Weakening Commonwealth needs dose of ambition

The largest-ever public consultation on the future of the Commonwealth concludes with a call for bold reform and greater investment if the 54-member association is to avoid being marginalised in an increasingly crowded marketplace. ‘An Uncommon Association, A Wealth of Potential’, the final report of the Commonwealth Conversation, is published today to coincide with annual Commonwealth Day celebrations around the world. Click here to download a summary of the final recommendations or the full report.

Once a major player on the world stage, the report argues that the association has neither the clout nor the resources to fulfil its potential. Its official institutions, charged with promoting development and democracy across its member states, have a workforce half a percent of the United Nations and an annual budget one percent of that of the UK Department for International Development. The Secretariat’s budget has dropped by 21 percent in real terms within the last twenty years, despite the number of Commonwealth members rising from 48 to 54.

The report also argues that additional funding will be no panacea. The association is perceived as failing to live out its values and principles. Bolder leadership, more ambition and innovation, and a better use of its unique strengths will be crucial to long-term survival.

Run by The Royal Commonwealth Society between July 2009 and March 2010, the Commonwealth Conversation gathered the opinions of tens of thousands of people through a range of methods including a website, opinion polling, surveys, events and online focus groups. Its final report contains ten recommendations for the whole Commonwealth “family”:

1. The Commonwealth must “walk the talk” on the values and principles it claims to stand for.  
2. The Commonwealth needs stronger leadership if it is to have a meaningful voice on world affairs.  
3. The Commonwealth is often seen as anachronistic and fusty. It needs to become bolder and much more innovative in the ways that it works. 
4. To attract more investment and correct misperceptions of being largely ceremonial, the Commonwealth needs to prove its worth by measuring and demonstrating its impact. 
5. The Commonwealth must stop spreading its limited resources too thinly and instead identify and exploit its unique strengths.  
6. Greater investment is needed if the Commonwealth is to fulfil its potential.
7. The Commonwealth is a complex association. It must clearly communicate its identity, purpose and achievements in an accessible way.
8. Lengthy Commonwealth communiqués and statements appear unfocused and unattainable. They must be used to set priorities.
9. The Commonwealth is as much an association of peoples as it is of governments. The interaction between the two requires significant improvement.
10. The Commonwealth is often seen as elitist. It must reach wider, become less insular and engage beyond narrow Commonwealth circles.    

Director of the Royal Commonwealth Society, Dr Danny Sriskandarajah said:

“The Commonwealth needs a bold 21^st century makeover. At its founding, Nehru had ambitious hopes that the Commonwealth could bring a “touch of healing” to the world. But, today, the Secretariat’s annual budget is less than what British people spend daily on health and beauty products.

More money will help, but to fulfil its potential, the Commonwealth must make more innovative use of its resources and networks. I hope the results of this consultation will act as the catalyst for change.”

DOWNLOAD Press Release

DOWNLOAD Summary Recommendations

DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT: An Uncommon Association, A Wealth of Potential

DOWNLOAD ‘Common What?’, Emerging Findings of the Commonwealth Conversation

View Final Director’s Blog

In the middle of organizations such as the United Nations, and the European Union, and even international religious bodies such as the World Council of Churches, identity and questions about who we are as a people and how we are to be as citizens are critical for discernment, discretion and direction.  And thus, citizenship, within the Commonwealth of Nations, could be a valuable a subject of debate and discussion.

The Commonwealth is host of nations who claim good government, justice, and human rights as essential in the context of international relationships.  As technology provides the means of easy international mobility like never before, who we are as global citizens, or at least, citizens of the commonwealth, needs to be considered with personal awareness along side of national claims and the place where we are in the world among all peoples. 

How do we cross borders with integrity and honesty?  How do we intersect with those who claim a different geographic territory as exclusively belonging to them with respect and dignity?  What standards do we follow when boundaries tend to divide rather than bring different understandings together in harmony and peace, in fairness and wellbeing?

How can a deep level of appreciation and acceptance be achieved for the plurality of various traditions, legends, narratives, customs, colours , cultures, and creeds?

In what ways are policies and proclamations of immigration impacted with a visible and tangible form of a common citizenship of the Commonwealth?

 The Commonwealth is a vibrant and growing association of states working together in a spirit of cooperation, partnership and understanding.  With the vision and wisdom of the Harare Declaration, a common citizenship among all peoples of the Commonwealth could be possible.

