Among the many achievements of Queen Elizabeth II that are mentioned these days, an important aspect of her 70-year reign is overlooked: the role of monarch in 15 royal domains, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. She was also the leader of the Commonwealth, a group of 56 countries, mostly republics.
This community of independent states, which are almost all former British colonies, has been crucial to the preservation of British influence in the world in the post-imperial age. Whether that influence is based on historical memory, whether it has real power in world affairs, and whether and how long it can survive after the Queen's death - these are important questions, especially after Brexit.
In the era known as Pax Britannica in the 19th century, Britain was a global power in its own right. It was so big that it was said that the sun never sets in it. The British navy ruled the seas, British finance dominated world markets, and Britain maintained the European balance of power. This era of "perfect isolation" (though it was never perfect, nor as isolated as some history textbooks claim) ended with the First World War, which seriously damaged Britain's status as a world power and strengthened other contenders for that role.
After the Second World War confirmed the results of the First, British foreign policy focused on the so-called the doctrine of three circles. Britain's influence in the world relied on its special relationship with the United States, its position as the leader of the Commonwealth (heir to the empire) and its position in Europe. Through its status in these three overlapping and mutually supportive circles, Britain maximized its hard and soft power and reversed the effects of military and economic decline.
Different British governments have attached different importance to these roles for Britain. The most lasting significance was the relationship with the USA, which dates back to the Second World War, when the USA ensured its military and economic survival. This debt is never forgotten. Britain will be a faithful partner of the US in all its global undertakings; in turn, it could rely on an American surplus of goodwill enjoyed by no other country. Regardless of all the practical meaning of this relationship, this lasting connection would not be possible without a common language and a common imperial history.
Imperial history was also important for the second round of British power. The Empire of 1914 became the British Commonwealth in 1931 and finally just a Commonwealth with a Queen at its head. The Commonwealth's influence is based on its global reach. Where the empire once stretched, the only world organization (besides the United Nations) appeared that encompassed all continents.
The Commonwealth preserved British influence in the world in two ways. First, it functioned as an economic bloc through the Imperial System of Preferences in 1932 and as a sterling zone which was formalized in 1939; both the block and the zone survived until the 1970s. Second, and more enduringly, the expressly multiracial character of the Commonwealth, which the Queen so fervently supported, reduced global tensions arising from ethnic nationalism as well as ethnic chauvinism at home. Multicultural Britain is a logical expression of the old multicultural empire.
The European link was the weakest and the first to break. This is because Britain's historical role in Europe has been negative: to prevent processes in Europe that could threaten its military security and economy. It opposed all attempts to create a single continental power. Europe is only 30 kilometers away, so British politics has always been on the alert.
This constant sense of British separation from the continent was described by John Maynard Keynes. "England is still outside Europe," Keynes wrote in 1919. "The tremors of the European soil do not reach her: Europe is something else and England is no part of it." Hugh Gaitskell, later Labor leader, would invoke this sense of separation when he played the Commonwealth card in 1962, urging his party not to give up a thousand years of history for the sake of joining the European Economic Community.
British policy towards Europe has always aimed to prevent the emergence of a Third Power independent of NATO led by the US. Charles de Gaulle had this in mind when he vetoed Britain's first application to join the EEC in 1963 to prevent the introduction of the American Trojan horse into Europe.
Although Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted Britain to be at the heart of Europe, Britain continued its old policy within the EU from 1974 to 2021. The only truly European-minded Prime Minister during that period was Edward Heath. Other British governments have sought to maximize the benefits to Britain from trade and tourism, minimizing the danger of political contamination. It is no surprise today that Britain is joining the US in demonstrating NATO's power in Eastern Europe, outside the European Union.
Britain, therefore, was left with only two spheres of influence. After Brexit, the Queen's legacy is clear. Through her position and personal qualities, she preserved the Commonwealth as a possible vehicle for what remained of British hard power, such as military alliances in the South Pacific. Whatever one may think of Britain's hard power, its soft power - reflecting its trade relations, its cultural prestige in Asia and Africa, and its multicultural ideal - in an age of growing ethnic, religious and geopolitical conflict represents a global public good.
I doubt that the two remaining rounds can make up for Britain's absence from the third, European one. Now the key question is how much the durability of the Commonwealth depended on the mere longevity of the Queen and what of that her successor will be able to preserve.
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net; translation: M. Jovanović)
Bonus video:
