The Modern Commonwealth: Celebrating the Golden Jubilee

It is a particular pleasure to be in Norwich and to be visiting the University of East Anglia as part of the celebrations of the modern Commonwealth's Golden Jubilee.

As a proud and ancient city, Norwich has developed significantly from the northerly Anglo-Saxon settlement it once was. The city's connections to the sea and its willingness to take in those from abroad fleeing persecution have long given Norwich an international perspective and a cosmopolitan feel. Indeed, I understand that, at one point in its history, no less than one third of the city's population were refugees from Holland. Much more recently, the city welcomed many Chilean refugees during the period of oppression in Chile which followed President Allende's assassination.


This city's openness to the world has been reflected, since its inception in 1962, by the University of East Anglia, which has enrolled students from around the globe, including from the Commonwealth. Indeed, today, of 10,000 people on its campus, I understand that no less than 1,500 are students from overseas. It is little wonder, therefore, that the Norwich International Club - which is also supporting this evening's celebrations - should boast 1,000 members, drawn from over 100 countries.


There are many dimensions to Norwich's international links but it would be remiss of me, Lord Mayor, not to mention your own considerable leadership in this regard. I understand that in the eight months since you assumed office, you have received in the Lord Mayor's Parlour visiting groups and delegations from no less than 80 countries; and it is unquestionably the case that the glittering events of this evening were a result of your own personal initiative and drive. How appropriate that, as the modern Commonwealth enters its Golden Jubilee year, the City of Norwich and the University of East Anglia should have been the first anywhere in the association to mark the 50th anniversary by tonight's events.


Let me therefore take you back those fifty years to the Spring of 1949, for it was in April of that year that the foundations of the Commonwealth as an association of truly independent sovereign states were cemented.


Gathered in Downing Street were the Prime Ministers of the then eight countries of the Commonwealth - Australia, Britain, Canada, Ceylon (as Sri Lanka was then known), India, New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa - who met together and agreed the London Declaration.


The stimulus which gave rise to the London Declaration was India's application to remain in the Commonwealth on becoming a republic in July 1949. Up to that point, the basis of membership had been allegiance to the British Crown. India's application meant a wholly new basis for membership and for this there was no real precedent. The nearest to a precedent for a republican state in the Commonwealth fold was the then Irish Free State but that only pointed up the difficulties of accommodating a republic, declared or not, within the Commonwealth.


In terms of a guide to the way forward, the Irish case only added to the anxieties. Clement Attlee, the British Prime Minister at the time, was, like other leading political figures in Britain, sympathetic to India's application; but even he could not see how the Commonwealth could be fostered, other than through the link of allegiance to the Crown. Others recalled the warning by Mackenzie King (the war-time Prime Minister of Canada) that any attempt to find a link between republican India and the Crown would "inevitably tend to make the position and functions of the sovereign the subject of violent political discussion, not only in India itself but all over the world."


Pandit Nehru too had his own difficulties to contend with. Republicanism had been an article of faith of the Congress Party since the 1920's, not for sentimental reasons, but as the logical conclusion of India's evolution to sovereign nationhood. His own convictions were on the side of the republic, as were the anti-colonial sentiments in the country.


On both sides then, the British Government and the old Dominion governments on the one hand, and India on the other, there were anxieties and reservations to be overcome. On both sides, the situation called for courage, vision and statesmanship. I believe it was a combination of these qualities that enabled the London Meeting to work out a formula reconciling republicanism with membership of the Commonwealth.


Under what became known as 'the Nehru formula', the authors of the London Declaration decided that the then British Monarch would be the symbol of their association as free and independent countries and, as such, the Head of the Commonwealth. But members were no longer required to have the King as their Head of State or to swear an oath of allegiance; indeed, the duties of the Head of the Commonwealth were to be entirely distinct from those of the British Monarch. This in turn meant that countries with republican constitutions could be admitted and that India could therefore remain in the Commonwealth.