David Spence, RCS Council of Mainland British Columbia

In their initial press release, the Commonwealth Election Observation Mission, which is being chaired by former Jamaican Foreign Minister Mr K D Knight, said they saw ‘a generally well-administered election day but shortcomings in the pre-election period and incidences of inter-party violence taint election’. Read the full press release here on the Commonwealth Secretariat website.

In an article published in The Times newspaper on 3 February 2010, South Asia correspondent Jeremy Page said that the Sri Lankan election is a rare chance for the Commonwealth to play a leading role on the world stage.

For the first time in two years, the Commonwealth may have a chance to raise concerns about deteriorating political freedom in South Asia’s oldest democracy. If it speaks out, it is sure to upset Sri Lanka and maybe some other Commonwealth members with questionable democratic credentials. If it pulls its punches, however, it risks undermining the Commonwealth’s core principles, and setting a poor precedent for other members.

Read the full article on The Times Online here, and let us know what you think below.

Lord David Howell, Deputy Conservative Leader in the House of Lords and Chair of the 1996 Foreign Affairs Committee report on the Future of the Commonwealth, stresses how everyone seems to be noticing the Commonwealth except in the UK. His article gives some ‘Royal Foreign Policy Advice’.

Has anyone noticed how, in the evolving global order of things, the Commonwealth is climbing steadily up the agenda of importance, relevance and potential? The Queen has certainly noticed, and devoted half her Christmas Day broadcast to explaining how the Commonwealth was ‘in lots of ways the face of the future’. Her husband has also noticed, and through his support for the Duke of Edinburgh’s Commonwealth Study Conference (next one due in 2013) is responding precisely to HM’s call for the Commonwealth to gather young people together to ‘bring creativity and innovation’ to global challenges, as well as practical solutions..

The President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy also seems to have noticed, because it was he who turned up at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago to seek stronger support from the Commonwealth network  for his international aims. And so has the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, also attending the Trinidad gathering.

So also have leading Japanese politicians, who now make regular enquiries about Commonwealth events and ask to attend them. So have a lengthening queue of smaller states applying for membership, of which the latest to be admitted is cricket-playing, and now English-learning, Rwanda.

So have a whole raft of international business investors who are moving growing volumes of capital and technology from one part of the Commonwealth to another – e.g from Canada to the Caribbean, from India to South Africa, from Australia to Malaysia – in a criss-cross pattern of south-south capital flows which are replacing the old north-south stereotypes.  

But come nearer home and things look rather different. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) publications studiously downgrade the development of the Commonwealth network in their international priorities, putting the UN and the EU top of the list, and forgetting the ‘C’ in their nameplate.

For the Tories, William Hague has been making increasingly strong statements about the emerging Commonwealth soft power network and its growing significance for British interests, but Hague is not yet in the Government and has yet to contend with the blinkered disdain of the Whitehall foreign policy establishment.

What is it about this colossal trans-continental network, covering almost a third of the human race, that excites the wider world and yet attracts so little interest in London?

First there is history and second there is suspicion of rivalry with other current objectives.

The history problem is that with the end of empire the Commonwealth came to be seen a  sort of compensation, a Britain-centred club or talking shop  for remembering the old days, along with plenty of post-colonial grumbles, a touch of nostalgia and not much else. It was simply not noticed that out of the old chrysalis was emerging an entirely new entity, composed not of  mostly struggling low-income states but of some of the world’s most dynamic and fastest–growing economies and markets, and with booming India, not  Britain as its centrepiece. Nor was it noticed –and still in many quarters has not yet been – that in the information age the subtle commonalties and interfaces of Commonwealth membership were becoming just as important to British national interests and security as traditional hard power deployments – possibly more so.

The other hang-up – that somehow giving a more central place in UK foreign policy to the Commonwealth network distracts from Britain’s other priorities on the world stage, notably effective membership of the EU, of the Atlantic Alliance and the UN, reveals even weaker understanding of the new international architecture. There is no conflict at all between being good Europeans, with strong commitment to regional cooperation and interests, and stronger Commonwealth ties. Perhaps there was once, way back when the UK first joined the European Community, but that was many yesterdays ago in a world of different trade patterns, different communication patterns and different distributions of power.

