CUCS 2006 Annual Lecture
Problem-solving in our globalised era
Richard Bourne
6.30pm, Thursday 9 November, McCrum Lecture Theatre, Corpus Christi College.
I should like to start by thanking most warmly the Cambridge branch of the Royal Commonwealth Society for inviting me to give this lecture. I do not know the city well, although in 1959 I worked as reporter for six months on what was then known as the Cambridge Daily News. It was briefly owned by IPC, a newspaper conglomerate which was headed by two major figures of the era, Cecil King and Hugh Cudlipp.
I recall the anxiety in the office when these two came to make a visit. The editor, who used to write a signed column as “Robin Goodfellow” was not used to powerful celebrities. Coming back after a lengthy lunch with them he pointed to the room where I was then working with three sub-editors. “Oh, these are just the subs,” he said. “Subs? Subs make a paper”, said King, boss of the Daily Mirror, blowing a smoke ring with his cigar. What the unfortunate editor didn’t know was that the only time King, a spin-off of the Northcliffe-Rothermere dynasty, had actually worked as a journalist himself, was some years previously as a sub-editor in Glasgow.
I am quite sure that some of those in this room will know more about the issues I want to raise than I do myself. If so I crave your indulgence, and ask you to save your disappointment for our discussion later. In the meantime I would like to refer briefly to six contemporary issues; to consider where the Commonwealth fits in, if at all; and then to look at how a restructured Commonwealth might play a more significant role in at least some areas.
The issues are in no particular order. The first is the greater ease of migration around the world, not just created by cheaper transport, or sudden push factors due to drought or environmental change. The main reason for migration is economic – a disparity in living standards between different countries and regions which, thanks to improved communications, can no longer be concealed from those who are worse off. Governments in my view can only partially control these flows; the flows can create difficulties; they are likely to grow.
A second issue is the relative weakness of governments as compared with business, civil society and the media. We have seen in the UK our government change tack on matters ranging from taxation to faith schools as a result of determined lobbying; developing countries, vulnerable to the withdrawal of overseas investment or aid, have suffered high interest rates, or inappropriate policies which have made users pay for education or health services. If national governments seem weak so do the international agencies which aggregate their efforts; they are vulnerable to big power differences and financial pressure from subscribers. From the UN downwards such agencies are only as authoritative as the unity and resources they can represent. Surveying the international scene it may look orderly, but there is a lot of anarchy below the surface.
Third is our increasing awareness of the radical difference in values which coexist dangerously in our world. People like myself have worked to promote human rights. But there are plenty of others, as we have seen, who are proud to throw away their own lives and those of a random collection of others for what they believe to be a good cause. Secularism, which became so strong in Europe in the late 20 th century, is only one of contemporary faiths, and it is on the defensive; born-again Christians, radical Muslims, and the warlike Buddhists of Sri Lanka are only three of the groups who think nothing of secularism. And when one merely totals up the number of deaths in former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, Afghanistan, Iraq and Darfur, the last 15 years have seen a horrendous quantity of bloodshed. Values which trump peaceful negotiation become toxic when allied to helicopters armed with the latest weapons and electronics, or a kalashnikov in the hands of someone keen to use it.
Fourth is environmental change and global warming. This is beginning to dominate debate in developing as well as developed countries. But the key aspect of this issue is that everyone has got to contribute if the damage is to be limited, and adaptation spurred. International agencies, citizens, private sector and governments, NGOs and media have got to play their appropriate roles. We all depend on each other.
The fifth issue I would pick out is that we live in an ever-smaller globe. It is smaller not just because there are more people. It is smaller because of the explosion in communications around and knowledge of our world. What this implies is that we need to be much more careful and respectful in our behaviour towards each other. You can be as rude as you like about the rest of humanity if you are alone on a desert island; if you swear at a person of different faith or ethnicity, sitting beside you in a crowded London tube, you may cause a riot.
And the sixth issue I would refer to is the weakness of democratic politics as currently practised. This is dominated by a short-term electoral cycle, often of only four years. Yet many of the topics to which I have referred – substantial development which would reduce the surges of migration, the slowing of climate change, and changes in popular behaviour – require sustained, cross-party commitment over decades. And some current approaches are ineffective; there is too much emphasis on laws and policies when quality implementation and flexible administration may be more important. There is too much top-down control, not enough inclusiveness and spreading of responsibility.
So if these are some problems, where does the Commonwealth of 53 states and nearly 2000M people fit in? I have to say that, if a major global problem is identified, almost noone will call first on the Commonwealth to act. This is not just because the Commonwealth Secretariat, which serves member governments, has only around 280 staff and a budget of scarcely £40M ( including the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation ). It is rather because awareness of the Commonwealth is low amongst its governments, opinion-formers and publics. Even Shridath Ramphal, longest-serving Secretary-General – whose Secretariat forged an alliance against apartheid and was a major builder of international consensus – put it cynically not long ago at the RCS in London.
