|
| |
Building a 21st-century Commonwealth
(Published in The Japan times and other Asian Dailies on October 19th.)
By DAVID HOWELL
LONDON -- On the historic Mediterranean island of Malta there will take place in
a few weeks time a meeting of nations with colossal potential significance for
world peace and development.
Yet the irony is that it will hardly be noticed by the world's media or by
public opinion.
The meeting will be the biannual gathering of the heads of government of the 52
member-states of the Commonwealth -- the association or club of mostly
English-speaking nations who in former times were connected in one way or
another with the so-called British Commonwealth, which in turn grew out of the
now almost forgotten British Empire.
At its Malta gathering the British queen will preside, as head of the
Commonwealth, there will be much congeniality. Sensitive issues like the status
of Zimbabwe, currently a suspended member, or relations between India and
Pakistan, will be kept well in the background, and good intentions will be
expressed about poverty reduction, world peace and security, climate change and
other major subjects.
Yet to many people the Commonwealth remains, at best, a useful talking shop and
at worst an ineffectual anachronism with no particular role in today's turbulent
and dangerous world.
So why could it be potentially significant for the future? For two simple
reasons: The first is that it is a living network of relations that stretches
across all continents -- Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas -- and across all
religions in an age when global reach is essential to tackle the major world
problems. The second is that it exists and survives when the world's other
multinational organizations, both regional and transcontinental, are in deep
trouble and look increasingly as though they belong to a past age.
The United Nations is the classic example. Whereas within the Commonwealth many
small nations, such as Malta itself, can have a real say and be heard among a
community of like-minded and friendly countries, at the U.N. the smaller nations
are lost. The whole structure, built on the pyramid principle of authority
leading up to the Security Council, with its anachronistic permanent membership
of five powers with their veto, makes it sit uncomfortably with the network age.
Its universal membership guarantees that like-mindedness, even about the most
basic issues of freedom and repression, and human rights and wrongs, cannot
exist.
The big, established regional organizations, like the European Union -- which
Malta has recently joined -- hardly offer any better prospects. British Prime
Minister Tony Blair has recently had to admit that the EU is now "stalled" and
has lost the way forward. The unity of outlook on world security issues, and
even on trade and development, among its 25 members just does not seem to be
there. On the critical issue of admitting Turkey to EU membership, while
negotiations have at last started, there remain fundamental differences as to
whether this Islamic giant should have a place in a union that several members
still see as a Western European bastion against outside hostile forces.
By contrast the Commonwealth is sweetness and light. The atmosphere is friendly;
the agreement on values widespread. But there is a snag. The structure and
organization of the Commonwealth is hopelessly narrow. The idea of the
Commonwealth -- an association of truly like-minded nations that aspire to
uphold the rule of law and democratic principles (even if there are occasional
deviations), and that seek to contribute to world peace and stability -- is more
valid than ever. But the framework of the Commonwealth is just wrong.
The rule that the Commonwealth should be confined to countries that are
English-speaking, or remotely connected to the old British Empire is itself an
anachronism -- and has anyway been broken by several additions. The time has
come to build on the Commonwealth concept by creating a network of common wealth
and interest among all the nations that really are going to dedicate themselves
in earnest to protecting and promoting our values, interests, safety and
democratic inclinations.
The exclusions from this enlarged Commonwealth should be the vendetta countries,
the ones that hate America on principle, hate the advanced world on principle,
are still submerged in anticolonial bitterness and prejudice, do not really care
a jot about poverty reduction, or the place of women, or the dispossessed and do
not want to join or strengthen the international system of trade and security.
The new inclusions should be the nations who have shed all this baggage, who see
trade, entrepreneurialism and innovation as their guiding stars, who have no
time for protectionist blocs and practices, who do not believe (as too many
still do) that development is all a question of bigger aid donations, and who
are prepared to do their full bit to preserve peace and resolve conflicts in a
way the U.N. seems incapable of doing.
The obvious major candidate for this grouping is Japan, a nation that is
reviving economically; democratic; increasingly dedicated to helping world
stability and peace; committed to open trade, albeit with a few shortcomings
(but then we all have those); and seeking a relationship with the United States
that is supportive without being compliant or subservient -- just what the world
needs.
Of course, the Commonwealth already includes one of the fast awakening giants,
India, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. Thailand
should be invited, but there would be a need to add some good European members,
too. Poland, Norway, Estonia would be good members of the team, and Turkey, too
-- all instinctively on the side of innovation, open trade, strong Atlantic
links and doing their utmost for peace and stability (although Turkey has many
burdens on its doorstep).
Weave this alliance together and one begins to have a serious force of real
weight, whose opinions would count decisively in the councils of the world.
There is a vast wealth here of peacekeeping experience, as well as one of sheer
economic power, technological power and trading strength.
This is the sort of Commonwealth that could make a real contribution to global
balance and coherence, and in which the world's media and public opinion might
begin to show more interest.
It would also have the happy side effects of bringing Britain and Japan, its
closest Asian ally, into a more genuinely effective and working relationship
than ever before, as well as giving the British a new and effective foreign
policy with real edge, which it at present so clearly lacks.
David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the
Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords.
The Japan Times: Oct. 19, 2005
|
