The Modern Commonwealth: ‘a glass more than half full’

I am very pleased to be back at the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House. I first spoke here in the early 1990s, as New Zealand’s Foreign Minister. If I remember welI, I spoke then of the importance of international alliances and of multilateralism.

I have been back several times since then, and it is a pleasure to be back on this, my last public platform before I leave office at the end of this month. Those themes of multilateralism and working with others of a like-mind have been constant features not only of my addresses here, but also of 20 years’-worth of my personal experience as a Foreign Minister and then as Commonwealth Secretary-General. They are what make the world a better and a more peaceful place.

So let me start with some context – a few bookmarks – looking back over the last eight years in this office that I have been so fortunate to occupy.

Yes, it has been a roller-coaster ride. Mine was a tenure that began, six weeks into the job, with confronting machine gun-wielding young men in the grounds of Fiji’s Parliament where a coup had just taken place, and where neither I nor UN envoy the late Sergio de Mello – who was with me at that time – could be fully confident about the fingers on those triggers.

Then came a flawed election in Zimbabwe; then a visit to Colombo where I saw a bombed-out plane on the side of the runway – an act of terrorism which was overtaken in the media by the far bigger impact of 9/11, just a few days later.

It was a time of visiting Sierra Leone and being humbled during a visit to a group of amputees, young and old, who prayed for me. Not me for them, but them for me.

Soon after, I was talking to Manmohan Singh and persuading him to lead a Commonwealth group to examine the links between development and democracy. Some years later, I would be phoning Amartya Sen and persuading him to lead another group to explore the reasons why societies fracture, and how our Commonwealth’s diversity can be used to build bigger and stronger bridges.

A lot has happened in 8 years, and the year 2000 now seems a long time ago. Parliaments and governments, leaders and ministers have come and gone – the vast majority unnoticed in the global media because they did so peacefully. There has been progress, and the Commonwealth has been involved in moments of history – making a difference – even if our own profile also hasn’t always attracted the headlines.

I would like to do two things this evening.

· To make the case for the good health of Commonwealth democracy and Commonwealth development; …

· … and to share with you some reflections on things which I believe have gone well on my watch, and which leave the modern Commonwealth stronger today than it was eight years ago – reasons why the glass can be viewed as more than half full.

** Commonwealth Democracy **

So I begin by looking at the first of those two pillars of the modern Commonwealth: Democracy.

From one perspective, we are a group that – according to The Economist’s democracy index of January 2007 – sees half of our 53 members ranked as so-called ‘flawed democracies’, ‘hybrid regimes’, or ‘authoritarian regimes’. 19 of our members weren’t even reviewed – so one wonders how they would have been classified…

We may challenge the validity of such judgements, but we can’t ignore them. They are the result of research into the very building blocks of democracy – electoral processes, the functioning of government, the level of political participation and culture, and the extent of civil liberties.

So how do we respond when people question ‘the Commonwealth democracy’ that, for instance, has seen Fiji suspended not once in the last 20 years, but three times? The democracy that has seen Pakistan suspended not once but twice?

The democracy that struggles as it faces up to real ethnic tension and other causes of division, from the Solomon Islands to Kenya?

The democracy that sees Bangladesh, now, without an elected government for over a year, and where we are still waiting for an announcement of elections?

The democracy in which member countries still see real tensions between the three branches of government – the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature? To say nothing of the tension with the Fourth Estate, the media.

But I hope you can see that these negatives are not entirely negative. They can also be viewed as the signs of democracies in a state of evolution. In some communities, democracy has been around for centuries; in others, only for decades. None of our Commonwealth members’ democracies is perfect; all continue to evolve, and aspire to do better.

How often we all still revert to Lincoln, that democracy is of, by for and for the people – as simple as that.

Central to the Commonwealth understanding of democracy is that it goes beyond elections to the need for democratic institutions: parliament, executive, civil control over the army and police force, judiciary; public accounts system and auditor general; human rights commission; ombudsman, and so on.

What’s more, all of those institutions need to advance together. It isn’t possible to move on some and not others. If you train a good Police Force, it will be less effective if the Judiciary is weak or corrupt. Free and fair elections won’t be enough if the Parliament that ensues is trodden on by the Executive.

And even these institutions mean little if they are just the forms, and not the substance, of democracy. Democracy has its own ideas, principles and values. Often, it works best when it is built around local structures and traditions – time honoured, and trusted. Democracy is a deep-set culture, which will mean the most in societies that are properly inclusive of women, for instance, and which have a lively civil society and an independent and responsible media.

The Commonwealth is progressing towards that vision, even in the most difficult places.

