Despite all the world upheavals of the last three quarters of a century we are still living with an international order that was shaped in 1945.

It was then, as World War Two ended, that the victorious leaders set up the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and their ancillary bodies.

At the time these were quite remarkable achievements. What undermined the machinery almost immediately was the development of the Cold War in the late Forties and the decades of hostility between the great powers that eased only in the last years of the 20^th Century.

The legacy is institutions that were set in stone nearly three-quarters of a century. The worst example of all is the UN Security Council, which has five permanent members armed with the veto that often blocks effective action.

The five were the major victors of World War Two  - US, Britain, Russia, France and China. Today they are no longer the world’s five most important or representative powers. The countries of South America, Africa and South Asia are missing for a start.

It follows that today nothing is more important or urgent for the world’s future than reform of the international architecture. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the Security Council, need drastic restructuring.

Perhaps the most important decision of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Kampala last November was to set up a high-level group that would build on the ideas for reforms so far put forward.

The first step is a meeting in the Commonwealth Secretariat headquarters in Marlborough House, London (9-10 June) of 11 countries – nine represented by their presidents or prime ministers.

Four are from Africa (Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana and Mauritius), three from Asia (Malaysia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives), two from the Caribbean (Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago), one from the Pacific (Tonga) and one from Europe (UK).

In the chair will be Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK, who is taking much more interest in the Commonwealth than his predecessor Tony Blair. This will be the first Commonwealth exercise to be handled by the new Secretary-General, Kamalesh Sharma of India, who took over only two months ago.

In recent years the Commonwealth has suffered from a failure to project itself on the international stage. This latest exercise should be used to help raise its profile again as an international player.

It embraces, after all, almost one-third of the UN membership with major powers like India, Canada, South Africa, UK and Australia. It is an ideal platform from which to launch initiatives such as this current one.

But the London meeting is only a limited mini-summit and three key member countries are not taking part – India and South Africa, which are obvious candidates for a permanent seat on the Security Council, and Canada, which in earlier times played such a huge role in the creation of today’s Commonwealth.

The main focus of this meeting will be to discuss the possibility of a new Bretton Woods. This was the 44-nation agreement of 1944 that set up the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It takes its name from the venue in New Hampshire, US, where it was born. Its objective then was to maintain the monetary system and to ensure exchange rate stability to aid trade.

It is certainly the case that Bretton Woods paved the way for reconstruction after the war, but today it is quite out of date. In the words of the Commonwealth communiqué in Kampala last year, the current international architecture of the international cooperation “does not reflect the challenges of the 21st Century. This undermines the legitimacy, effectiveness and credibility of the whole international system.” 

If the current meeting in London can galvanise member countries into action on this issue here is the opportunity for the Commonwealth to pave the way to becoming a major international player of the 21^st Century.         

Derek Ingram

Tens of thousands of Zimbabweans living in exile in Commonwealth  countries are in distress. Yet the Commonwealth is doing nothing to  help them. It is time it did. Most of these people are in South Africa, Botswana, and the UK. Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth on 19 March 2002 after a  Commonwealth Observer Group had condemned the presidential elections just held.

When Zimbabwe failed to get the suspension lifted at the Commonwealth  Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Abuja, Nigeria, in December  2003 it left the Commonwealth. Since then the Commonwealth has done itself great damage by appearing  to wash its hands of Zimbabwe. True, President Robert Mugabe as  adamantly refused to have anything to do with the Commonwealth. It is also the case that Commonwealth diplomats have tried several  times to persuade African leaders to engage in some form of mediation  that would end the political deadlock in Harare.

But there are other ways in which the people could be helped. The  people of Zimbabwe, after all, have never left the Commonwealth. They  had no say in its withdrawal from membership and they are in dire  distress, not unlike the position the Africans of South Africa found  themselves in throughout the apartheid years. The difference is that long after South Africa pulled out of the  Commonwealth in 1961, the Commonwealth continued to involve itself in  their welfare, particularly the thousands living in exile.

