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.

Eminent Persons Group

Round Table submission to the Eminent Persons Group

The Round Table response to the EPG Questionnaire

Sharpen impact

  1. Values-based organisation. The EPG recognises that the Affirmation of Commonwealth Values and Principles signals strongly the Commonwealth's purpose as a values-based organisation, and is exploring how Commonwealth activities and networks could be directed towards upholding and supporting more effectively its values and principles and the moral authority deriving from them. What practical measures do you think could help to do this?

Upholding the Commonwealth's values and principles is essential to the Commonwealth's credibility and unity. These values are the responsibility and privilege of all, and sustaining them must be the task of civil society as much as member countries and the intergovernmental Commonwealth. This is one sense in which the ownership of the Commonwealth should be in the hands of all its stakeholders.

The principal mechanism for upholding the Commonwealth's values is CMAG. In recent years CMAG has failed to build on the promise of its beginnings. It has been slow to act and, on key issues such as Zimbabwe, its role has been usurped by the troika of past, present and future chairpersons. This must change, with an extension of the terms of reference of CMAG beyond the predominant focus on military regimes and unconstitutional changes of government. The answer does not lie in placing a greater burden on the Secretary-General in reporting potential cases to the Committee - this may only serve to undermine his good offices role and his ability to mediate impartially between all Heads of Government. Instead, objective criteria need to be developed which can be agreed by all. The Anyaoku recommendations of 1999 are a good starting point but others should be added. For example, an adverse report by a Commonwealth Observer Group at national elections on a significant aspect of the polls should trigger automatic referral to CMAG of the country concerned. As has happened sometimes in the past, civil society groups and Commonwealth organisations should have the opportunity to make representations to the Group in, say, a half day of open hearings on matters of relevant concern. This could include a facility for short 'virtual' submissions for those unable to attend in person. There might also be a procedure for the automatic reference of issues of concern to CMAG, providing a sufficient threshold (including numbers of names in a requisite spread of member countries) had been attained.

CMAG's capacity to act should also be increased through the greater use of special envoys and a special representative for human rights, with investigative and referral powers.

When it comes to enforcing the decisions of CHOGMs or other authoritative bodies as regards suspensions etc, all Commonwealth bodies should feel bound to uphold these decisions and should act accordingly, as a condition of accreditation. For example, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association should not accept as legitimate state or federal parliamentarians whose election has been specifically declared illegitimate by a Commonwealth Election Observer Group, or CMAG.

  1. Commonwealth strengths. Which key strengths of the Commonwealth do you utilise in your work?

The Commonwealth's diversity is a key strength, giving it dynamism and authority on a practical level. This same characteristic provides the Commonwealth with an extraordinary facility for creating and sustaining networks and connecting with member governments at the highest levels. The Round Table seeks to take advantage of these strengths through the composition of its Editorial Advisory Board; through its International Advisory Board; and in the development of country RT 'chapters' and the growth of its many subscribers around and beyond the Commonwealth. All this contributes to the richness of the journal and the breadth and quality of its writing, as it also does to Moot discussions and conferences organised by the Round Table. It also provides the Round Table with the opportunity to influence policy-makers at the senior-most level.

  1. Financial resources.The EPG has discussed the levels of financial resources available to the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation and the Commonwealth Secretariat's assessed budget, as well as to the Foundation and COL. What are your views on this?

The intergovernmental Commonwealth is substantially underfunded. The levels of member contributions to the assessed budget of the Secretariat have recently been revised and it has now been recognised that new members joining the organisation should bring additional resources to its programmes. This is to be welcomed. Even so, too often it has been the case that the Commonwealth's credibility, impact and image have been damaged by its failure to re-inforce, sustain or develop its good offices, conflict resolution, democratic development and peace-making work (for example). The damaging effect of too few resources is also true of programmes of sustainable development. Indisputably, high-grade technical assistance provided through the CFTC can be delivered rapidly, flexibly and according to the priorities of the receiving country (rather than the perceptions of donors). This is a unique comparative advantage over other aid assistance programmes. Yet the resources of CFTC have suffered a sharp decline in real terms over the years.

