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

Commonwealth in danger: Action needed in Trinidad

By Sir Ronald Sanders:

As the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is about to take place in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago’s capital, there is not much hope among its member states that it will achieve anything more than declarations without the means to implement them.

Indeed, even more worryingly, there is a mood in some of the developed Commonwealth countries that the organisation no longer has relevance in the international community.

Sadly, even though the Commonwealth Summit is being held on the eve of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, there is strong resistance from major capitals to any notion of a Commonwealth initiative on this issue.

I hope my information is incorrect, but it is being said in circles that should know that Canada is one of the countries that is opposed to any initiative being taken on climate change outside of what could be achieved in Copenhagen. And, the world now knows that already diluted declarations have been prepared for the Copenhagen conference and they are non-binding anyway.

If the information about Canada is true, it is much to be regretted, for small states, particularly those in the Caribbean, have long looked to Canada to champion their causes and to stand with them in the Commonwealth especially. In the past, Canada has not shirked this role, and it has not been to Canada’s disadvantage. By championing small states, Canada has been able to count small states in the legions of its support.

No other plurilateral organisation has served the interests of small states better than the Commonwealth over the last four decades. Of the now 52 member states, 32 are small with 12 of them from the Caribbean. Certainly, the G20, despite the membership of five Commonwealth countries – Australia, Britain, Canada, India and South Africa – can not purport to serve small states since not one small state is represented at the table, and, so far, no machinery has been put in place to formally ascertain their views, in advance of G20 meetings, on the global issues that affect them.

As the world has moved increasingly to globalisation and trade liberalisation, the majority of small states, which were from the very outset only marginally capable of economic survival, have found themselves overwhelmed by new challenges such as sea-level rise, drug trafficking and attendant high rates of crime, high migration of their best educated people, and a lack of capacity for negotiating the integration of their societies into larger trading blocs and the new global trading system. While bigger countries have similar problems, they have the resources and flexibility to address these problems, unlike the small states.

This is the context in which this CHOGM is being held. It suggests that the Commonwealth in tandem with the small states themselves should explore ways in which the imperilled societies of the majority of small states could become more viable and so serve their particular interests as well as those of the wider Commonwealth.

What should be the crucial issues? A priority should be Climate Change. The escalation of adverse weather related conditions, especially sea-level rise, challenge the very existence of several Commonwealth countries such as the Maldives, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Tokelau and Tuvalu. In other cases, sea-level rise and flooding threaten agricultural production and trade for many states such as Guyana, Belize, Ghana, Tanzania and Bangladesh. Both stronger hurricanes and steady beach erosion also threaten tourism and agricultural production in several Caribbean islands. And, for all of the affected countries, the high costs involved in adaptation are simply unattainable on their own.

Why then not a Commonwealth initiative to do something tangible for the most vulnerable regardless of what happens at Copenhagen? Surely, the Commonwealth could resolve to mobilise resources from the World Bank and other organisations to put in place a programme for the countries whose very existence is threatened? If not, what do the leaders of these countries tell their people? What does the Commonwealth tell them? Is it that they must quite literally paddle their own canoe?

A second priority should be the impact of the global crisis on all Commonwealth countries and particularly what should be done for the smallest and most vulnerable economies. It was a welcome development to see the Secretary-General of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) Secretariat make the statement that CARICOM countries “have not seen any significant inflow for that (the US$1 trillion pledged to the IMF by the G20 countries), we have not heard or seen any significant changes in policies of the IMF as an example”. It is time for that kind of frank talk.

The Global crisis produced the G20 countries to replace the G7, which has controlled the world economy over the last sixty years, to stimulate global demand and supply, but there has been no accompanying measures for the smallest, most vulnerable countries for debt relief, new aid, and sustainable capital flows. It is right that these governments must devise policies that address these issues themselves, but it is also right that the international community should act to provide help.

Essentially small states have been left out in the cold with the IMF still the only mechanism to which they can turn – and no change, despite all the rhetoric, in the prescriptions of the IMF itself.

Yet, the capacity of governments of small Commonwealth countries to service debt that the IMF places as a priority is extremely difficult in conditions in which their main sources of trade and tourism revenues are in decline. The ratio of debt to GDP in several small Commonwealth countries paints the picture: St Kitts-Nevis 178%, Seychelles 151%, Jamaica 128%, Antigua and Barbuda 107%, Barbados 106%, Grenada 87%, Dominica 86%, Belize 80%, St Lucia 70%, Marshall islands 70% and St Vincent and the Grenadines 67%.

The Commonwealth should, at the very least, be considering how it can advance change in the World Bank and other financial institutions for helping small countries to restructure and repay both official and commercial debt on easy terms over the next decade.

Absent practical decisions of this kind, this CHOGM does run the risk of making the Commonwealth irrelevant even to the small states that place such tremendous importance in it. That would be sad for an organisation that retains great potential for serving the world’s interest for economic development, peace and democracy.

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog Bahamas