The London Declaration transformed the whole character of the Commonwealth. It paved the way for other nationalist and newly independent countries to join the association. It changed the Commonwealth from a relic of Empire to a co-operative association of free and sovereign nations, united less by their colonial connection than by their mutual interest. The association thus formally became the Commonwealth - and ceased to be the 'British Commonwealth'.


Today, only 16 of the 54 members of the Commonwealth have Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State. There are a further five countries which have their own national monarchs. But the majority of Commonwealth members - some 33 countries - have chosen to be republics. And many of these member countries comprise peoples and leaders like Mandela, Mugabe, Nujoma, Mahathir and Vajpayee, to name a few, whose sense of nationalism and national sovereignty is second to none.


It was this seminal decision of 1949 that facilitated and influenced the subsequent expansion in the membership, and the multi-racialism and diversity, of the Commonwealth over the last 50 years.


Today, the 54 countries of the Commonwealth comprise 1.7 billion people - nearly one quarter of humanity, including countries from all continents, encompassing virtually every region, religion and race.


It is sometimes said that the modern Commonwealth constitutes a 'global sub-system'. Certainly, it embraces major parts of Africa and Asia, almost all of the Caribbean and much of the Pacific, as well as members in the Mediterranean, Europe and North America. As a result, our association is genuinely diverse, multi-racial and representative of the modern world.


I should also emphasise that, unlike most other international organisations, the Commonwealth is not only an association of governments but also of peoples. There are even more numerous and sophisticated Commonwealth connections at non-governmental level, involving professions and almost every field of human endeavour.


Another important stage in the evolution of the modern Commonwealth was the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat, in 1965.


Until that year, the Commonwealth did not have its own collective machinery and so its affairs, including the meetings of its Prime Ministers, were administered by the British Government, through the Commonwealth Relations Office in Whitehall. That was obviously unsatisfactory, especially for the newly-independent member nations.


By agreeing to establish an independent Secretariat which would serve the collective membership in an impartial manner, the leaders of the Commonwealth ensured that it became a fully-fledged international organisation, with no centre and no periphery.


Today, the Commonwealth Secretariat has a little over 300 staff at its headquarters in London, drawn from member countries in all regions of the world. We co-ordinate the affairs of the Commonwealth by promoting consultation and co-operation among its members and organising activities in accordance with mandates provided by Commonwealth Heads of Government.


What, then, of the issues with which the association has had to grapple? There are many, but three have dominated: the struggle against racism; the campaign for democracy; and the drive to help its members achieve sustainable economic development.


The first two of these came together in the Commonwealth's stand against racial domination and minority rule in Southern Africa as a whole and, in particular, against the apartheid regime in South Africa itself.


The determination shown by the Commonwealth in that campaign was natural, given the association's diversity and its commitment against racialism which it regards as an unmitigated evil.


The Commonwealth can look back on that period with pride. We played a key role in the international campaign for the isolation of the apartheid regime and in doing so provided a powerful lead to the rest of the world on a key matter of principle.


At the same time, the all-consuming vigour of the Commonwealth's stand provoked claims in certain quarters that it was a one-issue organisation - and one prepared to tolerate double standards, crusading for democracy and human rights outside the organisation but prepared to overlook shortcomings within it. Naturally, those allegations stimulated a debate about the role of the association. In 1989, Heads of Government set up a High-Level Appraisal Group, consisting of ten of their number, and charged it with consideration of the future of the Commonwealth. Two years later, the Group's report led to the Harare Commonwealth Declaration, adopted by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe in October 1991.


That landmark document put the priority firmly on two themes: the promotion of the association's fundamental political values - democracy, the rule of law and human rights - and the pursuit of sustainable economic development.


Since the adoption of the Harare Declaration, we have focused in particular on the strengthening of democratic institutions and processes in member countries. You may be aware of the Commonwealth's training programmes, our work to promote contact between those who are building democracy on the ground, our Election Observer Groups and our technical assistance in support of democratic structures and institutions.


Four years on from Harare, we reinforced our rules so that we could deal more effectively with serious or persistent violations of the Commonwealth's principles by our members. That included, in 1995, the establishment of a mechanism - a standing committee of Foreign Ministers - to engage with member countries in such a position.


