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• First, member governments perpetuate outdated and uneven budgetary arrangements, largely unchanged in 60 years and dependent on the British.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.

In an article published on Tuesday 20th October 2009, in Caribbean Net News, Maja Daruwala, Executive Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative has called for CMAG reform to be top of the agenda at the Trinidad CHOGM. CMAG is the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group – the Commonwealth watchdog on human rights abuses.

Today, CMAG must be able to deal quickly and unequivocally with situations of constant threats to human rights values by Commonwealth states and open challenges encapsulated in statements like the latest one by President Jammeh of the Gambia where he is unequivocal in his opposition to the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values when he declares on the eve of his departure to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting:

“I will kill anyone, who wants to destabilize this country. If you think that you can collaborate with so called human rights defenders, and get away with it, you must be living in a dream world. I will kill you, and nothing will come out of it. We are not going to condone people posing as human rights defenders to the detriment of the country. If you are affiliated with any human rights group, be rest assured that your security and personal safety would not be guaranteed by my Government. We are ready to kill saboteurs.”

While CMAG has its share of successes, lately there have instances where it has not lived up to expectations. For example in the case of Sri Lanka, reports of large scale civilian deaths, impunity and stifling of human rights in Sri Lanka continued to emerge throughout 2008 and 2009 but CMAG has refused to put Sri Lanka in its agenda. The additional irony is that Sri Lanka itself continues to serve as a member of CMAG during this period for a third consecutive (two year) term contrary to the 1999 Durban Communiqué that limits a country to a maximum of two consecutive terms.

CMAG has also been silent on other parts of the Commonwealth, for instance during the post election violence in Kenya in 2007, when freedom of assembly was curtailed in Malaysia in 2007, and for a long while on the Gambia where many basic human rights are heavily curtailed.

It is worrying to note that the CMAG has by and by interpreted its mandate very narrowly to focus only on the un-constitutional overthrow of governments albeit selectively. While my organisation welcomes the recent suspension of Fiji from the Commonwealth as well as the earlier suspension of Pakistan in 2007, CMAG’s non-action on Bangladesh when there was an army backed government in 2006 has left political activists and civil society organisations monitoring CMAG meetings wondering about its yardsticks.

Fiji is currently getting that treatment because it has abrogated its constitution, entrenched authoritarian rule under military ruler Commodore Bainimarama, violated human rights, freedom of speech and assembly, detained opponents, and undermined the judiciary.

The Commonwealth was the first international organisation to create such machinery of self-discipline. Heads of government produced it at their Auckland summit in 1995. A main aim was to prevent power being seized from legally elected governments.

Over the years – right from the time General Ayub Khan took over Pakistan in 1958 – a small number of Commonwealth countries have suffered coups. Sometimes as many as three or four military rulers sat at Commonwealth meetings.

At Auckland this was stopped. Under what is called the Millbrook Action Programme no military ruler has since taken part in Commonwealth summits.

Soon after Don McKinnon became secretary-general in 2000 he told the UN Assembly it should take a lead from the Commonwealth and copy it.

Since then one or two military takeovers have happened. General Pervez Musharaff took over Pakistan in 1999 and Fiji again fell under military rule.

CMAG demanded Musharraf remove his uniform or stop being head of state. He did not and Pakistan was twice suspended from the Commonwealth.

Nigeria, when it was under the brutal of General Sani Abacha, was suspended on the introduction of Millbrook. Fiji has been suspended since 2006.

CMAG consists of nine foreign ministers who serve two-year terms on a rotating basis. They meet at least twice a year.

Millbrook lays down that steps have to be taken against a country in the event of an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government?. If democracy is not restored after two years the country is barred from Heads of Government meetings and ministerial meetings termed the ‘councils of the Commonwealth.’

If no progress is made it faces trade restrictions and all official and civil society contacts are cut off. This is called full suspension.

At the 31 July meeting in London Fiji was ordered to implement its promised dialogue on a return to democratic rule and hold elections by October 2010 or be fully suspended.

The question now facing the Commonwealth is whether after 15 years experience the CMAG machinery needs to be reviewed and toughened up a bit. There are loose ends.

A number of member countries are not measuring up to the Commonwealth principles. The regime in The Gambia, for instance, is extremely harsh with little attention paid to human rights and no freedom of expression.

It will not be easy to tighten up the CMAG rules and there is no sign that most Commonwealth countries have an appetite for it. The process involves a degree of intervention in members’ internal affairs.

Countries are naturally nervous of loss of sovereignty, yet the reality is that in this age of globalisation sovereignty has already been eroded almost everywhere in order to tackle massive problems such as are now being created by climate change.

Membership of regional associations already involves a certain amount of loss of sovereignty. Britain’s membership of the European Union is just one example.

This article was written for the RCS by veteran Commonwealth journalist Derek Ingram.

CMAG stressed that such a Dialogue must be independent, inclusive, time-bound and without any pre-determined outcome, and lead to credible elections in the country no later than October 2010. If these conditions are not met by 1^st September 2009, Fiji will be fully suspended from the Commonwealth.

FULL TEXT OF 31 JULY 2009 CMAG STATEMENT

The CMAG is the Commonwealth’s mechanism to deal with serious or persistent violations of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values laid down in the Harare Declaration.

Fiji was suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth in December 2006, following the military overthrow of the Pacific Island state?s democratically elected government. Fiji remains in contravention of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. See here for an example.

Do you think the Commonwealth should have acted more decisively today to suspend Fiji from the Commonwealth? Or do you think Commonwealth Foreign Ministers are right to try to affect change in Fiji by keeping her, at least partially, within the fold?

Let us know by posting your comments below?

In his article, printed in the December 2008 issue of The Round Table, The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, Amitav Banerji explains that the 1971 Singapore Declaration of Commownealth Principles, the Harare Declaration in 1991, the formation of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) in 1995, and its election observation missions and ‘good offices’ role, all make the Commonwealth a ‘contemporary force for democracy’.

But he concludes that democracy and development are organically inter-related: ‘If the Commonwealth is to be a force for democracy in the 21st century, it must therefore also be a force for development in that century’.

Why not read a full, free version of Amitav Banerji’s article here, on The Round Table website. And then let us know what you think by commenting below. . .

THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS: A FORCE FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY, THE ROUND TABLE, VOL. 97, NO 399, 819-823, DECEMBER 2008