The Task For Auckland

Mr Chairman, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, 

As I stand to speak before you this evening, there is a sense of poignancy in the occasion. It is probably the last time that I shall have the opportunity to speak at Commonwealth House as I have known it all these years; and the last time to be present in this Commonwealth Hall where so many Commonwealth statesmen have occupied the dais. 

I must be forgiven my share of nostalgia when I contemplate the prospect of the Commonwealth Trust moving to its temporary home at New Zealand House and then returning in about two years time to premises that, I am told, will be scarcely recognisable! This is by no means an indictment of the architect or of the ambitious redevelopment plans being unveiled this evening; I say it because so many memories come flooding back as I reflect on my long association with the occupants of this venerable building, beginning long before my election as the first non-British Deputy Chairman of the Royal Commonwealth Society in 1972.

I cannot fail to pay tribute today to the memory of such wonderful friends and colleagues as Betty Owen, the first woman Deputy Chairperson, Lord Astor, Chairman, and Stephen Kemp, Secretary-General, all of whom performed yeoman service in the growth and development of the RCS.  Long may their commitment and contributions continue to inspire us all. 

But while a degree of nostalgia and sadness are understandable, there is also much cause for satisfaction and indeed for a sense of keen anticipation. For we all know that the Commonwealth Trust is meeting change in a way that protects the best of the past while opening up exciting new opportunities for the future as a powerhouse of non-governmental Commonwealth activities. 

The future of the RCS Library has been admirably secured at Cambridge. Club facilities are being renewed and in general the Trust's future activities are being placed on a more firm financial footing. I must compliment Sir Oliver Forster, Sir David Thorne, Prunella Scarlett, and others who have led the process of the Trust's redevelopment with foresight, sensitivity and imagination. I am sure that the investment being made in the refurbishment programme will bring rich dividends.  

This last weekend we were all witness to many moving ceremonies held to commemorate the end of the Second World War in Europe. The Commonwealth paid tribute to the millions of its citizens around the world who fought alongside Britain in the struggle against Nazism and its allies. Many made the supreme sacrifice.  At the world's darkest hour in 1940, when invasion and defeat seemed a real possibility, the Commonwealth remained united in adversity. To recall the words of that distinguished Commonwealth historian, Nicholas Mansergh, "for one year, it was not Britain, it was the Commonwealth, that stood alone. That year was perhaps not so much Britain's as the Commonwealth's finest hour." 

But my purpose tonight is not to indulge in retrospective, but instead to follow one of my favourite advocates, Cicero, who said: "Let us not go over the old ground; let us rather prepare for what is to come." We must look not to the Commonwealth of the past, united in war, but to the Commonwealth of today and of the future, united in peace.

In the recent past, one of the most satisfying things for me as Commonwealth Secretary-General has been to witness a rekindling of interest in the Commonwealth, not only in this country but in many parts of our far-flung association. This is as much a tribute to the role the Commonwealth has been playing on the current international scene, as a recognition of its potential in the quest to build a better world. 

The renewed interest in the Commonwealth was brought home to me forcefully in New Delhi six months ago at a meeting with a cross-section of Indian parliamentarians. They asked probing questions about an association which many in that country and elsewhere had often described as an anachronism or as an 'Old Boys' Club'. This has been reinforced by the similar level of interest shown by parliamentarians in other countries of the Commonwealth which I have recently visited, as well as by officials, the press, non-governmental organisations, and people at large. At long last, we seem to be turning back the tide of ignorance and cynicism about our association and to be seeing less grudging recognition of what the Commonwealth has been able to accomplish. 

This phenomenon has been equally evident here in this country. The recent historic and highly successful visit by the Queen to South Africa brought forth an effusion of positive sentiment about the Commonwealth, happily eclipsing the trauma of the years when Britain was at odds with the rest of the Commonwealth over sanctions against apartheid South Africa. There have been recent debates in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the Commonwealth. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons is about to begin an Inquiry into the Future Role of the Commonwealth and I know that many well-wishers of the association have submitted evidence to it. At the recent conference on Britain in the World there were many positive references to the Commonwealth. For once, the British media have had a kind word or two to say about the association and its contemporary role. 

