Human rights at Commonwealth summits

Commonwealth presidents and prime ministers, who meet every two years in a CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) almost always say something about human rights. But there are huge differences between comments which are banal, and commitments which lead to specific action by the Commonwealth Secretariat and member governments.

The communiqué from the Valletta CHOGM in 2005 illustrates the variety of statements which are included. Paragraph 26, entitled “Promoting tolerance and respect”, was designed to address the reality of communal and religious friction in Commonwealth states. Although rather anodyne in wording it encouraged the Commonwealth Secretary-General to pursue initiatives to promote tolerance.

The results may be more significant. Don McKinnon, Secretary-General, set up a group under Dr. Amartya Sen to look at “respect and understanding” and to make recommendations to the upcoming Kampala CHOGM. Simultaneously the Commonwealth Foundation, concerned for civil society, recognised that religious bodies are part of civil society and can play a role in development. All of this activity follows on from the CHRI report of 1997, “Towards a culture of tolerance.”

The leaders in Valletta, in the wake of moves at the UN, also recognised a new human rights value for the Commonwealth – the responsibility to protect. In paragraph 37 they “agreed that the responsibility and obligation to protect populations from such acts [genocide, war, crime, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity] is a fundamental Commonwealth value, consistent with Commonwealth commitments to human rights, democracy, good government and international law.”

However in the same communiqué the CHOGM endorsed several “me-too” paragraphs, which basically say that the Commonwealth agrees with what the United Nations or international community is doing. These include paragraphs 38 (supporting the International Criminal Court), 39 (against light weapons – a campaign of the CHRI launched in 1999), 45 (backing the UN Human Rights Council), and 63 on gender issues.

Historically there have been various high points for human rights at CHOGMs. The first significant reference to abuse in a single member state occurred in 1977, with criticism of the Idi Amin regime in Uganda. Many of the CHOGMs in the seventies and eighties were concerned with racism in southern Africa; the 1983 Delhi summit was one of few that did not have a specific human rights reference as well. The 1991 Harare Commonwealth Declaration, produced after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Nelson Mandela’s release from prison, seemed at the time a disappointment for human rights activists. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), a non-governmental organisation based in Delhi and working on the practical realisation of human rights in the Commonwealth, had called for a full-blown declaration on human rights, a substantial budget, and a monitoring and investigative commission.

However, as a result of advocacy by the CHRI and others, and reaction to the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni leaders in Nigeria in 1995, the Commonwealth leaders in Auckland set up the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. This was a rules committee, capable of suspending governments from Commonwealth membership, which was an international breakthrough at the time. It was followed in 1997 with discussion of sanctions against the Nigerian dictatorship.

To sum up on advocacy at the CHOGM, therefore, it is important to keep an eye on the big picture, and for activists to be energetic in pressing for implementation and in monitoring commitments. The procedure by which the Commonwealth reaches its commitments is often opaque. While the Committee of the Whole – a meeting of officials who draft much of the communiqué in advance in London – is open to lobbying, its work may not be as important as it seems.

The key political activity involves the leaders themselves, when they meet briefly for a couple of days or so in the capital hosting the CHOGM. Current political developments – such as the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa – will dominate their discussions and the media. They will weigh in on a current issue – as they did at Malta in 2005, when they wanted to influence the Wolrd Trade Organisation negotiations in Hong Kong.

Although the president of the host country will chair the meeting of Commonwealth Heads, he or she may not get their way. For example in 1999, when Thabo Mbeki was chairing the Durban CHOGM, he was still in denial over the scale of HIV/AIDS in southern Africa. Nonetheless the leaders agreed to paragraph 55, in which they pledged personal leadership in their own countries against the pandemic. It was a remarkable tribute to lobbying by a Commonwealth and civil society alliance which included medical, legal and university lobbyists.

The ideal alliance for success in CHOGM advocacy involves a cross-section of leaders who have personal knowledge of an issue, and are willing to speak up about it. Where they give a strong lead other governments and the Commonwealth Secretariat will follow.

By Richard Bourne, First director of CHRI, in London in 1990-92