---

Commonwealth

My Lords, we, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for introducing this debate, which foreshadows the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta next week. As the noble Lord pointed out, the theme of this year’s CHOGM is designed to highlight the role of information technology in development. It comes at a particularly appropriate time, when one cannot underestimate the impact of the global digital revolution in transforming lives in developing countries and bringing knowledge to remote areas of the globe. Moreover, its impact on the smaller member states of the Commonwealth—the Pacific islands, which are remote even by modern standards of travel—is enormous in that it links their educational establishments to higher education centres through the Commonwealth of Learning. But—and there is always a ““but”” in technological advance—the role and use of technology will always be subservient to other, more essential, needs for many Commonwealth citizens, including the basic need for clean drinking water, for food and for drugs to inoculate against diseases that have been eradicated in the West for decades. This brings me to one of the substantial points that I wish to make in the debate today: the question that nearly 2 billion citizens of the Commonwealth expect the United Kingdom to answer as it holds the presidencies of the European Union and the G8. That question is how we can reconcile our rhetoric with our deeds—over poverty and development, on the one hand, and our failure to arrive at an EU position consistent with our rhetoric in this regard apropos the forthcoming WTO negotiations, on the other. We had the Prime Minister telling us as recently as the UN world summit in September that,"““if we end up with a failure in December, that will echo right round the world, and I am not prepared to have that, at least without the most monumental struggle””." While many on these Benches would applaud the Prime Minister’s appetite for monumental struggles, most negotiators believe that persuasion is a more powerful tool to bring people round to your point of view. But ““struggle”” is where we are in many aspects of the UK’s presidency. There is little question that the cost of failure in Hong Kong will impact severely on the many developing countries within the Commonwealth, where European agricultural protection takes such a heavy toll. We regret the failure of persuasion by the UK, over several years, whereby we have one country—France—holding out against the gains of billions of people to protect the interests of a few hundreds of thousands. We hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us that we, alongside Malta and Cyprus—countries that have a special responsibility through their membership of the Commonwealth and the EU—will do their utmost to persuade the French Government to move further in offering cuts to farm tariffs. But Commonwealth leaders are right to look ahead in a positive manner at the Malta meeting. There are areas where the Commonwealth, due to its cohesion as a group, achieves far more than other intergovernmental organisations, as was said so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. In its emphasis on agreeing fundamental political values through the Singapore and, unfortunately named, Harare declarations, the Commonwealth puts down a firm marker for its members of the standards of democracy and human rights to be expected of them. Many in this House might wish to see such minimum standards adopted at the United Nations. I should declare an interest here as I worked for the Commonwealth Secretariat from 1999 until 2003 and dealt with issues of governance, democracy and human rights. My period of service coincided with some of the more intractable problems in those regards—the military takeover in Pakistan and the rigging of elections in Zimbabwe, to note but two. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House will recall the energy and effort expended by Ministers in trying to resolve them. In Pakistan, it was to some extent pressure from the Commonwealth which brought about a transition to democracy. It is continuing vigilance on the part of the Commonwealth, which retains Pakistan on its ministerial ““list”” of transgressors, that secures its slow progress down the road towards full restoration of democracy. Zimbabwe, and its continued downward spiral, has more painful lessons for the international community as a whole. While its suspension and eventual departure from the Commonwealth on the one hand exposed the weakness of such sanctions that exist, many of us would argue that, on the other, the conviction of Commonwealth members in saying that it had no place at their table was indeed a sign of solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe over its leaders. If its parting from the Commonwealth had no weight, why did its leaders try so hard to stay within the organisation? Any failure of member states to conform to the fundamental values of human rights and democracy is a failure for all. It is to the credit of the Commonwealth that it gains as much value-added from its work in conflict resolution and democracy-building as it does from its small budget. Where democracy is embedded into the constitutional structure and value system of nations, there is little need for external mediation of disputes or light-touch conflict resolution. However, where it is newly embraced and the tradition of political pluralism is fragile, the work needed to assist with the resolution of differences between the executive and the opposition can be critical to political stability. This is where much of the Commonwealth’s best work takes place, with the Secretary-General’s good offices role in anticipating where problems might arise and where disputes need to be mediated. Likewise, where peaceful transitions from government to opposition are part of the political culture, external election observers are merely symbolic. But where this practice is not fully embedded, an external endorsement that elections have represented the will of the people becomes critical to that country’s future stability. There is much need for work in this area among Commonwealth members. One has only to look at the prospect for a peaceful election in Uganda to see how fragile political systems still are in many countries. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House be able to reassure us that the UK will continue to press for the forthcoming elections in Uganda to be conducted in an atmosphere free from intimidation, violence and manipulation of electoral law? Will the Government also pledge themselves to increased financial assistance in these vital areas of the work of the Commonwealth? In concluding, I will touch on the relevance of the Commonwealth in today’s globalising world. But my question will be narrower: is the Commonwealth still relevant to the UK? Looking at the half-hearted approach of successive UK governments to the organisation, one is inclined to think that it is less and less so. We started some 60 years ago from Churchill’s concentric circles of the US-UK special relationship overlapping with the UK’s relations with the EU overlapping with the special role of the UK in the Commonwealth. We now find ourselves in a situation where we have moved far from those overlapping interests to a policy which can at best be described as indifferent. So we cannot fight our friends’ corner at the WTO; nor are we ready to pursue reform of the United Nations Security Council in the interests of our partners from within the Commonwealth. Ultimately, our energy in foreign policy terms seems dedicated to complying with the wishes of the one superpower in a uni-polar world. Those in the Commonwealth who have witnessed this gradual change in the desire of the UK to be an active player in the Commonwealth must consider these changes too. I believe that the Commonwealth is indeed relevant, particularly to those smaller states which do not play a role on the international stage and which value the practical work done by the Commonwealth in their interests. Perhaps the FCO might be induced to review its long-term approach towards its Commonwealth partners in the light of its strategic goals and conclude that it needs a change of tack. We on these Benches await such a review and the more positive role that might emerge from that.