On the contrary, the UK might well be doing rather better in the unending manoeuvres and tussles over the EU’s future between integrationists and decentralisers, (of which the Lisbon Treaty is only one pause in a constant struggle), if it had put Commonwealth network interests more vigorously to the fore. Besides, the EU and the Commonwealth are two quite different components of the 21^st century global system – the one seeking to consolidate regional bargaining power and solidarity of broadly similar cultures, the other linking together in a fascinating mosaic of formal and informal ties and associations a far wider grouping of powers, cultures and philosophies. (The last UK Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on The Future of the Commonwealth, counted 202 non-governmental Commonwealth organizations and 46 official ones).

Is the expanding Commonwealth network treading on UN toes? Again, the answer is that it offers a different kind of platform on which nations can cooperate – and one which is more friendly and intimate, especially for smaller nations. It should be seen as a necessary 21^st century add-on or reinforcement to the world’s 20^th century institutions. 

The weaknesses of the UN system were on agonising display at Copenhagen. The strengths of the Commonwealth system were very visible, for anyone who cared to study them, when they addressed climate issues, security and peace-keeping issues, development dilemmas, common problems from the financial turmoil fall-out and a host of other immediate challenges at their recent Trinidad gathering. When it comes to resolving the core conflict of the age between sustainable future growth and defeating present poverty – which more or less sunk the Copenhagen gathering –  the dialogue between today’s and tomorrow’s Commonwealth leaders seems to offer a distinctly better – and happier – forum for the key reconciliation of purposes the world now requires.

We are seeing here the new international system in action. And if the question is ‘what’s in it for the UK?’, the answer is that it is increasingly good for business. As the balance of global power shifts eastwards and outwards the modern Commonwealth network now links us into some of the world’s fastest expanding markets and largest sources of savings and capital investment, at a time when the limping West badly needs both.  

The Commonwealth is indeed, in the Queen’s phrase, ‘the face of the future’. But are the Queen’s Ministers and subjects listening?

Derek Ingram, veteran Commonwealth journalist, muses on the association’s finances:

One of the best outcomes of the recent Commonwealth summit in Trinidad was that at long last the leaders agreed to rationalise the organisation’s finances. Many people are under the impression that the Commonwealth costs a lot of money. Nothing could be further from the truth…

For an organisation of 54 countries it is run on a shoestring. It is right that the Commonwealth is a lean operation and, as in many ways, an example to others. On the other hand, to be effective it must have adequate resources for its worldwide activity. This has never been the case – and it still isn’t.

The situation is complicated. The price of membership is a country’s subscription to the Secretariat and that is compulsory. All the other Commonwealth organisations are run on countries’ voluntary pledges. The biggest is the development aid arm, the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation (CFTC). The others are the Commonwealth Youth Programme (CYP), the Commonwealth of Learning (COL), based in Vancouver, and the Commonwealth Media Development Fund (CMDF). The CFTC pledges in 2008-9 totalled £28.1, COL £6.9 m and the CYP £2.7. The Commonwealth Foundation is a separate entity housed with the Secretariat in Marlborough House. Its budget was £3.9 million.

In addition are the 90-odd organisations that make what is now called civil society, some tiny and comparatively new and others like the Royal Commonwealth Society and the Commonwealth Telecommunications Centre that are large and over a century old. In between are substantial bodies such the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Association of Commonwealth Universities, the Commonwealth Games Federation and the Commonwealth Business Council.

For 20 years, a period of considerable inflation, the Secretariat contribution scales were frozen. In 2007-8 the budget still totalled only £14.2 million. One major factor helps to keep this low: Marlborough House is on permanent loan from the Queen and therefore accommodation costs are minimal. Member countries’ payments are on a percentage basis ranging from £4.2 million from the UK to £49,157 from small states like Samoa.

After years of tension and tough argument the freeze on levels of contribtuions has been lifted, and in Trinidad it was agreed that the scale will be reviewed every five years. This makes sense since members’ economies rise and fall. Many smaller countries are no longer in the “developing” category – places like Mauritius, Malta, Cyprus, Singapore, Trinidad, Barbados, Bahamas, and Brunei and can well afford to move up the scale. India, which in recent years has funded a growing number of Commonwealth projects, has paid till now only £474,407 subscription to the Secretariat.