Of course, most Commonwealth budgets are discretionary and resources are limited. Budget-holders must clearly demonstrate impact and value for money. Greater targeting should be accompanied by a readiness to 'sunset' programmes of declining relevance. But only by greater overall investment in the organisation can member governments expect to generate the substantial impact, nationally and globally, of which it is capable.

The Commonwealth has also a proven capacity for generating extra-budgetary resources, and this needs to be expanded. But it is often the case that adequate core funding must be in place before additional resources can be leveraged.

Strengthen networks

  1. Interaction with inter-governmental Commonwealth. What is your experience of interacting with the inter-governmental Commonwealth (the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning) and what changes would you like to see in this regard?

The Round Table enjoys a good working relationship with both the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation. There is generally less formal contact with the Commonwealth of Learning, based in Vancouver. While it is true that the Commonwealth is perhaps excessively London-centric and that intergovernmental and other Commonwealth organisations should rightly be located in different parts of the Commonwealth, there are sometimes communication difficulties for those outside the UK/London hub. This could be overcome by greater opportunities for virtual exchanges, and perhaps by a greater use by organisations of nominated international representatives where geography is an issue.

  1. Ministerial Meetings. There are reforms in hand to strengthen the value and relevance of Ministerial meetings. Given the time constraints for dialogue at CHOGMs and Ministerial Meetings, one suggestion is to establish alternatively structured and dedicated exchanges between civil society members and a geographical and otherwise representative group of Ministers with reports being submitted to CHOGM for consideration and action. What are your views on this?

Consultation remains the life-blood of the Commonwealth and changes should be judged in terms of how well they support and develop that essential function. As regards CHOGM and Ministerial Meetings, it is clearly essential that the primary purpose of these various meetings should be achieved: that member governments, represented at the highest appropriate level, should have the opportunity to discuss national and international issues and seek common solutions through collective action. Certain sectoral ministerial meetings have seen a worrying decline in attendance by minister and principals, with governments represented at much more junior levels. This clearly undermines the Commonwealth's consultative function, and makes those ministers who do attend less inclined to do so in future.

At the same time, the Commonwealth is an association of peoples as well as governments and the aim should be to build on best practice, both at the CHOGM and at certain ministerial meetings, where dialogue with civil society has worked well and productively. Equally, there are examples where this has not been particularly effective and where the arrangements may have discouraged Ministers from attending. Sometimes meetings are poorly designed, with agendas of limited appeal to governments. Another factor discouraging attendance could relate to the mandates arising from ministerial meetings. Too often, these can amount to very little, with no follow-up, no relationship to a programming or budget-making process, and no reference of strategic recommendations to CHOGM. It is essential that the outcomes of ministerial meetings should be relevant to national concerns; can be acted upon through programmes which demonstrate value for money; and which can be taken forward, by collective Commonwealth action, in regional or global fora.

As regards proposals for a new mechanism of a representative group or groups of ministers to engage with regional and national NGOs on issues which are relevant to their concerns, this could be a useful addition to the consultative process. But it should not be a substitute for those arrangements for dialogue between governments and civil society which have worked well. Equally, new technologies can play an important part in supplementing the consultative function, such as in the preparation of agendas and topics for discussion. But technology cannot, and should not, supplant face-to-face dialogue at key Commonwealth meetings.

  1. Interaction between Commonwealth organisations. What is your experience of interaction with other non-governmental Commonwealth organisations, and what changes would you like to see in this regard?

The Round Table works with other non-governmental Commonwealth organisations as the need arises. The Secretariat has a rather unsatisfactory system for classifying organisations 'accredited to the Commonwealth' and this only serves to promote hierarchy and difference, rather than encouraging collaboration and partnerships. The real distinction between organisations should be whether or not they are able and willing to contribute to the Commonwealth's objectives and programmes and uphold its values. This is not the case with all Commonwealth organisations, some of whom appear to exist in name only and with little sign of activity. In other cases, there seems to be duplication and a tendency to protect turf, rather being open to joint working.

