Foreign Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Government priorities for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, HC 634
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 8 September 2026.
Watch the meeting
Members present: Fleur Anderson; Alex Ballinger; Dan Carden; Abtisam Mohamed; Edward Morello; Sir John Whittingdale.
In the absence of the Chair, Sir John Whittingdale took the Chair.
Questions 1-18
Witnesses
I: Dr Grace Carrington, Honorary Research Fellow, Institute of the Americas, UCL; and Dr Rakib Ehsan, Senior Fellow, Policy Exchange.
Witnesses: Dr Grace Carrington and Dr Rakib Ehsan.
Q1 Chair: Good morning. In this session of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we will look at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November. I should start by saying that I am in the Chair today because our Chair, Emily Thornberry, is unable to be with us. One of our previously advertised witnesses, Professor Onslow, is also unable to be here. I welcome our two witnesses on the first panel. Will they introduce themselves?
Dr Carrington: I am Grace Carrington, an honorary research fellow at the UCL Institute of the Americas. I specialise in politics and decolonisation in the Caribbean. My last book looked at non-independent states, including the British overseas territories. My current book project looks more at the relationship with the monarchy, campaigns for republics and debates around reparations in the Caribbean.
Dr Ehsan: My name is Dr Rakib Ehsan. I am a senior fellow at the Policy Exchange think-tank. I was the author of the Policy Exchange report, “One Family: Harnessing the Strategic Potential of the Commonwealth”.
Q2 Chair: Can I start with the obvious question: does the Commonwealth still matter? Is it still something we should devote attention to? Does it still have a relevance in today’s world?
Dr Ehsan: In my view, in recent times, the Commonwealth has drifted to the margins of international relations. There is a growing foreign policy tendency in the UK to say that the Commonwealth is somewhat outdated, irrelevant and not necessarily an international arena where British national interests can be amplified
The big thing with the “One Family” report I authored for Policy Exchange was that it dismissed that view; rather, it offered a blueprint for providing the Commonwealth with a renewed sense of purpose and for the UK playing a leadership role in that. I certainly think that it will be able to achieve that in certain areas, especially educational co-operation. Environmental sustainability is a big area, especially when we are looking at small state development across the Commonwealth.
But those are the softer, comfort-zone policy areas—the one thing I really wanted to achieve with the report is to say that we need a Commonwealth that has more teeth. We suggested the creation of a security and defence co-operation forum within the Commonwealth. That would help to support member states, such as Guyana, which in my view has faced considerable political aggression from neighbouring Venezuela, especially over the oil-rich Essequibo region. We are talking about the idea of member states having the potential to have collective military exercises and increased naval co-operation.
There are certain areas where we traditionally look at traditional alliances, such as NATO, but if the Commonwealth wants to have increased relevance within the international system, that will be very difficult to achieve without deepening co-operation between member states, especially in the areas of security and defence.
That is not just about military and naval co-operation; it is also about looking at what forms of modern co-operation we can have, especially in terms of cyber-security. Member states such as Namibia, Cameroon and Tanzania are exceptionally vulnerable and have very weak cyber-security infrastructure, and the UK has a sophisticated, Commonwealth-leading cyber-security capability. We are not just looking at those traditional military and naval alliances; we are also looking to deepen cyber-security. That is essential if we want to allow underdeveloped countries across the Commonwealth to grow and prosper over time.
Dr Carrington: I agree. A real challenge is to make sure that the Commonwealth seems relevant to the 21st century. The imperial legacies are something that could pose a challenge to making it seem like a modern partnership for the modern age. The UK has a key role: if the UK approaches the Commonwealth from the perspective of leadership, the issue is that that seems much more like the traditional dynamics, whereas if the UK approaches the Commonwealth from the perspective of partnership, collaboration and coalition building, the scope is for a much more modern partnership, with the UK reinforcing that.
One key opportunity for the Commonwealth is to do with climate, coalition building on climate issues and the environment, particularly given the timing of CHOGM, with COP31 just a few days afterwards. That is a real opportunity for the Commonwealth to be a useful forum feeding into COP31.
