The Commonwealth in Troubling Times and the Controversy Surrounding Sri Lanka

7/27/2019 The Commonwealth in Troubling Times and the Controversy Surrounding Sri Lanka

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-commonwealth-in-troubling-times-and-the-controversy-surrounding-sri-lanka 1/19

The Commonwealth in troubling times and thecontroversy surrounding Sri Lanka

Sir Ronald Sanders KCMG AM

is a Senior Research Fellow at

the

Institute of Commonwealth

Studies

and a former Caribbean

diplomat

''I f the Summit in Sri Lanka is to be meaningful, Heads of Government must set up machinery to address this issueurgently and credibly. It will call for careful diplomatic stage-managing by the Secretary-General, and transparent and openchairmanship by the Sri Lankan President. Whether this can beachieved is left to be seen. But, if this matter is not tackled withurgency and credibility, the Commonwealth may well go over thecliff to disintegration on which it is now dangerously perched .''

By Sir Ronald Sanders KCMG AM-

I congratulate the Bristol Commonwealth Society as it celebrates the

100th anniversary of its Charter.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

http://www.srilankabrief.org/2013/10/the-commonwealth-in-troubling-times-and.html


http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/news/_files/Image/2013/06/21/sanders6.jpg





The Society has maintained belief in the Commonwealth from its earlystatus as a grouping of Britain and its dominions through its re-birth as themodern Commonwealth of Nations in 1949 to the present.

The Society deserves the admiration and respect of all theCommonwealth’s people for remaining so steadfast and unswervinga believer in the merit and importance of the Commonwealthassociation even at times of doubt.

Over the last 64 years much has changed about the Commonwealth.

While the association has been of immense benefit to its membercountries and a valuable influence in international relations, morerecently its relevance has been questioned by many non-

governmental organisations, academics and commentators in themedia.

Troubling issues

As we gather this evening, the inter-governmental Commonwealthis enduring troubling times. Evidence of this is the following:

• It is being tugged in different directions by the preferences of its

member governments. This motion should not be mistaken for progress.

• Approximately 70 per cent of the Commonwealth Secretariat’s

Budget is funded by only three of its member governments – Britain,

Canada and Australia. For financial year 2012/2013, the Budget was

a meagre £16.1 million. For the current financial year, there has

been no real increase in the Budget which was settled for the current

year only after unprecedented manoeuverings and disagreements

amongst government representatives.

• The other 49 members are reluctant to increase their contributions,

and more than 30 of the member states are in arrears of their

contributions. This suggests that the Commonwealth does not now

rank high among the instruments for pursuing their foreign policy



goals.

• The Secretariat needs at least another £3 million per annum to

carry out effectively the mandates it now has.

• Good staff members are leaving the Secretariat, and its

uncompetitive salaries and conditions make it difficult to attract better personnel.

• There is a general lack of knowledge about the Commonwealth in its

member-states and the majority of its governments are doing little

or nothing to explain and promote it.

• The media consider it to be of such little relevance that it gets

coverage only in the case

• of some dramatic event such as the unheralded announcement by the President of The Gambia that as of October 3rd 2013 he haswithdrawn the country from the

• Commonwealth because it has suddenly and inexplicably become “a

neo-colonialist” organisation.

• A kind of North-South divide has developed centred on the

importance of upholding democracy, human rights and the rule of

law as fundamental requirements for Commonwealth membership;

and

• There is controversy over the government of Sri Lanka’s hosting

of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in a few weeks.

The controversy surrounding Sri Lanka

Because of its topicality, I will digress from the main thrust of thispresentation to make a few observations about the controversy

that surrounds the Commonwealth summit being held in Sri Lanka.

As is well known Sri Lanka has been the focus of attention of theUnited Nations Commission on Human Rights for several years.

At the end of August 2013, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights,Navanethem Pillay, expressed her “deep concern” that thegovernment of Sri Lanka “is showing signs of heading in an



increasingly authoritarian direction”.i This statement came in thewake of an allegation by an Expert Panel set up by the UNSecretary-General that war crimes had been committed in SriLanka, and recommendations that there should be an independentinternational investigation.

The Sri Lankan government resisted such an investigation.

