• Commonwealth:
• Documents:
• Speeches by Secretary-General Don McKinnon:
• “The Commonwealth after 11 September 2001”

“The Commonwealth after 11 September 2001”

Date: 14 Jan 2001
Speaker: Secretary-General Don McKinnon
Location: Cumberland Lodge

Historians of the 20th century have sometimes argued that the century did not actually start in 1900, but in 1914. The real turning point, it is suggested, was the beginning of the First World War. This is when the old world order, born out of the Industrial Revolution, collapsed and the balance of power between the nations of the world changed dramatically.

Likewise, historians of the future may well decide to start the story of the 21st century not on 1st January 2000, but on 11 September 2001. Of course, it is too early to assess the full implications of the event but there is no doubt that it will mark a dramatic shift in the way we understand the world.

11 September has not only changed the present. It has also changed the future. Our responsibility is to make sure that the Commonwealth is in a position to play a key role in facing the new challenges that have arisen.

Initially, this Round Table meeting should have been about: "The Commonwealth after CHOGM". But following the postponement of CHOGM to March this year, the theme of this meeting became—quite appropriately— "The Commonwealth after 11 September".


It will take some time before we are able to grasp the full significance of 11 September, but already, major changes have occurred.

First, a new kind of war is being waged. This is not a territorial struggle, it is not a fight between nations or states. This is a war of shadows: no one knows where, when and how extremists will strike again. All we know is that every citizen is a potential target. That is why in the future intelligence will often prove more effective than sheer military power.

Second, it is now clear that the economic impact of the attacks will hit poor countries the hardest. More people will be thrown into poverty, more people will lose their jobs and their livelihood. Back in 1989, John LeCarré said that human beings should come to realise that their real enemies are not other human beings, but "drugs, terrorism, poverty, bush fire wars, the pollution of our air, sea, beaches, rivers and forests." His words still ring true today.

Third, extremist ideologies and religious intolerance are emerging as some of the key problems the world will have to face in the years to come.

The years of the Cold War were dominated by the struggle between two ideological blocs. Everything seemed quite simple then: you either belonged to one or the other, for better or for worse. Or you belonged to the so-called Non-Aligned Movement, some of whose members were fairly aligned. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, celebrated and momentous as it was, thousands of invisible walls have re-appeared. Walls between religious communities, between ethnic and national groups, between cultures and traditions.

The challenge today is to manage diversity not only within societies, but between and across them. We must attempt to break up the dividing lines that threaten peace and solidarity worldwide.

But the question is not only: "how has the world changed since 11 September?" but: "how should it change?" What are the new responsibilities thrust upon us by the new world landscape this event has created?

Clearly, the response to post-11 September challenges must be a global one, but the Commonwealth has an important role to play. In the years to come, the work of the Commonwealth will be defined by three imperatives:

· We must consolidate the united front against terrorism among Commonwealth countries
· We must redouble our efforts to combat poverty and illness and give all people in the Commonwealth real opportunities
· We must use the power of diversity to further tolerance and democratic values throughout our membership; in other words, we must make life better for the less well off


1. Lessons for the Commonwealth: action on terrorism

The threat of terrorism is not new for the Commonwealth. Indeed, many of our member states have been directly affected by acts of terrorism. And some Commonwealth leaders themselves have been the victims of attacks by extremist groups.

The Commonwealth has no battalions. It has no power to impose sanctions against rogue states.

Its strength lies in the solidarity of its members, in their common commitment to democracy, the rule of law and pluralism.

In a world that is becoming increasingly polarised, this inclusiveness is of particular relevance. By bringing together people of different faiths and cultures from a diversity of countries, large and small, rich and poor, the Commonwealth can present a united front in the fight against terrorism.

That is just what happened a few months ago when Commonwealth leaders issued a statement calling for resolute action against terrorist activities. This statement goes very far. It does not merely condemn acts of terrorism. It establishes that any member country that supports terrorists is in violation of the fundamental values of the Commonwealth and has no place in our organisation.

At the end of this month, a Commonwealth Ministerial Committee on terrorism will meet for the first time.

The Committee will consider what actions the Commonwealth can take to cut the money supply of terrorists and those who support them.

It will look at ways in which the Commonwealth can co-operate with the international community to freeze and confiscate the assets of terrorists and how it can assist in the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 calling for international action against terrorism. In this regard, the Commonwealth can be of particular assistance to its smaller members.

The Ministerial Committee will also explore how the Commonwealth can take advantage of the common legal framework shared by many of its members to facilitate the adoption of laws in areas such as money laundering and extradition.