A new and simplified system of accreditation should be introduced (perhaps operated by the Foundation, rather than the Secretariat). There should be a code of conduct covering broad issues of governance to which all should subscribe and, in return for official recognition, organisations would have access on a more generous basis than now to the Commonwealth consultative process (particularly at CHOGM) and would be able to use the Commonwealth logo (or version of it) for their organisation. The other important task would be to classify all Commonwealth organisations according to their field of work or interest (related to core Commonwealth issues) and to facilitate interaction between them, especially across the intergovernmental/nongovernmental divide. This is another crucial step in demonstrating that that ownership of the Commonwealth is the responsibility and privilege of all its stakeholders.

  1. Strategic partnerships. The Secretariat pursues strategic partnerships, including with diverse partners outside the Commonwealth in order to advance the Commonwealth's fundamental values. What partnerships do you think the inter-governmental bodies could pursue, and what lessons have you learned from your organisation's strategic partnerships?

It is important that the Commonwealth has a clear sense of direction and strategic purpose. This should involve clarity about the organisation's objectives, in working in the service of the world. That should also mean the development of relationships and strategic partnerships beyond the Commonwealth's boundaries. This could include China, Japan, Brazil and the USA, alongside India's anticipated emergence as a superpower. This will involve building on previous examples of such co-operation, including with the Nordic countries, Japan and the USA, on both developmental and political projects, as well as with the Francophonie and the European Union.

In terms of advancing the Commonwealth's fundamental values, there have been many examples where, either by example or by persuasion, collective Commonwealth ideals and policies have become accepted internationally. Many regional and international organisations now adopt a similar approach to upholding their values to that pioneered by the establishment of CMAG: and alleviating the debt burden internationally - to take one example - has been greatly advanced by Commonwealth pressure.

That said, much more could be achieved. This is not just the responsibility of intergovernmental bodies. It is incumbent on all member countries to use the influence they possess, in whatever sphere, to promote Commonwealth policies and agreement on a wider stage. After all, Commonwealth members constitute nearly 40% of the WTO; a quarter of the G20; and more than a quarter of the UN. In regional organisations, they are just under 40% of the African Union; more than 60% of SAARC; and over 80% of the membership of CARICOM. The Commonwealth is not just a powerful potential advocate - it is also a significant interest and lobby which can bear on the leadership of such organisations.

Much could also be done through the 'entrepreneurial' Commonwealth. Commonwealth trade and investment is around 20% of the global total and business is lubricated by the 'Commonwealth advantage': with shared administrative and legal systems, and a common language and culture, aiding the growth of business and reducing transaction costs.

The involvement of Prime Minister Rasmussen, UNSG Ban Ki-Moon and President Sarkozy in the 2009 CHOGM in Trinidad & Tobago, effectively as 'dialogue partners', was a most welcome development and the involvement of such figures should be a regular feature of Commonwealth summits in future. The Commonwealth might re-visit the idea of associate members of the organisation (who could also be dialogue or development partners also).The Commonwealth has a facility for connection and networks of influence which make it an attractive partner and more should be done in this regard. But partnerships should not involve any compromise in adherence to core Commonwealth values.

As regards the Round Table, the journal has subscribers around the world, including - notably - in the United States. It is also accessed globally through the internet, and has strategic partners in its chapters and through the International Advisory Board. As the only Commonwealth journal of international relations, the Round Table clearly needs to develop its international reach, within and beyond the Commonwealth. This has implications for the content and quality of its articles and analysis and for the capacity for the Round Table, and the journal's publisher, in using modern technologies in achieving the widest possible global readership.

Raise profile

  1. Profile. The EPG discussed ways in which the profile of the Commonwealth can be strengthened building on the organisation's core and unique strengths. In your view, what measures might be taken to raise the Commonwealth's profile?