In the ensuing period several organisations including AmnestyInternational, Human Rights Watch and the Commonwealth HumanRights Initiative have accused the Sri Lanka government of “restrictions on civil liberties, intolerance for dissent, intimidation of the media, and inaction in the face of extremist attacks againstminorities”. They have all called on Commonwealth governments tochange the venue of the Commonwealth Heads of GovernmentMeeting (CHOGM). The impeachment of the country’s Chief Justice,

by a process held to be illegal both by Sri Lanka’s own SupremeCourt and international experts, strengthened calls for the change of venue.

Those who called for the change in venue argued that “allowing SriLanka to host CHOGM (the

Heads of Government Meeting) might be seen as condoning theviolations of its (the

Commonwealth’s) values”.

For his part, the President of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa, rejectsany notion of serious and persistent human rights violations by hisgovernment. Instead, he and other members of his governmenthave characterised efforts to criticize his government’s record asunjustified and interfering.

In a statement to the UN General Assembly on 24th September 2013

said three things: First: “It is disturbing to observe the growing trendin the international arena of interference by some in the internalmatters of developing countries in the guise of security andguardians of human rights”. Second, “This turmoil results fromattempts to impose a type of democracy upon countries withsignificantly different cultures, values and history. The world needsno policing by a few states”. And, third: “I am proud that Sri Lankahas eradicated separatist terrorism spanning three decades and is in



the process of addressing the issues of development andreconciliation”.

While concerns have been expressed about the situation in SriLanka by some Commonwealth governments notably thegovernments of the United Kingdom and India, it is the government

of Canada that has most robustly expressed its disquiet. For almosttwo years the Canadian

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Foreign Minister JohnBaird have stated that: “The absence of accountability for theserious violations of human rights and internationalhumanitarian standards during and after the civil war is

unacceptable”.ii

This stand by the Canadian government is entirely

consistent with its record on upholdingCommonwealth values. In 1961, it was Canada that first declared the racist policies of the government of South Africa to be incompatible withCommonwealth values and prompted it to withdrawfrom the Commonwealth; it was also Canada in the1980s that stood alone of all the OECD countries inimposing sanctions on South Africa to help force therelease of Nelson Mandela from prison; Canada alsotook a lead role alongside African, Asian and

Caribbean States in the 1980s and 1990s to bring anend to the minority Ian Smith regime in SouthernRhodesia and later in the struggle to end Apartheid in South Africa.

On 7th October 2013, Prime Minister Harper announced that neitherhe nor any Minister of the Canadian government would be attendingthe Summit in Sri Lanka. Instead, Canada’s representative would beParliamentary Secretary in the Foreign Ministry, Deepak Obhrai,whose presence, according to Mr Baird, would be “to enable Canadato partake in some events surrounding the summit which will allow

us to shed light on the true tragedy in Sri Lanka”.iii

Mr Harper gave as his reason for non-ministerial representation atthe meeting in Sri Lanka that: “Canada believes that if theCommonwealth is to remain relevant it must stand in defence of thebasic principles of freedom, democracy, and respect for humandignity, which are the very foundation upon which the



Commonwealth was built. It is clear that the Sri Lankan governmenthas failed to uphold the Commonwealth’s core values, which are

cherished by Canadians”.iv

And therein lies the rub.

Upholding values or a sinister purpose

President Rajapaksa’s statement at the UN General Assembly andthe reasons given by Prime Minister Harper for Canada’s non-ministerial representation at the Summit in Sri Lanka go to thecore of serious dissension within the Commonwealth. It is adissension which is also reflected in the decision by President

Yahya Jammeh of the Gambia to withdraw his country from theCommonwealth effective 3 October 2013.

There is now a resiling by some governments from the values thatall Commonwealth governments have declared they support, and anaccusation that those governments that seek to uphold those values– and the credibility of the Commonwealth – have a sinister purpose.

This is an issue that requires urgent attention by allCommonwealth governments if the association is to remaincohesive and effective. The problem will not go away, nor can itbe papered over by mere expressions of concern. It requiresvigorous and serious attention by governments at the highest

levels.

Before I leave the Sri Lanka matter, I would make two observationsabout the venue for Summit meetings and the Chairmanship of theCommonwealth.

First, deciding two years in advance (or even longer) on the venuefor the Heads of Government Meeting should be discouraged. It is apractice that did not occur before 1993. Two years is too long a time,and much could happen to change the attractiveness of a venue.

