Is the commonwealth a good idea? Will the commonwealth only benefit England? Is the commonwealth better than EU and NATO? These are some of the questions Peter Oborne discuss in his Article' A royal salute to the Commonwealth'. Oborne have strong conviction in his belief about the commonwealth. Through the articles the reader gets the opportunity to make a stand and chose what they think about the matter. Maybe the biggest question is that if he can convince the reader so they can make the same conclusion about the matter.
In the article Peter Oborne praise the British monarchy and it is quite obvious what he think about it. In the start of the article he also mentions the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visit to Canada. He using this occasion to illustrate how important the monarchy is. He also using a statement from one of the Canadian from the crowd who has been waiting for 4 hours for them to come. This is also a good way to show how popular they are, because it just tells us that people will wait for hours for the royal couple, and see them as walking history. The interviewed Canadian becomes an argument herself when she declares her opinion of the royal couple why the monarchy is a good thing. Oborne speak very positive about the monarchy and the commonwealth as we also see in the article: 'Such is the invisible strength of the Commonwealth, the association of independent countries that emerged out of the wreckage of the British Empire at the end of the Second World War.' (l 16-18). He describes the Commonwealth as a stable and strong institution that is more relevant today (2012) than ever before.
Osborne have spotted that the popularity of the commonwealth had decreased ever since the second world war: 'For many years it has been automatic in progressive circles to sneer at the Commonwealth as a meaningless relic of our imperial past.' (l 19-20). Oborne attack New Labour and tell that the commonwealth never fitted into New Labour''s relentless modernizing vision. Oborne continue with his taunt towards people like New labour such as the neo-Conservatives: 'Furthermore, the Commonwealth is devoted to the promotion of humane and democratic values. But unlike neo-Conservatives, it does not try to promote these values through invasion.' (l 45-47). Then Oborne mention the neo-Conservative he referring(implicit) to USA due to that it is a neo-Conservative country. Oborne use statistics and numbers to strengthen his Logos to make his statement about the commonwealth more reliable.
Later on in the article Oborne, mention that there also is a problem with the Commonwealth and by doing that he makes his ethos stronger, because he admits that the Commonwealth isn't perfect. This is maybe the only place you can see him going away from his own strong conviction about the commonwealth and see the commonwealth from another set of eyes. Oborne mention in the last of the article that maybe the one of the biggest problem is when the Queen dies : 'She is the talismanic figure at the heart of it all, and has been present at every Commonwealth Conference for the past 60 years. She knows most Commonwealth leaders personally, and many of them are now old friends. When she dies the Commonwealth will be thrown into crisis. Handled in the wrong way, the institution will swiftly collapse.' (l. 52-56). He understands that the Queens influence in international politics is a big factor in why the Commonwealth is such a success. In the quote about the queen she is describe like something which connects the leaders of the world and the lack of her presence will be a disaster or just a negative factor for the good connection and partnership in international politics. Oborne also mention that the importance of the Commonwealth work like a counterbalance between Chinana and the West. Oborne describe the Western connections as a bad thing for Britain: 'We would no longer be tied so closely into Washington and Brussels, two connections that have serves us so badly over the past two decades.' (l.69-70). This quote makes a negative picture of the Western. In contrast to that he is good at praising the queen and the royal family: 'Not for the first time, the Queen has been wiser than her politicians.' (l. 91). Here he also describes the politicians as people who can't make the right decisions, and that the queen and the royal family is the right answer. It's like the Cameron government is like a light that will save us from the dark political time and make the way for the Commonwealth so we can see a better future.
How the commonwealth is show is in the article is like a phenomenon that is very important for the international politics. We see that Oborne use a lot of energy to show the positive things about the Commonwealth and not really the negative things about it. He uses quotes and statistics to support his arguments why the Commonwealth is such a great thing. Oborne make use of positive word to describe the commonwealth and use negative word to describe the Westen. He does this to make a more strongly influence, on the reader's mind. So Oborne use the article to persuade his view of the Commonwealth to other people, but has his method worked?