Moot Resources
The Moot is the name of the Editorial Board that supports The Round Table journal, as well as organizing occasional seminars, meetings and conferences on themes of Commonwealth interest.
Report: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2011
A Report by Daisy Cooper
A 'make or break' CHOGM? Hardly!
The Perth Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) was heralded as a 'make or break' summit for the association – in reality, it was neither here nor there.
The non-publication of the Eminent Persons Group report dominated. In the days running up to CHOGM, EPG member The Hon Michael Kirby repeatedly said that "Sir Humphrey is very active here in Perth", whilst Sir Malcolm Rifkind described as "absurd" that a report entitled "A Commonwealth of the People" could not be read by the people. Others reminisced about the 1986 EPG and Sonny Ramphal's handling of that group's report: it was published in four days, became a Penguin best seller, was translated into French and Dutch and appeared in bookshops around the world, all weeks before it was discussed by leaders.
As it happened, this EPG had submitted their report to leaders around two months before CHOGM and recommended publication ahead of the Summit, never expecting that leaders would actually say 'no'. Whilst many in the close-knit London Commonwealth community were in possession of leaked copies weeks ahead, most of the CHOGM delegates did not have copies. And whilst the thrust of the EPG's recommendations had been published in May, the argumentation and rationale for those recommendations had not.
Non-publication was interpreted to be a 'cover up' of "controversial proposals" to advance human rights - to create a Charter and to establish a Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and Human Rights.
By halfway through the pre-CHOGM Foreign Ministers meeting, the recommendations of the Review of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group had been agreed 'on the nod' with the EPG proposal for a Commissioner a bargaining chip. In the corridors, officials defended the move saying that it was surely better to strengthen existing institutions rather than create new ones.
Foreign Ministers then attempted to kick the EPG's 106 recommendations into the long grass by recommending to Heads that they as Foreign Ministers consider the EPG recommendations at their next regular meeting in September 2012.
Unhappy with this, the Secretariat and the Australian Prime Minister's office agreed that the Secretariat would develop a paper – a paper which then suggested that as many as 84 of the EPG's recommendations could be accepted as non-contentious by Heads.
That afternoon, leaders asked Foreign Ministers to consider those recommendations that they themselves had not dealt with, overnight. It is understood that an angry host Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd (angry that his conclusion had been overturned), later charged through the recommendations.
Meanwhile, the EPG had that morning called a press conference and effectively published their report, by distributing their own copies to the press.
By Sunday morning, all 106 of the EPG's recommendations were in four categories – agreed without reservation; agreed subject to consideration of financial implications; referred to a Task Force of Ministers to provide more advice; and deemed inappropriate for adoption.
By the end of CHOGM, many felt that the outcome was not as bad as it was looking a few days previously – some estimating that around 60-80% of the report could potentially still be agreed. However, there was still widespread disappointment that this fell far short of what could and should have been achieved.
Other outcomes were even less satisfactory. The final Communique reference to Zimbabwe had not progressed since 2009 and made no offer to assist the country with its elections next year, nor did it include any reference to decriminalising homosexuality – an issue that many had hoped would be discussed by Commonwealth leaders for the first time. More than ever before, the Communique reflected the national interests of the host country - the responsibilities of the extractive industry (Australia's largest industry), piracy in the Indian Ocean (damaging to Australia's new trading links with emerging economies), and an initiative on UN Security Council reform (to support Australia's bid for a non-permanent seat next year). The Perth Declaration on Food Security was effectively a launchpad for the announcement of new national development commitments: the $100m Australia-Africa Food Security Initiative and the establishment of a $47m Australian International Food Security Centre. Arguably, this sets a dangerous precedent for the 2013 CHOGM in Sri Lanka – currently boasting about defeating terrorism on home soil, whilst standing accused by others of only doing so through gross human rights abuses, possibly tantamount to war crimes.
The Secretary-General's renewal for a full four year second term in office was announced without any sense from leaders of their expectations of their CEO, and Sri Lanka was confirmed as the host for the 2013 CHOGM – reportedly with only one country, Canada, threatening to boycott.
Newcomers to the Commonwealth Peoples Forum expressed their disappointment with the lack of engagement with governments relative to other international forums; whilst those who had attended several CHOGMs felt that the dialogue with Foreign Ministers was the best attended (with around 20 Ministers and around another 15 government reps) since the dialogue had begun in 2005.
Despite the rhetoric that the CHOGM would deliver on "reform, relevance and resilience", it achieved very little. CMAG's new mandate will only be meaningful if members use their new powers, and the most important recommendations of the EPG face a very uncertain future. Some of the Commonwealth's largest contributors were already sceptical about the value of the organisation: this CHOGM will have done very little to convince them otherwise.
For more reports and pictures from CHOGM please visit www.chogm2011.org
Back to Top