Q3 Chair: Dr Ehsan, can we have the defence co-operation you talked about given the very different views among members of the Commonwealth about who the enemy might be or about particular conflicts and threats?
Dr Ehsan: Absolutely, that is a very important question to ask. Without doubt, as we have seen in recent times, China is looking not just to gain an economic foothold—especially in the African Commonwealth member states—but to develop a military and policing presence, especially in the sensitive Indo-Pacific region. That is where the UK has to be realistic about its role, especially its leadership role, which has to be done in partnership with other countries. India is a critical strategic ally in that sense, as is working closely with countries such as Nigeria, which has considerable potential—youthful potential. Russia making military and defence investments is also an issue, especially in African member states.
It is not necessarily easy—the UK will have to work on it over time. The critical point to make is about the need for a cultural shift. As I said, there is a foreign policy tendency to look at the Commonwealth as irrelevant, but I do not think that we should give up because China has gained such a foothold somewhere, or Russia has made certain investments in military and defence developments. In response to that, as a counterbalance, we need to look to deepen our defence and security co-operation over time. That will not happen overnight, but we should work towards it.
Critically, we should do that with countries that have traditionally been strong diplomatic allies in the Commonwealth. Australia definitely has a role to play—it is also in the Australian national interest—especially with China looking to make developments, contributing to the social and institutional development of Pacific island countries. Recently, China tried to interact with Fiji—it has a policing agreement with Fiji, although I think that Fiji has taken a step back from it. There is also a history of China having that pact with the Solomon Islands in critical areas. The key is for the UK to work with like-minded allies in the Commonwealth to make the Commonwealth over time a counterbalance to growing Chinese and Russian involvement and influence in the international system.
Q4 Chair: Dr Carrington, we talked about whether we think that the Commonwealth matters, but what is the view of the rest of the Commonwealth? Do they regard it as important? The heads of the leading members did not turn up to the last meeting.
Dr Carrington: I think it depends. Looking specifically at the Caribbean, the Commonwealth can be a real opportunity for states to mobilise on vulnerable island states and climate, particularly on adaptation and resilience. It can be a forum for building co-operation and coalitions outside Russian, US and Chinese influence, but it depends, and I think that there is a challenge there to ensure that it continues to be a useful forum. As I said, climate is one issue, given the timing of CHOGM and COP31, where it can be a really useful point of international co-operation, particularly for small and vulnerable states in the Caribbean.
Dr Ehsan: I will just add a quick point. The Chagos islands are very relevant: that was almost a result of the UK, in my view, failing to nurture, build and pay attention to quite important relationships within the Commonwealth. That is very much a gift for countries such as China and Russia.
I agree that China and Russia have made certain developments in terms of gaining a foothold, especially in certain public policy areas and in relation to other Commonwealth member countries. The solution to that is not for the UK to row back, but to actually lean in more to the Commonwealth, see it as a key pillar in its foreign policy interests and try, over time, to cultivate an environment in the Commonwealth that acts as a counterbalance to those growing forms of Chinese and Russian influence in the international system.
Q5 Edward Morello: I want to expand a bit on the Chair’s question. I am interested in how relevant the Commonwealth is to the members, given how many members there are and how different all those countries are. Dr Carrington, you have identified that there are shared interests around climate with some countries and shared interests around security in the Caribbean. Dr Ehsan, you mentioned that there are some states where we might deepen our military co-operation. But in every instance, you are dividing up the Commonwealth based on our particular interests in a particular thing or where we have shared values. Those are all effectively separate multilateral groups that you are talking about setting up, so how relevant is the Commonwealth as a collective, given what you have already said?
Dr Ehsan: I think there are certain areas where it is easier to cultivate collaboration and deepen that co-operation across Commonwealth member states. In terms of increasing its relevance, you have to look at the key member states. I will take India, for example: when you look at healthcare there, there are still very significant problems in terms of a lack of healthcare infrastructure in certain parts of India, especially in poorer eastern states. The areas that the Commonwealth could really build on include disease prevention and control—that is a critical area where co-operation could be deepened.