The process gives hostages to fortune. While countries could indicatetheir desire to host a Summit, it would be both practical anddesirable for the decision on the venue to be taken only within a yearbefore the meeting by a process of the Secretary-General takingsoundings from governments about the countries that have offeredthemselves.

Second, with regard to the Commonwealth Chair-in-Office – a



position that was established in 1999 - the Eminent Persons Group(the EPG) of which I was a member had recommended to the lastSummit in 2011 that both the position of the two-year Chair-in-Office and the Troika of past, present and future Chairs of Commonwealth meetings be abolished. We made the pointthat “theCommonwealth has not benefitted from the current

arrangements”.v This recommendation was rejected. But, had itbeen accepted, the Commonwealth would not now be subjected tothe criticism of the President of Sri Lanka being Chair-in-Office of theCommonwealth while he and his government defend themselves inthe United Nations Human Rights Commission.

I return now to the main thrust of this presentation.

Unmanaged diversity a threat to the Commonwealth

Over the years, there has been an assumption that theCommonwealth comprises States that naturally cling together,sharing common interests and aspirations. Despite their diversity inethnicity, religion, geography, size and culture, it has been assumedthat they could remain cohesive under the Commonwealth bannerbecause of their historical links to Britain and the legal and

administrative systems that resulted from those links.vi But, inreality – and especially over the last two decades – more diversityand less commonality have evolved in Commonwealth membership,

and diversity has produced division.

Commonwealth member States have forged alliances with othercountries and with other groups of countries on vital matters suchas trade and investment, and defence and security. Thesealliances now loom large in their concerns in practical ways andhave, to some extent, dwarfed their links to the Commonwealth.

Of particular importance in this regard is the emergence of

China as the second largest economy in the world and theholder of the largest foreign exchange reserves (US$3.2trillion), a bigger provider of concessionary loans to many developing Commonwealth countries than the World Bank,and the biggest trading partner of many of them. It is wellknown that China places no priority on democracy as weknow it or on respect for human rights as an internationalstandard. China does not make democracy and human



rights conditions of its economic relationship withCommonwealth developing countries. Hence, even thoughit may be unintended, China’s policies undermine theCommonwealth’s core political values of respect for

democracy, the rule of law and human rights.vii

We should recall that the Commonwealth is a voluntary not a treatyorganisation; it is not a defence and security organisation; it is not atrade organisation; it is not a health and education organisation; anddespite the modest (though important) resources of theCommonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, it is not an aidorganisation. It does provide technical assistance, advice andadvocacy in all the areas just listed, but while these contributionsare important to developing Commonwealth countries, otheragencies and other alliances with far greater resources fulfill biggerneeds and, therefore, command greater allegiance.

The Commonwealth: Better a small values-based association

This begs the question: what is the Commonwealth? Essentially, theCommonwealth is a Club

– a Club with rules. Membership is voluntary and governments canchoose to withdraw at any time. To get into it and to remain a partof it, members are expected to conduct themselves according to

the rules which are embodied in the many declarations thatCommonwealth governments have made over the years setting outthe values and principles for which their countries stand.

Last year, all Commonwealth Heads of Government –including the President of The Gambia and thePresident of Sri Lanka – established a Charter of theCommonwealth that re-committed all member statesto the values of the Commonwealth as set out in all eleven of its declarations from 1971 to 2011. Under

the Charter, governments declared their commitment to “equality and respect for protection and

promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development,for all without discrimination on any grounds as thefoundations of peaceful, just and stable societies”.They noted “that these rights are universal,indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and



cannot be implemented selectively”.

When governments sign-up for membership of the Commonwealth,they sign up to all these values – not only the ones that suit themfrom time to time. It is these values - taken collectively - that definethe Commonwealth; it is adherence and commitment to these values

– all of them – that distinguishes the Commonwealth; it is pursuit of these values that give the Commonwealth relevance within its ownmember countries and influence in the international community.

In this connection, when the Apartheid regime withdrew South Africafrom the Commonwealth in 1961 to pursue its racist policies, theassociation was stronger not weaker for it; when the Mugabe regimewithdrew Zimbabwe in 2003 after the Commonwealth suspended itfor seriously flawed elections and organised violence against non-Mugabe supporters, the association was stronger not weaker for it;

now that President Yahya Jammeh has withdrawn The Gambiabecause of his wish to victimize homosexuals including by, as he

says, “beheading them”viii, the Commonwealth is stronger notweaker for it.