Over the years Commonwealth funds were set up to develop training  programmes to prepare them against the day when they would take over  government. Scholarships, fellowships and career training were  offered in many Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth did the same for Namibians. When independence came  the foreign ministry of Namibia was entirely staffed by people trained in Commonwealth countries.

 No such help is being offered to the huge numbers of  Zimbabweans  exiled in Commonwealth countries, many of whom are in dire distress.  This is a serious matter for the future of the Commonwealth because  Zimbabwe will - perhaps sooner rather than later - remove its current  regime and begin to rebuild itself. A future government in Harare is likely to want to bring Zimbabwe  back into the Commonwealth. But when that time comes many Zimbabweans  may well question a decision to return. They may say: “Why? What did  the Commonwealth do for us when we were in trouble?”

It is argued that Commonwealth leaders will not agree on  setting up a fund to help train Zimbabweans because some in Africa  would see it as a hostile act to ugabe, who is still regarded by  some of them as a hero for leading the liberation war in the 1970s  and 1980s and more recently for throwing out the white farmers. But the Commonwealth operates by consensus. Its decisions do  not have to be unanimous and often they are not. In the past funds  have been set up by the Commonwealth to which only some governments  subscribe. Only a few, for example, are paying into the new fund to  tackle the Digital Divide and even fewer contribute to the long- established Commonwealth Media Development Fund.   This is not a new situation. In the Thatcher years there was  far from unanimity at CHOGMs on South African issues. The UK  dissented from many Commonwealth decisions. Yet the Commonwealth,  working by consensus, went ahead.  By its inaction over Zimbabwe the Commonwealth is damaging  itself. It should act on the matter without further delay.

Derek Ingram
5 Wyndham Mews
London W1H 2PN

A new chapter in Commonwealth history is about to start. In a few weeks’ time (1 April) Indian diplomat Kamilesh Sharma takes over as Commonwealth Secretary-General in succession to Don McKinnon of New Zealand, who retires after serving for eight years.

Sharma will be the fifth SG since the Commonwealth Secretariat was set up in 1965 and the first to come from Asia. McKinnon took over in 2000 at a moment of crisis. In the first days he flew out to Fiji where parliament was being hijacked by the rebel George Speight and then to Zimbabwe where President Robert Mugabe had embarked on his farm seizures.

McKinnon soon found that his new job was far from as tranquil as he had seemed to expect and now Sharma takes over in equally difficult times - in the aftermath of the post-election violence in Kenya and the turbulence in Pakistan.

In fact, his own region of South Asia has seldom been so unstable. India is the dominant democratic rock at the centre. But now, as well as Pakistan, Bangladesh is shaping up as a major challenge to the Commonwealth, with its government run by a handful of civil servants, both political leaders detained in the parliament grounds and the army effectively in charge.

Since 1995 the Commonwealth no longer accepts at its table a country under military rule. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) and Millbrook rules introduced that year provide for a country to be suspended or even expelled if a democratically elected government is overthrown.

Bangladesh is a curious situation because there was no actual coup. The civil servants took over at a moment when an election was due and under the constitution an interim administration led by the president was temporarily in charge.

It stopped the election process, detained the leaders of the two main parties, both women ex-prime ministers, and promised polls by the end of 2008. The army is effectively in charge. Bangladesh is really under military rule.

So far the Commonwealth has taken no action and Bangladesh has not been put on the CMAG agenda. At the Commonwealth summit in Kampala last November Bangladesh was represented by the Foreign Affairs Adviser, Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Choudhury.

Currently two countries remain suspended from the Commonwealth - Pakistan and Fiji Islands.

The Commonwealth is the only international organisation that no longer allows military governments to remain in membership. Its quarrel with Pakistan was that General Perez Musharraf as Head of the army was also head of state.

He has now ceased to be army head, but the Commonwealth has not lifted the suspension because it has been waiting for the election. But it remains a concern that  dismissed judges and lawyers have not been restored and the country’s democratic credentials remain in question until the election is seen to be credible.

