Hello! I hope you’re having a good week. Last week, I sent out the newsletter on a Thursday. It wasn’t an error. Queen Elizabeth II was said to be unwell at that point and I expected the news cycle to get overwhelmed thereafter. I thought I should leave you all to it.
In this edition, we’re looking at what could happen to the Commonwealth with King Charles III now leading the British monarchy. But, as always, there’s lots happening around the world.
Let’s get started.
This day that year
2008: Global financial services firm Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy at the climax of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It was the largest bankruptcy filing in United States history. It contributed to the wider global financial crisis of 2007-2008.
1948: The Indian Army took control of the towns of Jalna, Latur, Mominabad, Surriapet and Narkatpalli during Operation Polo against the Nizam-ruled princely state of Hyderabad.
Charles and the Commonwealth
Unless you’re living under a rock, you would know by now that Queen Elizabeth II died last week at the age of 96 – having been the monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms for more than 70 years. She was also the hereditary head of the Commonwealth of Nations. Her eldest son, Charles Philip Arthur George (formally styled King Charles III), is now the sovereign and the head of the ruling House of Windsor. He also took over as the sovereign of the Commonwealth realms. It’s striking how the last week started with Elizabeth Alexandra Mary as the Queen and Boris Johnson as the prime minister, and ended with King Charles III and PM Liz Truss.
Read more: What’s in a name? King Charles III’s name has loaded history
You may be a monarchist or a republican. You may love the royal family, or dislike the monarchy for its previous links to slavery, colonialism and for all its recent scandals. However, irrespective of what side of this debate you stand on, you’ll probably agree that the Queen’s death is a major event in the history of the UK, the Commonwealth and perhaps, the rest of the world. By some calculations, nine out of 10 humans alive today were born after the Queen’s coronation. In a world where the British monarchy is the face of the UK, Elizabeth II was the only face of that monarchy most people alive today have known. This link between the UK and the Queen is perhaps best encapsulated by this line by The Economist: “By living so long, Elizabeth offered the illusion of stability to a nation that was in truth changing markedly”.
Charles becoming the king is unlikely to change anything for the UK in terms of day-to-day governance. It’s a constitutional monarchy where the sovereign is expected to remain neutral. Except for some tweaks Charles may want to make to the way the royal family functions, things will largely go on as they have. After all, he has been slowly positioned into the monarch’s duties (some joke that Charles had the longest apprenticeship in history). But let’s look at the global picture. Will things remain the same for and throughout the Commonwealth as well?
Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth nations
There’s a difference between the Commonwealth realms and the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth realms refers to all the 15 nations (and their dependent territories) that still consider the British monarch as their head of state. It’s essentially a “personal union” wherein two or more countries have the same monarch. For example, Australia, Canada, Jamaica and New Zealand. Some of them have retained the UK’s Union Jack flag as part of their own flag.
But the Commonwealth of Nations refers to merely a political association comprising 56 countries. This voluntary association not only includes aforementioned countries like Australia and Jamaica, but also republics like India, Malta, Pakistan and Singapore that were once under British rule. These have their own heads of state and are not linked to the British crown. Read the full list of Commonwealth nations here.
But it’s worth noting that the membership of the Commonwealth of Nations is rather fluid. Gabon, Mozambique, Rwanda and Togo were never under British rule, but chose to join the association voluntarily. More such nations with no links to the erstwhile British Empire are interested in joining. Conversely, while Ireland and Zimbabwe were once under British rule, they opted to leave the Commonwealth of Nations.
The ruling British monarch has always been the head of the Commonwealth of Nations. But this is a ceremonial position and the person has no role in the functioning of the organisation.
The relationship between various parts of the UK is more complicated than seen from the outside. There are not-so-dormant secessionist movements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Irish unity in case of the last). But the Queen was widely considered to be the glue that had held the UK together. This is also true of the Commonwealth realms. Some people in countries like Canada, Australia, Jamaica and New Zealand – to name a few — have been seeking removal of the British monarch as their head of state and “complete the circle of independence” even if there’s no hostility with the monarchy. They see becoming a republic as taking the last unfulfilled step towards true independence and self-rule — and breaking the shackles of imperialism, colonialism and their associated ills.