The Commonwealth would be far more relevant to its people andmore credible to the international community if it comprised Statesthat are genuinely committed to expanding human understandingand development within their own countries and among all nations,than if it simply sought to maintain and expand its membership

despite the violations of its values and principles by its membergovernments.



The Gambian President and the Commonwealth scapegoat

But, it should be recalled that it is not the Commonwealth by any of its mechanisms that suspended or expelled The Gambia despite thepoor record of its government in violating the rules of theCommonwealth Club; it was the Gambian President who withdrew

the country. He said he did so because, according to a publicstatement by his Information Minister, he no longer wishes to“associate with Great Britain” and “will never be a party to any

institution that represents an extension of colonialism”.ix Thecontradiction in his position is that he has withdrawn his countryfrom the Commonwealth because of Britain, but yet he continues tomaintain direct diplomatic and other relations with Britain. In thisconnection, it is clear that the Commonwealth was merely ascapegoat for the President’s unhappiness with the Britishgovernment positions in relation to his government’s human rights

record, although, curiously The Gambia is not among the 27countries about which the British government expressed concern inthe most recent Foreign and Commonwealth Offices report on

Human Rights.x

Of course, the Commonwealth itself is no longer British. Thatceased in 1949 with the creation of the modern Commonwealth of Nations. And, if it was not obvious before that the

Commonwealth had ceased to be a “British” organisation, it was

certainly obvious when, in the 1980s and 1990s, Commonwealthgovernments stood up against the British government over theindependence of Southern Rhodesia under majority rule and whenBritain was isolated by the Commonwealth over the imposition of sanctions on apartheid South Africa.

Human Rights: “Western import” or universal birthright

To return to the rules of the Commonwealth Club. One of the most important rules of the Club authorises the Commonwealth

Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) – a group of eight rotating foreignministers - to assess and deal with such violations. Between 2002and now CMAG has addressed only three countries – Fiji, theSolomon Islands and Pakistan –and only on the issue of unconstitutional overthrows of governments. Yet there have beencredible reports of violation of the Commonwealth’s core values inthose and other countries that should have warranted attention.



The Eminent Persons Group (EPG) that produced the reporton reform of the Commonwealth for the 2011 Heads of Government meeting in Perth had recognised that aCommittee of Foreign Ministers of member countries wouldbe hard-pressed to adjudicate violations of Commonwealthvalues by other Commonwealth governments with which

they are engaged regularly in a variety of affairs. This is whythe report stated that there is need for full-time attention tobe paid to determining when serious or persistent violationsof Commonwealth values occur in Commonwealth countries,and also for exploration and analysis to advise both theSecretary-General and CMAG when such violations persistdespite any ‘good offices’ workby the Secretary-General. TheEPG specifically recommended the appointment of aCommissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and HumanRights – a body that would undertake objective analysis and

give dispassionate advice.

With the exception of a few, Commonwealth governments rejectedthe idea of the

Commissioner. It wasn’t the first time that such a recommendationhad been rejected.

Ironically, in 1977, the then government of The Gambia had alsorecommended the creation of a Commonwealth Commission on

Human Rights. As a matter of interest, among the governments that rejected the Gambian proposal for a Commission on Human Rightsin 1977 was the government of the United Kingdom.

In any event, tension has now developed between Commonwealthgovernments with governments from some developing statesclaiming that human rights concerns are “Western exports”,incompatible with more urgent development issues and culturaldifferences. That claim was explicit in the Sri Lankan President’sstatement to the UN General Assembly to which I referred earlier.

But, it was to secure their human rights that slaves revolted in theCaribbean against their exploiters and abusers; it was to securehuman rights that Mahatma Gandhi encouraged passive resistancein India; it was to secure human rights that freedom fightingorganisations were created in Southern Rhodesia and South Africa.

These were not “Western imports”; they were manifestation of people yearning for their freedom and their rights. Human rights are



not a Western concept; they are ancient quests of all mankind. And,as US President Barack Obama recently pointed out to the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations, “they are the birthright of everyperson”.