2. Solidarity for the poor

11 September has had consequences beyond the fight against terrorism. Many of the challenges we were facing on 10 September—the fight against poverty, the promotion of democracy and the creation of a culture of tolerance—have been compounded in the aftermath of the attacks.

According to the World Bank, developing countries will be the worst hit by the economic slowdown. Ten million more people will be thrown into poverty as a result of the attacks. Tens of thousands more children will die worldwide.

The economies of developing countries will suffer from reduced investment and falling commodity prices. According to the International Labour Organisation, job opportunities will be cut by at least 24 million. Tourism is being hit exceptionally hard with 65% of the holidays booked for the Caribbean having been cancelled.

These adverse consequences must strengthen our commitment to alleviate poverty. Today, more than ever, we must assume our responsibility toward the poor. 1.2 billion people live under $1 a day. More than a third are Commonwealth citizens.

There is a paradox here.

The world economy has experienced unprecedented growth over the last decade. There have been few periods in history when the potential for eliminating poverty has been as great as it is today.

And yet, we live in a world where 10% of the population owns 50% of the world's wealth and 10% of the poorest people owns half a percent of global wealth. And according to experts, both those statistics are moving in the wrong direction.

This imbalance is not only indecent. It threatens world stability.

All too often, we become anaesthetised to human suffering. We know the numbers, the enormity of numbers. But they lose their significance. Even images of hungry children on our television screens often lose their grip on us.

But we must realise that we cannot seal off our lives from the troubles of the world. Selfishness and indifference will make the whole world poorer.

No one can sleep comfortably at night if they know their neighbour is starving.

We must resist the fatalistic view that poverty is a 'fact of life', that it is somehow unavoidable.

We can beat poverty. Therefore, we must do everything in our power to make sure we do.

Aid is one way of tackling the problem. That is why I have repeatedly urged the governments of developed countries to reassess their current aid commitments in light of the UN target of spending 0.7% of their GNP on aid. So far, only Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have reached this target. The record is not good. We must do better.

The best way to get a stronger commitment from donor countries is to show them that aid works.

We must therefore make sure that aid is directed where it will do most and that campaigns are well co-ordinated.

But aid on its own is not enough. We must find ways of helping our poorer members to take control of their own economies and trade their way out of poverty.

According to the World Bank, abolishing all trade barriers could boost global income and lift 320 million people out of poverty within the next 10 to 15 years. This is why we must urge developed countries to make a sustained effort to reduce their own trade barriers and give developing countries increased access to their markets.

The Commonwealth has also taken concrete steps to assist Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs). It was Commonwealth Finance Ministers who provided the impetus for the initiative to reduce the debt of HIPCs. The Commonwealth continues to maintain pressure on the IMF and the World Bank to provide even greater debt reduction to these countries.

Increasingly, the links between poverty and ill health are being recognised. Scourges such as HIV/AIDS and malaria have devastating effects in many poor countries. The costs are not only human; they are also economic. When you are sick, you spend less time at work and more money on medical treatment.

As Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, recently said: "A healthy population is a prerequisite for growth as much as a result of it."

At their meeting in Christchurch in November, Commonwealth Health Ministers drew attention to the links between poverty and ill health and called for an integrated approach to tackling these problems.

Again, great achievements are within our reach: according to a recent report, if rich countries spent only another $27 billion a year—or 0.1% of their GDP—they could contribute to save 8 million lives every year.

Globalisation has been blamed for increasing the gap between the rich and the poor.

There is a great irony here. Protesters say they are incensed by the injustices created by globalisation, but they are very happy themselves to use the benefits globalisation has to offer: mobile phones, credit cards, the internet and air travel.

More importantly, global protesters, if they had their way, would deprive from the benefits of globalisation the very people they pretend to speak for.

If we want to achieve progress, we must recognise that globalisation, if well managed, can be part of the solution to world poverty.

Poor countries need more globalisation, not less. The more poor countries open their economies, the more likely they are to grow rich.

During the 1990s, developing countries with open economies grew at an annual rate of 5% per capita, while those with closed economies grew at only 1.4%. Moreover, developing countries have increased their share of world trade by more than one fifth since 1990 .

But if globalisation is to fulfil its promise, we must make sure that it works for the benefit of the many, not the few.

If developed countries accept to do their share today, they—and all the other nations in the world—will reap the benefits tomorrow. The truth is that we can all gain from the opening of markets provided that we all play by the same rules.

Some commentators have pointed out that 11 September has revealed the dark side of the interconnected world we are now living in. The 11 September terrorists were supported and trained through a global network of extremists, who used the international financial system and the power of technology to reach their goal. Terrorism—like so many other things in the world today—has gone global.

A few analysts saw in this the proof that interdependence makes us too vulnerable and that we should rethink the whole process of globalisation.