It was under these provisions that Nigeria's military regime was suspended from the Commonwealth over three years ago. The same rules led to the ostracism of those responsible for the military coup in Sierra Leone in 1997. Adherence to the Commonwealth Harare principles is now a pre-requisite for countries aspiring to join the association.


I believe that the message of Harare has helped to change the atmosphere and the agenda well beyond our association, while within it has been a powerful factor in propelling the process of democratic change.


In 1991, there were nine Commonwealth countries under military or one party rule. Today, there is only one - Nigeria. We are currently working to help it make a credible transition to democracy, and we hope that its suspension from the Commonwealth will be lifted following its installation of a democratically elected government on 29 May 1999. In that latter respect, the signs are promising, with local government elections in December and State elections earlier this month. The Commonwealth monitored both and pronounced each a success. Our technical assistance to Nigeria's Independent National Electoral Commission is being sustained as we prepare to observe the culmination of the process - the Federal Parliamentary and Presidential elections next month.


In parallel with our activities to promote our fundamental values, the Commonwealth continues to assign a high priority to its work to promote sustainable economic and social development. Much of this takes the form of technical co-operation. At any given time, the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation has between 200 and 300 experts in the field in our developing member countries. Such assistance is not only North-South but mainly South-South in character. It is rapid in its response to requests; it is flexible; and it is efficient and cost-effective.


We also organise special training programmes for more than 4,000 people each year. In addition, Commonwealth Secretariat staff provide governments with high-level advice on economic, legal and other matters. And we have programmes to promote the use of science and technology and to build capacity in health and education. And there is a particular focus on assistance to small states, which make up more than half the Commonwealth's membership.


All of this is valuable. It has helped Commonwealth countries in their efforts to promote sustainable economic and social development. It remains an important part of the work of the modern Commonwealth. And it will continue.


There are two further aspects of the current work of the modern Commonwealth to which I should make brief reference before I move on to consider the role of the Commonwealth in the twenty-first century.


Firstly, there is the Commonwealth's role as a mechanism for consensus-building on major global issues.


From time to time, we have successfully focused on particular themes, in a conscious attempt both to alert the international community to their importance and to provide some answers to the problems posed.


You may be aware of our initiatives on reducing the debt burden of poorer countries; on the environment; on the vulnerability of small states; and on combating corruption and enhancing good governance in economic management.


The meetings of Heads of Government every two years, and the various Ministerial meetings in between, help us to develop and to take forward our consensus on such issues into the wider international community. For example, the HIPC initiative on the debt burden of the highly indebted poor countries, now being implemented by the IMF and the World Bank, was one of the outcomes of the meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Malta in 1994.


The Commonwealth's contribution to the building of wider consensus in respect of problems requiring a global approach to their solution is facilitated by the inter-locking membership of Commonwealth countries with a range of regional bodies - such as the European Union, the Organisation of African Unity, the Caribbean Community, the South Pacific Forum, the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation and the Association of South-East Asian Nations. Indeed, in this age of the emergence of regional groupings, the Commonwealth potential in promoting inter-regional linkage will grow in importance.


The Commonwealth's positive working relationships with the United Nations and its agencies also help. We work especially closely with the UN, both on general themes - such as the way in which international peace and security matters may be addressed more effectively - and on specifics, such as the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone.


Another facet of today's Commonwealth is the association's role in preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution, through the personal intervention of the Commonwealth Secretary-General or of special envoys acting on his behalf.


In the last five years, Commonwealth good offices assistance has been provided to Bangladesh, Kenya, Lesotho, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania and a number of other countries. All, I believe, have found our quiet diplomacy to be useful in helping them to resolve actual or potential internal crises.


The activities that I have described - democracy, development, consensus building, and good offices - have won the Commonwealth respect and recognition. But none of us can rest on our laurels, still less can we stand still.


Looking to the future, I believe that there are two particular challenges for which the Commonwealth will become even more important to its members and to the wider international community.


