Venkat Iyer (second from right) at an event during the Samoa CHOGM 2024. [photo: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative)
[This is an excerpt from an article in The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs.]
The Government of Samoa certainly deserved kudos for overcoming the formidable challenges of hosting an event as large and complex as CHOGM [Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting], even if it did it with the considerable assistance of its two larger Commonwealth neighbours, New Zealand and Australia. As the first of the Pacific islands to gain independence, in 1962, Samoa has shown a remarkable commitment to peace, tolerance, and the maintenance of harmony among the various ethnic groups which comprise its population while remaining firmly non-militarised and championing peaceful dispute resolution (even a constitutional crisis in 2021 got resolved without a shot being fired or any other form of force being used). The government of prime minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa pulled out all stops to ensure that 4,000-odd delegates who were expected for CHOGM were received and looked after well, despite accommodation and other challenges.
The turnout of Heads of Government was disappointingly poor at 20 – which was lower than the previous nadir of 27 (Colombo, 2013) – and did not even match the turnout at the last CHOGM in Rwanda (29) held in the shadows of the COVID-19 pandemic. Particularly noticeable were two prominent ‘no shows’, the prime minister of India, Narendra Modi, and the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, both of whom decided to give greater importance to the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, in the same week as the Samoa extravaganza. This does raise a fundamental issue which was highlighted in this journal a few months ago by Richard Bourne, a Commonwealth veteran, who speculated that the reasons for such poor attendance may be more worrisome than many would imagine: ‘It looks as though, for busy leaders with pressing domestic and international commitments, the agenda is too wishy washy, the follow-up too feeble, and a Commonwealth outing too marginal to justify another flight’. Bourne sounded a timely warning about the long-term consequences of such neglect or indifference which deserves attention: ‘When fewer leaders show up to fleeting meetings, the person-to-person rapport between themselves, the Secretary-General, and a sense of the Commonwealth as a valuable contemporary tool, withers too’.
As has been known for many years now, the Commonwealth is now largely a small island developing states (SIDS)-dominated group. Which is not a bad thing, given that such states do not normally command much international attention or clout. Nearly half (25) of the organisation’s 56-strong membership is drawn from SIDS (with a further 8 also being classed as small states albeit without falling within the SIDS category). The Commonwealth’s support for these states operates at both symbolic and practical levels: for many years now, for example, the organisation has consistently stood in solidarity with Belize in its territorial dispute with neighbouring Guatemala and it has done likewise for Guyana whose sovereignty has been threatened by its gargantuan neighbour Venezuela. In practical terms, the Commonwealth has extended technical assistance in many areas, including trade facilitation, education, public sector governance, and natural resource management, all of which has yielded results which have been appreciated but not always publicised enough. That is probably a deficiency which needs to be addressed. Understandably, the focus in relation to small states has moved on with great urgency in recent years to helping them mitigate of the effects of climate change – a theme which received particular attention at the Samoa CHOGM.
But, of course, the Commonwealth is not only an organisation for small states. Both its footprint and the scope of its activities are much wider, and that fact cannot be lost sight of, whatever the preoccupations of the navel-gazers might be. An aspect of the organisation’s record which has probably not received as much recognition as it deserves are the intangible but inestimable ‘by-products’ of Empire, such as the rule of law, parliamentary traditions, the promotion of a scientific culture and eradication of retrograde social practices in many countries, and the English language, all of which have contributed immensely to human progress over the years. These achievements have, unfortunately, not only been taken for granted by many members of the current generation, leaving no room for a nuanced understanding of their importance, but treated with derision and contempt by those who rail mindlessly against the colonial legacy and call for an eradication of everything connected with the British Empire.
The Samoa CHOGM: What does it all mean?
Articles from the Samoa CHOGM
That all-encompassing abhorrence for Empire and its heritage does not appear to be shared by a vast majority of the ordinary people, including young people, living in Commonwealth countries, as anyone attending the CHOGMs who cares to interact with local populations in the host countries will have seen for themselves. Putting aside the nostalgia for colonial rule which can still be sensed in the older population, most ordinary citizens are, on the whole, grateful for the opportunities that a unifying common language and shared traditions have given them, even if those benefits were the products of a historical accident. The divisions and antipathies that make the headlines are clearly the handiwork of a tiny and unrepresentative handful of activists who are often egged on by self-centred and opportunistic politicians who find invoking the anti-colonial rhetoric an easy route to power and fame; the activists also derive encouragement from the metropolitan elites in Western societies (smug people who are drawn to ‘luxury beliefs’ which Rob Henderson has defined as ‘ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes’). But it is worth reflecting that this phenomenon is by no means universal: there have been politicians – even those of a dictatorial mindset – who have taken a more nuanced view of the colonial legacy and embraced those aspects of that legacy which are, on the whole, beneficial to the common good while discarding – even publicly denouncing – the less savoury bits. An example that comes to mind is Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew.
It is to be hoped that the silent majority of the 2.5 billion people who constitute the Commonwealth and who still cherish the bonds that this unique institution has created, however imperfectly, will assert themselves and strengthen the institution and its various offshoots to build a better future for everyone. There is already a lot of diversity (and inclusion, for that matter) within the Commonwealth family which cannot be ignored: it is reflected in, among other things, the Commonwealth Secretariat in London where people of different nationalities, races and religions work together in harmony and camaraderie; that diversity is also, of course, starkly on display at every Commonwealth event, including CHOGMs, as it was in Samoa most recently, not to mention at the Commonwealth Games, held every four years. To condemn the Commonwealth, therefore as Empire 2.0, as some left-wing commentators have done, is unfair.
It is perhaps too much to expect that the Commonwealth will be completely insulated from the forces of political correctness currently sweeping the Western world. But any objective analysis of the evolution of this unique institution over the past seventy years should guard against an unduly harsh assessment of either its performance or its prospects. There is a grave risk that identity politics and other divisive forces, if allowed to engulf the Commonwealth, will weaken it irreversibly.
Against that backdrop, there is an urgent need for some sobriety to be brought to the reparations debate which, if allowed to develop unchecked, may present a clear and imminent danger to the integrity and fellowship of the Commonwealth. Although initially arising in the context of British-Caribbean relations, the demand for reparations is now being sought to be agitated in the Commonwealth arena and expanded to cover a long wish-list of claims, many of which are contentious to say the least and practically difficult to resolve without exacerbating existing tensions or creating new ones in an increasingly fractured world. The pros and cons of the reparations debate have been rehearsed extensively on many platforms and they do not present a pretty picture. Given the enormity of the problems facing the world, this debate is a needless distraction. It is much better to move collectively with dedication to improve the lot of the disadvantaged through good government and through policies that are calculated to empower everyone capable of and willing to make a contribution to the betterment of society. And in doing that the Commonwealth has a huge role to play.
The Commonwealth will also, of course, have to embark on internal reforms to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in the coming years. This will encompass both substantive, mandate-related matters such as effectively and comprehensively discharging all its responsibilities, ensuring adherence by member-states to the principles and values enshrined in the Charter, guaranteeing the effectiveness of watchdogs such as the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, CMAG), reviewing the effectiveness of its programmes and activities, and liaising with an expanding band of external stakeholders (including other international organisations), on the one hand; and organisational matters such as functioning optimally within allocated resources, ensuring that it does not become a bloated bureaucracy, operating a flawless and credible system of checks and balances, and adhering to the best practices in good governance, on the other.
Venkat Iyer is the outgoing editor of the Round Table Journal.
