Time to reboot the Commonwealth

By Senator Hugh Segal


These days, when alliances are under stress, monetary unions confront their own dysfunction, and financial indicators are angst-ridden, the Commonwealth retains its potential as an organization for global good, but only just.

Voluntary, historic, multifaith, multiracial and multicultural, this association, which spans every part of the world, this network of networks, has worked in a multitude of ways to make life better for its 2.1 billion citizens in 53 member states. The world's largest democracy, India, population 1.2 billion, co-exists with the small Pacific island state of Tuvalu, population 10,000. Scholarships, distance learning, parliamentary co-operation and education, agricultural support, development, trade advocacy, anti-poverty programs, and health and democracy promotion have characterized this network of principled co-operation. However, in recent time, it began to lose its credibility and relevance in a world that desperately needs the healing touch it had brought to conflict and disparity in the past.

When Commonwealth leaders met in Port of Spain, Trinidad, in 2009, they publicly acknowledged that any organization, decades old, needs such reform from time to time. They agreed on two measures. The first was the establishment of an "Eminent Persons Group" (EPG) to look at how the Commonwealth might be updated and made more relevant, impactful and influential in the 21st century. Second, they mandated the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, established by Commonwealth heads of government in 1995 to deal with serious or persistent violations of Commonwealth fundamental values, to consider how its actions might be made more effective when core principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law are violated by member states.

Commonwealth heads of government are meeting in Perth, Australia, in three weeks time to consider these reports that were submitted to them four weeks ago after 13 months of work, in the case of the EPG.

Inexplicably, current chair-in-office, the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, decided that the reports should be kept secret. The host of the meeting, Australia's prime minister, has indicated that while her national position is that the reports should be made public before the summit meeting, she is constrained to join the Trinidadian prime minister to keep the reports from being made public in the interest of "consensus." As a result, helpful suggestions around more work on HIV/AIDS, a stronger and supportive presence on human rights, democracy and rule of law, a Commonwealth Youth Corps, focused disaster-relief preparations, economic and trade support for smaller states, achieving development goals, work on climate change, addressing the needs of women, and modernizing the secretariat's communications strategies to the benefit of all member states are left in the dark.

Instead, some recommendations have been subject to distortion and misinterpretation by representatives of a few governments that mistakenly believe there is some marginal benefit to them in stifling progress on these issues.

From the outset, EPG members committed to openness and transparency in the process that would lead to their conclusions and recommendations. To this end, regular updates and news releases were issued after each of the five meetings -- more than 300 civil society groups and many governments and individuals made submissions -- and feedback was always solicited. EPG members organized input sessions and made themselves available for consultation in their own countries and, when invited, travelled widely to brief, but more importantly to listen to opinions on the reforms that the Commonwealth needs if it is to continue to be relevant to its people and its times. Keeping the report secret is harmful to informed, open and transparent debate about the organization's future.

At the end of the fourth meeting in London this past March, having read hundreds of submissions and listened to people throughout the Commonwealth, the group concluded: "The Commonwealth is in danger of becoming irrelevant and unconvincing as a values-based association" and "to safeguard against this danger, we will recommend to leaders the adoption of proposals that will strengthen the Commonwealth, both as an association of governments and of peoples."

The last Eminent Persons Group was established by the then Secretary-General, Shridath Ramphal with the strong support of prime ministers Rajiv Ghandi, Brian Mulroney and Bob Hawke of India, Canada and Australia respectively, and its 1986 report dealt with the issue of apartheid. The report was made public -- four months before the historic London Commonwealth summit. That report, the publicity it received, the support it garnered, and the pressure placed on South Africa in the years following, is credited with being a catalyst to the end of legal racism and segregation in that country. The report of the current EPG, "A Commonwealth of the People: Time for Urgent Reform," may not result in such a historic, life-altering transformation, but it does offer essential and practical ways to make better the lives of one-third of the world's population.

Leadership is about the courage to engage freely on ideas that serve the public interest. Advocates of keeping the reports secret are really advocates of weakening the Commonwealth -- one of the great and historic associations that still has the potential to embody and reflect the best of the human spirit.

October 10, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The Commonwealth: No slippage from upholding human rights

By Sir Ronald Sanders





The following is an excerpt from a speech delivered by me to an Economic Forum at the Guildhall in the City of London held by the Commonwealth Business Council.

A British newspaper carried a story on October 10 suggesting that the Commonwealth Secretariat had abandoned its commitment to defending human rights. The newspaper based this story on a "leaked document" in which Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma is alleged to have told his staff it is not their job to speak out against abuses by the 54 member states.

