were in personal union under Canute the Great (he of the wet feet) from 1028 to 1035. TharkunColl 12:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful to not go that far back in time & when parts of areas were held , especially in contention/dispute. Part of being in a modern day organization such as this should still see commonality as the basis of being grouped up. Just got to wait & see what the outcome will be when a review on the matter is done in the forthcoming meeting. That-Vela-Fella 09:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States eligibility

The date of their sovereignty could be considered POV, they declared independence on 4 July 1776. They had already been in open armed rebellion for over a year. They unequivocally won the revolution. The Treaty of Paris was signed on 3 September 1783 at which point the Crown acknowledged their sovereignty. But other sovereign states recognized the sovereignty of the United States much earlier than 1783 and France entered the war as an ally of the United States in 1778, even signing a Treaty with them that restricted Frances ability to negotiate treaties with other nations (they were always referred to in the plural at that time). There is no point quibbling over the exact date of sovereignty or the last date they were technically colonies. We should just say that they were simply "former British Colonies", and only some of them were British Colonies, many were never held or claimed by the Crown.

The whole idea seems sort of spurious, the Declaration of Independence directly and unequivocally rejects the Crown as having any continuing role, even as a mere figurehead.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then since putting a date on when it actually took effect would seem contentious, stating it in a neutral way would be the proper way of doing it. Thanks. That-Vela-Fella 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico's eligibility

What would be the status of Puerto Rico in terms of being eligible for admission?75.47.161.42 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Ky[reply]

None whatsoever. It has never been ruled at any time by the British. That-Vela-Fella 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the United States were first admitted. Binabik80 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that the British took over the island for several months? It explains it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Puerto_Rico#Europeans_fight_over_Puerto_Rico--75.43.217.241 (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several months during wartime would not count, otherwise other places held for a brief period of time under occupation would also need to be included. Also no significant time was given to have a British colony set up. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico's eligibility is a non-issue anyway since the place is a dependency of the USA and dependent territories of even current Commonwealth members are not eligible for membership unless they themselves also become independent. So the only way Puerto Rico could realistically be eligible is if it became independent after the USA joined the Commonwealth or if the brief periods of British military control over the island were taken into account should Puerto Rico become independent without the USA first joining the Commonwealth. In either case it really doesn't matter since Puerto Rico doesn't look close to figuring out what status is wants any time soon.72.27.73.175 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot that PR could become a state of the US. Then if the US joined PR would also be in. 12.216.166.246 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Membership Criteria really going to be changed?

I see references to the fact that the current members have agreed in principle to review the membership criteria to allow new members in that have not had constitutional links with current members. However, on the Commonwealth Secretariat website itself, the communique for the Summit in which this agreement in principle supposedly happen says nothing of it. In fact, here's the section of the communique that deals with Commonwealth membership, quoted in full:

Commonwealth Membership
87. Heads of Government reviewed the recommendations of the Committee on Commonwealth Membership and agreed on the following core criteria for Membership:
(a) an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, save in exceptional circumstances;

(b) in exceptional circumstances, applications should be considered on a case-bycase basis;

(c) an applicant country should accept and comply with Commonwealth fundamental values, principles, and priorities as set out in the 1971 Declaration of Commonwealth Principles and contained in other subsequent Declarations;

(d) an applicant country must demonstrate commitment to: democracy and democratic processes, including free and fair elections and representative legislatures; the rule of law and independence of the judiciary; good governance, including a well-trained public service and transparent public accounts; and protection of human rights, freedom of expression, and equality of opportunity;

(e) an applicant country should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions, such as the use of the English language as the medium of inter-Commonwealth relations, and acknowledge Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of the Commonwealth; and

(f) new members should be encouraged to join the Commonwealth Foundation, and to promote vigorous civil society and business organisations within their countries, and to foster participatory democracy through regular civil society consultations.

88. Heads of Government also agreed that, where an existing member changes its formal constitutional status, it should not have to reapply for Commonwealth membership provided that it continues to meet all the criteria for membership.

89. Heads endorsed the other recommendations of the Committee, including a four-step process for considering applications for membership; new members being required to augment the existing budget of the Secretariat; and countries in accumulated arrears being renamed ‘Members in Arrears’. They also agreed with the Committee’s recommendations on Overseas Territories, Special Guests and strategic partnerships.

What I find strange is that one source claims members agreed in principle to change the rules, but the communique clearly states that "Heads of Government reviewed the recommendations of the Committee on Commonwealth Membership and agreed on the following core criteria for Membership: an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, save in exceptional circumstances....". It also seems strange that one significant change hasn't even been mentioned in the other sources or in this article: the fact that "Heads of Government also agreed that, where an existing member changes its formal constitutional status, it should not have to reapply for Commonwealth membership provided that it continues to meet all the criteria for membership" - which means that should any Commonwealth realm now become a republic (and theoretically vice-versa) it will automatically continue in the Commonwealth unless in so doing it now fails other membership criteria.

Looking at the Committee on Commonwealth Membership's report itself it stated that Mozambique, after a decade of membership, should "cease to be regarded as an exceptional case" and that in the future there could "also be other new members, which may not have had an historic constitutional relationship with an existing member" but in that context "regional relationships with Commonwealth members should be recognized as especially relevant." Overall the summary of their recommendation on that point reads thus (italics added):

The Committee agreed that an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had an historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, or a substantial relationship with the Commonwealth generally, or a particular group of its members, for example, in a common regional organization.

I suspect this is to give leeway to allow countries like Rwanda to join, although others like Algeria would seem to have less grounds for admission.72.27.73.175 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, has this been further looked into & been made into policy yet as from the recommendations made? If need be, the source could be given & updated into the article here then on this matter as said above. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this will become policy before or at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, but it still seems strange that two almost radically different conclusions are drawn from one meeting depending on the media you look at. The official communique says one thing and some newspapers say another (one of them was a Ugandan newspaper and perhaps that paper's journalist was somewhat partial to Rwanda joining the Commonwealth and so emphasized those aspects that would seem to pave the way for Rwanda's entry).72.27.93.49 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]