The Commonwealth's profile and image is at its best where it achieves impact. In an organisation of 54 members (and minimal resources), direct and substantial impact through political or development work is likely to be very limited. In cases of good offices work and conflict resolution, little impact may be apparent because of the need to operate in discreet and non-public ways. This is all the more reason why the Commonwealth should be conscious of promoting its public work in ways which help define the association and illustrate its relevance. More should be done to select and promote 'star' projects in key programme areas and across the Commonwealth's regions. If some work is too sensitive to be publicised at the time (and there is an inherent caution involved which needs to be overcome), then it is important that it becomes known at a later date. For example, the Commonwealth's role in the ending of apartheid is a proud one - and yet it is in danger of passing unrecognised into oblivion.

Some argue that the Commonwealth should adopt a single 'signature' issue, such as "democracy". Given that democracy and development are generally perceived by Commonwealth governments as interdependent and mutually re-inforcing, this has an attraction. That said, whatever success was achieved in associating the organisation with 'democracy' might create a negative impression in those many member countries where sustainable development is the principal concern. Given the Commonwealth's great diversity, where national priorities are bound to be very different across the globe, summarising the Commonwealth by the three 'D's - Democracy; Development; and Diversity - also captures a third element (namely, the use of the Commonwealth's diversity in conflict resolution and in promoting the 'respect and understanding' agenda) which ought not to be lost.

It is primarily the duty of the Secretary-General and the Secretariat to promote the Commonwealth to the world, and this needs to be pursued much more proactively, with greater imagination and confidence. Given such an approach, the Secretariat could encourage more effective co-operation between all Commonwealth organisations in co-ordinating their promotional activities, and 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. An example of this has been attempts to agree a common summary narrative on the Commonwealth which all Commonwealth organisations - and indeed member countries - could use whenever the opportunity arose.

The Commonwealth Games is perhaps the most visible manifestation of the Commonwealth and the preliminary coverage of the 2010 Games in New Delhi has been a public relations disaster. It is not clear why a political vacuum was allowed to develop - this surely is an area requiring leadership from the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the Secretariat, as well as India, the host nation, and the Commonwealth Games Federation.

There is also the work of the other principal office-holders - the Head of the Commonwealth and the Chairperson - which need to be closely aligned to a common communications strategy. It is also the case that all member governments (as well as all Commonwealth organisations) have a duty to promote the wider organisation, its values and programmes, within their particular areas of influence. Education about the Commonwealth, particularly among young people, remains an important collective responsibility.

  1. Media resources. What challenges do you face in raising your own organisation's profile, and what support, training or resources (if any) do you think could be provided or shared?

Raising the Round Table's profile is most important in academic, policy-making and publishing circles. By its nature, the Round Table's work is unlikely to have a high newsworthy content. But, both through the journal and in its Moot discussions and activities, the Round Table offers Commonwealth practitioners regular opportunities to reflect on the Commonwealth and its programmes in an international context. That said, all Commonwealth organisations could do more to promote the Commonwealth, the Round Table included. In that regard, sharing media resources, induction and training opportunities would make a lot of sense.

  1. Chairperson-in-Office. The Chairperson-in-Office has a remit to host CHOGM and to promote the Commonwealth in other international organisations and arenas. The Head of the Commonwealth and the Secretary-General are others who have leadership and profile-raising roles. What changes or enhancements might be envisaged?

Leadership is important to the Commonwealth and should come not only from its three principal office-holders but from all Heads of member governments and from all who lead Commonwealth organisations.