Among those countries I have mentioned which are in the headlines, Fiji is working towards elections by this time next year, with Commonwealth help.

Pakistan had made strides in areas like female and minority representation, and strengthened local government. Its recent elections spoke volumes: the people had their say, and we are hopeful that a new government can be formed.

A fortnight ago, Kenya brokered a power-sharing deal. The Commonwealth has been on the ground since before the elections. Now, it’s ready and willing to give the practical assistance on constitutional and electoral reform which is so necessary.

Nigeria’s courts have now ruled on its elections of last year, and six governors’ victories have been over-turned. That is not to say that we can excuse what happened or leave everything to the judiciary, but it is to say that this particular democratic check and balance, and institution, is playing the part that we expect.

We have had good elections in recent times in Guyana and Sierra Leone.

Despite the huge disappointment in the recent elections of Nigeria and Kenya, and the many lives that were lost in the latter in particular, I have never tired of saying that Commonwealth Africa is in fact in pretty good shape, and I say it still. 11 Commonwealth African countries have made the transition to multi-party democracy over the last 15 years. A number of those have changed leaders – and ruling parties – without bloodshed.

So Commonwealth democracy is a work-in-progress in precisely all of its members, including the oldest and most established ones like this country. No country is perfect; all are trying to do better; all are evolving.

** Commonwealth Development **

So much for Democracy. The other great pillar of Commonwealth activity is Development. We can’t claim to live up to our name in the sense of having common and shared wealth, but we do try very hard to live up to the goal of helping each other to improve the lives of all our citizens.

Lives which need improving …. with some three-quarters of a billion Commonwealth citizens living in ‘dollar-a-day’ poverty. 30 million of the Commonwealth’s children have never seen the inside of a primary school; and a further 40 million have never taken the next step into secondary education. Nearly 30 million Commonwealth citizens are HIV-positive or suffering with AIDS. 150 million of the Commonwealth’s young people, are out of work. 300 million Commonwealth citizens live in slums.

Millions of this and millions of that – whatever the figures, they are nothing to celebrate. And those problems sit alongside the problems which aren’t so easily quanitifed, like the rising waters and temperatures and falling yields; the women who are routinely sidelined and abused … and more.

But the fact is that Commonwealth developed countries still grew by 2.7% in 2006, in line with their counterparts. At 8.5% and 7% respectively, our Commonwealth South Asian and Caribbean member countries also outshone their neighbours, while at 5.2% our African members were in line with the others on the continent. At 3.7%, our Pacific members fell slightly behind.

Beneath these figures, though, lie the unhappier figures of the small states which comprise half our membership. These are struggling, as their vulnerabilities become ever more apparent, and the solutions to their problems – particularly in economic diversification – take a long time in coming.

So the Commonwealth of economic success should be recognized, but so should the fact that it sits alongside the Commonwealth of more subdued success.

300 million Indians have been lifted out of poverty in the last 20 years, but many millions of Indians remain in it – the achievements and the challenges sit side by side.

The Commonwealth can take some of the credit for helping to create the conditions for global growth, particularly in the way it has sought to break down barriers to economic activity.

It has been responsible for some $400 million of inward investment, through the Commonwealth Private Investment Initiative.

Its debt management programmes are in use in 54 countries worldwide, including 10 non-Commonwealth countries, notably China.

Its good governance programmes for civil servants run continuously all over the Commonwealth.

Our Commonwealth ‘Aid-for-Trade’ programmes are supporting developing countries to strengthen or diversify their goods and services, and to reconfigure the laws and practices – like quick and efficient customs services – that allow trade to be really beneficial.

That’s why, for instance, we have worked on export strategies with places like Belize, and improved customs services in places like the port of Mombasa in Kenya.

Add to that the thousands of small businesses given Commonwealth training – amongst them many run by women and young people – and a picture emerges of our support for growing economies and especially small state economies which need just that: our targetted support.

So it is my contention that Commonwealth democracy and development are in fact in pretty good shape. Of course, it’s a risky business to characterize each, since they are the amalgamated result of all our individual Commonwealth countries working out their own destinies.

‘From within’ is the only way to transform societies, which has to be a truly democratic process, where all the people understand and support what is happening and why; and where everyone plays a part and everyone benefits – individually, and collectively.

Because Democracy and Development are inseparable. There will occasionally be examples to the contrary, but the two go hand in hand, like peace and prosperity. There is a fundamental and beneficial relationship between the two. That is the central tenet of Commonwealth policy thinking, and it was defined by the Manmohan Singh report of 2003, which I mentioned earlier.

