Commonwealth should not be shy about its core values, says Aus Foreign Minister
Posted by AlexT - 06/10/09 at 04:10 pm
The Hon. Steven Smith MP, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, tells the Commonwealth Conversation that the association shouldn’t be shy about focussing on its core strength – democracy. Do you agree?
Transcript:
I think the great strength of the Commonwealth is that, historically, it has made governance, democracy and the rule of law its priority and I think that should continue to be its core business and its core strength.
There is nothing wrong with having a long standing history of working for democratic ideals. And the Commonwealth should not be shy about proselytizing that for the future.
Core business has been democracy over the years, and my view is that it should continue. We might want to give it a modern face with a website here and there, but essentially the continuation of core business is what the Commonwealth should be doing.
Category : Democracy & Good Governance, homepage items, The Commonwealth's Relevance
Tags: Australia, democracy, Smith
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Does this mean things staying as they are?
Or beefing up existing infrastructures ? making the Commonwealth a specialist in election monitoring for instance.
Better to specialise than spread yourself too thin.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
[...] has been thrown into sharp relief over the last few days. Have a look at the video clips from the Australian and British Foreign Ministers.?One quite clearly believes that?protecting and promoting democracy [...]
October 7th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I think this is another correct, far-reaching and utterly unsupported statement by the Australian Foreign Minister. While it is hard for politicians to express an opinion on an issue of diplomacy, Hon. Smith has still failed to give any examples of what ‘business as usual’ means.
But he’s right anyway. This is a key thing: Having a history of working for democracy. What’s the one event the Commonwealth never recalls? The First and Second World wars, when member states successfully fought back militarism because they believed there was a better way. And then, to show how much Cth meant it, it layed down its arms and tried to build up world peace!
The Commonwealth has had a long history of democratisation, even when it goes wrong. Holding to the letter on good governance and the rule of Law is definitely something we have to maintain.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I agree with what Steven Smith says, the core business of the Commonwealth is democracy. But in order to continue with it’s project I believe that the Commonwealth needs stronger leadership and must not shy away from courting controversy by criticizing member states that stray away from it’s principles.Only by standing firm on these issues can it remain a credible organization for the 21st century.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Most certainly a core value of the Commonwealth is the rule of law based on the common law principles of equity and justice that allows all individuals equal access to the common well of the global village so all may benefit from the wealth created.
It has been said that the common law is nothing more then refined logic and that the application of the common law is an educated reflex to facts.
In a global economy the common law offers us certainty based on the concept of sanctity of contracts entered into by willing parties.
This is our legacy and it should be our core value to be shared with the whole world through all international forums of commercial and social interaction.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Yes indeed. Where was this democratic knight in shining armour when fiji became a dictatorship? How long did it take them to do something about it?
October 9th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Hi Sidda
I slightly agree with you in terms of the issue of the common law principles of equality and social justice. At present, there seems to be two different forms of equality that have been discussed and argued by many academics and HR activists. Some are of the opinion of ‘formal equality’(this group argues that as long as people are treated the same way, regardless of their differences, there is equality)while another group of people argue that formal equality masks the inequalities in society and that we should be attempting to achieve real or ?substantive equality? which means we may have to treat people in similar circumstances differently (ie special measures)in order to redress the effects of prior discriminatory practices.
So far my understanding, it seems common law principles are still based on the so called ?formal equality? which, in other words, rather increases the inequality in the society. Therefore, I suggest Cth should be clear about its position on equality issues particularly equality for Indigenous peoples, minority groups, LGBT issues
October 9th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Under no circumstances should the Commonwealth become involved in retrospective redress for ‘prior inequalities’. While we must recognise that quality of life in member states may vary between economic or racial distinctions (and as the result of historical events) it is no part of the Commonwealth’s job to edit history. The modern attempts to do so (land redistribution in sub-saharan Africa, for example) have invariably led to social and economic disaster.
No, Siddha is quite right in stating that working with a Common Law is the way to equalise society. When everyone is equal before a single, arbitrary law, that is the essence of equality. In terms of quality of life, of course it is up to National governments to bring their most deprived families up to a comfortable standard of living. Mong makes a good point: the Commonwealth’s position has always been unclear on this issue of rights for minorities, indigenous groups etc.
It either needs to state openly that it is for fairness and justice internationally (and it will fight to defend those principles), OR the rights of national sovereignty. Draw the lines now, don’t cross them, and everyone knows where they stand (not mixing metaphors too much I hope)
October 11th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I agree with mr smith. the commonwealth should stick to what it knows best
October 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am
i think the phrase ‘shouldnt be shy’ is key. ever since bush and blair shouting from the roof-tops about democracy isnt the done thing.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Yes, I would agree Tim. There is nothing wrong about standing up for free and fair elections. I think the Commonwealth should recapture its voice on these issues.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully made some strong statements about their joint ambition for a stronger CMAG in a recent press conference. See the statement here: http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2010/100203_pc.html
April 9th, 2010 at 3:35 am
Perhaps the Commonwealth core values are more about leadership and unity? Having a voice in the democratic process is good, but also difficult when there are many voices and many views, all valid. Unity in the nation and unity amongst Commowealth countries would be better to build sustainable strength.