Commonwealth crossroads
Source: By Krishnan Srinivasan: The Statesman
It is not unusual for the modern Commonwealth, now in its 65th year, to be at a crossroads. In the past it has survived the Nigerian civil war, serious differences over apartheid in southern Africa, the suspension of states for deficiencies in democracy and human rights by a peer group that was not blameless itself, the inclusion of states with a totally dissimilar historical narrative, and the departure of states with grievances over double standards.
Now it faces another crisis, one that is not likely to be surmounted easily; the open emergence of a fault-line on human rights and democracy that always existed between the small rump of developed white countries that founded the Commonwealth as British Dominions, who control the purse strings, and the majority of brown and black relatively newly-independent poor developing countries. The former press the Commonwealth towards constituting a club of good governance and values; the latter, while not contesting the need for such principles, give equal importance to the needs of development, equality, security and particular national circumstances.
That the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) took place in Colombo is itself a source of major frustration for the ‘old’ Dominions, which wanted to censure Sri Lanka for the bloody aftermath of the 30-year gruesome civil war that took place in that nation through a boycott that would have pandered to an agitated Tamil diaspora with political influence in countries like Britain and Canada, and the sanctimonious, largely Anglo-Saxon, Commonwealth civil society. The boycott did not take place due to forceful diplomacy by the Sri Lankans and some tight-rope walking by the Commonwealth Secretariat, but could not prevent the North-South split in Colombo that will cast a long shadow over the organization in years to come.
With their backs to the wall, the Sri Lankans provided excellent facilities at a high cost, and their expected revenues from hosting the event must be below expectation since some nations that habitually travel with large delegations did not attend. Only 26 Presidents and Prime Ministers turned up, which is below the low average of 35 or so for the 53-member organization. Africa was the biggest disappointment, with Cameroon, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria all dropping out in the last week for diverse reasons. Attendance was also low from the Caribbean, perhaps due to financial resources, though it is more possible that Canada, that enjoys influence in the region due to immigration, may have persuaded some leaders not to attend.
From South Asia, other than the Maldives that was holding its presidential election, India was the only one nation absent at the top leadership level, a foolish decision that will have severe consequences for many years to come. Manmohan Singh’s absence was a crass mistake, especially because it was a decision taken so belatedly that it displayed weakness and dithering. The Prime Minister should have ignored the fervid threats from Tamil Nadu and followed the consensus of the rest of India that was solidly in favour of his going, not only to Colombo, but also to Jaffna, where he had been invited by the ruling Tamil party that had won a provincial election in a landslide. His absence enabled David Cameron, Prime Minister of the former colonial power, to become the first head of a foreign government to visit Jaffna after the civil war. Finance Minister Chidambaram, trying to pull some personal chestnuts out of the fire, announces that Manmohan Singh will go to Jaffna, but it is as unlikely that he would be invited by President Rajapaksa as that he would go to a provincial capital and not the capital. How would India react if Nawaz Sharif came to Srinagar and not to Delhi?
Discussions at CHOGM were polarized on human rights and the rule of law between the white Commonwealths versus the rest, with Sri Lanka as the unspoken sub-text. Britain, Canada and New Zealand wanted to grandstand at the summit on values, while countries like South Africa and Tanzania opposed them, especially on the question of Zimbabwe’s election, that the Southern African Development Community had declared free and fair. Developing countries questioned if the present Commonwealth was the same as before, where there had been equality and mutual respect and no blatant show of double standards. The ‘touch of healing’, that Nehru said characterized the Commonwealth, had disappeared.
Sri Lanka received the support of the developing countries and this effectively made human rights a North-South issue. The Commonwealth did not appear united and this will inevitably lead to a bitter aftermath. Rajapaksa’s chairmanship of the association for two years, though non-substantial, is controversial. There will be immense pressure on Colombo to perform convincingly on accountability and reconciliation, though Rajapaksa’s domestic lobby remains adamant against concessions to oblige the international community. The United States wishes to impose an international fact-finding team on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014, where the battle will recommence and New Delhi will again feel the pressure of defending its strategic interests against Tamil nationalism led by Chennai.
Mauritius pulled out from hosting the next CHOGM in 2015. Sri Lanka regards this as another manifestation of malign Indian influence, and no doubt Manmohan Singh’s absence provided a spur, but the reality was that for Prime Minister Ramgoolam it was a convenient escape route to avoid the costs of organizing the summit and simultaneously appease Tamil sentiment at home.
The captains and the kings have departed, but an existential threat remains for the Commonwealth. The two biggest donors, Britain and Canada, make no secret of their dismay with the organization and may curtail some funding. Both of them, and Australia and New Zealand, are under political obligation to Tamils domestically. Neither India, a founding member of the modern Commonwealth, nor the other developing countries, can or will fill the fiscal gap. So the Indian secretary-general, Kamalesh Sharma, has been left to put Humpty Dumpty together again without any monetary adhesive.
One more controversy has escaped public notice ~ the headship of the Commonwealth. Nehru and Attlee had provided a solution to republics remaining in the organization through the formula of accepting King George VI as head of the Commonwealth. This was personal to King George. Thereafter Nehru finessed discussion about Elizabeth II by accepting her as the head before it could even be discussed by the Prime Ministers. The headship was never intended as hereditary; it will require unanimous approval by Commonwealth countries when Elizabeth leaves this world. The appointment of Prince Charles as her ‘representative’ in Colombo was of dubious validity and cannot preclude a discussion on the headship when the time comes. If the Queen stays away from the Malta CHOGM in 2105 and nominates Charles as her representative again, awkward questions will have to be asked. Given India’s key role in 1949 and 1952, New Delhi should be the one to raise them.