** Contemporary Commonwealth challenges:

of perception, and of politics **

But not every one credits the Commonwealth on its life-bettering mission, or appreciates the scale of its challenges …

I have many times heard the view, not least in this country, that we are not well-equipped to contribute. Ironically, those who complain also say how well our members are doing, in the same sentence.

Some here in the UK claim a high level of ownership. “Is that one of ours?”, I am often asked by British people referring to a member country. Others – who see us through the prism of slavery, the opium trade, economic exploitation, the violence inflicted on independence movements – do not recognize that we have moved on, and they don’t see the Commonwealth for the great global good that it is today. Perceptions tend to linger about five years behind reality; but in the Commonwealth, it can sometimes be 25 or even 50 years.

‘The Commonwealth is just a talking shop’, people say – and yes, to some extent, we are just that. In any gathering, you talk, you agree, you make policy, you implement policy. Much of our governmental work is about bringing people together and encouraging them to talk. Because that is the foundation on which you will achieve better results that embrace all our diversity… rather than unilateral actions with minimum support.

‘You have no teeth’, people say – maybe. We have no armies or warheads; indeed we have no legal basis or treaties which govern our beliefs and our activities.

‘You’re a relic of empire’, people say – and yes, it may seem that an organisation based in London, with Queen Elizabeth II as its Head may seem to be that.

‘Do you just run the Commonwealth Games?’, people say – and yes, let’s not deny that what have come to be known as ‘The Friendly Games’ are the biggest public manifestation of the Commonwealth.

***

But back to policies, and in particular to what has always been one of the greatest challenges of my tenure.

Our organization is unique amongst international organizations for its ability to suspend or even recommend the expulsion of a member. The nine Foreign Ministers who make up the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group – or CMAG – has one of the hardest political tasks in international affairs.

Nothing in this job is as demanding as dealing with member countries who veer away from those well signposted Commonwealth values and principles of governance. Working with leaders directly to achieve a change in their governance, to discuss the possibility of their issues and behaviour being part of CMAG’s agenda takes a lot of time, effort, homework, diplomacy, energy and perseverance.

CMAG has done some incredible work. It gets congratulated for what it achieves, and enhances the reputation of the Commonwealth and the Foreign Ministers who make up its membership. But it also often exposes both to extreme criticism from the world’s media. It’s a sad fact that no other international organization has set up a similar mechanism to criticize and even act punitively against its own members. The criticism we attract is from those who subscribe to the ‘Gospel of the Mediocre Man’ – those who criticize others for not achieving their high expectations, but who never place their own standards above a mediocre level.

For instance, the EU criticizes others for using economic support mechanisms, but it perpetuates its own. Or it sets limits on budget deficits which its larger members ignore. The OECD makes demands of others that it does not make of its own, and even tried to have us be their messenger for them.

CMAG, I believe, will continue to evolve. It will always be political and will always do more than others. Its work will never be easy.

I remember CMAG and myself being berated by the British media for not solving the Zimbabwe issue back in 2000. The previous couple of days I had witnessed very disturbing scenes on television: a burning vehicle, kids running and screaming, adults looking bewildered and distressed. No, not Zimbabwe, but Northern Ireland. Why was the British media demanding that the Commonwealth do something about Zimbabwe, without considering the usefulness of the Commonwealth in Northern Ireland? A question, I might add, that I was asked by more than one African leader.

Regretfully, I am the only Commonwealth Secretary-General who has lost, not gained, members while in office. I am referring, of course, to Zimbabwe. No one tried harder than the Commonwealth to talk with Zimbabwe. We failed, the UK failed, the US, the UN, the World Bank, the EU – we all failed. Zimbabwe, you will remember, was suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth in the wake of the flaws we found in its 2001 parliamentary and its 2002 presidential elections. When Zimbabwe finally walked out on us soon after the Abuja CHOGM of November 2003, we lost touch with the people of Zimbabwe. We now look on them from a distance in their suffering.

I still give the Commonwealth an A-plus for effort with Zimbabwe – but a D-minus for achievement. But it was, in fact, a vindication for our values: subsequent events have shown very clearly that Zimbabwe cared nothing for them, and that we were right to uphold them. I do believe that one day soon a democratic Zimbabwe will seek to rejoin the Commonwealth, where I know it will be warmly welcomed.

As for the two member countries currently suspended from the Commonwealth, both for the second time in my tenure…

Fiji’s coups of 1987 and 2000 were largely ethnic affairs, while 2006 wasn’t. Either way, a democratically elected government was deposed – a clear violation of our principles. In my time, we worked very hard to build up Fiji after the 2000 coup, and in particular to strengthen its electoral systems. We gave a positive opinion on the elections of May 2006, which gave Prime Minister Qarase his narrow victory. So we were very disappointed in what happened.

