Two former leaders, Kaunda and Fraser, call for Commonwealth to re-engage with Zimbabwe on 30th anniversary of Lusaka CHOGM
Posted by AlexT - 06/08/09 at 05:08 pm
Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, former President of Zambia and Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser, former Prime Minster of Australia, said it was time that the Commonwealth engaged proactively with the new Zimbabwean government and welcomed her back into the Commonwealth family.
Fraser said that ‘if Zimbabwe was one of the Commonwealth’s greatest successes, it is also one of its greatest failures’. Kaunda said that the ‘road to recovery that we are now witnessing in Zimbabwe shows that she belongs to the Commonwealth’. Neither predicted that the country to which the Commonwealth gave birth in 1979 would end up leaving in 2003.
In interviews conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society, Fraser and Kaunda said that the Commonwealth can achieve great things if only leaders would make better use of it and take it seriously as a forum to enact change.
The Lusaka Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) took place 30 years ago this week in August 1979. Paving the way for Rhodesian independence, it was a turning point in the history of southern Africa and a defining moment in the life of the Commonwealth.
After a two day retreat at the historic meeting, leaders emerged with a commitment to genuine majority rule in Rhodesia and a promise from British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to hold a London conference Lancaster House ‘that led to Zimbabwean independence in 1980. The Lusaka Declaration on Racism and Racial Prejudice was a clarion call to equality, and remains a fundamental Commonwealth document today.
Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister of Australia from 1975-1983, said:
The Lusaka conference was critical. It showed that the Commonwealth could achieve things that many other organisations could not. If the Commonwealth is to survive as an effective organisation, it should not be shy and retiring. Current leaders, and a strong Secretary-General, must put more effort in to make sure that the Commonwealth achieves its potential.
Dr. Kenneth D. Kaunda, President of Zambia from 1964-1991, said:
The Lusaka CHOGM showed the Commonwealth’s commitment to peace and justice. We actually achieved something, rather than just talking about what should happen. As Heads of Government then, we took the Commonwealth very seriously. We now need to strengthen the organisation, and raise its profile.
Dr. Danny Sriskandarajah, Director of the RCS said:
Lusaka was the Commonwealth at its best. In the 1970s and 80s, the association showed a radical dynamism that today?s leaders would do well to remember. Through the Commonwealth Conversation, the largest ever public consultation about the future of the Commonwealth, the RCS hopes to help the association recapture the spirit of Lusaka.
Read the full transcripts of the Fraser and Kaunda interviews
Category : Historical Legacy, The Commonwealth's Relevance, The Official Commonwealth, homepage items
Tags: Fraser, Kaunda, Lusaka, Zimbabwe
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
The Commonwealth Secretariat have also marked the anniversary of the CHOGM. See here: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/news/34580/34581/211925/050809lusakadeclaration.htm
You can read the full Lusaka Declaration on Racism and Racial Prejudice here:
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/document/181889/34293/35468/35776/lusaka.htm
August 10th, 2009 at 8:13 am
The Dynamism of the late 20th-century Commonwealth is undeniable. Genuine change was enacted, and as we can see today, Zimbabwe is actually on the way up from rock bottom now.
That comment about the Commonwealth “raising its profile” is key. At the present time the Commonwealth has no acknowlegement as the aid and development mechanism that it is. There is just no media coverage. More must be done, and done soon. Quite true, Dr. Kaunda.
Also, taking it seriously as a forum for international change is also key. Right now it seems that the Commonwealth is not taken very seriously. It doesn’t help that national governments in the UK, Australia and Canada have turned pro-American or pro-Europe (both entities inimical to the Commonwealth).
Individuals in member states should push for more commitment to the Commonwealth by their respective governments. There’s not much the Commonwealth can do if there is no effort made by its members.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
FRLowings, thanks for another thought provoking and interesting post. I do also agree that the Commonwealth must raise its profile.
Though when it comes to what you said about governments (in particular UK, Canada and Australia) being pro-European and pro-American to the detriment to the Commonwealth, I would disagree.
This perception is based upon the assumption that losing or gaining influence and relevance in a world of competing regional organisations (such as the European Union) and ?special relationships? (to use a description of the UK/US relationship), is a zero-sum game. By this I mean it assumes that if one gains or loses influence the others have to automatically gain or lose it in equal measures to keep a balance. It assumes that there is only a finite amount of influence and/or relevance available to the Commonwealth (relative to the influence/relevance of the ?special relationship? or EU). I do not think this is correct.