Some countries, India among them, have agreed to raise their contributions considerably – eight by around 25 per cent and a ninth has doubled its money. Some smaller countries will pay a little less, but hopefully will pass on their savings to the CFTC and the CYP. All this is good news, but the long-term aim must be to get a better balance so that there is a much reduced disparity between the old member countries – UK, Canada, Australia – and the rest. This would give it all less of a look of the old British Commonwealth. Alas, under the changes agreed in Trinidad these three will proportionately be giving a little more.

Activist Peter Tatchell tells the Commonwealth Conversation that the criminalisation of homosexuality is not consistent with the Commonwealths values of human rights and democracy.

Tatchell gained international celebrity for his attempted citizens arrest of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in 1999 and 2001 on charges of torture and other human rights abuses.

Transcript:

Over 70 countries still criminalise homosexuality in all circumstances, with penalties ranging from a few years jail to life imprisonment and even execution.

More than half of these countries are members of the Commonwealth, and their anti-gay laws were originally imposed on those nations during the period of British colonial rule. They are not authentic national laws, they are imposed by imperialism.

I find it very strange that these now independent nations have retained the anti-gay laws that were imposed upon them by their former colonial masters. That is not consistent with national sovereignty and independence.

It?s also quite shocking that these countries have these homophobic laws because the Commonwealth is committed to democracy and human rights.

Persecuting and discriminating against citizens because of their sexuality or gender identification is not consistent with human rights. Moreover, all of these countries have signed international human rights declarations, pledging to observe equal treatment and non-discrimination. And those international instruments do not discriminate. They say that everyone in every country is entitled to equal rights and protection against discrimination.

Yet, in so many Commonwealth countries, we find that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are consistently and often viciously persecuted.

In a country like Uganda, male homosexuality is punishable by life imprisonment. In Nigeria it’s 14 years hard labour. And in the Islamic areas gay people can be stoned to death. In Jamaica it’s 10 years hard labour. In Malaysia it’s up to 20 years imprisonment.

These laws are all relics of colonialism. They are from the 19^th century. They have no place in a modern 21^st century state - and I just hope the Commonwealth will recognise that action needs to be taken so that all its member states conform to the principles or democracy and human rights. That they all give their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens full equality before the law.

We are not saying they should approve of homosexuality; we are not saying they should endorse, or encourage it - we are simply saying do not persecute your gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.

Rev Rowland Jide Macaulay, Director and Founder of the House Of Rainbow has responded to Tatchell’s comments:

To coincide with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago – Peter Tatchell has written an open letter to the Commonwealth Secretary General, lamenting the state of LGBTI rights in the Commonwealth.

Your Excellency,

Warmest greetings!

I am writing to inquire what the Commonwealth is doing to defend the human rights of millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Commonwealth citizens who are sufffering great persecution on account of their sexuality and gender variance and identity.

Sadly, I can find no evidence that senior Commonwealth leaders are doing anything significant and public, despite the fact that many Commonwealth member states are actively persecuting their LGBT citizens with oppressive, discriminatory laws, which result in grave human rights violations, including arrest, torture, rape, imprisonment and extra-judicial murder.

This homophobic and transphobic persecution is in breach of international humanitarian law.

As Comonwealth Secretary-General, you are entrusted to defend and promote the Commonwealth’s humanitarian values.

What action do you propose to take at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago from 27 to 29 November, to address the issue of homophobic and transphobic persecution by Commonwealth member states?

I appeal to you to take a stand for justice and equality – to show true leadership and make your mark for human rights.

During your keynote speech, and in other CHOGM forums, I respectfully request you to:

1. Make it clear that the Commonwealth’s commitment to human rights includes respect for the human rights of LGBT people, and that persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity violates the Commonwealth principles of equality and non-discrimination and violates the principles of universal human rights, as enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2. Call on Commonwealth member states to end the criminalisation of homosexuality, protect LGBT people against discrimination, harassment and violence, and recognise and consult with LGBT welfare and human rights organisations.

In particular, I request you to lobby the government of Uganda to withdraw the new Anti-Homosexuality Bill and cease its attacks on the human rights of LGBT Ugandans.

I regret that I need to make these requests. I realise that you have not been long in your post. But I hope that having had these issues drawn to your attention you will rise to the challenge and pursue them.

Some of the key principles of the Commonwealth are equality, non-discrimination, opportunity for all, liberty of the individual and human dignity.
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/191247/the_commonwealth/
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/files/36123/FileName/harare.pdf

In the case of LGBT people, these principles are routinely violated by nearly all Commonwealth countries. They are violated with impunity and without rebuke by the leaders of the Commonwealth.

