The Round Table The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs ISSN: 0035-8533 (Print) 1474-029X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctrt20 Voices of the Commonwealth: An Oral History of the Modern Commonwealth 1965–2012 Sue Onslow To cite this article: Sue Onslow (2017) Voices of the Commonwealth: An Oral History of the Modern Commonwealth 1965–2012, The Round Table, 106:1, 47-59, DOI: 10.1080/00358533.2016.1272958 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2016.1272958 Published online: 17 Feb 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctrt20 Download by: [Sue Onslow] Date: 28 February 2017, At: 09:41 THE ROUND TABLE, 2017 VOL. 106, NO. 1, 47–59 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2016.1272958 Voices of the Commonwealth: An Oral History of the Modern Commonwealth 1965–2012 Sue Onslow University of London, London, UK ABSTRACT KEY WORDS This article describes a major exercise undertaken by the Institute Commonwealth; Shridath of Commonwealth Studies, London, to put together an oral history (Sonny) Ramphal; Malcolm of the modern Commonwealth. The project was set in the context Fraser; Mahathir Mohamed; P. of a wider research agenda aimed at investigating whether the J. Patterson; Commonwealth Heads of Government Commonwealth has made any difference globally in policy terms. As Meeting; Margaret Thatcher; part of the exercise, the author, who was the lead researcher on the Marlborough House project, interviewed senior figures within the Commonwealth who played key roles in shaping the destiny of the organization and in influencing policy. The article is a personal account of the exercise. Introduction The Institute of Commonwealth Studies has now concluded its major oral history project, ‘An Oral History of the Modern Commonwealth since 1965’, comprising extended interviews with over 65 Commonwealth leaders, diplomats, civil servants and journalists across the 50-year time span since the creation of the Commonwealth Secretariat. The overall research question for the project was designed to look at the Commonwealth as a diplomatic actor since 1965: ‘Has the Commonwealth made a policy difference—and if so, how—since 1965?’, and to assess the findings on the basis ‘Does the Commonwealth’s record of achievement justify continued engagement with the association?’ I acted as the project’s lead interviewer and have conducted over 90 interviews over the past three years. This library of recollec- tions, reflections and opinion on the Commonwealth as a diplomatic actor is now freely available and fully searchable on a designated website, www.commonwealthoralhistories. org, hosted by the Institute. The editor of The Round Table has asked me to give my personal account of these inter- views, rather than an academic interpretation clouded by theory or emphasizing method- ology. (I shall merely state I used a semi-structured interviewing technique to do these elite interviews.) Let me say, first and foremost, doing this project was an enormous privilege. Talking to people across the world who rose to the height of political power and who have genuinely made a difference? As my teenagers would say, ‘What was not to like?’ I have travelled the globe, visited Commonwealth cities I never dreamed of seeing (such CONTACT Sue Onslow [email protected] The project ‘An Oral History of the Modern Commonwealth 1965–2010’ was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/J006548/1). Interviews for ‘An Oral History of the modern Commonwealth 1965–2012’ are available at www.commonwealthoralhistories.org © 2017 The Round Table Ltd S. ONSLOW 48 as Georgetown, Guyana, and its charming old colonial architecture, or revisiting Suva in Fiji). I have met and interviewed people who are political legends—such as Dr Mahathir Mohamed, Malcolm Fraser and P. J. Patterson—and renewed personal connections, with Sir Shridath ‘Sonny’ Ramphal, whom I first interviewed in 2006, and with old friends, such as David MacDowell whom I knew as the New Zealand High Commissioner when I lived in Fiji some 35 years ago. I cannot lie: the past three years have been enormously stimulating and enjoyable. Right from the start of the interviews, I was determined I would not be a female Jeremy Paxman. I firmly believe being an aggressive or confrontational interviewer is fundamentally counterproductive. There is an old saying: ‘Honey catches more flies than vinegar’. Second, the research focus was firmly on ‘the Commonwealth as a diplomaticactor ’. This was subtly and importantly different from ‘What did the Commonwealth do?’ The research questions of the project were directly connected to the interview cohort: whom should I interview? Everyone to whom I spoke had recommendations—indeed, everyone had a different list of 60 people. As a project, we had to be selective and, given the time span and range of issues, inevitably there are considerable gaps in the project’s coverage. Furthermore, funds were limited. Persuading former Commonwealth political leaders, many of whom are still very busy, as well as organizing the necessary travel, doing interviews and clearing the transcripts—the whole process took an enormous amount of time. It was very far from a ‘journo’ approach of ‘quick and dirty’. Also, despite our best efforts to ensure that we had chronological (1965–2012), thematic, institutional and geographic coverage across the vast, sprawling association which is the Commonwealth—and Richard Bourne, as Chair of our Advisory Board, understands this better than most—most of the people I talked to were men. This is a reflection of male- dominated, hierarchical, political and institutional appointments of the era, although merci- fully the gender shift was increasingly apparent by the 1990s. And they were powerful men, used to being interviewed and dealing with the media, attentive to the power of rhetoric and the importance of words, jealous of their contribution to their country’s history and the view of posterity, and who very often had written their memoirs and laid down a certain narrative: it has been called the ‘song of self’. This makes for highly conscious behaviour, to continue to polish their place in history. I was asked a couple of times, did this not make me particularly at the mercy of their crafted—and not necessarily accurate—version of events? The process of memory what and recall is notorious for the associated progressive sanding of the contours of memory of what actually happened. Were they not going to regard me rather like a cushion, plonking themselves heavily on the interview so as to leave an indel- ible imprint on my view of events, and their particular contribution? I decided to turn that directly to advantage, i.e. to try to give people sufficient space to lay out their recollection and version of past happenings, which I could to try to explore further or to probe where I could, using triangulation by checking with other contemporary actors. However, since I frequently did not have access to the original records to check, I was inherently limited in my ability to call them to account. That said, I was not out to trip them up. Also, not knowing at the start the ‘deep’ history of the Commonwealth meant I was learning constantly the ‘what’ as well as impelled to ask the ‘why’, the ‘how’ and the ‘if not, why not?’ In fact, a lack of knowledge can be an invaluable tool in a research project, as it promotes curiosity and an enquiring spirit to ‘understand the causes of things’. THE ROUND TABLE 49 There is also an important point on when is the best time to interview such powerful people? How best to judge the moment—between fighting current but receding battles and accurate recall, with the licence to speak freely that can come with greater separation from responsibility? I came to the conclusion 5–10 years after leaving post was possibly the optimum time, when recollection of policy content and the diplomatic process was still relatively fresh and the burdens of discretion required of office were easing—but there were so many exceptions! Each interview is historically contingent, influenced by context and interaction between each speaker. Gender was an ever-present aspect in these encounters. In addition, these interviews took place over three years, across the spectacular ‘own goal’ of the Colombo summit. It was far from a comfortable time for the Commonwealth ‘family’. So What Did I Try and Do? Read everything the interviewee had written—memoirs, autobiographies, past interviews, as well as biographies and summaries of national histories. Submit a short list of questions that were tailored particularly to each person’s experience— but which had to bear in mind the agreed research questions of the project. This could be something of a challenge if the person I was talking to had a dim view of the Commonwealth (my interview with Dr Mahathir immediately comes to mind), or if the association came low down on the list of that country’s foreign policy priorities. Also, what to do if what I deemed to be important no longer featured at all in their memory? Flora MacDonald, for- mer Canadian Foreign Minister, had very little recollection of the Lusaka Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)—except that she was supremely irritated by Mrs Thatcher whom she felt flirted outrageously with African leaders. She was much keener to tell me about Canada’s involvement in the US hostage crisis in Tehran in 1979–80, and her sense of achievement on scaling the foothills of Mount Everest. Read the national daily newspapers before the interview itself.