1977: Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau at a political party rally, Montreal. [photo: Alamy/ contributor: Alain Le Garsmeur Canada]
[This is an excerpt from an article written by Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Following the 1973 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, held in Ottawa, he provided this assessment of the role of the Commonwealth and its strengths. The Commonwealth after Ottawa is freely available until 26 November 2024 through the Round Table Journal and Taylor & Francis’s ‘From the Archives’ programme.]
The Commonwealth after Ottawa
Looking to the future
The technology of the 1970s permits us all to be neighbours of people in every other country in the world. Yet the pace of life gives us too little opportunity to know other persons well, whether they live near us or faraway. Those few associations which provide this opportunity should be preserved and nurtured, for they represent in real measure the balance wheel of human society. One of those associations, in my view one of the most effective, is the Commonwealth.
Largely by accident of history, 860 million people in the world, living on every continent and on every major ocean, speak the same language, share many of the same values, understand the same idiom, and treasure alike the advantage of informality. We should not underestimate the immense benefits which flow from talking frankly to one another, understanding better one another, eliminating areas of prejudice and irritation, helping one another. These things the Commonwealth permits us to do as between governments, as between professional bodies, as between individuals.
This is perhaps the greatest strength of the Commonwealth, this opportunity on a regular basis for men of good will to sit down together and discuss one with another the problems which affect them and the millions of people whom they represent. All the other advantages of the Commonwealth relationship—the exchanges of people, the trading patterns, the economic assistance and co-operation schemes, the informality of diplomatic representation—these all assume their tone from the free and frank dialogue which takes place at the Heads of government meetings.
There is little headline material in this kind of gathering; neither is there much domestic political advantage for individual leaders. But to a world burdened almost beyond endurance by incredibly complex problems of immense moment, an agreement honourably to disagree and to search patiently for solutions and areas of agreement is of immeasurable value. Delegates can walk out of meetings in anger, but they cannot remove with them the underlying cause of their annoyance. Organisations can be broken apart by impatient members, but the act of disintegration contributes nothing to the easing of the original tensions.
Each Commonwealth meeting is a challenge. Each Commonwealth meeting must decide whether it is worthwhile having another, for when 32 heads of government spend nine days at a meeting, it has to be worthwhile; otherwise there would be an end of the meetings. Government leaders are much too busy to take this time if it is not worthwhile. So the best indication that we found the Ottawa conference of Heads of Commonwealth Governments worthwhile is that we agreed to meet again.
The Ottawa conference was well prepared by the Secretary General, Mr. Arnold Smith, and his staff; it was well prepared by the Canadian Government, and I think it paid off. There was certainly a participation in the discussion, a feeling of informality, of friendship even, which permitted us to make the kind of progress we wanted to make.
It was pointed out in the final communique:
“The meeting was positive in tone and constructive in its approach. Having agreed to new procedures designed to ensure informality and free discussion, leaders put aside set-piece speeches and addressed themselves directly both to each other and to the pressing questions before the meeting. When unanimous agreement was not possible, mutual understanding of conflicting viewpoints was achieved. It was agreed that in this regard the meeting established a most useful precedent for future Commonwealth consultations. The Commonwealth had been greatly strengthened by the event and Heads of government were heartened by this.
“Heads of government were convinced that the association had once again demonstrated its vitality and flexibility. They intend to make maximum use of Commonwealth machinery to put the principles of the Commonwealth declaration into practice and to accelerate the pace of social and economic development among the less affluent members.”
The communique also summarised the exchange of views at the meeting on comparative techniques of government, a subject we believe to be of continuing importance.
It said:
“Heads of government welcomed the opportunity to exchange views on comparative techniques of government They had a lively and useful discussion which included consideration of such subjects as: the determination of national priorities; the problem of ensuring effective implementation of government decisions; fostering communication between government and people, redress of economic disparities; and the problem of correcting economic imbalances as between urban and rural areas. Heads of government agreed that this question of comparative techniques of government should be the subject of further discussion at future Heads of government meetings and that, in the interim the Commonwealth Secretariat should under-take appropriate preliminary studies to facilitate such discussion.”
Within the Commonwealth we have the opportunity and the means for both communication and understanding. In this forum of discussion each Commonwealth member is equal. None is senior; none is superior. None is distinguished by economic self-sufficiency; none is possessed of all political virtue. In our discussions we are able to demonstrate to one another and to the world the advantages of our dissimilarity, the richness of our diversity, the excitement of our variety, because we are members of an association, not an institution. There is no structure to contain us, there are no fetters to chafe us. There is no artificial adhesive. Nor is there any voting, any constitution, any flag, any headquarters. This association is neither regional in nature, nor specialised in its interests. The Commonwealth is an organism and this fact guarantees both its vitality and its flexibility.
Pierre Trudeau served as Canadian Prime Minister from 1968 to 1979 and from 1980 to 1984.