I am surprised that the Commonwealth’s most senior figures, such as yourself, are not, as far as I know, doing anything serious to dissuade the many member states which continue to outlaw consenting adult same-sex relations, which take no action against homophobic and transphobic violence, which deny gay and bisexual men safer sex education and HIV advice, and which fail to give LGBT people protection against discrimination in jobs, housing, education, health care and provision of good and services.

It is extremely disappointing that the Commonwealth leadership appears to not regard LGBT rights as human rights and that it has neglected to protect LGBT citizens in the Commonwealth family of nations. This inaction is de facto collusion with victimisation.

Around 80 countries worldwide continue to outlaw homosexuality, with penalties ranging from one year’s jail to life imprisonment – and even execution. More than half of these countries were former British colonies. Most are members of the Commonwealth.

Of the 53 Commonwealth member states, over 40 still criminalise same-sex relations, mostly under anti-gay laws that were originally imposed by the British government in the nineteenth century, during the period of colonial rule. These homophobic colonialist laws, which were retained after independence, are wrecking the lives of LGBT people throughout the Commonwealth. They criminalise otherwise law-abiding citizens and contribute to a hostile social atmosphere which demonises LGBT people as unnatural, abnormal and criminal. This renders LGBT people liable to blackmail, imprisonment, mob violence, rejection by their families, excommunication from their faith, eviction from their homes, dismissal from their jobs and this makes them high risk for depression, mental illness and suicide. Such rampant bigotry and ill-treatment of other human beings is a stain on the Commonwealth.

One of the worst current examples of a homophobic Commonwealth country is Uganda.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, currently under consideration by the Ugandan parliament, proposes the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality…(and) serial offenders,” including same-sex acts involving people with HIV.
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/697859

It imposes a sentence of life imprisonment for merely touching a person with the intent to have homosexual relations. Membership of gay organisations and funding for them, advocacy of gay human rights and the provision of condoms or safer sex advice to gay people will result in up to seven years jail for “promoting” homosexuality. Failing to report violators to the police within 24 hours will incur three years behind bars. Astonishingly, the new legislation will also apply to Ugandans who commit these ‘crimes’ while living abroad, in countries where such behaviour is not a criminal offence.

See this appeal against the bill by Human Rights Watch and other human rights defenders:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/15/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill-threatens-liberties-and-human-rights-defenders

See this briefing by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission:
http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/takeaction/globalactionalerts/989.html

The Ugandan bill violates the equality and non-discrimination provisions of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Uganda is a signatory. These breaches of international humanitarian commitments set a dangerous precedent which undermines the right to privacy and to individual liberty and thereby threatens the human rights of all Ugandans.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z1afchar.htm
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists and the World AIDS Campaign.

This legislation is, however, merely the latest in a series of state-sponsored persecutions of LGBT Ugandans, often at the behest of Christian leaders who are aided and funded by right-wing evangelical churches in the US.

Typical is what happened to gay rights advocate Kizza Musinguzi. He was jailed in 2004 and subjected to four months of forced labour, water torture, beatings and rape.

Any Ugandan who speaks out against anti-gay violence faces dire consequences. A heterosexual Anglican bishop, Christopher Ssenyonjo, was expelled from the Church of Uganda for defending the human rights of LGBT people.

In recent years, the Ugandan government has passed a law banning same-sex civil marriage, fined Radio Simba for broadcasting a discussion of LGBT issues, and expelled a UN AIDS agency director for meeting with LGBT campaigners.

Similar homophobic persecution is happening in other Commonwealth nations, including Nigeria and The Gambia, where President Yahya Jammeh has called for sexual cleansing. He has promised “stricter laws than Iran” on homosexuality, and has begun his witchunt by ordering gay people to leave the country and threatening to “cut off the head” of any homosexual who remains. It is truly shocking that the Commonwealth leadership has not condemned such murderous threats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7416536.stm

While I realise that you are very busy, I would be most grateful if you could respond to my appeal for your intervention before the commencement of CHOGM.

Wishing you a successful CHOGM.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Tatchell

OutRage! – The LGBT Human Rights Campaign – London, UK

Human Rights Spokesperson for the Green Party of England & Wales

In an interview conducted by the RCS as part of the Commonwealth Conversation, Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga, Zimbabwean Minister for Regional Integration and International Cooperation, emphasised how important the Commonwealth is to Zimbabwe, but warned that it must do more to sell itself to the Zimbabwean people.

