The positive and punitive power of CMAG
Author: Tom Baird
Article Date: 7 Mar 2008
CMAG’s authority to suspend or even expel member countries is unparalleled by other international organisations
Two days after political activist and writer Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed with ten others in 1995, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) suspended Nigeria from the Commonwealth.
In practical terms this suspension excluded Nigeria from receiving any new Commonwealth technical assistance – such as agricultural training which took place in 1993 - and also prevented government representatives from participating in inter-governmental Commonwealth meetings and events. This suspension also acted as a public declaration from the Commonwealth to the Nigerian government and the international community, condemning the undemocratic and human rights abuses which reverberated across the world.
Nigeria today is a different country. When the executions took place, President Olusegun Obasanjo was in detention. Eight years later, he presided over the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, as the Commonwealth’s Chair-in-Office.
In the aftermath of the suspension in 1995, far from rejecting the West African country, the Commonwealth continued to work on a number of levels to restore the association’s values, which had been flouted. These Commonwealth values, laid down in the 1971 Declaration of Commonwealth Principles and the 1991 Harare Declaration, include equal rights, independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression and a just and honest government.
Sustained diplomatic pressure from the Commonwealth, alongside other efforts across the world, led to Nigeria’s suspension being lifted four years later in 1999.
Bringing countries “back into the fold”
“We are right to take stands, just as we are right – having done so – to do everything we can to bring them back into the fold,” explained Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon.
While CMAG - as a mechanism which brings errant members into line - represents one aspect of the Commonwealth’s commitment to democratic principles, far more discreet interventions are made through ‘good offices’ work. This term covers the Commonwealth's activity in both conflict resolution and conflict prevention. Efforts are also made through the quiet diplomacy of Special Envoys, who in the past have been sent to places like Cameroon, Guyana, Lesotho, Maldives, Swaziland, Tonga and Zanzibar.
The Commonwealth’s efforts do not end with an election observation, but are followed with specific work to “address the deficiencies – strengthening independent electoral commissions, for instance, or improving voter registers,” said Mr McKinnon.
Syed Sharfuddin, a former Special Adviser for Political Affairs at the Commonwealth Secretariat who was Deputy Conference Secretary of CHOGM from 2000 to 2006 noted last year that “Nigeria is an example of CMAG’s successful work from military regime to civilian representative government.” Mr Sharfuddin was writing in a Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit briefing on CMAG’s treatment of Pakistan and Zimbabwe in light of the Harare Declaration.
As well as Nigeria’s suspension in 1995, Sierra Leone, Pakistan and Fiji have all been suspended since the Group was established. The Gambia has also been on the Group’s agenda, although not actually suspended, while Zimbabwe, which was suspended in 2002, decided to withdraw from the Commonwealth in December 2003.
Even after a democratic government was elected in Sierra Leone in 1998 and the suspension was lifted, it asked to remain on the Group’s agenda because it felt there was a continued need for it to be there. “That’s the positive, not the punitive power of CMAG,” said Mr McKinnon.
CMAG protects the Commonwealth’s political values
Heads of Government decided to establish CMAG at their biennial meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, in 1995 to deal with “serious or persistent violations” of the principles contained in the Harare Declaration. In this Declaration Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment to work “with renewed vigour” to protect and promote “the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth.”
Although CMAG was formed in the aftermath of the executions in Nigeria, the hangings were not the reason Heads of Government decided to create the group. In fact, the idea had been mooted over a number of years and it was already on the agenda for Heads to discuss in Auckland.
The Group is convened by the Commonwealth Secretary-General and made up of the Commonwealth’s Chairperson-in-Office and Foreign Ministers from nine countries. The Group is reconstituted at every CHOGM and Ministers generally serve two terms.
“Because CMAG is made up of rotating representatives from different Commonwealth countries, it is able to offer a fair and balanced view,” asserts Bernard Hamilton, Malta’s Deputy High Commissioner in London.
Mr Hamilton, who accompanied the Maltese Foreign Minister on CMAG between November 2006 and November 2007, believes that “this composition means there is a high level of trust from all Commonwealth countries.”
Consequences of flouting Commonwealth principles
CMAG can suspend countries from the Councils of the Commonwealth, as is the case with both Fiji and Pakistan at the moment. This excludes government representatives attending inter-governmental Commonwealth meetings or activities and prohibits any new technical assistance being provided. However, during this time a country may receive support directed to the restoration of democracy, should they wish.
Although suspension does restrict the Commonwealth working with a member government, the action is not meant to punish the country’s citizens. That is why ongoing projects and activities in a member country can be completed.
After a stipulated period of time has elapsed for political values to be restored, CMAG can recommend that the member country be fully suspended from the Commonwealth.
Following full suspension of a country, Commonwealth member states are encouraged to take appropriate bilateral measures, such as limiting government-to-government contacts in order to further reinforce the need for change. Although this action has never been taken, continued breaches of the political values can lead to expulsion from the Commonwealth. “No other organisation – even the UN – has teeth as sharp as that,” noted Mr McKinnon.
CMAG remains a unique body
The role of CMAG was addressed in the report by the Commonwealth High Level Review Group, presented to Heads of Government in Coolum, Australia, in 2002.
One of the recommendations made in this Report was that “the member country which is the subject of such concern must also be afforded the opportunity to respond to the points made.” During the time Mr Hamilton worked with the Group he said that this recommendation was strictly observed at meetings where “all points of view are presented and addressed.”
The Report concluded that the Group “remains the most tangible expression of the Commonwealth’s commitment to the fundamental political values to which all Commonwealth members subscribe.”
In the 12 years since it was established CMAG has remained a unique body. Its authority to suspend or even recommend to Heads of Government that a member country be expelled is unparalleled by other international organisations.
CMAG’s fundamental task as a watchdog within the Commonwealth is to assess the nature of any infringement and recommend measures for collective action from member countries. And it is this incomparable role, just as important today as it was in 1995, which continues to help protect and promote the association’s key values across its member states in the twenty-first century.