Thoughts from London

Commonwealth wilts under US pressure
The use of American political and diplomatic power to browbeat organisations of which Washington is not even a member was seen clearly this month when the Commonwealth compromised its much-vaunted principles to accommodate US wishes.

Two "white" members of the Commonwealth- Britain and Australia-once more played second fiddle to Washington's arias on the war against terror. Though the US has never been a member of the Commonwealth of former British colonies, the two nations have maintained close relations.

This relationship has been even more firmly cemented post 9/11 with the US flexing all its muscle to get as many nations round the world to toe its line to fight what it perceives as terrorism.

How far Washington is ready to go to abandon its own publicly acclaimed principles was demonstrated at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group(CMAG) meeting in London.

Pakistan had been suspended from the Commonwealth after General Pervez Musharraf seized power in 1999, overthrowing the country's elected government.

Fiji, the other matter, was a non-issue. The real nettle was Pakistan. Nearly 13 years ago the leaders of the Commonwealth meeting at their biennial summit in Harare had adopted what it called the Association's fundamental values. It pledged to protect and promote those fundamental political values including democracy, democratic processes and institutions, the rule of law and fundamental human rights such as equal rights and opportunities for all.

Then in November 1995, the Commonwealth leaders meeting in New Zealand adopted the Millbrook "Action Programme" designed "fulfil more effectively their commitment to the Harare principles."

This programme empowered the Secretary-General and the newly established CMAG to take measures against those member states that violated the Harare principles, particularly the unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government.

It was on these premises that Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth and later Pakistan too. Nigeria was readmitted only after the country returned to civilian rule following democratic elections. The Commonwealth has made it clear that military leaders who have seized power will not be tolerated unless and until they have returned the uniforms to their closets and established civilian rule.

No doubt the leader of Pakistan General Musharraf is the country's president. But he also doubles up as the country's military chief. It is true that since General Musharraf ousted the elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan has taken steps to move towards democratic rule.

Yet that process has not been completed. So why was CMAG, of which Sri Lanka is now a member, in such an inordinate hurry to put Pakistan back among the good guys when clearly General Musharraf is still to fulfil the promise that the posts of president and military chief will be separated and he will keep the civilian post?

Musharraf's sincerity regarding this pledge was thrown into doubt when in an interview he gave the BBC before CMAG met he refused to commit himself to giving up his military uniform that remains as the strongest symbol of his violation of the Harare principles and the Millbrook Action Programme.

Under the pledge given he was to change tack and dress by the end of the year. The Commonwealth had to wait only another six months to ensure that he does so.

Even now it is not certain that he would become a civilian politician. Pakistani diplomatic sources here are angry at "multinational organisations" trying to "micromanage" the politics of the country and say that no country could permit such outside interference in domestic affairs.

While that might well be true Pakistan is under no compulsion to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Pakistan could get out of the Commonwealth as Zimbabwe did last year. Pakistan once pulled out of the non-aligned movement and returned later. So such goings and comings are not strange to Pakistan.

The fact is that the Commonwealth has laid down its principles and rules of political conduct. If a member cannot or does not wish to conduct himself accordingly he could simply quit. But what a member cannot do is to remain in the organisation and cock a snook at its code of conduct.

One of the issues that concerned Canada, a member of CMAG, was the deportation earlier this month of the exiled opposition leader Shabaz Sharif, a brother of the prime minister General Musharraf ousted, shortly after he set foot in Pakistan.

Pakistan High Commissioner here Maleeha Lodhi, is reported to have told Reuters in an interview that raising the deportation issue was tantamount to "moving the goalposts". Hardly. The Harare principles and other declarations that followed are clear. Such acts by the Pakistan Government violate democratic norms and human rights.

Perhaps Pakistani diplomats have failed to read, possibly because the country was under suspension then, the Coolum Declaration issued after the 2002 Commonwealth summit in Australia in which the leaders said they stand united in (among other things) "their commitment to democracy, the rule of law, good governance, freedom of expression and the protection of human rights."

Only last week the journalist monitoring body, Reporters Sans Frontieres urged the Commonwealth Secretary General to use his good offices to help seek redress for several Pakistan journalists held in detention and some without charges or trial.

Only the other day, the human rights watchdog Amnesty International said that Pakistan's human rights record was "pretty dire" and that there was increasing violence against women while religious minorities were being targeted.

So to question the genuineness of Pakistan's commitment to democracy, the rule of law and human rights is not to move the goalposts but to try and ensure that Islamabad, which has a long history of military rulers who overstayed their visit, does not kick into its own goal.

Though neither Britain nor Australia is on CMAG, both applied enormous diplomatic pressure on the members of CMAG and on the Commonwealth to reinstate Pakistan.

They became the stalking horses for Washington, which perceives Pakistan as a frontline state in the US war against al Qaeda, Taliban and Muslim jihadists.

So these great defenders of democracy, the rule of law and human rights whose mission is supposedly to convert the Middle East their political philosophy, are willing to turn a Nelsonian eye when it suits their political purposes.

One can understand Washington not caring about Commonwealth principles. But Britain and Australia who are always hectoring others, such as Mugabe's Zimbabwe, have now dumped the very principles they helped formulate.

In his 2003 Report, Secretary General Don McKinnon wrote: "What other organisation provides the opportunity for a leader of a small state to sit at the same table with the head of a G8 nation as equals."

Sitting at the same table might matter to New Zealand. But that is hardly the issue. What is of concern is whether the voices of those small states are heard as loud as those of the bigger ones.

Britain and Australia were able to swing the decision in favour of Pakistan because they make some of the largest financial contributions to the Commonwealth. Like elsewhere those who pay the piper calls the tune. Who cares about helping nuclear proliferation.

Back to Columns