Commonwealth cohesion requires constant vigilance

Nonetheless, different perceptions about the comparativeimportance of democracy and development now dominate theunspoken agenda of the Commonwealth. These differentperceptions, arising out of the diversity of Commonwealthmembership, dominated discussions by the Secretariat’s Board of Governors of the recently adopted Strategic Plan for the Secretariat.

The sometimes acrimonious discussions were prolonged, causingagreement on the Secretariat’s Budget to be delayed haltingprogrammes, putting jobs in jeopardy and draining staff morale.

At the heart of the Commonwealth’s present difficulties is the verydiversity that the Commonwealth has touted as a strength. Weshould not discount that the Commonwealth is now an associationof 53 nations. It is no longer the eight countries that fashioned themodern Commonwealth in 1949 or even the twenty that agreed toestablish a Secretariat in 1965. It is a very diverse grouping.

Diversity is a variety of differences, not of sameness. Diversity is

only a strength if it is harnessed and harmonised; if room is madeto accommodate dissimilarities. Otherwise, diversity is a weakness.Diversity means that small countries see survival differently tolarge ones; and developed countries have priorities andperspectives dissimilar to developing ones.

This is why the governments of the Commonwealth and theSecretariat of the Commonwealth have to work continuously anddiligently to build trust, confidence and understanding amongthemselves and in the Commonwealth as an association. But, such

trust, such confidence, such understanding and belief will notemerge by themselves, nor should they be presumed to exist. Theyrequire constant vigilance, promotion and advocacy by those whoare charged with the

Commonwealth’s fulltime stewardship.

That task begins with the Commonwealth Secretariat. Its leadership



should be concerned with keeping the worth and relevance of theCommonwealth alive and vibrant, even if that task runs the risk of leaders, such as the President of The Gambia, withdrawing from theassociation because the Commonwealth’s declared values restrainpolicies of discrimination and victimization.

In this context, it is incumbent on the Secretariat to work withgovernments at the highest levels constantly, to warn them of potential conflicts and tensions, to build bridges, to advisecorrective action that should be taken by any of them that violateCommonwealth values, and to recommend CMAG action shouldcorrective action not be taken. The criteria for the

Secretariat’s work should be the Charter of the Commonwealth andall the values and principles that it embraces. There can be no other.

Those Commonwealth values, enshrined in the Charter, includesustainable development and social transformation to buildeconomic resilience and promote social equality – importantly

“to meet the basic needs of the vast majority of the people of the world”. Despite its extremely limited resources, theCommonwealth has performed well in this area over the years,and even though its Budget has been reduced in real terms, theCommonwealth Secretariat has delivered in the areas of itscompetence and capacity.

Commonwealth co-operation in development

The Commonwealth does not have the resources of the UN agencies– what it can do is respond to urgent needs of its members especiallythe 34 small sates in a variety of areas in which they lack capacityand which are crucial to their economic and social well-being.

The Commonwealth – acting in the name of all of its member states– can also be a powerful advocate for the development-related

issues that confront developing states. The record speaks for itself.It was the Commonwealth that conceived and promoted the idea of relief for

Highly Indebted Poor Countries with the World Bank and otherfinancial institutions. It was in the Commonwealth that the conceptof small states’ vulnerability was identified with all its harmful



implications not only for trade and investment, but also for theirresilience in the face of natural disasters and even drug trafficking.

These have had real impact on poverty reduction and theimprovement of life in developing countries.

Beyond this – every day, in every developing region of the

Commonwealth – the Commonwealth works without a sign board andwithout neon lights to help developing states to improve theircircumstances. This work includes lodging submissions with the UNfor their Extended Continental Shelf; helping to settle maritimeboundaries that had been unresolved for decades; strengtheningpublic administration; negotiating bail-out packages for countriesthat urgently needed to reschedule their debts, and supportingdeveloping countries in global and multinational trade negotiationsso that they could benefit from outcomes that they could not achieveon their own.

What is remarkable about this unsung and often unrecognised workis that it is the result of genuine Commonwealth co-operation. Themajority of the bill has been paid by three countries

– Britain, Canada and Australia – while all developing countries havebenefitted. In this regard, the argument that the Commonwealth isbeing forced to allocate the majority of its resources to democracyand human rights and a smaller portion to development issues issimply false.