But in reality, we need more, not less, interdependence. If my life is closely connected to that of my neighbour in an infinite number of ways, I will be unlikely to wish him or her any harm. If my livelihood depends on the economic stability of other countries, I will not do anything to threaten that stability. If a pharmaceutical company produces the drugs I need to improve my health, it would be absurd for me to disrupt the international financial system it relies on.

The more our lives are closely intertwined together, the less room there will be for violence and hatred.

As Desmond Tutu said recently: "We are interconnected, whether we like it or not. God said that he created us as family, so we can recognise that we are sisters and brothers, and that there are no outsiders."


3. The power of diversity in a divided world

The attacks on the twin towers and on the Pentagon were a stark reminder of the danger of extremist ideologies and religious intolerance in the world today.

There are two aspects of the war against terror. First, as we have seen earlier, we must take action to stop terrorists in their tracks. We must develop intelligence and security measures to cut the money supply of terrorists and penetrate their networks.

But we must also do everything we can to prevent individuals becoming terrorists in the first place. We must combat indoctrination, fanaticism and extremist ideologies, whatever form they take.

We cannot engage in a dialogue with the terrorists. But we can engage with those they seek to indoctrinate. We can prevent others joining their ranks.

That is why education must be at the centre of our strategy. No one is born with extremist views or racial prejudice. Intolerance starts when you are young.

Education provides a forum for a dialogue between cultures. It provides the tools to fight religious prejudice and racial hatred before they take hold of a young person's mind. It gives you hope that you can control your future.

Citizenship education is also an essential aspect of the fight against intolerance. This is why we recently produced a framework curriculum aimed at assisting secondary teachers of human rights and citizenship courses in Commonwealth countries.


One of the strengths of the Commonwealth lies in the values shared by its members. These values are enshrined in the 1991 Harare Principles.

Whatever our individual religious beliefs, our cultural backgrounds, our national history, we all share the same commitment to foster human rights and tolerance, to promote democratic practices and to eradicate poverty.

But we must remember that, as Commonwealth citizens, we don't own our values. They own us. They impose a duty on us to respect and uphold them.

These values are at the core of our Commonwealth identity. If we fail them, we fail ourselves.

We have had some measure of success in promoting respect for democratic principles across the Commonwealth. We don't always win but we don't perpetually lose either.

Great challenges still lie ahead, however.

The end of the Cold War held the promise of a more peaceful world, a world where every state would, slowly but surely, converge towards democracy. We were witnessing, in the words of the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama, "the end of history".

I would not like to contradict Mr Fukuyama. But recent history has shown that democracy can never be taken for granted. The struggle never ends.

Democracy is perfectible. Even "well-established" democracies can be improved.

It is in that spirit that the Commonwealth Secretariat has been running a series of seminars on Deepening Democracy, the aim being to help member countries make democracy as real and as deep as possible.

Democratic principles can play an important role in creating a culture of tolerance and respect for the other.

Democracy teaches us to look upon others as fellow citizens; it emphasizes what we have in common—our shared humanity—rather than our differences.

Democracy provides safety valves against marginalisation of sections of society. You are less likely to be discriminated against in a society where individual rights are taken seriously.

Democracy creates a common language between individuals and a sense of shared purpose. In a democracy, we all strive to achieve the public good.

Democracy is about using dialogue, not violence, to resolve disagreements. An election is not a war, it is a contest where candidates offer their policies for change and their vision of a better future. Election rhetoric should be about giving people the freedom to choose, not threatening to use force against them if they use that freedom.


Conclusion

The past century has seen unprecedented progress in science, technology and medicine. Human beings have pushed over the limits of knowledge in all areas of scientific enquiry.

But progress in knowledge and technology has not been matched by progress in morality. The 20th century has been one of the bloodiest in the history of humanity. There isn't a single year in the calendar of the 20th century that has been free of war.

Together, we need to close the gap between knowledge and humanity, between technological evolution and moral progress. We need to replace the politics of indifference with the politics of responsibility.

Taking responsibility for our troubled world is the only way we can look to the future without fear of what lies ahead.

Just a few days before his assassination, Martin Luther King looked to the future without fear: "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood."

This dream is alive today as it was then. And Luther King's message of reconciliation and solidarity is more relevant than ever.

Cynics will say that this is pure idealism. They will argue that nations will always go to war, that human rights will never be universally respected, that poor people will always die of hunger.

But cynics lack imagination. And more than anything, they lack the energy of hope.

By nature, I am a realist. But if the alternative is between being a cynic and hoping for a better world, then I would rather be on the side of hope.

Thank you for inviting me here today. I look forward to the results of your discussions, as I am sure they will help shape the goals of the Commonwealth in the years to come.