He said in effect that Commonwealth leaders rarely turned to the Commonwealth to do anything – they had to be made to want it to do something!
Having said this I would like to refer to things the Commonwealth has done in the six areas I have identified, and then suggest how it could be structured to increase its effectiveness.
First, on migration, where practices vary enormously between member countries and some, from Pakistan to Canada, have altered their demographic composition within living memory. The Commonwealth has focused hard, ever since the Secretariat was founded in 1965, on promoting development so that citizens can enjoy a reasonable standard of living in their own countries. It has won important victories, in promoting HIPC – the initiative to write off the debts of heavily indebted poor countries; in pushing for development with democracy, the burden of the report of a group chaired by Manmohan Singh, now Prime Minister of India, presented to the Abuja summit in 2003; in attending to the needs of small states; and in pressing the claims of African countries at G8 meetings in Kananaskis and Gleneagles. The Commonwealth has been one of the most persistent and knowledgeable voices for development, and governments have been critically backed by NGOs, media and the private sector.
Second, on the relative weakness of states. At a modest level the Commonwealth and aid agencies in donor governments have sought to strengthen the quality of administration. But economic liberalisation has in some cases weakened governments. On the international scene the Commonwealth has not pulled its weight for example on UN reform even though, 30 years ago in the negotiations which led to the Law of the Sea, Commonwealth players had been crucial. As an association of governments it is not well-placed to negotiate with or empathise with minorities and non-state-actors which may be in conflict with weak states.
Third, the danger that clashes of values may lead to loss of life, and devalue the work of peacemakers. In principle the Commonwealth has much going for it. It is not the west or the north. Nor is it only the south. Nearly all religions and ethical views are represented in its membership. The Secretary-General’s “good offices” teams – which have worked as peacemakers behind the scenes in countries as diverse as Bangladesh and Guyana – do what they can. An expert group chaired by Amartya Sen has started work on how the Commonwealth can promote respect and a positive diversity. It remains to be seen whether the Commonwealth, especially an under-publicised Commonwealth with tiny resources for its mission, can take forward this agenda effectively.
Fourth, there is the environment and climate change. Shridath Ramphal, who was a member of the Brundtland Commission, got the Secretariat to publish far-sighted reports on the environment nearly 20 years ago, and launched the Iwokrama rainforest project in Guyana in 1989. But since then the official Commonwealth has done little, although there is non-governmental expertise in the Commonwealth Conference of Meteorologists, and the Commonwealth Human Ecology Council. The Commonwealth could be an international force for negotiating post-Kyoto agreements. It has a special interest in the fate of fish stocks, the oceans and of low-lying islands, in the impact of sea-level rise on coastlines, and populations living in flood-plains in Bangladesh, Guyana and elsewhere, not excluding east London.
Fifth, there is the difficult challenge of promoting appropriate behaviours in an ever-smaller globe, and encouraging everyone to observe the rights of others, and to disarm their absolutisms, their bad temper and their weapons. This will require a great deal more than wise words from Amartya Sen. Commonwealth Education Ministers, meeting in Cape Town next month, can give a lead to teachers and schools. In addition to better education, we need better policing. The Commonwealth Peoples Forum last year in Valletta urged leaders to set up an Expert Group on Policing, and I hope they will adopt this proposal next year in Kampala. Civil society and business also have parts to play.
Finally, can the Commonwealth help in achieving longer-term consensus, beyond the electoral cycle of governments? It has two things in its favour, and two against. In its favour is the fact that the Commonwealth is an ongoing collection of institutions and networks which has real stamina. This is why in the past it has been able to push development issues, why it has made a contribution in human rights, by suspending abusive governments and promoting human rights commissions. Also in its favour is its style, eased by use of a common language. The Commonwealth is a series of continuing debates, in which ideas rather than power politics are decisive.
But against it there are two serious factors. Membership of key Commonwealth bodies changes rapidly, and those arriving have little knowledge of the specificities of the Commonwealth – its achievements and failures, even the other countries which belong. It is probable that half the Education Ministers and senior officials who will be coming to Cape Town next month did not attend the previous meeting in Edinburgh in 2003; almost none would have been present nine years ago in Gaborone when Ministers called for a Ministerial Action Committee and a Commonwealth Expert Group to promote understanding of the Commonwealth among young people. Turnover in bodies like the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association can be higher still.
