Jacinda Ardern’s decision to attend the upcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Spain — but to skip the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Rwanda — symbolises the changes she is making to New Zealand foreign policy.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) starts today in Kigali, while the NATO summit will be held in Madrid next week.

However, Jacinda Ardern is only attending the NATO summit. She is sending her Foreign Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, to attend the Commonwealth meeting in her place.

• READ MORE: Other articles on China in the Pacific

Ardern is hardly alone with her decision to stay away from CHOGM — so far, only 35 of 54 Commonwealth leaders have sent an RSVP. New Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will be among the absentees — deputy Prime Minister (and defence minister) Richard Marles will go instead.

This is despite the fact that this year’s CHOGM is being held during the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee year and just over a month before the Commonwealth Games — the grouping’s sporting flagship.

The summit will also be the first CHOGM since 2018, the first CHOGM in Africa since 2007 and the first to be hosted by a “new” Commonwealth member — Rwanda was never a British colony, but voluntarily joined the Commonwealth in 2009.

Indeed, Rwanda’s hosting of the summit this year is not without controversy. Freedom House, a US-based think tank, calls the country ‘not free’, with a ranking of just 22 points out of 100 — placing it firmly in the bottom third of its global rankings, two places ahead of Russia.

‘Pervasive intimidation, torture’
Freedom House says the Rwandan regime — led by authoritarian President Paul Kagame — undertakes ‘pervasive surveillance, intimidation, torture, and renditions or suspected assassinations of exiled dissidents.’

This year’s CHOGM also threatens to be overshadowed by a UK plan to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda. Prince Charles, who reportedly called the deal ‘appalling’, will be representing the Queen at the summit in Kigali.

Despite these two red flags, prominent human rights organisations are not calling for a boycott of the event. Rather, they want Commonwealth leaders to draw attention to the problems. Human Rights Watch, for instance, has asked leaders to voice their “grave concern to the [Rwandan] government on its human rights record”.

And, in reference to the UK-Rwanda asylum-seeker deal, Amnesty International wants Commonwealth members to ‘seize the opportunity in Kigali to denounce this inhumane arrangement’.

‘Jacinda Ardern’s invitation to attend the NATO’s 2022 Madrid Summit will also be something of a reward for aligning New Zealand’s foreign policy more closely with NATO – and the West generally – over the past few months’ – @GeoffMillerNZ https://t.co/hgkbfp8jO0

— Democracy Project (@Dem_Project) June 19, 2022

Jacinda Ardern’s no-show at CHOGM is probably driven partly by domestic political considerations and timing. This Friday’s inaugural “Matariki” public holiday, which marks the Māori New Year, was a key election campaign pledge by Ardern’s Labour Party in 2020 — and the Prime Minister is scheduled to attend a pre-dawn ceremony on the day.

Outside of the Commonwealth Games, the Commonwealth has a low profile — but it has a lot going for it. Few intergovernmental organisations can rival it for size — with the Commonwealth’s collective population reaching 2.6 billion, only the likes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the United Nations (UN) represent more people.

Strength in representing small states
Moreover, the Commonwealth has a particular strength in representing small states, especially island ones — 25 of the 54 members are classified as Small Island Developing States. This means the Commonwealth can be a particularly useful forum for discussing climate change and environmental issues.

The results have included initiatives such as the Commonwealth Litter Programme, which has made real differences to countries such as Vanuatu in fighting plastic pollution.

The Commonwealth is more than just a talking shop, but the disparate nature of its membership is a major challenge. The Commonwealth includes wealthy, democratic countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK — but also poor, authoritarian ones such as Cameroon, Rwanda and Uganda.

In between, there are also some rich authoritarian members (such as Brunei) and less well-off democracies (such as India)

Of course, there is still great value in an organisation that brings opposing sides together for a robust exchange of views — the new geopolitical faultline between the Global South and North over Ukraine is a case in point. While Western countries — including New Zealand — have provided strong support to Ukraine, most non-Western countries have not followed suit.

It would do Jacinda Ardern good to listen to the rationale that countries such as South Africa and Mozambique might have for not falling in line with the Western position. Countries perhaps learn best when they are not just surrounded by their like-minded friends.

However, in the new Cold War, ideology is back with a vengeance — and many countries are drifting away from pragmatic, inclusive groupings towards more ideologically-driven ones.

Countering Chinese influence
For Australia, this means countering Chinese influence with the reinvigorated “Quad” arrangement (with India, Japan and the US) and AUKUS (with the United Kingdom and the United States); for New Zealand, the Pacific Islands Forum and bilateral meetings with Australia and the United States have taken on greater significance.

All of this explains why Jacinda Ardern has accepted an invitation to attend NATO’s Madrid Summit next week. Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s Secretary General, has recently been at pains to highlight the invitation to the bloc’s “Asia-Pacific partners” – Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

The reason is obvious – on Thursday, Stoltenberg specifically mentioned China as one of the priorities for the meeting, which will set out a new “Strategic Concept” — effectively a blueprint for the future of NATO.

And while NATO’s main focus will remain on security in Europe, last year’s summit in Brussels — held well before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — was noteworthy for making China its main priority.