Naturally, female economic empowerment is a very important pillar of the economic development strategy of many developing countries, so the UK can definitely contribute to that by making it an important goal for the Commonwealth. When you look at defence and security, as I said before with, for example, Venezuelan aggression towards Guyana, you have to be very selective about where there are realistic prospects of defence and security co-operation. I am very much of the view that, without any attempts to deepen co-operation in those more controversial areas, I just don’t see the Commonwealth really commanding that relevance and respect within the international system—unless it branches out from those more traditional areas of education and trade and investment.
That is not to undermine the importance of trade and investment; I think that the Commonwealth advantage should be built upon. Having that asset of a shared official language, common legal systems and familiar administrative frameworks is something to really build on. That is a golden aspect of the Commonwealth, but without defence and security, I think it would be very difficult for it to have that relevance.
Q6 Edward Morello: I take your point. I guess the UK has a certain romantic attachment to the idea of the Commonwealth, and I am trying to understand whether the Commonwealth has the same attachment. I get that there are areas where we can deepen relationships or work on particular issues, but how relevant is the Commonwealth as a collective to its members?
Dr Ehsan: I think that question depends on whether you are talking about national Governments or the publics across the Commonwealth. The five-country polling I did for the “One Family” report on behalf of Policy Exchange had a very interesting item. It asked survey respondents, “Do you believe the UK does more good than harm in the world?” and the lowest level of approval was among the UK public. It was especially high among the Indian and Nigerian publics, so I think there is a great deal of good will and affection towards the UK among Commonwealth publics. If you are talking about soft power, that is an amazing asset to have. Of course, there could be a difference between the opinion of the Government of the day in those countries and the broader population.
In my view, there has been a growing culture of self-flagellation in the UK, where we have a lack of confidence in what we have contributed to the world, in terms of human advancement and, in general, our moral obligations. I think we have fared quite well on an international level, and we need to make the most of the good will and affection that does exist. India and Nigeria are two huge, very important populations in the context of the strategic future of the Commonwealth, and the UK should build on that and work towards really making the most of and maximising the potential of that good will.
Dr Carrington: I agree. You mentioned particularly that there are unifying issues for particular regions or countries, but I think that that is the case with any major international organisation. It is the same with, say, the United Nations. With the Commonwealth, there are opportunities for particular regions or groups of countries to unify around key issues and build coalitions. With any major issue, there will always be tensions with other major powers, say, on climate perhaps with countries that are less on board with supporting vulnerable states with climate resilience. But I think that the Commonwealth has a degree of uniqueness by not having, say, Russia, the US and China in it. It offers a unique forum.
As for the attachment, or the particular fondness, that the UK might have for the Commonwealth or the sense of the Commonwealth, it is crucial, for the Commonwealth moving forward, to have a shift in mindset around that and not to focus on the sense of a fondness for the Commonwealth and the shared history. That can often lead to colonial dynamics. It is about seeing this as a useful forum moving forward, perhaps separate from the history.
Q7 Dan Carden: I was able to visit Guyana earlier this year with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It was a fascinating visit; we met President Ali there. My experience of visiting the Commonwealth countries has always been that their desire is to deepen and build more strategic relationships with the UK—I agree with everything you said, Dr Ehsan, about the possibilities for the relationship with the Commonwealth. Have you looked at perhaps how the Commonwealth could figure in a more strategic relationship around critical minerals and diversifying supply chains for the UK?
Dr Ehsan: That is something that we considered to a degree in the report. On critical minerals, one thing that we talked about was leveraging the blue economy—blue economic instruments—including looking at blue carbon. What we want to do, in my view, is support emerging markets, so small state islands, and help with their development. Naturally, they have a very small land mass but they have considerable ocean resources.