I am happy to say that we are again involved, alongside our Pacific and other partners. I have an envoy, Sir Paul Reeves, a veteran of the very delicate situation in Guyana, who has been invited by interim Prime Minister Bainimarama to aid that process, and we remain committed to supporting him and other political leaders to move forward.

Pakistan, too, made advances. But in November last year, came a State of Emergency and a series of disturbing measures, not the least of which was the sacking of the judiciary. On the eve of CHOGM in Kampala, we reached a painful decision to suspend Pakistan again. We made it absolutely clear that we wished to remain engaged with Pakistan, and to walk with it in restoring democracy. We now take heart in the will of the people freely expressed in last month’s elections. And we hope and expect that a Ministerial Group will be invited to visit Pakistan as soon as a Government is formed.

So policing our values is hard.

I’d like to mention two more of the Commonwealth’s uphill battles.

First, trade. Let’s be clear: the Doha Round is stuck, and the deadlock is leading to the kind of regional trade deals which will always be a second-best substitute for a global, rules-based system.

But let’s fully understand the whys and wherefores. On the one hand, you have economic refugees from Africa getting washed up in the Canary Islands, rowing boats to Malta, entering Europe under trucks, or hidden in a containers. All are looking for economic opportunity. On the other hand, you have the collective acts of Europe, the US and Japan in particular, putting up walls and barriers to those desperate people achieving real opportunities at home.

If you are worried about immigration, the best option is to encourage and allow more opportunity in those home countries. More than 170 million people could be taken out of poverty if barriers were dropped in developed countries. Surely that is worth pursuing.

We have lobbied hard for a Doha deal, and some of you may remember the statement on multilateral trade made by Commonwealth leaders in November 2005. On the eve of the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial, they clearly influenced that meeting in calling on the richer countries to give more than they receive in these trade negotiations. We have also facilitated several ACP meetings to help define their negotiating positions for Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU. Ultimately, I believe that the responsibility for making Doha a success lies in the hands of those who have had it good for so long, and who now need to make tariffs and subsidies a thing of the past.

Second, I must mention our Commonwealth concerns about money – or the lack of it. People accuse the Commonwealth of not having the money to make a difference, and they are sometimes right. Do not be fooled by the fact that we are based in a Royal Palace on The Mall: our Rolls Royce frame runs on the engine of a small motorbike.

Two years ago, our member states pledged to increase their aid budget funding to us by 6%. About two-thirds of them have done so. For one reason or another – and some of them very understandable – one-third haven’t. Three times in my tenure, member states have formally reviewed our aid work and declared themselves delighted with it. Converting that goodwill into cash for projects in developing countries remains a real challenge, especially when developing countries see our worth, but some developed countries continue to hold back.

A word here about the UK, which may pay us a third of our dues, but that amounts to less than one half of 1% of its aid budget. I have never not heard a UK audience express some amazement and disappointment when they hear that each UK citizen spends £50 a year on being a member of the EU, £10 a year on the UN, £2 on NATO and 20p on the Commonwealth. The people of Tuvalu pay £3.50 per person to belong to the Commonwealth. So don’t expect us to do for 20p what the EU does for £50. We have at our disposal just £40 million a year – which is just one-sixth of what the EU spends every day of the year.

I know full well the esteem in which our members hold us. Quite rightly, they evaluate their memberships of international organisations to ensure that they are getting value for money. I commissioned some research recently for Pacific Island states to do just that. The point is that our members - rich and poor alike - need to put their money where their mouth is. They know that we will steward the money well: we have moved to international accounting standards; our accounts for the last four years have been unqualified. Let their financial support for our work be the same: unqualified. Our work is their work, after all.

** The Commonwealth today – stronger in four ways **

Let me now turn to where we are today, and to the kind of Commonwealth which I hand over to Kamalesh Sharma on 1^st April. I have written recently in The Round Table (The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs) that I believe the Commonwealth is stronger in four ways. We are stronger as an organisation of values; stronger as an organisation of our times; stronger in our focus on and results for those who need us most; and stronger as an organization that looks out on the world, and works with others to meet its many challenges.

Values

First, the organization that is stronger as an organisation of values.

The democratic values we set down in 1971 and 1991 have been strengthened in my time, twice over. First, by the 2003 Latimer House Principles which underline that all-important separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. And second, by the Aberdeen Principles of the same year, enshrining the central role of local government in any democracy.