The summit’s communique made NATO’s position crystal-clear: “China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security”.

Jacinda Ardern’s invitation to attend the NATO’s 2022 Madrid Summit will also be something of a reward for aligning New Zealand’s foreign policy more closely with NATO — and the West generally — over the past few months.

After all, Ardern has overhauled New Zealand’s foreign policy by introducing sanctions against Russia and sending military equipment and weapons to Ukraine — and by making a symbolic contribution of New Zealand troops to Europe to assist with the war effort.

Security ‘not for free’
But as Stoltenberg likes to say, security “does not come for free” — and the meeting will undoubtedly also serve as an opportunity to put pressure on New Zealand to provide even more assistance. The NATO Secretary-General recently pointed out that there have been “seven consecutive years of rising defence investment across Europe and Canada”.

New Zealand’s military spending shows a remarkably similar trajectory, with spending now at the 1.5% of GDP level– up from 1.1% in 2015, although still well below NATO’s target of 2%.

Like Jacinda Ardern, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will also be a guest of honour at the NATO summit. Anthony Albanese is also travelling to Madrid — and Zelensky has already invited the Australian PM to visit Kyiv.

If he accepts, Albanese would be following in the footsteps of many other NATO country leaders who have travelled to Ukraine in recent weeks, including the UK’s Boris Johnson, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz.

And given the focus on Western unity and solidarity in recent months, there is every chance Jacinda Ardern would travel together with Anthony Albanese on any European side-trip to Ukraine — on a joint ANZAC solidarity mission.

Ardern is backing NATO over CHOGM.

She might be choosing Kyiv over Kigali.

Geoffrey Miller is an international analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues for Victoria University of Wellington’s Democracy Project. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. This article is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

The most explosive element of the Sussexes’ highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey was the claim that someone within the royal household had “concerns” over how dark-skinned the couple’s son Archie might be.

While Winfrey later clarified neither the Queen nor the Duke of Edinburgh were behind the remark, Meghan also suggested their son was denied the title of prince because of his mixed race.

The interview points to a larger issue of racism in the British monarchy, both contemporary and historical.

• READ MORE: Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why British media coverage could backfire
• Prince Harry’s decision to ‘step back’ from the monarchy is a gift to republicans
• Statues are just the start – the UK is peppered with slavery heritage
  

When the couple began dating, some hoped it would usher in a period of royal renewal. Meghan, who has an African-American mother and a white father, was presented as a symbol of the modern, inclusive monarchy.

These hopes were gradually dashed with consistently negative media coverage, including unfavourable comparisons with Meghan’s sister-in-law, Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge.

Meghan revealed to Winfrey that the pressure to perform official duties in the face of mounting criticism led to depression and suicidal thoughts. The couple lamented the lack of support they received from the royal family.

It is a tragic story at an individual level but it also points to a history of structural racism within the monarchy. Harry noted that the press attacks on his wife had “colonial undertones”, which the royal family refused to address.

These are part of a longer history of colonialism and racism in which the Windsors are entangled.

The slave trade
The Queen’s distant ancestor, Elizabeth I, was integral to establishing the British slave trade. One of the founders of the trade in the 16th century, Sir John Hawkins, impressed Elizabeth by capturing 300 Africans.

His biographer Harry Kelsey calls him “Queen Elizabeth’s Slave Trader” and notes that she contributed her ship, Jesus of Lubeck to his next voyage in 1564.

In 2018, Prince Charles denounced Britain’s role in the slave trade as an “atrocity” but there have been calls for the Queen also to apologise on behalf of the monarchy.

Republican campaigner Graham Smith has led the charge noting that the current royals “are sitting on a hugely significant amount which was acquired from slavery and empire”.

A colonial mindset
The British empire contracted after the World Wars and eventually dissolved in the 1960s. Nevertheless, a colonial mindset has persisted. This has been regularly demonstrated by the casual racism of Prince Philip. Visiting Australia in 2002, he asked an Aboriginal Australian if they were “still throwing spears”.

In 1999, he mused that an old-fashioned fuse box must have been “put in by an Indian”. In 1986, he warned British students in China that they would become “slitty-eyed” if they stayed too long.

Australia, China, and India, are just three of dozens of countries touched by British colonisation.

While the Prince’s comments — and many others — are often dismissed as “gaffes” or poor jokes, they tie into a culture war, suggesting colonialism was ultimately a net good and Britain was spreading civilisation throughout the world.

Journalist Peter Tatchell has argued that the institution of monarchy is itself inherently racist as there have only been, and likely will only ever be, white monarchs. He notes,

A non-white person is […] excluded from holding the title of head of state, at least for the foreseeable future. This is institutional racism.

While this could change, of course, the treatment of Meghan and the alleged concerns over her son’s skin colour suggest the privileging of whiteness is deeply ingrained.

Being seventh in line to the throne, there was never a realistic chance Archie would become king. The notion that his mere proximity to the throne has sparked concerns, and the failure to defend Meghan from racist attacks, again points to a structural issue.