The UK should work towards leveraging its expertise, especially through the City, and work towards blue carbon, blue bonds and coastal resilience insurance—those are the kind of things that we should really move forward with, especially if we are serious about small state island development. I think that would bring the UK to the fore. The last CHOGM was in Samoa and the forthcoming one is in Antigua and Barbuda. If the UK can really feed into that agenda on small state island development, that will heighten its reputation in the Commonwealth, for sure.
Q8 Dan Carden: What is your assessment of how well or badly the FCDO is currently doing at building—
Dr Ehsan: It is hopeless. In my view, there is a situation whereby it is seen as an outdated, moribund organisation, and I don’t think that is specific to the FCDO. Many of our public institutions are seen as some sort of outdated imperial relic. I look at the Commonwealth very differently. I think the smooth transition spearheaded by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, from having imperial control to the voluntary association of nations, really was one of her finest achievements. That is not something we should neglect.
The reality is that we have attracted new member states such as Togo and Gabon—former French colonies—and I think that that is a real feather in our cap, if I am being honest. The fact that we have Mozambique—a former Portuguese colony—and Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, already in the Commonwealth shows, in a way, that outside former parts of the British empire there is an admiration for the UK in that after decolonisation, more than any other former European colonial power, it has really made an effort to rebuild relationships with former parts of its empire. I think that we should really build on that. You talked about soft power, and that is a critical element of it. I know that other people have a very different view and see it as some kind of outdated imperial relic, but I completely disagree with that.
Dan Carden: Do you want to add anything, Dr Carrington?
Dr Carrington: I have nothing to add on that.
Q9 Abtisam Mohamed: I want to talk about human rights violations. I know that Commonwealth members sign up to the charter and various declarations, but many members have been suspended or removed as a result of violations in their countries. Do you think that the Commonwealth takes that seriously, or is it superficial in nature? I will come to you first, Dr Carrington.
Dr Carrington: That is a really good question. I think that it reveals one of the real issues within not just the Commonwealth but international organisations generally. It can be a great opportunity to build consensus around issues, but when it comes to enforcement, particularly around human rights and democracy, it reveals the weakness of the Commonwealth. From a UK perspective, it is important to have a consistent approach and look at how it and the Commonwealth can support earlier monitoring around democracy, elections and human rights issues, as well as early intervention and looking at clearer follow-ups when there are, say, human rights violations. But I think that with international organisations, there is always that issue around enforcement, which reveals a flaw in those kinds of organisations.
Dr Ehsan: There are definitely some enforcement issues. In an incredibly diverse association—I think there are 56 member states now—there will be cases where we feel that there are human rights issues across a number of those member countries. But expulsion is very much a last resort, and engaging with those countries in terms of flagging those issues has to be done in the spirit of the Commonwealth charter, which is ultimately that the members are free and equal nations. Adopting a heavy-handed approach there would not necessarily work—if anything, that could be alienating. It is a very difficult balance to strike, and I think that the UK would be best served looking at those issues, especially female empowerment, across member states. That would be helpful in terms of the economic development of lesser-developed member states.
There are issues in certain member countries in terms of the persecution of religious minorities, and the UK should be a critical friend when it comes to those issues. That has been a concern even when it comes to India, to be perfectly honest. But again, it is a difficult balance to strike because without a strong strategic partnership with India, I do not think that the Commonwealth can move forward very much. In terms of the UK’s position on some of those human rights violations, I think that flagrant violations do need to be flagged, but there has to be a sense that there are countries with certain local cultural customs whose perception of human rights might be different from the liberal, western understanding of human rights. That is very difficult in terms of striking a uniform view on all human rights issues.
The one area that the UK could really work on through the Commonwealth observer groups is the creation of more robust procedures over time in terms of the monitoring of elections—the democratic integrity of those member states. I think that is where you could find the UK exerting a decent level of influence. In terms of flagging every single human rights issue of the 56 member countries, which have very different cultural and social environments, that is a bit more difficult.