The Secretariat responded publicly by saying: "There is no memo directing staff not to respond to reports of human rights abuses. There was an options paper for discussion among senior managers about how we could strengthen our human rights pronouncements and encourage the buy-in of member governments to address concerns."

Despite the Secretariat's firm statement, the story was picked up by a section of the media in Australia and has been the subject of a lively e-mail discourse among many people who are deeply concerned about the image and substance of the Commonwealth.

This question of human rights in the Commonwealth and the role of the secretary general have occupied the attention of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) of which I am a member, as we fulfil a mandate from Heads of Government to produce a report that would strengthen the Commonwealth and make it fit for purpose in the decades to come.

The EPG has focused some attention on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), which was established to protect Commonwealth values and principles and to take action against member states that indulged in serious or persistent violations of them.

Like many others throughout the Commonwealth, the EPG has been concerned that, thus far, CMAG has acted only when there has been an unconstitutional overthrow of a government, but has not dealt with other serious or persistent violations of other declared core values of the Commonwealth.

The EPG would like to see further empowerment of CMAG to take up the full gamut of its remit.

We are aware that CMAG has been reviewing its own work and that it has developed a position, but in considering our own view of CMAG, while we will take CMAG's review into account, we will not consider ourselves bound by it.

As people outside the day-to-day interplay between governments, we feel we can bring a level of distance and independence to the scope of the work that CMAG should be undertaking, and we can suggest objective criteria by which its scrutiny of a member state should be triggered.

We regard the secretary general's "good offices" role as equally important in relation to violations of Commonwealth declared principles.

Prevention is better than cure.

But we recognise that this role is under-resourced and requires not only wider machinery to alert the secretary general to potential problems, but also a mechanism that goes beyond government permission, to set the machinery in motion.

In other words, action by the secretary general to employ his 'good offices' role to correct infractions of the Commonwealth core values should be undertaken within member states automatically and should not have to await the agreement of the government concerned.

However, there needs to be a clear understanding of what we mean by 'human rights'.

In the Commonwealth, there are some organisations palpably more concerned with the wretchedness of the weak under despotic national regimes than they are with the degradation of the poor under inequitable international structures.

'Human rights' for these organisations means the former, not the latter.

But human rights in the Commonwealth must embrace both, and do so with equal passion.

The Commonwealth must see its commitment to the universality of human rights as including strong opposition to the denial of civil and political rights anywhere in the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth will lose its credibility if it abstained on such human rights denials or was thought to be indifferent to their emergence within its member countries.

In this regard, we will likely recommend that, as the chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Secretariat, the secretary general should immediately speak up publicly when there are serious violations of the Commonwealth's core values.

In making this recommendation, we will not be breaking new ground; we will simply be reiterating and reinforcing a principle long established.

The issue that clouds a clear Commonwealth posture on this matter is that of 'interference in internal affairs'.

But there is a difference between meddling and taking an honourable stand, and the latter must not be avoided where human rights violations are so gross or systemic that the line against 'meddling' has been crossed.

The Commonwealth confronted this issue over South Africa as early as 1960, and very specifically over Idi Amin and Uganda in 1977. In the latter case, even the UN Human Rights Commission stalled in condemning the Amin Regime on arguments about 'interfering in internal affairs'.

At the 1977 Commonwealth Summit, the Commonwealth was strong in its condemnation. After the Commonwealth had condemned Amin, the UN HRC followed suit.

I think it is true to say that all of the members of the EPG are convinced that the Commonwealth's business as much as business in the Commonwealth will be conducted in much larger measure and with far greater economic benefits if human rights, in the widest meaning of the term, are respected and upheld throughout its member states.

And let me say with no fear of contradiction that Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma shares this view with the EPG.

We are convinced that problems of poverty, inadequate health and sanitation, education and infrastructural development are most effectively and sustainably addressed within a framework of democracy and good governance.

Upholding human rights in the broadest understanding of this term must remain central to the Commonwealth's activities.


Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com

Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat.

October 17, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

Unlock Common Wealth

Sir Ronald Sanders




An abridged version of a speech delivered by Sir Ronald Sanders -- a member of the Eminent Persons Group established by Commonwealth Heads of Government to report by October 2011 on strengthening the Commonwealth -- to a Consultation of Heads of Commonwealth Organisations and diplomats on 'Reinvigorating the Commonwealth'.

OVER the years of the Commonwealth's existence much has been written about how it is perceived, how it can better project itself, how it can strengthen its institutions, and how it can remain relevant in a changed and changing world.