But while welcoming this effervescence of interest in our association, I must sound a note of caution about those who suggest that for Britain the Commonwealth is an alternative to the European Union, that the two are in some kind of competitive or adversarial relationship. Some of you may have seen a recent letter in the Financial Times which said inter alia: "The United Kingdom seems oblivious of the potential (of the Commonwealth), focusing its attention on a collection of relative has-beens that do not readily speak English and have different technical standards across a range of products, not least driving on the other side of the road." The writer concludes by saying that hope remains for the "Euro-sceptics" or "Commonwealthies". 

It is a mistake in my view ─and a repetition of one made at the time of the debate on Britain's entry into the European Community in the late sixties and early seventies ─to project such a perspective. For the reality which Commonwealth governments know is that there is nothing inherently contradictory between Britain's membership of the two organisations, whose interests can more readily be seen as complementary. 

Many member states of the Commonwealth, indeed all of them, are members of one regional grouping or the other in addition to being members of the Commonwealth. In the language of modern mathematics, outside the United Nations, the Commonwealth is the next largest intersection of the many sets represented by regional organisations. It cuts across regional bodies and helps indirectly to draw them together.

Barely two months ago I was in Brussels, precisely in order to strengthen Commonwealth links with the European Commission. I met Mr Jacques Santer, the Commission President, and several of his senior colleagues, and addressed the European parliamentarians. I was happy to renew my acquaintance with Mr Santer when he came to London last week. It was a week in which we also held follow-up discussions with senior officials from the Commission and agreed in principle to place our institutional co-operation on a more formal footing,  recognising the three important links between Commonwealth membership and members of the European Union.  Apart from Britain being, and Cyprus and Malta aspiring to be,  members of both the Commonwealth and the European Union, 35 Commonwealth members are members of the 70-nation A.C.P. group of countries associated with the European Union through the Lomé Convention, and six Commonwealth countries are also members of the Francophone Community. 

Let me now turn to the focus of my address here tonight. Six months from today, exactly to the day, Commonwealth leaders will gather at the Aotea Centre in Auckland for their biennial summit meeting, now known by the familiar acronym, CHOGM. They will, as they are wont to do, take stock of how the Commonwealth and the world at large have fared since they last met in Limassol in October 1993; and of how the association as a whole, and its respective governments severally, have lived up to the principles which they themselves adopted at Harare two years before that, in 1991, principles which gave the Commonwealth its agenda for the 1990s and beyond. 

They will rejoice at the marvellous transition achieved in South Africa and extend the warmest possible welcome to President Mandela. They will acknowledge the further progress made in the implementation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values ─including democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law. But they will be conscious also that there have been setbacks, as in The Gambia, and that not all is as it should be in Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

Heads of Government will no doubt also be concerned at the growing incidence of intra-state conflicts around the world which are rooted in ethnicity, religion, and in other traits which divide peoples. They cannot but be alarmed by the rising graphs of poverty and indebtedness and, notwithstanding the outstanding economic performance of some developing countries, by the widening disparities between the prosperous and the indigent, between rich and poor. 

Much of the Commonwealth's work in recent years, indeed virtually all of it, has stemmed from the Harare Commonwealth Declaration of 1991, which is a landmark statement of Commonwealth values, principles and priorities in the political and socio-economic spheres.  It is also a benchmark for existing and future members, a standard to which all should aspire and for the achievement of which collective help is available.  

As I see it at this stage of our preparation, the challenge at Auckland will be to find ways in which the Harare Commonwealth Declaration can be more effectively fulfilled. I mean, how the Commonwealth can enhance its capacity to achieve more practical results in the three crucial areas of the Declaration, namely, in the political arena; in socio-economic development; and in global consensus-building.

There is ample evidence for the view that if there is one reason which explains the renewed interest in the association about which I spoke earlier, it is the wide-ranging impact the Commonwealth has had in promoting its fundamental political values. Despite continuing imperfections, it has become less easy to level against the Commonwealth the old accusation of hypocrisy, levelled on the ground that it did little or nothing to promote and protect actively its declared principles within its membership. 

Since Harare, four Commonwealth countries that previously had one-party systems of government (Kenya, Malawi, Seychelles and Zambia) and two that were under military regimes (Ghana and Lesotho) have made the transition to multi-party democracy, in each case with encouragement and practical contribution from the Commonwealth. There are now only three countries with military regimes in the Commonwealth. Not merely has the Secretariat worked assiduously to help member states make the transition to multi-party democracy, by providing constitutional, legal and electoral experts, and by observing their elections; the Secretariat has also provided its good offices wherever requested to help promote the peace and stability required for the democratic ethos to take root. Bangladesh, Kenya and Lesotho offer cases in point. In this the thirtieth anniversary year of the Secretariat's foundation, one can point to no better vindication of the founders' original intent.  