I have already spoken tonight about the importance of CMAG, and the way it protects those values, as much by encouragement as by censure.

Safeguarding our values and walking with our members along the path to democracy takes many other forms, too. Sometimes, it happens through the quiet diplomacy of my Special Envoys in places like Guyana, Swaziland, the Maldives, Tonga, and elsewhere. These people have defused situations of real political tension.

Sometimes, it happens through the help we give to countries in ratifying UN conventions or building national human rights commissions.

Sometimes it takes the form of building democratic institutions like Public Accounts committees, offices of ombudsmen, and civil service commissions.

Any which way, it happens. We are an organisation of values, in word and deed.

Relevance

Second, the organization that is stronger as an organisation of its times – meeting the challenges not just of today, but also of tomorrow.

A generation ago, the Commonwealth was in the vanguard in supporting the move to independence of many British colonies, and helping to dismantle the system of apartheid in South Africa.

In the last 8 years, it has addressed new and very different charges – in many cases, being the very first international grouping to do so.

Like identifying the unique problems and challenges of Small States.

Like leading global thinking on easing the burden of poor countries’ financial obligations: not many know that the Commonwealth is the parent of both bilateral and multilateral debt relief.

Like going public on the problems of developing country doctors, nurses and teachers migrating to the developed world. These people may have been filling gaps in developed countries, but they were leaving huge gaps behind them.

When terror filled our TV screens in September 2001, we took on a specific role in implementing the UN’s Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Resolution 1373. That Resolution introduced new – and quite onerous – international legal obligations, and Kofi Annan asked me to help our smaller members enact them. So we developed model laws on areas like money-laundering and extradition procedures which they, and other UN members, are now using.

I am very proud of all this. It’s dynamic and it’s relevant. It’s the modern Commonwealth. It’s why this week – Commonwealth Week – we are talking about our own Commonwealth responses to what many see as the greatest threat to our future: climate change.

Focus and results

Third, the organization that is stronger in its focus on and results for those who need it most.

Small states, women, young people – the disenfranchised, the marginalized. I hope that my time has also been characterized by a focus on the underdogs, and the people who wouldn’t otherwise have a voice.

Nearly half of our Commonwealth is under 25, and nearly a quarter is under 5. Hence the importance of our Commonwealth Youth Programme, one of the jewels in our crown.

Nearly half of the people in this Commonwealth bear considerably more than half of its problems. Two-thirds of our children out-of-school are girls; and two-thirds of our people living in poverty or with AIDS are women. Hence the importance of our policy and practical work to make gender equality a reality.

Our default position is to support those who need us most, whether it’s a small country overwhelmed in international organisations, or a group of brave young HIV carriers whom we sponsor to stand up and take their message – of education and compassion – to their peers.

Looking outwards

Fourth and finally, the organisation that is stronger for more and more looking out on the world, and working in partnership.

The queue of aspiring new Commonwealth members gives a clue as to our strength and appeal. In my time in office, at various times and in various ways, we have had expressions of interest from a number of countries, as well as from various dependent territories. Algeria, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Rwanda, Sudan, Timor Leste and Yemen. As of last November, we now have new procedures in place for dealing with applications to join the Commonwealth, and we already have interest being expressed. Watch this space.

Being open to new members also means being open to new partners, often with more resources than us. Hence the way that our ideas have been picked up and implemented by organizations like the World Bank, the World Health Organisation, the ILO, the EU and the AU.

‘Being open’ goes further still. We often talk about the Commonwealth as an alliance of governments and peoples. Some of you perhaps know some of the 85 organisations around the world that bear the name Commonwealth. There are associations of our parliamentarians, business people, lawyers, journalists – even our dentists, museum curators, and more. Not only do these organisations do great things in their own right; they also support our Government work and priorities. They are a key-part of this spirit of openness and partnership.

***

Ladies and gentlemen, I have argued that by and large Commonwealth democracy and Commonwealth development are in good shape; and I have shared with you some of the constant challenges we face in the Commonwealth, and I have talked of four areas where I believe we have done well.

It’s in those areas that we should be judged – whether you’re looking at my time in office, or Emeka Anyaoku’s before me, or Kamalesh Sharma’s to come. The quality of our commitment to our values; our relevance to the issues of the day; the help we give to those who need us most; the way we look out on the world, and work with it.

When the Commonwealth speaks, it means that a quarter of the world’s countries have shared something, debated it, and agreed a way forward. So I am back where I was when I first stood on this platform nearly 20 years ago: talking about the ways in which combined human endeavour can make the world a better and a more peaceful place. Thank you.

ENDS