Q10 Abtisam Mohamed: It is a challenge. Coming on to specific cases, if a country is deemed to be more acceptable and has allegedly met the requirements to be readmitted, as in the case of Zimbabwe, what do you think the procedure there should be? Should they be readmitted quite readily, or should caveats be in place?
Dr Carrington: I think with the case of Zimbabwe, the UK should support long-term readmittance if conditions are met, looking specifically at the Commonwealth charter and making sure that all conditions around elections and democracy are met. More broadly, not just with readmitting but with admitting new states, I think if states can show they do meet those requirements, the UK should support them being admitted or readmitted.
Q11 Abtisam Mohamed: Dr Ehsan, if I can use another case study, I am contacted quite frequently by constituents in relation to the incarceration of Imran Khan in Pakistan. Do you feel that the Commonwealth could play a stronger role in relation to that? You have referenced the importance of democracy and democratic procedures. Could the Commonwealth have a stronger position in relation to the incarceration of Imran Khan, or is that something you think it should perhaps stay away from?
Dr Ehsan: I think there is potential, if the UK Government feel passionate enough about that particular case. I would maybe stay away from certain individual cases and look more broadly at the overall human rights environment in certain member states and across the Commonwealth more generally. I think there will be many people who would consider that particular case to be a grave injustice, and it has attracted a great deal of interest within the British Pakistani population here in the UK. If the argument is about whether the UK should try to strike alliances across the Commonwealth and ultimately work towards the release of Imran Khan, I am not sure the Commonwealth is necessarily the right arena for that. I think that, over time, if we were to adopt that kind of approach, that could be incredibly alienating for Pakistan.
Overall, I think this is a case where there are very serious issues in terms of the imprisonment of Imran Khan. But at the same time, I think if the UK were to adopt an approach of, “Let’s band together with lots of other countries and try to exert pressure on Pakistan to release him from his imprisonment,” that would do more harm than good over time, especially in terms of Pakistan’s place in the Commonwealth.
Q12 Fleur Anderson: I have questions about four different areas, so they are more quick-fire questions. I would like to ascertain how successful the Commonwealth, and particularly CHOGM, has been in advancing all four areas. If you were writing the leaders’ declaration, would you put these issues in it? Also, what is the strength of the Commonwealth—but particularly the CHOGM meeting—to take action on them?
The four areas are: violence against women and girls; sustainable finance; climate finance; and marine protection. First, violence against women and girls has been a subject of previous CHOGMs, and is a focus for the Commonwealth, but have they been at all effective in tackling some real differences between the countries and raising awareness of and action on that issue?
Dr Ehsan: Violence against women and girls is definitely something the Commonwealth has traditionally focused on a great deal. I think in terms of action, it is difficult to achieve certain goals across the board within the Commonwealth, but there have been certain improvements.
In terms of the UK’s focus on sustainable finance and climate finance, I think these are very important areas. The reality is that the Commonwealth is an international association which is not vested with considerable financial resources, but the argument made in the “One Family” report for Policy Exchange is that it should be a powerful convening agent. Ultimately what the Commonwealth should do here, in terms of these areas, especially finance-related ones, is act as a switchboard. Ultimately, if member states want to access sustainable or climate finance, the reality is that cannot be drawn from some kind of Commonwealth centralised pot. But what the Commonwealth can do is offer that top-tier technical guidance in terms of connecting member states with certain organisations and international associations that do have those financial pots available.
One could be the World Health Organisation, for example. Being a gold-standard example of a convening international asset is the future of the Commonwealth, and the reality of having a budget that is not necessarily large means it needs to lean more in that direction. There has been considerable focus on climate finance within the Commonwealth, but naturally, it has to use that convening potential to do more. If we are looking at small state island development, much of that will ultimately come down to the climate resilience of those member countries. What was the fourth theme?