The role of Chairperson, instituted in 1999, has not been particularly successful. Each of the incumbents to date has made little impact in promoting the Commonwealth globally, given national preoccupations. To some extent, each has also allowed domestic issues to colour how they are perceived internationally (for example, Thabo Mbeki on HIV/Aids; John Howard on refugees; and Yoweri Museveni on gay rights). There are other difficulties. Given that the CHOGM host automatically becomes the Chairperson and that perhaps more than half of the membership has no realistic prospect of hosting a CHOGM, the post of chairperson is only attainable for a minority of members. Even worse, if an incumbent chairperson gives up office (usually after defeat in national elections), that country's new Head of Government automatically becomes the new Chairperson, regardless of their experience and knowledge of the Commonwealth. The dilemmas involved are most vividly illustrated when considering the 'troika' of past, future and present Chairperson. Trinidad & Tobago's Kamla Persad-Bissessas only assumed power in May 2010 and was not involved in her country's CHOGM, in November 2009. Similarly, Prime Minister Julia Gillard (due to host the next CHOGM in Perth in 2011) has had little exposure to the Commonwealth before now. The current troika (charged with fresh responsibilities at the last CHOGM) is therefore not necessarily in a position to provide strong Commonwealth leadership.

It is a paradox that the Head of the Commonwealth, in a number of important respects, has shown greater leadership and willingness to engage internationally than has the Chairperson (as evidenced by the Queen's recent speech to the UN General Assembly). Some argue that retaining three principal office-holders is no longer necessary and that two should suffice, though there is no unanimity about which post might disappear. Others have called for a clear understanding of the procedures to be followed when the time comes for a new Head of the Commonwealth to be chosen.

All Heads of Government have a duty to provide Commonwealth leadership, in particular in areas where they have the status and leverage to do so. Alongside an activist Commonwealth Secretary-General, they should speak on behalf of the Commonwealth and in support of its fundamental values and principles. One suggestion could be that, on a rotating and re-electable basis, a particular Head of Government be chosen to speak for the Commonwealth within a designated forum (be it the World Trade Organisation, the G20 or the African Union). The tenure might be on a two-year renewable basis (coinciding with CHOGM); and Heads of Government, in reviewing this 'cabinet' of spokespersons, would ensure that there was global (and gender) balance. The post of Chairperson-on-Office, in such an event, might no longer be necessary, providing that the Headship was sustained in some form or other.

  1. Member governments. What practical steps could member governments take to raise the profile of the Commonwealth association?

As part of the responsibilities of membership, member governments should assume an active role in promoting the Commonwealth within their nation. Apart from the Small States Office in New York and the four regional youth centres, the Commonwealth has no representation or presence in a member government, apart from the member itself. The member government should therefore seek to enhance their Commonwealth co-ordination capacity (which is often low-level or a single point of contact) to cover all areas of Commonwealth functional co-operation. This would include a designated media professional within the government system whose task it would be to promote the Commonwealth. Links to that nation's civil society organisations within the Commonwealth should also be strengthened. Member countries should also consider hosting the headquarters of pan-Commonwealth organisations (whether intergovernmental or non-governmental). All this would reduce London-centricity and increase the perception of the Commonwealth as having no centre and no periphery. Giving the four regional youth centres greater Commonwealth responsibilities and opening a Commonwealth trade office in Geneva should also be considered.

As regards opportunities for raising the Commonwealth profile, Commonwealth Day each year provides an obvious platform for celebrating a country's Commonwealth membership. The Head of State or Government can issue messages, take part in media or other national events and unveil initiatives to promote national objectives within the Commonwealth context. The member government could report annually about its Commonwealth membership (as part of a foreign affairs report to parliament) and there are many other opportunities - sporting, cultural, educational, political - for illustrating the value of involvement in the association.

Other

  1. General remarks. Please provide any general comments or specific recommendations that you would like to share with the Eminent Persons Group.

Though without a founding charter or constitution, the modern Commonwealth has become progressively more rule-based (from the procedures set out in the Millbrook Action Plan to what are now detailed requirements for a membership applicant). This is a welcome development.

At the same time, while long-term goals and clear strategic direction are important, the Commonwealth must never lose its ability to react flexibly and with speed to any new challenges which may arise. Indeed, new technologies should allow Heads to talk to each other, swiftly and effectively, in between the biennial summit.

Above all, the Round Table believes that the Commonwealth is an international organisation of great untapped potential, capable of making a unique contribution to resolving some of the most pressing global issues facing humanity. We very much hope that the EPG, through its enquiry and report, will take us closer to realising that potential.

arrow Back to Top