It is not unusual for the modern Commonwealth, now in its 65th year, to be at a crossroads. In the past it has survived the Nigerian civil war, serious differences over apartheid in southern Africa, the suspension of states for deficiencies in democracy and human rights by a peer group that was not blameless itself, the inclusion of states with a totally dissimilar historical narrative, and the departure of states with grievances over double standards.
Now it faces another crisis, one that is not likely to be surmounted easily; the open emergence of a fault-line on human rights and democracy that always existed between the small rump of developed white countries that founded the Commonwealth as British Dominions, who control the purse strings, and the majority of brown and black relatively newly-independent poor developing countries. The former press the Commonwealth towards constituting a club of good governance and values; the latter, while not contesting the need for such principles, give equal importance to the needs of development, equality, security and particular national circumstances.
That the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) took place in Colombo is itself a source of major frustration for the ‘old’ Dominions, which wanted to censure Sri Lanka for the bloody aftermath of the 30-year gruesome civil war that took place in that nation through a boycott that would have pandered to an agitated Tamil diaspora with political influence in countries like Britain and Canada, and the sanctimonious, largely Anglo-Saxon, Commonwealth civil society. The boycott did not take place due to forceful diplomacy by the Sri Lankans and some tight-rope walking by the Commonwealth Secretariat, but could not prevent the North-South split in Colombo that will cast a long shadow over the organization in years to come.
With their backs to the wall, the Sri Lankans provided excellent facilities at a high cost, and their expected revenues from hosting the event must be below expectation since some nations that habitually travel with large delegations did not attend. Only 26 Presidents and Prime Ministers turned up, which is below the low average of 35 or so for the 53-member organization. Africa was the biggest disappointment, with Cameroon, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria all dropping out in the last week for diverse reasons. Attendance was also low from the Caribbean, perhaps due to financial resources, though it is more possible that Canada, that enjoys influence in the region due to immigration, may have persuaded some leaders not to attend.
From South Asia, other than the Maldives that was holding its presidential election, India was the only one nation absent at the top leadership level, a foolish decision that will have severe consequences for many years to come. Manmohan Singh’s absence was a crass mistake, especially because it was a decision taken so belatedly that it displayed weakness and dithering. The Prime Minister should have ignored the fervid threats from Tamil Nadu and followed the consensus of the rest of India that was solidly in favour of his going, not only to Colombo, but also to Jaffna, where he had been invited by the ruling Tamil party that had won a provincial election in a landslide. His absence enabled David Cameron, Prime Minister of the former colonial power, to become the first head of a foreign government to visit Jaffna after the civil war. Finance Minister Chidambaram, trying to pull some personal chestnuts out of the fire, announces that Manmohan Singh will go to Jaffna, but it is as unlikely that he would be invited by President Rajapaksa as that he would go to a provincial capital and not the capital. How would India react if Nawaz Sharif came to Srinagar and not to Delhi?
Discussions at CHOGM were polarized on human rights and the rule of law between the white Commonwealths versus the rest, with Sri Lanka as the unspoken sub-text. Britain, Canada and New Zealand wanted to grandstand at the summit on values, while countries like South Africa and Tanzania opposed them, especially on the question of Zimbabwe’s election, that the Southern African Development Community had declared free and fair. Developing countries questioned if the present Commonwealth was the same as before, where there had been equality and mutual respect and no blatant show of double standards. The ‘touch of healing’, that Nehru said characterized the Commonwealth, had disappeared.
Sri Lanka received the support of the developing countries and this effectively made human rights a North-South issue. The Commonwealth did not appear united and this will inevitably lead to a bitter aftermath. Rajapaksa’s chairmanship of the association for two years, though non-substantial, is controversial. There will be immense pressure on Colombo to perform convincingly on accountability and reconciliation, though Rajapaksa’s domestic lobby remains adamant against concessions to oblige the international community. The United States wishes to impose an international fact-finding team on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014, where the battle will recommence and New Delhi will again feel the pressure of defending its strategic interests against Tamil nationalism led by Chennai.
Mauritius pulled out from hosting the next CHOGM in 2015. Sri Lanka regards this as another manifestation of malign Indian influence, and no doubt Manmohan Singh’s absence provided a spur, but the reality was that for Prime Minister Ramgoolam it was a convenient escape route to avoid the costs of organizing the summit and simultaneously appease Tamil sentiment at home.
The captains and the kings have departed, but an existential threat remains for the Commonwealth. The two biggest donors, Britain and Canada, make no secret of their dismay with the organization and may curtail some funding. Both of them, and Australia and New Zealand, are under political obligation to Tamils domestically. Neither India, a founding member of the modern Commonwealth, nor the other developing countries, can or will fill the fiscal gap. So the Indian secretary-general, Kamalesh Sharma, has been left to put Humpty Dumpty together again without any monetary adhesive.
One more controversy has escaped public notice ~ the headship of the Commonwealth. Nehru and Attlee had provided a solution to republics remaining in the organization through the formula of accepting King George VI as head of the Commonwealth. This was personal to King George. Thereafter Nehru finessed discussion about Elizabeth II by accepting her as the head before it could even be discussed by the Prime Ministers. The headship was never intended as hereditary; it will require unanimous approval by Commonwealth countries when Elizabeth leaves this world. The appointment of Prince Charles as her ‘representative’ in Colombo was of dubious validity and cannot preclude a discussion on the headship when the time comes. If the Queen stays away from the Malta CHOGM in 2105 and nominates Charles as her representative again, awkward questions will have to be asked. Given India’s key role in 1949 and 1952, New Delhi should be the one to raise them.
No comments:
Post a Comment