Q13 Fleur Anderson: I will come on to that now. Dr Carrington, you mentioned that climate was the focus—it absolutely is, especially given that the meeting is being held on small islands. Can you give an assessment of whether the Apia Commonwealth ocean declaration, which was introduced at a previous meeting, has been useful? What is the likelihood of there being further and better marine protection, especially given that we are about to have COP31 and the world conference on marine biodiversity in Belgium later that same month, as well as the fact that the first marine COP is coming up? In the context of those, will the declaration in CHOGM further that, and was it a successful part of the declaration last time?
Dr Carrington: I think the Commonwealth is a really good forum for tackling issues and building coalitions in all four areas, including on climate issues and on violence towards women and girls. I would not comment specifically on the success of previous actions, but given that CHOGM is going to be held in Antigua and Barbuda, the blue economy and marine conservation is going to be one of the key issues. Again, that will be feeding into COP, so there is a real opportunity to build consensus. One of the key things will be whether it is a case of having discussions and building a general consensus, but there being nothing that forms direct action. A real challenge for climate issues in particular will be developing something that creates direct action, rather than just further discussion.
Q14 Fleur Anderson: Would that be a Caribbean climate fund? Do you need to see an actual pot to take it from being a talking shop to something that can deliver? Is it an actual fund or finance mechanism that makes the difference?
Dr Carrington: I think it could be, and that would be really crucial. As I said, it has been done in the past. If we look at 2015 and the timing of CHOGM in Malta and then COP21 in Paris, we see that that worked really well in getting direct action on climate issues. Something like that could definitely happen.
Q15 Alex Ballinger: I wanted to ask about reparations. Ahead of CHOGM in 2024, the UK Government made it quite clear that reparations were off the table, which I must say is a position that I probably agree with. How did that land with Commonwealth members? Is there a way of discussing reparations and the legacy of slavery with them, given that the UK has such a clear position but many Commonwealth neighbours have the opposite position?
Dr Carrington: I think there definitely needs to be a shift in position.
Alex Ballinger: A shift in position by who?
Dr Carrington: By the UK. I think there needs to be a shift from maintaining the position in Samoa of not discussing anything, with no apology or movement there, to a listening position. If you look at the CARICOM 10-point plan on reparations, you will see that there is a really broad range of issues in the way that the legacies of slavery have impacted the Caribbean. The UK Government could work across various issues, including public health, education, debt cancellation and climate, to show that they are listening to the Caribbean.
Momentum has certainly built up this year. The meeting in June in Accra between African and Caribbean Governments really built a global framework on reparatory justice, and you then had the CARICOM delegation in London in July. It has put out a new manifesto, which again includes climate reparations, so that has been included in the conversation around reparatory justice. Yesterday, the Jamaican Government put a petition to the King, with three questions for the Privy Council specifically about the legality of issues relating to slavery in Jamaica. A real momentum has built up and there has been greater co-operation between African and Caribbean countries, so it is not something that the UK can switch off from and ignore.
If you look at the recent UK-Caribbean discussions in March, you will see that there was a degree of more openness in the UK position. The UK committed to funding and supporting the digitisation of documents relating to transatlantic slavery. With things like that, the UK can show an openness to having that conversation.
Q16 Alex Ballinger: I suppose there is a difference between openness to working on the history, documents and health programmes, which we might have been doing anyway through our aid programmes, and debt cancellation and large amounts of reparations. Is it more about reframing what we are doing, or would the UK have to go a lot further with financial commitments to satisfy some of these demands?
Dr Carrington: Long term, I would say yes, but if you are talking more broadly about engagement in organisations such as the Commonwealth and engaging with Caribbean Governments, and if you look at the narrative behind discussions about reparations, it is all about a shift in power and perspective. If the UK is coming from a position of power and leadership, that needs to shift to one of partnership and co-operation.
Dr Ehsan: I would have to offer a slightly different view. If we really wanted to get into the nitty-gritty of it in terms of slavery, we would look at the very origins of the supply chain. There is no doubt there were incredibly wealthy and powerful African kingdoms that benefited a great deal from the slave trade.