I think the world has moved on in many ways from that of the 1979 CHOGM, and the pro-American and pro-European stance that you speak of is an inevitable part of this change, for better of worse. However, while it is impossible to reverse this trend it does not have to be to the detriment of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth needs to find its own unique value separate from the EU and Pro-Americanism. Once it has done this, it needs to let people know about it, regardless of how much perceived relevance or influence Europe or America has on Commonwealth countries.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The Zambian post wrote an interesting article about the interviews which you can see here: http://www.postzambia.com/content/view/12132/50/
Even more interestingly, Zimbabwe’s own ‘The Herald’ newspaper ran a story about it today as well: http://www1.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=8486&cat=1
August 13th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Thanks RFlowings and Chi for your fantastic comments and thoughts. I do agree with the above comment made by Dr Kaunda that “We now need to strengthen the organisation (Cth), and raise its profile?. but what seems to be the major obstacle is the lack of commitment from the countries involved with the Cth. other factor that I would like to point is that the ‘conflict of interest’ between two neighbouring countries or more is another unavoidable factor which discourages the Cth from implementing its policey which is deemed to be a subject of ‘conflict of interest’ between its member states.
In this regards, strengthening the power of Secretary General and the Cth as a whole may be the most appropriate way to deal with the issues which results a conflict of interest between the member states. Secretary General can play as a role of mediator to resolve this kind of conflict if he/she is given that degree of power. I must also appreciate the current Cth policy of developing and empowering the youth to have a say in the Cth but this policy needs to be more inclusive (providing more opportunities for young people who are from relatively poor economic background, young indigenous and minority grougps etc) so that more voicess of youth can be heard from their diffent corners.
August 16th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Agreed about the Conflict of Interests. The Commonwealth should build itself up as the primary mediator worldwide. It has the most wide-ranging pool of experience and education, and is not hamstrung by the self-serving will of the Nuclear Powers, as the UN frequently is. The Commonwealth should use this inbuild commitment to equality to overcome disagreements in member states. Isn’t that what it’s for? If not, why not?
August 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
?The Commonwealth Conversation?, the on-line discussion established by the Royal Commonwealth Society is a welcome and much-needed initiative which greatly enhances its aim of ?engaging people in the modern Commonwealth through debates, campaigns and educational activities?. Its success has been demonstrated by the important intervention in the debate by the Rt Hon Malcolm Fraser and Dr Kenneth Kaunda.
These respected former leaders of Australia and Zambia, who had key roles at the 1979 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which led to the resolution of the Rhodesian crisis and the founding of Zimbabwe, have called for a more pro-active Commonwealth role in ending the current crisis in that country. Their intervention in the discussion on what the Commonwealth should be doing now, makes it clear that what was achieved at CHOGM in Lusaka in 1979, is a timely reminder of the urgent need that the Commonwealth must and can do more to help resolve the long running Zimbabwe crisis.
However, former Prime Minister Fraser also asks most pertinent questions that deserve further discussion by all who believe in the future of the Commonwealth. ?If the Commonwealth is to survive as an effective organisation, what do you want it to do? Do you want it to be just there to do routine humdrum things and never annoy anyone, never resolve disputes? Or do you want it to be an active player?? asks Mr Fraser, who is clearly of the latter view ? ?the Commonwealth should not be a shy and retiring organisation? and ?the Secretary-General should be an activist?.
Unfortunately, in recent times the Commonwealth appears to have chosen to adopt a more low profile approach to its diplomatic efforts in conflict resolution. This is not to overlook those working diligently within the Commonwealth to resolve many continuing issues, and for which the Commonwealth has enjoyed some success.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that in the wider world the wrong perception remains that the Commonwealth is a relic of Britain?s colonial history, rather than what it is ? a dynamic worldwide grouping of countries with shared democratic and social values enshrined in multi-racial, multi-faith communities. It is true that others associate it with the Commonwealth Games every four years, or the gathering of the leaders of its 53 member countries at CHOGM every two years, which in between busies itself on a limited budget doing what it can to promote its worthy standards of governance and human rights. Furthermore, all too often these important values, while genuinely shared by its constituent peoples, cannot automatically be assumed to be universally enacted by their own leaders, however much such countries that are evidently in breach of agreed Commonwealth standards may claim to the contrary.
By moving decisively now to help resolve the Zimbabwe crisis and supporting the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Commonwealth can once again promote the strength of its collective leadership and shared purpose. After all, SADC which secured the signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) in February 2009, is also the guarantor of that agreement, and there are 11 Commonwealth members within that important regional grouping.
The Commonwealth?s successful re-engagement with Zimbabwe would remind the many sceptics that it serves an essential democratic role and has an appropriate place alongside other important global political groupings that are more widely known and better funded. And we must never forget there is a plethora of Commonwealth organisations that cover every interest group, be it business, education, health, human rights, judiciary, local government, media, parliamentary, youth etc, which are ready and able to play a constructive and supportive role.