The difference between what has been written so far by academics, think tanks, and parliamentarians, and the work of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) is that the EPG's work has been specifically mandated by Heads of Government.

They have asked for a report that, in the words of the Affirmation issued at their meeting last November in Port-of-Spain, will ensure that "the Commonwealth will remain relevant to its times and people in future" and will help to build "a stronger and more resilient and progressive family of nations founded on enduring values and principles".

The group must present ideas that Heads of Government can collectively endorse and implement. They must be ideas that are visionary as well as practical; ambitious as well as achievable; standard-setting as well as opportunity-creating.

We have to be mindful that the Commonwealth is not an organisation tied by treaty whose rules are binding on member states. It is a voluntary association of sovereign states who have decided that because they share certain traditions, there is benefit in working together.

We must be heedful too that, in their association, Commonwealth governments have made commitments to democracy, human rights, human dignity and freedom, and that fulfilment of these commitments lie at the heart of the Commonwealth's credibility and its relevance.

The EPG recognises that the Commonwealth should not and cannot attempt to tackle every issue that confronts mankind, and that focus should be placed on its strengths and how to make them more effective.

We recognised the important inter-linkages between democracy, governance/human rights/rule of law on one hand and poverty alleviation, sustainable development/economic empowerment on the other.

We acknowledged that just as democracy will not be upheld without development, development will not be sustained without democracy.

We have begun to explore a number of ideas such as a Commonwealth Charter that expresses an ethos of Commonwealth community that reflects civil and political norms and through which member countries commit themselves to fundamental rights and freedoms, values and principles as contained in several declarations by Heads of Government.

Discussion has also focused on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) established to protect Commonwealth values and principles and to take action against member states that indulge in serious or persistent violations of them.

The group regards CMAG as a bright jewel in the Commonwealth crown; one that should not be allowed to tarnish, but should continue to sparkle as a tribute to Commonwealth commitment to its values. The group would like to see further empowerment of CMAG to take up the full gamut of its remit to deal with "serious or persistent" violations beyond unconstitutional overthrow of an elected government.

We regard the secretary-general's "good offices" role as equally important in addressing violations of human and civil rights before they become cancerous. Prevention is better than cure. But we recognise that this role is under-resourced and requires not only wider machinery to alert the secretary-general to potential problems.

And we are not neglectful of the need to promote social and economic development or of the global challenges of the moment that have a great impact upon many Commonwealth countries. These include climate change which threatens the very existence of some Commonwealth countries; and the need for special and differential treatment for small states by the international financial institutions and the World Trade Organisation.

We also recognise that to do its job effectively, the Commonwealth Secretariat requires more resources which cannot come from governments alone. They can also come from strategic partnerships with private sector groups and foundations even outside the Commonwealth. And, through these partnerships, the Commonwealth could make a big difference to inoculations against disease, improving infant mortality, and improving educational facilities.

We would like to see youth brought into the mainstream of Commonwealth thinking and activity. Discussions have begun about the possible development of a youth programme aimed at promoting exchanges by young people between Commonwealth countries in which transfer of knowledge and volunteering would be underlying considerations.

We see it as a movement of young people across Commonwealth countries to live, study and commune in each other's countries in a structured and organised programme that would leave each of them with a better knowledge and appreciation of each other's culture and circumstances.

We are also considering the expansion of the four regional Commonwealth Youth Centres into larger Commonwealth regional offices for a wider range of activities.

The question has often been posed: if the Commonwealth did not exist, would we invent it? The answer is: we are lucky; we don't have to invent it. It exists. It is a gift — an association of 54 countries, large and small, from all the continents of the world representing two billion people of all races and religions.

Together, the countries of the Commonwealth are responsible for more than 20 per cent of world trade, about 20 per cent of investment and approximately 20 per cent of world GDP. According to the Commonwealth Business Council, "over $3 trillion in trade happens within the Commonwealth every year and the Commonwealth has seen over $200 billion worth of investment over the last 10 years". A common language and common laws have brought down the price of doing business among Commonwealth countries by 20 per cent.

This demonstrates that there is enormous potential within the Commonwealth for delivering benefits to its people, but Commonwealth leadership — in government and the private sector — must do something about it.

There is clearly an unlocked potential for boosting wealth in the Commonwealth. The key may very well be strict adherence to democracy and good governance by all Commonwealth countries that would encourage more trade and investment across the Commonwealth, improving the economies and social conditions of all its members.

Responses and previous commentaries: www.sirronaldsanders.com

September 05, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International