I find it peculiar that we have Governments, such as those in Ghana and Nigeria, being as pro-reparations as they are, given that Asante and Yoruba elites in modern-day Ghana and Nigeria respectively benefited a great deal in terms of slave trading operations.
There is no doubt that in its imperial era the UK was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. It was also responsible for atrocities such as the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar in Punjab. There was also a very brutal crackdown of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. But the truth is that we have to provide a broader picture.
The reality is that the UK also played a pioneering humanitarian role in suppressing the slave trade at considerable human and financial cost, especially to the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron. You have to look at that particular era when the Royal Navy was competing with slave ships that were far more sophisticated, dynamic and well-resourced. Some people might argue, “Where are the reparations for the fallen sailors who made the ultimate sacrifice in suppressing the slave trade?”
Reducing the debate on slavery to reparations does not serve the UK very well. The UK should be firm that, in the spirit of equality and partnership, we are very willing to play a leadership role in terms of deepening co-operation, educational development and female economic empowerment, and we will work towards building the Commonwealth advantage in terms of trade and investment.
We are also looking at environmental sustainability. On the point made about climate finance, the UK could play a critical role in mobilising private capital in terms of helping countries towards their green energy transition. We could do that through the City and also co-operate with major financial centres across the Commonwealth, especially Mumbai in India, Lagos in Nigeria and Singapore. Singapore does not get talked about very much at all when it comes to the financial potential of the Commonwealth, which I find quite baffling.
In my view, if I am being absolutely honest, some of the cases in the debate on reparations are ultimately designed as a form of resentment and almost as a way of bankrupting the UK. I do not buy into those arguments at all. I think what the Commonwealth should be is not so much about looking in the past. If people really do want to look in the past, we should obviously consider the role of those wealthy and powerful African kingdoms, whether the Yoruba elites, the Asante elites or the kings of Dahomey in current-day Benin. It would be foolish for anyone to suggest that Benin should now pay any form of reparations in terms of the Dahomey kingdom’s role in the slave trade. What I would really support is a future-oriented Commonwealth that ultimately operates in the spirit of equality and partnership, and the UK should remain very firm in that view.
Q17 Chair: Following up on that—because you clearly have slightly different views on this subject—the last CHOGM was, to some extent, dominated by discussion of this, and it led to the communiqué at the end saying that everyone “agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation”. Has that actually happened? Has there been any progress? Is there a risk that we are just going to have a repetition of the whole argument all over again at this year’s CHOGM?
Dr Carrington: Yes, I think there is a risk of that. That is why I would say that, in terms of reparations, the UK needs to shift that position and have more of a listening approach. A wider understanding can also be quite useful in feeding into these conversations, not just in terms of reparations but around the climate.
It is often mentioned that Caribbean countries—small island states in the region—are among the most vulnerable globally to extreme weather events and climate-related loss and damage. A crucial aspect is that that has been exacerbated by the experience of plantation slavery in the region—for example, through cutting down sustainable forests and replacing them with monocultures. Another legacy is that populations were displaced and concentrated in coastal areas, so then, whenever you have an extreme weather event, loss and damage are much higher.
Factoring in those histories is important for really understanding present-day challenges. But to circle back to your question, I think it is a real issue, and there needs to be a shift in approach for it not just to be a replay of Samoa two years ago.
Chair: Dr Ehsan, your view is probably closer to that expressed by the UK Government last time, but do you think that we can move beyond just having the same argument again?
Dr Ehsan: Before moving beyond, I think that the UK should lean confidently into those discussions in terms of its own role in ultimately suppressing the slave trade and being at the heart of abolitionist campaigning at the global level in that era. I am not saying that the UK should ignore these debates or just put them aside; I think that it needs to engage with them very critically, but have the self-confidence to say, “Well, actually, we played a pioneering humanitarian role in suppressing the slave trade. We acknowledge the atrocities that were committed under the British empire, and the fact that it was a major player in terms of slave trading operations, but we also acknowledge that, ultimately, it did play a role in really trying to suppress the slave trade.” As I said before, the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron made a considerable financial and human sacrifice towards that goal.
