Seeking An Agenda

JOHN Major wielded the cricket bat. So did Nawaz Sharief. P.V. Narasimha Rao did not. Who won that cricket match— between friendly teams of Heads of Government at the Harare Commonwealth summit in ’91—is not the point. It’s the ambience, the relaxed approach to grave issues, that is the hallmark of Commonwealth summits. The "unstructured meetings", the friendly matches, the ‘retreat’ by leaders to picturesque resorts—all this prompted cynics to re-christen CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) as Comrades-Holidaying-on-Government-Money.

Whatever the past, the CHOGM in Auckland, New Zealand, saw some tough action. The Nigerian military junta, by hanging writer-activist Ken Saro-Wiwa while the summit was on, provided provocation enough. Nigeria was suspended till the next summit two years later, and will be admitted only if it restores democracy by then. South African President Nelson Mandela, who was earlier guarded in his criticism of the Nigerian regime in the hope that diplomatic pressure would work, is now campaigning for tougher action. He has also threatened action against the target of Saro-Wiwa’s campaign, the multinational Shell Oil Company.

Assessing the implementation of the Har-are Commonwealth Declaration—which underscored the Commonwealth’s commitment to upholding democracy and rule of law—was high on the agenda in Auckland. Breaking fresh ground, the summit framed broad rules and a time-bound plan of action—the Millbrook Commonwealth Action programme—to deal with serious cases of violation of democratic norms.

 "The programme signals the determination of the Commonwealth to deal with members who seriously and persistently violate the principles enunciated in the Harare Declaration. They will come in for some form of censure," said the organisa-tion’s secretary general, Chief Emeka C. Anyaoku of Nigeria, in an exclusive interview. In future "a serious violation such as a military coup or unconstitutional change of government" will invite the Commonwealth’s attention, he added.

It was ironical that Nigeria was expelled when the Commonwealth secretary general is himself a Nigerian. Chief Emeka defended the expulsion: "The decision was consistent with what I have been saying both as secretary general and as a Nigerian. Naturally, I was sad that it was my country that was in the dark, so to say."

The British empire has vanished and so should all its ceremonial clap trap, critics argue. Britain—the largest contributor to the Commonwealth funds—appears more keen to integrate itself with the European Union than to strengthen the Commonwealth, which is neither a security pact, nor a regional trading bloc. As for being a global forum for political issues, why duplicate the UN with a Commonwealth, which anyway has no teeth?

Derek Ingram, who has covered 14 summits in the last 28 years and authored a couple of books as well on the Commonwealth, however, does not agree. According to him, Britain realises that it could strengthen its economic ties with the fast growing Asian economies through the Commonwealth. Besides, if interest in the Commonwealth is flagging, how does one account for Malaysia’s decision to contribute a huge sum for establishing a Commonwealth Centre for Research at Cambridge University? And why was South Africa so keen to join the Commonwealth?

And as Chief Emeka noted, "The Commonwealth is very supportive of the UN. But the UN, too, now recognises the need for cooperating with regional efforts. Look at Bosnia, where the UN is working with NATO. The Commonwealth efforts are not intended to replace the UN, but to be the first port of call." On the Commonwealth’s role on the world arena, he said: "Commonwealth members now accept that in the political arena, it is an effective instrument in promoting values of good governance and democracy. Secondly, we have various programmes designed to assist member states in sustainable socio-economic development. And thirdly, the Commonwealth is now recognised as an instrument to help the wider world in search for consensus in dealing with global problems."

The Commonwealth has often been accused of hypocrisy. Its charter upholds democracy, but in the ’70s and ’80s, it let dictatorships such as Idi Amin’s in Uganda a smaller scale, it was met with a far stronger reaction.

The Commonwealth’s strength—be it in matters small or weighty—lies in working slowly, almost imperceptibly, from behind the scenes. But an organisation which rarely has anything spectacular to show for itself will always be haunted by the question: is it worth its while? in London