In the last financial year 2012/2013, of the combined budgets of theSecretariat and the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation(CFTC), £16.3 million was spent on development and £2.7 ondemocracy. Throughout the years of the Commonwealth’s existencefrom 1965 when the Secretariat was established, an importanthallmark of the Commonwealth has been the co-operation of itsmajor financial contributors in the development goals of its less well-off members – it has been an enviable example of North-South co-operation.

The Commonwealth under-resourced

What is true now, however, is the meagreness of the contributionsby all governments but particularly so by the largest economy of them all – the United Kingdom. CFTC now gets only

0.07 per cent of the total budget of Britain’s Department for



International Development. Yet British Ministers expound the valueof the Commonwealth and the opportunities it provides to Britain toexpand its trade and attract investment.

Last year, the total budget for the Secretariat and CFTC was £45.8million of which the Secretariat’s was £16.1 million and CFTC’s was

£29.7. The total Budget was reduced by £2 million from theprevious year, and this year not only is there zero growth in theSecretariat Budget, but the British government has decided toreduce its voluntary contributions to CFTC.

This problem is worsened by the decision of the Canadian PrimeMinister “to review Canada’s financial contributions toCommonwealth programmes and the Commonwealth Secretariat”.

All this has arisen because of a loss of confidence and trust betweengovernments themselves and between governments and theSecretariat. This is why Commonwealth governments at the highestlevels must now give urgent attention to the disharmony that hasdeveloped in the association over adherence to the values for whichthe Commonwealth says it stands.

Sri Lanka CHOGM: Commonwealth’s fate or future?

If the Summit in Sri Lanka is to be meaningful, Heads of

Government must set up machinery to address this issueurgently and credibly. It will call for careful diplomaticstage-managing by the Secretary-General, and transparent and open chairmanship by the Sri Lankan President.Whether this can be achieved is left to be seen. But, if thismatter is not tackled with urgency and credibility, theCommonwealth may well go over the cliff to disintegrationon which it is now dangerously perched.

Should the Commonwealth disintegrate and die, would it matter?

Several scholars on the Commonwealth feel it wouldn’t. As one of them, Stephen Chan, puts it: “If the Commonwealth did not exist,there would not be an international compulsion to invent or re-invent

it”.xi But, there is also an admission that “it could be worthwhile if itsprinciples distinguish its actions” with the proviso that “all images of

the Commonwealth are tentative ones until that is done”.xii

As a practical matter, no other association of countries brings



together governments and non-governmental organisations fromevery continent in the world that have a voice in almost everyregional and multilateral grouping in the world including the G7, theG20, NATO and a host of multilateral organisations such as theOrganisation for Co-operation in Economic Development, the African,Caribbean and Pacific Group, the Organisation of American States,

the African Union and the Association of South East Asian Nations. The potential of a collective Commonwealth outreach into these andother international groups remain of enormous value.

If the Commonwealth can remain cohesive, rooted in the values that authenticates it within its member states and in the internationalcommunity, by managing and harmonising the diversity of itsmembership, it can continue to play a vital role in the future as it didin the past by fighting racism in Southern Africa, by promoting

North-South co-operation and by intellectual thinking on climatechange, gender equality and social justice. As early as 1971, intheir Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, Commonwealthcountries stated that they were

“convinced that the Commonwealth is one of the most fruitfulassociations” for “international co-operation (that) is essential toremove the causes of war, promote tolerance, combat injustice andsecure development among the peoples of the world”. Thatdeclaration remains valid today.

Neither Commonwealth countries nor the internationalcommunity can afford to see the Commonwealth disintegrateand disappear.

You, the members of the Bristol Commonwealth Society, on this

100th anniversary of your

Charter, have contributed to the Commonwealth’s success by yourbelief in it, and your work for it. Your hundredth anniversary is a

bright star that shines a light of faith and hope on what now lookslike a gloomy Commonwealth prospect.