Some of these countries have also taken steps towards that goal. In 1999, Australia held a referendum asking its people if it should become a republic. The proposal was to replace the Queen and her appointed governor general with an Australian as the president. The side wanting Australia to be a republic lost the vote by a 10-percent margin. Analysts suggest this was because voters were still fond of the Queen. But do they share this fondness for Charles and still back the monarchy? If not, it’s possible that republican movements across these Commonwealth realms could now gain momentum. After all, even in the UK, calls to abolish the monarchy have seemingly grown after the Queen’s death (or, at least the feeling has become more evident). A new YouGov survey highlights that about 21 percent respondents within the UK itself favoured the British monarchy to be abolished. Moreover, countries within the Commonwealth removing the British monarch isn’t unheard of. It happened in Barbados just last year when the Caribbean nation replaced the Queen with its own president.
Domino effect
Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Gaston Browne told ITV News following the Queen’s death that his country plans to hold a referendum on becoming a republic within the next three years. Phillip Davis, the prime minister of the Bahamas, told The Nassau Guardian that the Caribbean country holding a referendum to become a republic is “always on the table”, but didn’t provide a timeline. Similarly, on September 9, the main news story on the front page of one of Jamaica’s leading newspapers, the Gleaner, suggested that the Queen’s death would “make Jamaica’s break with monarchy easier”. A senior minister there had said in June that Jamaica could make transition to a republic by 2025. Belize has also already announced a constitutional review.
Others who have taken a more cautious stand. Australian PM Anthony Albanese said there will be no fresh republic referendum during his current tenure. But when he got elected in May this year, Albanese had appointed Australia’s first “assistant minister for the republic” with the task of drumming up support for a republic referendum. Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull had also once suggested that Australia should become a republic when the Queen dies. New Zealand’s PM Jacinda Ardern said her government won’t push for a republic referendum, but reiterated her position that the country will become a republic within her lifetime.
Papua New Guinea’s PM James Marape said the Queen “was the anchor that held our country within the Commonwealth”. So, is that a hint that the Queen’s absence has opened the doors for the country’s exit?
As seen from Buckingham Palace, there’s a risk that even one of the remaining Commonwealth realms deciding to become a republic could have a domino effect. Therefore, if Antigua and Barbuda, or any other state in the Commonwealth realms moves ahead to become a republic, others could follow suit. Charles can’t do much about it, other than trying to convince these Commonwealth states to not become republics. In fact, in the modern era, the British monarchy has always had to accept the decisions made by these states. In fact, as the heir apparent to the throne, Charles had represented the Queen last year at the event where Barbados declared itself a republic.
Trivia
Queen Elizabeth II’s reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest of any British monarch, the second-longest reign of any sovereign in recorded history (record currently held by 17th century French King Louis XIV) and the longest for any female head of state.
King Charles III was the longest-serving heir apparent in British history and, at the age of 73, has become the oldest person to assume the throne.
Also read: Queen Elizabeth II’s Death Is a Chance to Examine the Present-Day Effects of Britain's Colonial Past
What else?
Ukraine’s advance
The Ukrainian military has managed to retake 3,000 square kilometres of its territory occupied earlier by Russia this month alone, the country’s top military commander General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi claimed on September 11.
There were also reports of Russia withdrawing some of its units from the Kharkiv general area. However, Russian state-owned news agency Tass quoted Russian defence ministry spokesperson Igor Konashenkov as saying that the relocation of those units was meant to “regroup the Russian forces stationed near Balakleya and Izyum to boost efforts in the Donetsk direction”.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested that the winter months could be “a turning point” in the war and “lead to the rapid de-occupation of Ukraine.”
“Do you still think that we are ‘one nation?’ Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Read my lips: Without gas or without you? Without you. Without light or without you? Without you. Without water or without you? Without you. Without food or without you? Without you. Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your ‘friendship and brotherhood’. But history will put everything in its place. And we will be with gas, light, water and food ... and without you!”
— Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in a September 11 Telegram post aimed at the Russian government (written in Ukrainian)
Nearly 100 killed in Armenia-Azerbaijan clash
Armenia has accused Azerbaijan of trying to push into its territory as fighting broke out between the two countries’ militaries along their border on September 12. Yerevan claims that multiple Armenian towns were attacked by Azerbaijan. Conversely, Azerbaijan blames Armenia for this escalation.