The second handicap is lack of effective follow-up. This is partly through a want of resources, partly a lack of commitment. The Ministerial Action Committee and Commonwealth Expert Group called for by Education Ministers in Gaborone were never set up. So when young people from the 53 states came to Edinburgh in 2003 to take part in a Youth Forum, they asked why they were there. What is the Commonwealth? This mismatch between the grandiloquence of Commonwealth leaders, and the modest impact of too many of their statements, has worsened over the last 15 years as the real resources available to the intergovernmental bodies have diminished. At the same time international diplomacy, coalitions of the willing and instantaneous communications have been racing ahead.
Fortunately I believe that the official Commonwealth has a real opportunity over the next two years to tackle its defects, and to focus more sharply on a modest range of tasks where it can make a difference. This will leave many other topics, where Commonwealth networks can be helpful in exchanging knowledge and best practice, to the array of non-governmental bodies or para-governmental bodies which exist.
The opportunities arise because next year, in Kampala, the leaders will choose the fifth Commonwealth Secretary-General, who is due to succeed the New Zealander, Don McKinnon, in mid-2008. Furthermore, a committee under the former Jamaican Prime Minister, P J Patterson, will report on new membership rules for the Commonwealth. The most significant aspect of its remit is that it will have to review the scale of membership subscriptions; these have hardly been touched since the Secretariat was founded in 1965, and are now wholly out of date.
This may sound arcane. But in my view the Commonwealth, which is supposed to be a mutual association, is structurally unsound. It is far too dependent on a single country, the United Kingdom, which in serious consideration of policy and national interest, and in the awareness of public and opinion makers, cares little for it. The Commonwealth has failed to emerge from a post-colonial cocoon which could be the death of it.
In a book published last year, with the provocative title, “The rise, decline and future of the British Commonwealth,” Krishan Srinivasan, former Deputy Secretary- General ( Political ) described the Commonwealth today as an orphan. He had served as High Commissioner in a number of Commonwealth countries, including Nigeria, and been head of the Indian diplomatic service. He himself does not think that any country, or group of countries, can play the part that Britain played in the past. But I think he is wrong. The Commonwealth is ripe for what has been described with the ugly term “Wimbledonisation” – the takeover of a formerly British product or institution by others with greater imagination, energy and money.
The structural problem arises not because the official bodies, the Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth Foundation, happen to be based in London – though this does mean that they may be more exposed to Commonwealth opinion in the UK than in other capitals. It is rather that the UK pays 30 per cent of subscriptions to the Secretariat and, with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, almost 61 per cent. As you know, in public companies in the UK, where one shareholder has 30 per cent of the shares and others have less, it is deemed to be controlling.
Further, the symbolism of the Commonwealth gives a pride of place to the UK which in 2006 – nearly 60 years after the independence of South Asia – is harder to justify. Although the modern Commonwealth is the product of all its members, in their hearts too many perceive still it as the “British Commonwealth,” turning first to the UK to support Commonwealth activities. When I met the Trinidad ambassador in Brasilia last month he regretted that the current British ambassador was no longer inviting Commonwealth diplomats to a monthly meeting. I asked why he and the Indian, for instance, did not take the initiative.
I would like to see the successful candidate who becomes Secretary-General, who is most likely to come from south or southeast Asia, leading a campaign to restructure the finances and purposes of the Commonwealth. It would have to be a coalition exercise, involving a cross-section of countries. At present many countries get their membership too cheaply, and the subscription levels pay no regard to the success of economies such as Singapore, India, Botswana or Trinidad and Tobago. A new rationale for subscriptions, relating to gnp and population, needs to be created, and levels should be adjusted every ten years.
But more important is what a politically and financially restructured Commonwealth might do, and this will feature in the discreet election process going on round the world between now and the Kampala summit.
An official Commonwealth representing a different balance of power, better representing countries which are making a success of their development, could well be more instrumental and less sentimental in its priorities. It will ask where the Commonwealth can make a difference that the UN, regional groupings or individual states or mini-coalitions cannot. It will interrogate why the Commonwealth has succeeded in the recent past, and where it has failed, or avoided getting involved.
And quite a lot can be learned from recent Commonwealth history. The Commonwealth made a contribution to the end of apartheid because governments, NGOs and the media were all working in roughly the same direction – to end white discriminatory rule. Even the rows between the bulk of Commonwealth members and the Thatcher government in the UK were positive, in that they moved international opinion forward, and gave encouragement to the South African opposition. A rather similar conjunction was achieved to press for HIPC, and to introduce the Harare and Millbrook rules which led to the suspension of abusive governments from 1995 and the processes of the Foreign Ministers’ rules group, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. A non-governmental pressure group, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, helped to raise the salience of human rights issues.