But, the Commonwealth has faced other obstacles in the past, andhas overcome them. It has done so because people like you havenever lost faith in it, and have urged your governments not to losesight of the possibilities and opportunities that the Commonwealthpresents; to remain steadfast in their support of it; and to be alert



to the contribution to human improvement that it can make. I know

that on this 100th anniversary, the Society will commit itself toremain committed for another hundred years.

i Report of a statement made in Colombo, Sri Lanks by the UNCommissioner for Human Rights on 31 August 2013, in Sir LankaBrief, 3 September2013, http://www.srilankabrief.org/2013/09/navi-pillay-statement-un-news.html (accessed 30 September 2013)

ii Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper,issued on 7 October 2013 by the PMO Press Office,Ottawa, http://pm.gc.ca (accessed 8 October 2013)

iii John Baird, Canadian Foreign Minister, Why we’re boycotting the

Sri Lanka summit, in Ipolitics, October 112013, http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/10/11/why-were-boycotting-the-sri-lanka-summit/ (accessed on 11 October 1013)

iv Op.cit., note ii

v See, A Commonwealth of the People: Time for Urgent Reform,The Report of the Eminent Persons Group to CommonwealthHeads of Government , Perth 2011, p.117, CommonwealthSecretariat, London. The argument to abolish the position of

Chair-in-Office and the Troika can be seen from p 117 to 120.

vi The exceptions to this are Mozambique, Cameroon and Rwandawhose membership of the Commonwealth is not based ontraditional criteria.

viiFor a deeper discussion of this matter, see RonaldSanders, The Commonwealth and China: Upholdingvalues, containing the dragon?, The Round Table: TheCommonwealth Journal of International Affairs, June 2013

viii See, Gambian president says gays a threat to human existence,by Michelle Nicholas at the United Nations for Reuters, 27September 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-un-assembly-gays- idUSBRE98Q19K20130927 (accessed on 30September 2013); also, Gambia president threatens to beheadgays, in Al Aarbiya News, Tuesday, 2 November2010, http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/05/24/50348.html (a

http://www.srilankabrief.org/2013/09/navi-pillay-statement-un-news.html



http://pm.gc.ca/

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/10/11/why-were-boycotting-the-sri-lanka-summit/


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-un-assembly-gays-idUSBRE98Q19K20130927




http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/05/24/50348.html




http://pm.gc.ca/

http://pm.gc.ca/











ccessed 30 September 2013)

ix Trevor Grundy report on 8 October 2013 of an interview withNana Grey-Johnson, Gambian Minister of Information andCommunication Infrastructure with the Zambia- based monthlymagazine The Bulletin and Record (shared by email with the

Commonwealth Journalists Association).

x See, Human Rights and Democracy; The 2012 Foreign andCommonwealth Office Report,

http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/introduction-2/ (accessed 30September 2013)

xi Stephen Chan, The Commonwealth in World Politics: A Study of International Action 1965 to 1985, Lester Crook Academic

Publishing, London 1988, p.72 and James Mayal,l Emeritus Fellowin International Relations at Sidney Sussex College at theUniversity of Cambridge, quoted in How exactly does theCommonwealth work anyway ? by Jen Gerson, The National Post,Canada, 7 October2013, http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/07/how-exactly- does-the-commonwealth-work-anyway/ (accessed 8 October 2013)

xiiStephen Chan, Ibid.

-----------------------------------------The Inaugural Lecture marking

The 100th Anniversary of the Charter of the BristolCommonwealth Society

At the Mansion House, Bristol

On Saturday 12 October 2013

In the presence of

Mrs Mary Prior MBE JP

Lord Lieutenant of the County and City of Bristol

http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/introduction-2/


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/07/how-exactly-does-the-commonwealth-work-anyway/











and

The Lord Mayor Councillor Faruk Choudhury

1 Sir Ronald Sanders is a former member of the CommonwealthEminent Persons Group (2010-2011) that produced the report forthe 2011 Heads of Government Meeting on urgent reform of theCommonwealth;); he has participated in several Meetings of Commonwealth Senior Officials and Heads of Government; heserved a member of the Commonwealth Committee SouthernAfrica (1984-1987) and as an adviser to the CommonwealthSecretariat/World Bank on small states(2000); and is the author of several publications on the Commonwealth.

The author is grateful for statistical data provided byDr Mohamed Razzaque and Tsung-Ping Chung of theCommonwealth Secretariat, but stresses that theanalysis provided in the Lecture and its conclusions areentirely his responsibility

Documents

The Commonwealth in Troubling Times and the Controversy Surrounding Sri Lanka