Commonwealth members represent a third of the world?s population, and are involved in a quarter of global trade. Furthermore, there is not one major political or economic grouping in the world that does not have a Commonwealth country within its membership. These essential attributes provide the Commonwealth with a unique ability to command international support for its role in helping to resolve this crisis that affects all its member states in Africa. No one should underestimate the ability of Commonwealth countries and organisations, acting together, to involve and influence the entire international community.
In Jacob Zuma, the new President of South Africa, the Commonwealth has an important ally in the fresh impetus for Commonwealth action to ensure that the GPA is fully implemented in Zimbabwe. While all acknowledge Zimbabwe?s Government of National Unity is an imperfect and transitional outcome of last year?s highly controversial elections, it remains the only game in town and deserves every encouragement, if the continuing difficulties faced by Zimbabwe and its people are to have any chance of sustainable democratic progress.
Much-needed inward investment will not be sufficient to the huge reconstruction tasks ahead until law and order is the universally acknowledged rule, not the unaccountable exception. And those with a vested interest in a totally unacceptable status quo must be made to accept the new reality. Only then can Zimbabwe be expected to rejoin the Commonwealth, whose democratic standards and procedures provide important benchmarks that rightly must be met.
Therefore, the softly softly approach so beloved of diplomatic mandarins and those whose actions help to maintain the present iniquities must give way to clear and responsible leadership from a Commonwealth, whose influence when it is united and fully committed can be so much more than the sum of its individual members.
Between now and the CHOGM in Trinidad and Tobago, in close partnership with SADC and the eleven Commonwealth members within it, everything must be done by Commonwealth leaders to assist the Zimbabwe Government to achieve the full implementation of the GPA. Then and only then will real progress be possible. And all should be watching the Commonwealth to see whether the kind of leadership that was so evident in Lusaka in 1979, will once again be given unstoppable momentum.
Meanwhile, although the Commonwealth works on a consensual basis, on the matter of Zimbabwe and other contentious issues within the Commonwealth, it is clear that strong leadership and the constructive involvement of Commonwealth member countries is required. So while unanimity is obviously preferable, this may not always be possible. More important is the urgent requirement to help Zimbabwe meet and uphold agreed Commonwealth standards that will eventually allow its full re-admission to the welcoming Commonwealth family and the wider international community. And the Secretary-General must give the lead, which would establish his moral authority at a time when the effectiveness of Marlborough House is increasingly being questioned.
Finally, in addition to the inevitable misty-eyed recollections of its successes, what better and more practical way could there be to mark the Commonwealth?s 60th Anniversary and signal its current and future relevance, than for it to be one of the influential parties that secure an acceptable democratic future for Zimbabwe.
Both the Commonwealth and Zimbabwe need and deserve nothing less!
August 17th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
The Commonwealth and the CMAG needs a deep analysis into the future direction and engagement with member states that have moved against the commonwealth principles, but the simple question i will ask our leaders is where is the position of the commonwealth in conflict and peace building , if the only option is disengagement?
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Many political issues in Africa revolve around the issue of Induku Enkhulu ? a timely Zulu phrase meaning The Big Stick. A Tribal Chief who holds the Big Stick should use it. Why should he hand it over to some new upstart, particularly from another tribe? Even if not another tribe. Hence the deeply ingrained objection to any opposition to the sitting Chief. Robert Gabriel Mugabe has said quite openly that the trouble with the opposition is that ?it wants to rule?. What a clear statement of this tyrant?s position against an opposition, what a denial of democracy! And it is backed by a determined resistance to the very idea of an open society, and all those values which true democrats share – free expression, free press, independent judiciary.
Historically, colonial powers all used the Big Stick in Africa – Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain. Africa used it: the Zulus crushed other tribes in their mfecane. Hitler tried, nearly succeeded, Japan tried, nearly succeeded. Since time immemorial Islam and Christianity have tried to use God to make the people believe that their Big Stick was legitimate. Islam sometimes wins in Africa because an Ayatollah knows how to use it.
Now comes democracy and the advanced concept of Commonwealth. It holds only a small stick, few carrots, and it must win against tyranny in Africa – particularly on its 60th Anniversary – to secure ?an acceptable democratic future for Zimbabwe.?
Just because he does not yield my proverbial Big Stick, the Secretary-General should be made strong as is possible in non-military terms. He should be provided with resources and ?powers? of the corporate kind to enable him to do his job, to spread the word, to influence the world. For many in the Commonwealth he is more important for our future than his counterpart in the UN.
What does one want the Commonwealth to do? We want it to LEAD in a changing world, and this means lead in a cerebral, intellectual and policy sense as an organization committed to democratic principles in a divided and diverse world. Those principles are the hope for our world, and resources devoted to that hope are more useful than any devoted to religious hegemony, space exploration or war!
