Commonwealth: Stephen Harper’s boycott throws light on defunct world bodies

“I never worry about action, but only inaction.” This Winston Churchill quote sums up the problem the Commonwealth is facing today. After the recent exit of Gambia, on Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed that he would be boycotting the November Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), in protest of the human rights record of the host nation Sri Lanka. That this will be the second high profile leader giving the November summit a miss is definitely not good news for the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, which has been working overtime to play the good host and divert the UNHRC heat over its questionable human rights record. Queen Elizabeth II, citing the distance of travel, will be missing the summit for the first time in 42 years.

The Commonwealth is facing a lack of credibility and ceases to command the respect it did a few decades back. This is not a problem unique to the Commonwealth, but is faced by many similar groups. The eight-member South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is a prime example of how futile can a group be if its objectives are hijacked by member nations. For a greater part of its 27 years of existence, the SAARC has been a forum where ties between India and Pakistan have been more in focus, than the proceedings of the group. In such a situation, the very purpose of the group is lost in the cacophony of the narrow agendas pushed by the dominant members in the group. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is still afloat — never mind that the Cold War is over and that many member nations have warmed up to the two superpowers.
In contrast to this, as a sign of the times, groups formed on an economic-trade objective seem to wield more power and sway than groups formed for ‘promoting peace, co-operation and justice’. The BRICS — consisting Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — is an example. And so is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has created forums, like the East Asia Summit. The fact that larger non-member nations like the United States, Russia, China, India, etc attend such forums reflects the prominence of the group. Similarly groups like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Gulf Cooperation Council have prominence because they remain relevant in the present scheme of things. The same cannot be said of the Commonwealth, NAM, or even the SAARC.
The purpose and necessity of these relics of a bygone era should be assessed. These groups have been rendered obsolete in the present world order and, more often than not, tend to stick on like a bad habit. Rather than sticking on to their objectives, they tend to take the middle path, in order to avoid differences and harsh actions on member states that violate the group’s core principles. For these groups to remain in the reckoning, it is essential that they reassert the principles for which they were formed. Failing which, they are best remembered for past actions.