India’s other neighbours in South Asia are also in trouble, most notably Sri Lanka where, after a period of hope the situation has seriously deteriorated, and the Maldives, which is seriously undemocratic after 29 years of rule by President Abdul Gayoom. There the Commonwealth has been active for a long time using the Secretary-General’s “good offices.”

This system involves the despatch of an eminent diplomat or politician to advise and mediate if necessary with the object of advancing a country towards more democratic government and better human rights. In the case of Seychelles Mackinnon sent former deputy prime minister Musa Hitam of Malaysia.

In the last few years special envoys have also included:

• To Tonga, former cabinet minister Sir Douglas Graham of New Zealand; 

• To Cameroon, former prime minister Joe Clark and former foreign minister Christine Stewart of Canada;

• To Guyana, former governor-general Sir Paul Reeves of New Zealand;

• To The Gambia, former head of state Abdulsalami Abubakar of Nigeria.

All these situations are still ongoing and in some places good progress has been made. In others more needs to happen. In The Gambia, for example, President Yahya Jammeh seized power as a soldier 14 years ago and then turned his military government into a civilian one. But it remains an undemocratic regime, with human rights abuses, little freedom of expression, and poor human rights.               

If the Commonwealth is to build on its international reputation it will need to be more vigorous in cases like The Gambia. The new Secretary-General faces tough days ahead.

News slipped out the other day that Prince Charles will accompany his mother, Queen Elizabeth, when she goes to Kampala, Uganda, for the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in November. It will be the first time he has done so.

Till now the Prince has shown no special interest in the Commonwealth. It is unclear what has prompted his decision to go to CHOGM (24-26 November).

Of course, the Queen is now 81, and his father the Duke of Edinburgh, who always attends, is 85, although both are in remarkably good health.

But the move could reinforce the widespread misconception

that it is still somehow a British Commonwealth, although it is 58 years since it ceased to be so. Many people continue to believe that it is British-led and run.

On the contrary. The reality is that over several decades the British have often been quite non-supportive, and even negative, in their approach to the Commonwealth.

The record is quite lamentable. Last century Britain, for example, was constantly at loggerheads with most of its members over issues like Rhodesia and then South Africa.

Until two years ago the Commonwealth was not even in the British school curriculum (although it was in the curriculum of many other member countries). The retiring British prime minister Tony Blair has shown little interest throughout his ten years in office.

True, the British subscription to the Commonwealth Secretariat, which has had secretaries-general from four countries over 43 years and a staff from all 53 countries, is the biggest, but in budget terms that is tiny.

In some ways, however, the misconception that it is a British Commonwealth is understandable. The word itself has a long British ancestry.

In the English-speaking world Commonwealth is a term dating back hundreds of years. It crops up in many Shakespeare plays. Cromwell’s republican rule in England in the 17th Century was known as the Commonwealth.

Australia is still officially the Commonwealth of Australia. Virginia State in the USA is known as the Commonwealth of Virginia. More recently the Soviet Union turned itself into the Commonwealth of Independent States.

All this has led the media in several countries, especially in the USA, to continue to refer to the “British Commonwealth”.

Furthermore, the format of the Commonwealth itself is complex to outsiders. The Secretariat is still based in the centre of London close of Whitehall and, most confusing of all, the fact that Queen Elizabeth is known as Head of the Commonwealth leads many people to conclude that the Commonwealth is a British institution.

All this has happened because when in 1949 India (two years after its independence) wanted to become a republic there was no provision for a country to remain a member of the Commonwealth. The process of decolonisation was only just beginning.

India wanted to stay in the Commonwealth, so an ingenious formula was reached whereby it accepted King George V1 as “Head of the Commonwealth,” a titular position without power or responsibility. Most importantly, the title was not vested in the British Crown but simply in the person of the King, who was simply to be “the symbol” of the Commonwealth.  