Leadership means that leaders must act when followers distort its principles. The Commonwealth?s multi-racial, multi-faith communities are the world. And clearly in the matter of Zimbabwe, SADC leaders need to be much more positively encouraged to achieve a resolution of an unacceptable situation, given that no fewer than 11 of them are also members of the Commonwealth. The clear evidence of the successful CHOGM in Lusaka in 1979 provides a timely reminder and call to action.
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
The Secretary-General’s position should indeed have more power behind it… but I do not think that a ‘cerebral, intellectual’ organisation should concern itself too far with acting as a ressurected world policeman.
In Ximbabwe, the Commonwealth should be training. It should be repairing the judiciary and police force, not dictating policy to a unity government too divided to do anything about it.
I believe that the Commonwealth’s role in Zimbabwe is not necessarily to act as a kind of consensus superpower. It is there to do the groundwork.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Intellectual and cerebral leadership involves more than police work: more the protection of those key democratic values fought for so valiantly by British – and American – people over the years: free expression, free press, freedom of association, independent judiciary. But I take your point.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:29 am
As my friends (yes, just the two imaginary ones) know only
too well, I pride myself on my ignorance. There is no topic so simple, no logic so straightforward, that I cannot help but fail to fathom its most basic concepts.
This past weekend, however, my stupidity amazed even me.
Reading the Kaunda/Fraser interviews I confess to being truly gobsmacked…speechless almost. But sadly for you, my fellow Commonwealth Conversationalist, nowhere near dumbstruck enough. I can’t let their musings pass by without comment.
The Kaunda/Fraser duo is perfectly matched for fame
and calamity. One is clueless. The other plays clueless. Weren?t they both prominent in the Commonwealth but left no imprint on it that endures. They followed the crowd.
What made the Commonwealth succeed in the past is staring them in the face but they are shy to say it. The Commonwealth and especially the CHOGM is a crowd of people and crowds as everyone knows, DO NOT think, they emote. ?Group-think? is an oxymoron, there is no such thing. Only individuals think. When they both were in the crowd they did not think much, one even spent 27 years in power without cultivating competent leaders under him
They get one thing right, Sonny Ramphal was a activist and a thinker. For the Commonwealth to succeed it should reward courageous individuals who make a difference. Alas, courage cannot be found in a crowd, it is rare, it is fleeting and is never found in anything ?common?.
This commonwealth conversation between individuals is a very good start. It may bring out some individuals who have courage. That is what?s needed to bring life to the Commonwealth. But why is the Commonwealth dying?
In life there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are just consequences and of course we all know Mother Nature is a hanging judge. If you do not evolve she consigns you with the dinosaurs. The increasing irrelevance of the Commonwealth is a result of doing very little. The Lusaka CHOGM that speeded the Zimbabwe settlement was a ?Black Swan? . Period.
Some say it achieves much behind the scenes but really that is like winking in the dark ? one may know what he/she is doing but no one else does.
Good, productive social behaviour is shaped by
incentives and disincentives. These take various forms.
Incentives may be material (greater wealth, social status, recognition and disincentives maybe fear, social exclusion and beatings!
Putting aside the fact that the Commonwealth hasn?t got a big stick to thrash even the errant Zimbabwe, how brilliant would it have been for it reward good behaviour in individuals instead of leaving it to the likes of the brilliant Mo Ibrahim to recognize the Mozambique president who left office honorably.
The Commonwealth should have in place a recognition/reward package for Zuma for his forthcoming intervention in Zimbabwe. He is a prime candidate for the status an organization like the Commonwealth could endow. He needs some rehabilitation in the eyes of the wider world.(Admittedly this author is a convert to Zuma?s side).
In the Commonwealth, the priorities are tilted in the wrong direction, failing to reward good behaviour, being too softhearted about chastising the bad, and diverting scarce resources towards those making the least effort to improve themselves ? like my beloved Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth should make us see what good governance does for the leaders or individuals of Zambia, Malawi, etc. We see little besides that they belong to the club and perhaps one of their leaders will be invited to dance with Harriet Harmann at the next CHOGM in Trinidad and Tobago.
Finally the decline of the Commonwealth can be traced to that greatest delusion: it cannot be a political, social, economic, business, educational, democracy-spreading, human rights, force all at once.
“When the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.” (From “Toward a Psychology of Being” (1962)). The Commonwealth can?t do everything. It should sharpen its focus.
Delusions to the Commonwealth are like salt pellets to a slug…it will make it froth and bulge until its essence expires.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Hah! Cleverly written and pretty much all correct. I agree that Individual leadership is what is required and your kudos-based reward package seems like a good idea.
Not enough is done today to encourage the good. Absolutely right on that score. Although the HIV-denying, Corrupt ex-magistare Zuma is hardly a model, it is true that intervention with positive results is definitely worth rewarding.
Some nice lateral thinking there, Shane Lunga.