Very clearly, you do not want to antagonise fellow member countries within the Commonwealth, but the reality is that there were African kingdoms that benefited a great deal at the very origins of the supply chain. Ghana also brought forward a United Nations General Assembly resolution on this matter of reparations, which I find quite baffling. I think, in some ways, it is a deflection tactic by certain countries to try to take attention away from their own roles in slave trade activities.
The reality is that what we should be promoting is a future-oriented Commonwealth. That is the key here: free and equal nations. I would also make the point that, if the UK caves on reparations, it will lose respect in other parts of the Commonwealth. I am not sure that many Indian citizens, who think that Britain has done more good than harm in the world and for humankind, will find it very impressive that the UK has caved on reparations, if truth be told. Of course, there is obviously an appetite to make this a critical pillar of the Commonwealth agenda, but I do see it as a major distraction.
Q18 Chair: Finally, we are about to hear from the officials responsible for preparing for the UK’s presence at CHOGM. In your view, what should they be aiming for the UK to get out of the meeting?
Dr Carrington: A key focus should be around some of the more traditional issues where the Commonwealth has had success. Issues around women and girls, and looking at education, have been mentioned. As I mentioned, climate is really crucial, as are trade and investment. Given that CHOGM is going to be held in Antigua and Barbuda, there should be a focus on vulnerable states, and real support and action on climate finance—not just further discussions, but some actual delivery—and on the reform of the Commonwealth more broadly. There have been efforts to look at that over the past few years, and it is something else the UK should support.
To give an example of a potential shift in position, the UK has traditionally looked at education in terms of scholarships, but there are examples of more recent partnerships and set-ups that show a more modern perspective. For example, the University of Glasgow has a partnership with the University of the West Indies, which is much more about shared courses and shared knowledge, rather than a more extractive model of offering scholarships in the UK and in some way perhaps contributing to brain drain from countries that are offered scholarships. There is an opportunity for things around education in that respect.
Dr Ehsan: I really want to see a very strong focus on deepening trade and investment relations. I think the best way to overcome the focus on reparations is to say, “We want a future-oriented Commonwealth. We want to build on the existing Commonwealth advantage that we have in place and to deepen trade and investment relations.” That could be done through the striking of innovative partnerships. There was a proposal in the Policy Exchange “One Family” report to strike partnerships based on digital finance, for example, between London, Mumbai and Lagos—across different continents. I want to see something more innovative that really attracts attention and shows that the Commonwealth wants to be a serious player on the international stage.
Dr Carrington mentioned the traditional issues such as the deepening of educational co-operation. I would like to see more in terms of pro-youth mobility schemes across the Commonwealth, with a particular focus on girls and young women. That would be very important. I think it would be asking for too much to say there should be a strong focus on defence and security on this occasion in Antigua and Barbuda, but that is something the UK can work towards further down the line.
Environmental sustainability is very important. As I said before, especially given the UK’s technical expertise in the City, the reality is that it is not so much about looking at public money and Government funding, but about looking at how we can mobilise private capital to help countries to progress towards their green energy transition and to leverage blue economic instruments such as blue carbon and coastal resilience insurance.
It is about looking at how we can develop small state island development. That will benefit the UK, because if those emerging markets grow over time economically, that could present opportunities for British companies and firms as well. I think there should be a very strong focus on trade and investment. I know that Antigua and Barbuda wants to have a strong emphasis on economic prosperity as well, so it would fit in quite nicely if the UK was to take that approach.
Chair: Thank you both for appearing this morning; it has been very helpful. If you have any further thoughts you would like us to consider, please feel free to send them in. Thank you very much. We will suspend for a couple of minutes while we change over witnesses.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—
Chair: We had been intending to hold this morning’s second panel session with officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to discuss the preparations for this year’s CHOGM, but as our panel members have not appeared in time, we will have to suspend the sitting and look to pursue them through other means.