One is the management of diversity. Diversity or pluralism is, of course, normally a positive phenomenon. But, as the history of the post-Cold War period illustrates, when cultural, ethnic, religious and other differences are not managed effectively and/or when they are deliberately exploited, they can also be occasions for division, even armed conflict. I call this the problem of "divisive pluralism".


According to one study, 79 of the 82 conflicts around the world between 1989 and 1992 were intra-state in nature and linked to ethnic or religious differences. We see it today in Kosovo and Sri Lanka; and we have seen it in Bosnia, Rwanda and other places. Unless appropriate action is taken, this is a problem which I fear will be increasingly familiar in the years to come.


It is also one on which I believe the Commonwealth is particularly well placed to act - because we have such extensive experience in, and understanding of, the management of diversity. The Commonwealth's commitment to the pursuit of unity in diversity in its efforts to promote understanding and co-operation among its diverse membership makes it a world exemplar in the management of diversity.


We are making a start already in seeking to give the wider international community the benefit of our experience in this respect. The Commonwealth Secretariat and UNESCO have invited about 30 leading academic and political figures to consider the role of the state and civil society in preventing pluralism from becoming divisive, in combating divisive pluralism where it already exists and in building a positive and constructive approach to pluralism in the future.


They will meet in Paris later this week with the Director-General of UNESCO and myself and I hope our deliberations will provide policy makers with much useful guidance.


The other issue which I believe is bound to have an important place on the Commonwealth's agenda for the twenty-first century is how the risks inherent in the globalisation of the international economy can be managed more effectively and humanely: first, to ensure that there is sustained growth and prosperity, rather than boom followed by crisis and crash; and, second, so that the benefits of globalisation can be shared by all.


It is important that we evolve an international economic system that creates an enabling environment for broad-based prosperity in our inter-dependent world. We are all aware that the wealth of the few cannot be sustained amidst the impoverishment of the many. Globalisation must be managed, to ensure that communities, countries - even regions - are not marginalised.


Prediction is a hazardous business. But I am convinced that alongside our current concerns of democracy, development, consensus building and conflict prevention, these two issues - managing the problems that can come with pluralism and managing the globalisation of the international economy - will be key elements on our agenda in the years ahead.


The Commonwealth, in addition to being based on a set of principles, is a thoroughly practical institution. It is equipped with - indeed it consists of - layer upon layer of precisely the sort of networks on which our ever more inter-dependent world will have to rely if it is to meet the challenges of the new century.


It is because those networks are effective that Mozambique, which had no historical links with Britain, has joined our association; that Pakistan, South Africa and the Fiji Islands have rejoined; and that several other countries have submitted applications for membership.


The bonds of sentiment that bind Commonwealth countries together are powerful. But at the end of the day, countries remain as members, or apply to join, because they have an accurate and hard-headed appreciation of the realities and potential of the modern world. They value membership because of the relevance of the Commonwealth agenda, and the importance of warm and close relations with over 50 other nations, in a unique global network.


That is the reality of today's Commonwealth - and the secret of its great potential as we enter the new millennium. But neither reality nor potential would have come about had it not been for the vision and courage shown by the authors of the London Declaration who ingeniously encouraged the Commonwealth to make itself anew.


I have already spoken of the pivotal role Nehru played at the London meeting of 1949; and, on his return to India, he spoke to the then Constituent Assembly about the Prime Ministers' meeting and the need to address world problems "in a friendly way and with a touch of healing". He added: "the fact that we have begun this new type of association with a touch of healing will be good for us, good for others and I think good for the world".


Tonight, the great city of Norwich and one of Britain's foremost universities, The University of East Anglia, have joined together to mark the modern Commonwealth's Golden Jubilee. We celebrate and we recall our debt to history; but we do so by looking forward, rather than back; and doing so, I hope, with a determination to find new ways for the Commonwealth to bring Nehru's 'touch of healing' to a still deeply troubled world.

for Commonwealth Day
Norwich, 26 January 1999