Transcript

Q: Last week a meeting was held in Harare as part of the Commonwealth Conversation. The people of Zimbabwe were keen to see further involvement with the Commonwealth. Why do you think this is?

A: I think it is such because the people of Zimbabwe do have a relationship with the Commonwealth, they have known of the Commonwealth from way back, during our liberation struggle. However, what has been lacking is the translation of that relationship into something people can relate to at a practical level.

I always give an example that if you say Zimbabwe will no longer be participating in the world cup they would be uproar in the streets. But the reason you did not see uproar when Zimbabwe pulled out of the Commonwealth is because a whole lot of Zimbabweans did not have an appreciation of practical issues about the Commonwealth. How the Commonwealth can bring people together, how Zimbabwe and Ghana can relate within the context of the Commonwealth. They see how South Africa and Zimbabwe relate, but they do not understand how Ghana, Kenya, Britain relates.

Q: So what are the benefits of Commonwealth membership for Zimbabwe?

A: I think the benefits for one are the sharing of experience. Zimbabwe at the moment is building new institutions. New local government structures, where they need to be learning from other countries that are around the Commonwealth. To learn how to effectively use the Local Government structures. We are beginning to build institutions like the human rights institutions, media commission, Zimbabwe electoral commission. The commonwealth has this vast experience around the running of elections – so sharing best practises – and being part of a family and sharing those values.

Q: And finally, do you envisage a point of the future when Zimbabwe will rejoin the Commonwealth?

A: Certainly. There is a general agreement that we need to be reengaging with the international community. If you go back even to President Mugabe’s speech at the opening of Parliament, he said “we seek to reengage with the international community”. He did not say minus the Commonwealth. So I do see a day to which we will rejoin.

A Canadian journalist, Doug Saunders, has written for the Globe and Mail about the Commonwealth’s relevance to Canada. He certainly doesn’t pull his punches.  

“It no longer means anything to us, for a very good reason: It no longer does anything for us.

As the Commonwealth celebrates its 60th birthday in London, the Canadian government is doing everything it can to distance itself from this awkward, enormous, ill-defined organization.”

He goes on…

“Today, the 450 million citizens of European Union nations have the right to live in Britain, work there and settle there as full citizens, without so much as filling out a form. Canada, as a Commonwealth member, has tight visa restrictions. And if you’re from Nigeria or Sri Lanka, you’ll have a hard time even visiting Britain or Canada.”

And to conclude…

“…today, when more important organizations have eclipsed it, there is a problem: If it changes itself to become “relevant,” ending its cozy but meaningless clubby status, it will become a challenge to the more valuable relationships its members already hold.

Any effort to give it a purpose will rip it apart. Sixty years after its creation put an end to the colonial era, it might just be time to say farewell.”

A damning indictment from Canada. But is it accurate? The 100-plus comments underneath the article seem to suggest it is. Surely some of our readers will be able to answer Saunders’ question: what does the Commonwealth do for you?

UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, discusses the connection between the Commonwealth and climate change.

A member country can leave any time it wants and at a moment’s notice.

Only in the 1990s did the Commonwealth find the need to make some rules for itself  and still it made very few. Since then it has added one or two more only as and when they have been perceived as necessary. Far from being a weakness, it is this very looseness that provides the Commonwealth with an inner strength.

The Commonwealth as an international organisation is quite different in its history and development from any other. The only rough parallels are La Francophonie and Lusophone groupings. The Commonwealth has so far admitted to membership only one country the former Portuguese colony of Mozambique that had no links whatsoever with the British Empire.

But the comparable size of the Commonwealth sets it apart, containing such major powers as Australia, Canada, India, Nigeria, Pakistan and South Africa, as well as the UK.

The world’s increasingly numerous other international organisations are all, in one form or another, regional such as the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Organization of American States, and the African Union. The EU may be a powerful group, but it is confined to only one continent.

Thus the pragmatic development of the Commonwealth has to be seen for what it actually is: an evolving experiment in international co-operation that is historically only just beginning. These are uncharted waters, and it is understandable that people find it difficult to get their heads round the concept.

This extract is taken from an article written by Derek Ingram for the Commonwealth Yearbook 2009, published for the Commonwealth Secretariat by Nexus Strategic Partnerships.