Colombo CHOGM: The shadow is bigger than the object

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), which concluded in Colombo on Sunday, is a good example of a ‘meeting for the sake of meeting’. Mainly a conglomeration of countries that were at some point in history ruled by the British, the Commonwealth has little in common today. The glue that holds the Commonwealth together is the commitment of member nations towards democracy, human rights and rule of law. With many nations criticising Sri Lanka, which hosted the CHOGM, for its human rights abuses and war crimes, the relevance and need for the Commonwealth is being put to question. A usual criticism of the Commonwealth is that it often refuses to take a strong stand against erring nations and this timid approach has eroded its credibility.
That only 27 heads of government attend the Colombo CHOGM shows how the 53-member Commonwealth is battling a split right in the middle. Among the prominent leaders who gave the Meet a miss were Queen Elizabeth II (for the first time in over four decades), Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Mauritius Prime Minister Navin Chandra Ramgoolam. While Mr Haprer’s decision came early in October, Mr Singh’s decision was a last minute one, making it clear to world nations that it was a decision based more on politics than on principle.
The Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has said that the Colombo summit has strengthened the organisation and that there was a "reaffirmation of the spirit and willingness of wanting to stay together as a unique collection of nations". The events that unfolded tell another story. Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit to the Jaffna region and his statement that if progress was not seen before March, he would urge the UN Human Rights Commission for a “full, credible and independent international inquiry” in no uncertain words brought the focus on the Mahinda Rajapaksa government’s human rights record. The objection of Australia and Canada to back a 'Capital Green Fund' for smaller states and struggling African nations to tackle climate change can been seen as a failure of the Colombo CHOGM. The statement released after the Meet stating that the countries agreed to address issues like poverty reduction, trade and youth affairs, among others, pales given enormity and potential the group reflects on paper. Irrespective of the fate of the 2015 CHOGM in Malta, one thing is clear: the Commonwealth today is more a relic of the past than of any significance today.

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.