1 Introduction
1. We decided to carry out this inquiry because we
believe the Commonwealth is at a critical point. Just as H.M.
The Queen celebrates her 60 years as its Head, the future direction
of the Commonwealth is a source of contention and uncertainty.
2. In particular, the fate of proposals for fundamental
reform of Commonwealth institutions and ways of working, considered
at the October 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)
in Perth, Australia, is still subject to debate. The proposals
were contained in a report from an Eminent Persons Group, pointedly
sub-titled "Time for Urgent Reform".[1]
In a final report containing 106 recommendations, the Eminent
Persons Group concluded, among other things, that:
- The Commonwealth must speak
with greater unity in the international community;
- there is a growing perception that the Commonwealth
has become indifferent because it fails to stand up for the values
that it has declared as fundamental to its existence;
- on issues such as development, trade and investment,
climate change and global pandemics, the Commonwealth is in danger
of becoming immaterial as beleaguered nations look elsewhere for
the help they need, and
- the work programme assigned to the Commonwealth
Secretariat requires critical review with the objective of concentrating
on priority matters that will bring the greatest benefit to the
people of the Commonwealth.
Two of the Group's recommendations were seen as especially
significant by the UK and others: a proposal for a Commonwealth
Charter, which was accepted and is now the subject of a public
consultation, and a proposal for a Commonwealth Commissioner for
Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights. The Secretary-General
and CMAG were tasked "to further evaluate relevant options"
relating to the proposal for a Commissioner.[2]
3. At the Perth CHOGM, after intensive discussions
on the Commissioner and Charter, Heads instructed Foreign Ministers
to discuss the remaining 104 EPG recommendations with a view to
categorising those which could be adopted outright; those with
financial implications but which could be adopted in principle;
those on which member states wanted more detailed advice; and
those which were inappropriate for adoption. Heads approved their
Foreign Ministers' recommendations to:
- adopt 42 recommendations (30
outright, 12 subject to financial considerations);
- defer 43 recommendations for further deliberation
by the Task Force of Ministers, and
- reject the remaining 11 EPG recommendations.
4. Eight EPG recommendations were said to be consistent
with reforms agreed and were therefore deemed have been superseded.[3]
5. There were other reasons for our inquiry. The
Coalition's "Programme for Government" of May 2010 contained
an objective to 'strengthen the Commonwealth as a focus for promoting
democratic values and development'. We wished to assess how far
the Government has achieved this objective. We also noted that
the last Foreign Affairs Committee report on the Commonwealth
was published as long ago as 1996; it was high time for a further
inquiry into this important and neglected issue.
6. We launched our inquiry in December 2011, and
we set out to answer the following questions:
- What is the future of the Commonwealth
and what reforms are needed if the Commonwealth is to be successful?
- Does the Commonwealth retain a purpose and value?
How has the Perth Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting impacted
upon this purpose and value?
- How does membership of the Commonwealth help
the UK achieve its diplomatic objectives?
- What benefits does the UK's membership of the
Commonwealth bring in terms of:
- Trade;
- The promotion of human rights;
- The promotion of 'soft power' and a positive
image of the UK?
- What direct benefits does the
Commonwealth bring to citizens of the UK and of Commonwealth countries?
- What role and status should the British Overseas
Territories, Crown Dependencies and self-governing jurisdictions
have in relation to the Commonwealth?
7. Although we have not attempted to replicate the
inquiry carried out by the Eminent Persons Group, we have taken
a great deal of evidence on the implications for the UK of the
key issues raised by the Group. We also wished to evaluate the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office's policy towards and spending
on the Commonwealth.
8. We received 34 submissions of written evidence
and took oral evidence from 10 witnesses. As part of the inquiry
small groups of the Committee visited Kenya, South Africa, Australia,
Jamaica and Belize. We are grateful to all those who helped us
with this inquiry.
1 Commonwealth Secretariat, A Commonwealth of the
People: Time for Urgent Reform. The Report of the Eminent Persons
Group to Commonwealth Heads of Government. Perth, October
2011. [Hereafter EPG Report, 2011]. The Eminent Persons Group
was chaired by Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, a former Prime Minister
of Malaysia. Other members were: Ms Patricia Francis (Jamaica),
Dr Asma Jahangir (Pakistan), Mr Samuel Kavuma (Uganda),The Hon
Michael Kirby (Australia), Dr Graca Machel (Mozambique), Rt Hon
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (UK), Sir Ronald Sanders (Guyana), Senator
Hugh Segal (Canada),Sir Ieremia Tabai (Kiribati). Back
2
The Commonwealth, Agreement by Heads of Government Regarding
the Eminent Persons Group Proposals: A Commonwealth of the People:
Time for Urgent Reform, October 2011 Back
3
The Commonwealth, Agreement by Heads of Government Regarding
the Eminent Persons Group Proposals: A Commonwealth of the People:
Time for Urgent Reform, October 2011 Back
|