At least 49 Armenian soldiers had died as a result of the overnight clash, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Azerbaijan said its army had suffered 50 fatalities. Pashinyan called on world leaders and the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) for “an adequate reaction” to what he described as Azeri aggression. Russia and the United States have appealed for calm and the CSTO has sent a monitoring mission to Armenia.
The two former Soviet states located in the south Caucasus have been fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh since the 1990s. Nagorno-Karabakh is an enclave internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan. However, it was fully controlled by ethnic Armenians until 2020. A six-week war, in which Azerbaijan made territorial gains around Nagorno-Karabakh, ended with a Russia-brokered ceasefire agreement. Under this agreement, Armenian was forced to cede control of some districts to Azerbaijan and Russian peacekeepers have since been deployed in certain areas. However, tensions have still flared periodically. The latest skirmishes are significant because they have happened along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border — not around the traditional hotspot of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The region is of massive importance. Pipelines carrying oil and gas to Europe run through Azerbaijan, neighbouring Georgia and Turkey. Turkey, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member, supports Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan and Turkey are both Turkic in ethnicity). Armenia is allied to Russia. In fact, Russia maintains a military base in Armenia near the border with Turkey. Georgia is close to Azerbaijan and has an intense territorial dispute with Russia. All aforementioned states have deep interest in the region and its stability. A full-fledged conflict in the south Caucasus could, therefore, drag Georgia, Turkey and Russia into the conflict and that would disrupt energy supplies further — at a time when the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to a major energy crisis.
Over the past few months, the two countries had taken initial steps towards a more comprehensive peace deal. But it is unclear what progress has been made. Baku wants to dissolve Nagorno-Karabakh as a political entity and stop Yerevan from controlling it. Yerevan, on the other hand, wants to protect the rights of local Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is also unclear what impact this skirmish will have on this process.
Russia, which has previously been a mediator in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, is currently tied-down in Ukraine. Therefore, its inability to immediately provide more military resources for peacekeeping in the south Caucasus is a major factor. Laurence Broers, associate fellow at think tank Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia Programme, told Reuters: “I think there is a feeling in Azerbaijan that now is the time to deploy its power, its military advantage, and to extract the maximum that it can get”.
The Himalayan stand-off
Chinese and Indian soldiers completed the disengagement process at Hot Springs area along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh earlier this week, according to Indian news organisation ThePrint. However, there has been no update on the disengagement at Demchok and Depsang Plains. The overarching issue of de-escalation along the notional demarcation line between the two Asian powerhouses in the eastern Ladakh region in the Himalayas also remains unresolved.
ThePrint reported citing unnamed sources that a temporary buffer zone was created as in the case of other points of confrontations along the LAC where disengagement took place earlier, to ensure soldiers don’t come face-to-face again. There would be no patrolling on either side.
This came ahead of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Uzbekistan which is being attended by both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Though the two were unlikely to meet, reports suggest.
Chinese and Indian soldiers have been engaged in an intense stand-off in some hotspots along the LAC since mid-2020. In June 2020, the face-off turned violent in the Galwan Valley resulting in casualties on both sides. This led to additional military build-up, including deployment of artillery.
Interesting stuff
“For the people of formerly colonised countries, the monarchy is not a neutral institution. It is the embodiment of imperial legacies that benefited Britain at the expense of its colonies, and played an active role in the slave trade.” Nalini Mohabir argues in The Guardian that the British royals “have a duty to the Commonwealth: pay your debts and apologise”. Read the opinion piece here.
The Edge of Democracy, a 2019 documentary directed by Oscar-nominee Petra Costa, tells the tale of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s arrest, the 2014 Brazilian economic crisis, President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment and Jair Bolsonaro’s ascendance to power. I think this is the one documentary you may want to watch as Brazil heads into another presidential election early next month with Lula – now with an annulled conviction – taking on Bolsonaro. It’s available on Netflix.
Author Carter Malkasian explores in Foreign Affairs if the prolonged civil war in Afghanistan is really over. Read the piece here.
Stephen Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, evaluates in this Foreign Policy column the four models NATO could adopt going forward. One of the models could be going global to contain China. Read the full piece here.
Before you go… If you haven’t already, do ‘follow’ us on Twitter and Instagram.
I always look forward to your feedback. You can comment below or send a quick email to untwinednewsletter@gmail.com.