It happened that the King died little more than two years later and the title passed almost accidentally to Elizabeth when the Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru cabled her his congratulations on becoming Head without consulting the seven other independent Commonwealth members.

As it has turned out the long-lived Elizabeth has been Head of the Commonwealth for 55 years, covering almost the whole period of decolonisation. When she became Queen there were eight independent members of the Commonwealth; today there are 53.   

She has played this odd role as symbolic “Head” with great skill and in a sense has been a unifying apolitical figure through difficult times. Nothing is written down about the role of the Head of the Commonwealth. She made it up as she went along.

That has led people to conclude that when she dies the role of Head will pass to her successor Charles.

This is not the case. Nothing is set down to this effect and in fact governments may want to devise a different formula, such as a rotating leader, and abolish the notion of a Head.  

For this and for other reasons it is quite wrong to see the Commonwealth as a British institution.

Of course, as long as she lives the Queen will remain Head – and since her mother lived to 101 the day of change may still be a long way off.

The Commonwealth will face a difficult decision and it is to be hoped that when the moment comes time and thought may be given to what should happen. A hasty decision could have serious consequences for the future of the Commonwealth.

Derek Ingram

5 Wyndham Mews

London W1H 2PN

0207 262 4026

Pakistan should be suspended from the Commonwealth forthwith. President Pervez Musharraf has again broken the promise he made to the Secretary-General to take off his military uniform and separate his dual role as head of state and head of the army.

Not only that. He has now again tampered with the judiciary, muzzled the press and abandoned any hope of a free election in the near future. He has in effect staged another military coup.

Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth when Musharraf seized power in 1999. In 2004, on a promise that he would step down as army head at the end of that year, the Commonwealth watchdog body, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) of foreign ministers, lifted the suspension.

It was a big mistake, and undoubtedly was the result of pressure from Britain, influenced by the US. Musharraf broke his promise and did not step down as army head.

More recently, with American support, he made his deal with Benazir Bhutto and embarked on a plan to restore a greater degree of democracy. Now all that has fallen to the ground.

Secretary-General Don McKinnon often rightly points out that

the Commonwealth is the only international body that has a mechanism for self-discipline of its member countries’ democratic performance. In that it has led the world.

Several countries have been suspended or come under CMAG’s surveillance since it came into existence in 1995, starting with Nigeria under General Abacha. Currently Fiji Islands is still suspended as a result of the military takeover there.

Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth after its flawed elections and so could not attend the 2003 CHOGM in Abuja. As that meeting ended Mugabe pulled Zimbabwe right out of Commonwealth membership.

Although the two situations are quite different the lifting of the suspension of Pakistan enabled Zimbabwe and some African countries to argue that the Commonwealth seemed to have one set of rules for Asia and another for Africa. If Pakistan could return as a full member why not Zimbabwe?

Now under the 1995 Millbrook rules that established CMAG Pakistan must be re-suspended and this should be done without delay. Not to act now will harm the reputation of the Commonwealth.

The nine-country CMAG, chaired by Foreign Minister Michael Frendo of Malta, last met on 29 September in New York during the UN annual meetings. It is due to meet next in Kampala on 22 November on the eve of the Commonwealth summit.

In New York CMAG recalled that at its 2005 meeting in Malta the Commonwealth reaffirmed “that the holding by the same person of the office of head of state and chief of army staff is incompatible with the basic principles of democracy and the spirit of the Harare Commonwealth principles…until the two offices are separated, the process of democratisation in Pakistan will not be irreversible.”

CMAG noted that Musharraf’s legcl counsel to the Supreme Court submitted that the President would give up his role of Chief of Army Staff by 15 November 2007 if he were to be re-elected for another term as President. It reiterated its expectation that the separation of the two offices would be completed within that timeframe.

Pakistan committed itself to hold free and fair elections and invited the Commonwealth to observe them.

Now Musharraf has thrown over all this. CMAG should not wait till Kampala to act against Pakistan. It needs to be decisive and act now.