The Commonwealth Conversation

Assessing the Commonwealth’s success and value

This post was written by Hugh Craft, a senior Australian diplomat and former Director of Political Affairs Division, Commonwealth Secretariat (1979-88)

An international intergovernmental organisation, like the Commonwealth, can be assessed as performing well (or badly) on the basis of two factors: functionality, how it performs in fulfilling its prescribed mandate(s); and outcomes, its results, actions, consequences and the value of its products.

As to functional integrity, the modern Commonwealth’s only prescribed ‘mandate’ is to work for the peaceful resolution of conflict, democratic governance and the rule of law, sustainable economic and social development.

The best indicator of success is that these principles are still relevant to the aspirations of its member states. Yet, strangely, some serious threats to the Commonwealth’s effective future come from member states themselves.

• First, member governments perpetuate outdated and uneven budgetary arrangements, largely unchanged in 60 years and dependent on the British. Key members, developed and developing alike, need to accept greater responsibility for providing their fair share of funding.
• Second, and related, is the relatively recent emphasis by developing countries on constant reviews of the Secretariat, resulting in skewed priorities and fewer resources in the field.
• Third, the Commonwealth needs robust leadership, both from individuals and governments within its ranks. This includes a progressive, imaginative and bold Secretariat, sometimes adventurous in the spirit of Sonny Ramphal (former Secretary-General).

If the Commonwealth wants to attract funding, it needs to constantly lift its performance and maintain a keen sense of focus. But leadership is also needed from governments who understand the value and utility of Commonwealth diplomacy and are prepared to use it.

As to performance, the Commonwealth’s record is mixed but mainly positive. That it exercised a major positive role in South Africa and Zimbabwe in the 1980s is undisputed.  Similarly, its contribution in support of democratic institutions in the Maldives, Uganda, Tonga, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Zanzibar and Guyana are all good examples.

Furthermore, its continuing leadership on small states and its intellectual and political contribution to world economic and trade initiatives are widely recognised.

However, the seeming incapacity of the Commonwealth to play any significant role in critical issues involving member states and which pose major security concerns to the international community remains a major negative. These include the virtual ‘no go’ areas such as the ongoing disputes between India and Pakistan, the civil war in Sri Lanka and the recalcitrant Cyprus problem. Similarly, lingering unresolved issues such as the rehabilitation of Zimbabwe and affirming a constructive role for CMAG as its ‘watchdog’ especially in Pakistan and Fiji, remain.

New challenges bring the chance of wider relevance: its most recent members joining from unexpected sources and the threat of climate change to small island states. Who else speaks for them?

In the end, success for international organisations is judged on the practical, qualitative difference they make on the ground to people’s lives and prospects. There is a renewed interest in multilateralism that provides the Commonwealth with opportunities to prove itself again. The ‘moment’ needs to be grasped to sustain the Commonwealth’s relevance and value into the 21^st century.

Category : Climate Change & Environment, Historical Legacy, The Commonwealth's Relevance, The Official Commonwealth
Tags: CHOGM, CMAG, gambia, Secretariat, Sri Lanka
Stay Updated :  RSS 2.0 feed.