The marriage of Harry and Meghan in 2018 by charismatic African-American Bishop Michael Curry, serenaded by a gospel choir, was a public relations coup for the royals. The Sussexes’ exit from royal life after such a short period, and the reasons why, is highly damaging.

Royal silence
The monarchy has remained largely silent on the history of racism in Britain and how the royal family has benefited from racism and colonialism.

After the death of George Floyd sparked the Black Lives Matter movement, thousands across Britain were quick to show their support and solidarity. So strongly did the movement resonate, in 2020 the English Premier League had the words Black Lives Matter printed on players’ shirts, opening matches with players taking a symbolic knee.

The royal family said nothing. By protocol, the monarchy does not comment on political issues but its role is to offer moral leadership. Without explicitly endorsing Black Lives Matter, the Windsors could have contributed to the zeitgeist by offering statements condemning all forms of racism and visibly championing anti-racism charities.

As a society, Britain is having a difficult national conversation about its imperial past. Statues of slave owners are being torn down and attempts to decolonise the curriculum are gathering pace.

If the royal family is not able to make similar attempts to confront the racism in its past and present, it risks falling ever further out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent.

Dr Benjamin T. Jones, Lecturer in History, CQUniversity Australia. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Meet Mal Menaringmanu, known to many as HRH Charles, Prince of Wales.

During his brief visit to Vanuatu on Saturday, Prince Charles was greeted by one of the most lavish displays of kastom seen on these shores, arguably since his mother Queen Elizabeth visited on the royal yacht in 1974.

Hundreds turned out to see the Prince as he arrived at the Chiefs’ Nakamal in Port Vila.

Accompanied by Malvatumauri president Chief Seni Mau Tirsupe and welcomed by dozens of high ranking chiefs, the Prince walked on red mats laid the length of the roadway from the gate to the entrance of the nakamal itself.

On arriving outside the nakamal, Prince Charles presented the president of the Malvatumaturi with gifts.

The gifts given in return by the chiefs of Vanuatu were quite literally priceless. Chiefly titles are not bestowed lightly, and carry obligation as well as honour. To bestow a title on even a royal prince is something to be done with care and consideration.

The prince was dressed in chiefly regalia before the ceremony could begin.

Kastom clothes
Pentecost Chief Viraleo, leader of the Turaga kastom movement, bedecked the Prince with ornately woven kastom clothes. Although these clothes are normally worn over bare skin, the Prince was allowed to retain his suit and tie.

A leaf of the local namele palm was placed in the back of the Prince’s attire. The namele leaf is accompanied by extremely strong tabu. It is a sign of chiefly authority, and is present on Vanuatu’s coat of arms and in various other official insignia.

The mere presence of a namele leaf in a doorway or gate, for example, is enough to bar anyone from passing unless they have chiefly authorisation.

The Prince was then led to the side of the nakamal, where he was presented with a nalnal, a customary club and sign of authority.

Under normal circumstances, a newly designated chief would be expected to use the club to kill at least one pig. Although pigs were present at the ceremony, their sacrifice was omitted in recognition of the Prince’s stance against animal cruelty.

Chief Tirsupe and the Prince then shared a coconut shell filled with kava, an intoxicating beverage made from a plant thought to have derived in Vanuatu. It is a popular drink throughout the Pacific islands, and is a necessary part of many kastom ceremonies.

Prince Charles then received the name of Mal Menaringmanu. The name was chosen to reflect his high rank in the world. The name is derived from three words:

Symbolising chiefly authority
“Mal” refers to men in leadership position, it represents a bird, which symbolises chiefly authority.

“Manareng” or “Menareng” means a very high chief residing in the mountain of a king.

“Manu” means ‘people’.

Taken together, the title, according to the Malvatumauri council of chiefs, is “more than just a high chief. It is a name that reflects authority that is wise and unwavering and whose roots are as old as the mountains, and whose mandate… stems from a higher existence….”

A nearly unprecedented gathering of high chiefs from across the country was present for the event, an honour extended only to few.

Once the ceremony was complete, the entire delegation accompanied the Prince in an exuberant, uproarious procession led by kastom dancers from Tanna and other islands.

The procession led the Prince down to nearby Saralana Park, where a crowd of thousands stood by to welcome the Prince.

His first words of greeting, spoken in Bislama, or Vanuatu pidgin, were met with a resounding roar from the crowd.

Celebratory dance
Meanwhile, a massive kastom dance was unfolding. An estimated 200 men and women from Tanna performed a celebratory dance in the field, while another group performed a kastom story immediately below the stage.

At the end of the dance, Prince Charles was presented with a gift from a chief from one of the Tanna communities that claims Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, as one of their own.

An honour guard of youth in kastom attire lined the front of the stage.

The Prince of Wales’ stay in Vanuatu was brief, but it was an occasion that will be remembered for some time to come.

The Prince Phillip followers achieved another coup before the day was done. In his final minutes before his departure, the Prince had a one-on-one encounter with JJ, who hails from Yakel village, at the heart of the Prince Philip community.

He passed on a message from the community to Charles’ father, and asked Charles to pass on a walking stick, to aid his return to Vanuatu some day.

Dan McGarry is media director of the Vanuatu Daily Post Group.