WASHINGTON, CMC – Recent media stories have suggested that King Charles III could “invite” the United States to join the Commonwealth of Nations. Yet, Professor Philip Murphy, Director of the History and Policy Institute of Historical Research in London, wrote in The Times on March 23 that membership in the Commonwealth “is not in the King’s gift.”
Gaining membership starts with an application by the country desirous of becoming a member. As Murphy states, the process is “typically a lengthy one, and success depends upon the consent of all existing members.”
This fact is very well known in Buckingham Palace and has been respected by the Sovereigns of Great Britain since 1949 when the Modern Commonwealth emerged. Several countries led by India and Pakistan became Republics with their Heads of State. The Commonwealth is not a formal political or economic union; it is a network of countries that choose to cooperate on shared issues. The British monarch is symbolic as the Head of the Commonwealth.
This framework arose from a 1949 Declaration of Commonwealth Leaders, which formalized the Commonwealth’s structure and recognized the British monarch as “the symbol of the free association of the independent member nations and, as such, Head of the Commonwealth.” King Charles played an important ceremonial role in this capacity but could not commit to the organization. Consequently, it is worth explaining why these media reports about a supposed “Associate Membership” are mistaken.
There is no such thing as “Associate Membership.”
Murphy rightly pointed out that there is no category called “Associate Member” in the Commonwealth. In November 2007, at their meeting in Uganda, the Commonwealth Heads of Government emphatically rejected any “Associate Membership” idea. They confirmed that the Commonwealth would retain only one class of membership – full membership by sovereign states.
Their stance followed the recommendations of a special committee established under the Chairmanship of former Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson. In its October 2007 report, the Committee categorically stated that the “Associate Membership” idea was “fraught with difficulties.” They reaffirmed their conviction that “the Commonwealth was fundamentally an association of sovereign member states who were equal in all respects.”.”
Based on the 8-person Committee report, the Commonwealth leaders established a four-step process for any nation seeking admission. This process involves an informal assessment by the Secretary-General following a country’s expression of interest, consultations with existing member governments, a formal application by the interested country if no objections are raised, and evidence of democratic processes in the country and public support for membership, such as a resolution of the applicant’s legislature.
Therefore, no “associate” or partial membership exists, and there is no procedure for a single leader—monarch, president, or prime minister—to invite a nation to join unilaterally.
Why a US Application Is Unlikely
It is difficult to imagine the US administration choosing to apply for membership in the Commonwealth—or any other organization, for that matter. The Commonwealth’s application process would have to subject itself to a potentially contentious review—something neither the administration nor the US Congress would tolerate.
Further, national sentiment in the US would likely bristle at the idea that its president and legislature must formally acknowledge the British King as the “Head” of an organization in which the United States participates. Even though the King’s position today is purely symbolic, the notion of again recognizing a British monarch – however ceremonial – would surely spark intense debate among a population that first achieved nationhood by breaking away from British rule.
A Voluntary Association of Equals
Furthermore, even if the US were to apply, the Commonwealth’s culture of consensus and egalitarian decision-making stands in stark contrast to the usual role of the US in international affairs. The Commonwealth is a network of 56 sovereign nations, rich and poor, large and small, that have chosen to collaborate on shared values: democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and development. Its informal style – particularly during the “retreat” sessions of the biennial Heads of Government meetings – promotes frank, off-the-record dialogue among leaders who interact on an equal footing.
For a superpower accustomed to steering global discussions, consensus decision-making in which any member can stall or derail a proposal would be a difficult fit for the US. The comparable situation is the US membership of the Organization of American States (OAS), which the US helped shape in 1947 with Latin American and Caribbean countries and has played a forceful role.
However, the culture of the OAS fashioned out of concerns only from the nations of the Americas (32 participating states), is different from the Commonwealth’s remarkable diversity – 56 countries spanning continents, faiths, ethnicities, and political systems. Commonwealth members have fostered an atmosphere of ideological pluralism that has matured over seven decades.
The Bottom Line
This explains why the recent media discussion about a “King’s invitation” to the US misrepresents the Commonwealth’s rules and operations.
Membership can only be achieved through a formal application approved by all existing member governments. And as long as those rules stand, the British monarch’s headship is a ceremonial reflection of voluntary association, without the power to grant membership to anyone. Against this background, no “invitation” to the US could exist. Significantly, Buckingham Palace has not confirmed the media stories.
For the United States to join the Commonwealth, it would have to follow the established process of its own accord, and that is not only very unlikely, but it would also be an unreasonable expectation.
and then 