With so many more member states taking the Commonwealth's collective commitment to its fundamental political values seriously, it is but natural that there should be concern about those that do otherwise. As already indicated by the Commonwealth Senior Officials Meeting in Islamabad last November, Heads of Government will, at Auckland, want to address ways in which the association might more effectively promote adherence by member countries to the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. 

At the same time, they will be expected to address the need for the Commonwealth's political work to be properly underpinned and integrated with its members' economic and social development. Our Heads of Government know that freedom cannot flourish where ballot boxes are full but stomachs empty. Development sustains democracy, and vice versa. The Communiqué of the Cyprus CHOGM stated that: "democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing." 

In spite of its meagre resources, the Secretariat already does a lot to meet the needs and aspirations of the association's developing member countries, who constitute the vast majority of its membership. We are actively concerned with debt management, privatisation, trade opportunities and access to international markets, private capital flows, education and training, women and development, science and technology, specific aspects of the environment, and many more fields. The Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation is the Secretariat's key instrument for carrying out its developmental responsibilities. It is demand-driven, rapid in response, and flexible and non-bureaucratic in its ways. It seeks to build from within, rather than impose from without. It has also become a thriving example of South-South co-operation. 

I would hope that at Auckland Heads of Government, in looking at how to give greater meaning to the Commonwealth's commitment at Harare to assist the sustainable development of its members, will consider the question of resources as a matter of priority. Without the necessary wherewithal, the Commonwealth will be unable to achieve its collective potential in areas where, with its restructured and more cost-effective Secretariat, it has demonstrated that it has comparative advantage. 

In this, the challenge for the major contributor countries will not necessarily be to increase their overall financial aid allocation but instead, to channel a higher proportion of their existing multilateral budgets through multilateral Commonwealth programmes. For instance, Britain is a generous donor to Commonwealth countries bilaterally but in 1992-93 it contributed £11.5 million of its £1,040.1 million worth of total multilateral aid commitments ─a mere 1.1% ─to multilateral Commonwealth programmes. In Canada's case, the figure was 3.2%, Australia 4.4%, and New Zealand 5.5%. For the developing member countries, especially those whose economies have progressed admirably in recent years, the challenge will be to increase the existing levels of their financial contributions to our common endeavours. 

The third area where Heads of Government would be expected to focus is how the Commonwealth can enhance its impact on the global scene through its uniquely-equipped role as a consensus-builder. The Commonwealth's own ability to forge consensus within its diverse membership is one of its acknowledged strengths. Outside the United Nations it is the largest globally representative organisation, with a proven track record of drawing together many divergent strands into commonly held positions.  

In the past the Commonwealth has moulded consensus on South Africa, the environment, the particular problems of small states, and debt relief for the poorest countries. In the process it has helped to generate wider global consensus. It is now addressing other areas - money laundering, drug-trafficking, and equity investment. Many believe that the association's consensus-building abilities have never been fully tapped, that there is a case for exploring new practices and mechanisms ─for example, in preventive diplomacy ─which could be used to translate Commonwealth consensus into consensual decisions by regional organisations and of course by the United Nations. Among the issues where such a Commonwealth role could become very important is the current universal interest in the emergence of a new global humanitarian order. A Report on the subject by a Commonwealth Intergovernmental Group, following a decision by Heads of Government in Cyprus in 1993, is expected to be considered by the CHOGM at Auckland. 

To conclude, I believe that the main task for Auckland will be to define and fashion the tools with which the Commonwealth can strive more effectively to make the objectives outlined in the Harare Declaration a living reality for all members of the association. There can be no doubt of the immense value and benefits in terms of peace, stability and sustainable development that the more effective fulfilment of the Harare Declaration will bring. Those benefits will impact not only on Commonwealth member nations themselves but also on the wider world which, in the wake of the end of the Cold War, is increasingly plagued by conflicts and disorder fuelled by ethnic, religious and other differences as well as by growing threats of ecological and human disasters spawned by rising poverty. It will by no means be an easy task; but it will equally not be an impossible one. It will require building on what has already been achieved and reaching for what we know is possible, at Auckland and beyond.

Thank you.