But the Commonwealth has not only been significant for its own membership. In the prophetic words of Sonny Ramphal, “The Commonwealth cannot negotiate for the world, but it can help the world to negotiate.” A very recent example lies in the Commonwealth Teachers’ Recruitment Protocol, negotiated in 2004, which will be reviewed in Cape Town by Education Ministers.
It was the product of concern by Education Ministers, particularly from Caribbean islands with small teacher forces, that experienced people were being poached to work in the UK, the US and Canada. There was angry discussion at the Edinburgh conference and an agreement was hammered out with the aid of the Commonwealth Teachers’ Group, and the National Union of Teachers. It was a pioneering document, designed to protect vulnerable teaching systems as well as the right to free movement and professional advance by teachers. It was a considered response to globalisation in its own field.
The response has been striking. Not only have practices changed within the Commonwealth – where it is recognised that more and more countries both send and receive teachers – but it has been acknowledged by UNESCO, the International Labour Organisation, the Organisation of American States, and the African Union, as well of course by Commonwealth Heads in Valletta and Education International, the body which represents all teacher unions. It has, very quickly, become the international benchmark consulted, for example, by Kenya in connection with Rwandese teachers, and highlighting the extraordinary dependence on expatriate teachers of Swaziland.
The political work of Education Ministers and the Secretariat was backed up by consistent interest from Commonwealth teachers, and technical research by the Secretariat and Nottingham and Bradford universities. It is to be hoped that Ministers in Cape Town will commission a review meeting in a year or so to examine progress, and see whether the Protocol needs amending. But as an example of what the Commonwealth today can do, on a cutting-edge issue, the Teacher Recruitment Protocol is exemplary.
But at the same time I think the Commonwealth needs to look carefully at what is not done so well, or not done at all. Some of the good offices work by representatives of the Secretary-General, appointed to help peacemaking in countries facing severe political problems, seems to have had little effect. This work is shrouded in secrecy, so it is difficult to evaluate, and some of the problems – such as the hostility between government and opposition in Bangladesh and Guyana – may be too difficult for even a high status negotiator to resolve. The Commonwealth has not obviously got much involved in some of the dangerous conflicts of recent years – Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, northern Uganda, or Kashmir.
The coming year or so could smoke out some interesting ideas for the future of the Commonwealth. We do not yet know what candidates will be put forward for the Secretary-General’s post, but I am willing to bet that both India and Malaysia will be among the swing states in south and southeast Asia whose views are going to be important. And what do we know about them?
Very simply, the present Congress-led government in India is probably the most Commonwealth-aware since the Rajiv Gandhi government of the 1980s. Manmohan Singh chaired the report on democracy and development prior to the Abuja summit, and has been crucial in tearing up the “licence raj” in his own country. India has a special and optimistic take on globalisation, on use of the English language, and on hostility to terrorism.
As for Malaysia, ever since the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed switched from opposition to support for the Commonwealth, it has seen the Commonwealth as a valuable network for the views of smaller powers, an opportunity for moderate Islamic states, and a chance for trade and investment, especially in Africa and the UK. Malaysia’s most recent innovation has been to set up a Commonwealth Tourism Centre.
Next time round I hope the Commonwealth breaks with the regional Buggins’ turn, provides a proper job specification against the immediate tasks facing the Commonwealth and opens up the Secretary-General’s post to the best man or woman for the job, wherever they come from. But this time I suspect the position will go to someone from south or southeast Asia.
I have no idea yet who will be the next Secretary-General, or whether the Commonwealth will get a new lease of life and more resources. But it is quite possible that the problem-solving to which it will turn its attention over the next few years will be different: for instance the impact of climate change on tourism, the disparities within countries as some regions race ahead in the knowledge economy while others get stuck behind, with internal and external migration exacerbated by global warming. I think there may be more emphasis on carefully-chosen topics, like international teacher recruitment, where it is in the interest of the Commonwealth and others to find solutions.
And here in Cambridge, where there are so many students and academics who come from Commonwealth states as well as the United Kingdom, I would conclude by making an appeal. Please make the effort to study and write about the Commonwealth, not just one or two member countries. The British Empire is now more studied than the Commonwealth since 1965. Yet the Commonwealth of today is not just the Queen or the Commonwealth Games. It deserves your critical, youthful attention. It almost certainly deserves, as you will give it, some kicking. But do please look carefully, and below the surface. Think how it seems in the eyes of people in the other 52 states. What might increase a sense of ownership? Are there things that you yourselves can do? Make suggestions and, through the RCS branch in Cambridge which I would like to thank again for inviting me, please get stuck in.
Thank you.