asianaffairs-Dec 2007

Interview
‘The Commonwealth is predominantly an organisation of small states’

As India beams with pride at the newly selected Commonwealth Secretary General, Kamalesh Sharma says that the single most important element in his selection was the feeling that the time had come for Asia to offer a candidate for the prestigious Commonwealth position. ‘I believe in collective solutions to collective problems…. I believe in the unity and shared destiny of the global community. We’re in it together’, he says in his world-exclusive interview with Shyam Bhatia.

AA: Now that you have been chosen as the next Secretary General, could you tell us what the Commonwealth stands for?

KS: The Commonwealth has several strands. One of them is that it tries to attend to intrinsic strengths of member states — in what way can they become stronger players in the global system. There are three things involved here, it’s really a tripod.
   One of them is, what are the fundamentals of your governance that are affected if your governance is flawed? There is a line from Ghalib that says, ‘The way I was made, a kind of flaw was built into it’. If you have the fundamentals right on governance, chances are that the ship of state will not veer too much off course. It will travel forward, it may be buffeted, but it will start on keeping an advantage.
   Look at India. You can see the various crises it has gone through, but it stayed the course because it obeyed the fundamentals of governance, which is, let’s say, the separation of powers: accountability, transparency of institutions, real transparent participative governance, which people have faith in, believe in.
   Faith is crucial for the health of nations, for people to believe that they can express their approval or dissatisfaction and it will be a genuine test of their will — it’s the key in the end. If people believe there will be an election, but it’s an election which they don’t have faith in, that sets in a reverse spiral where you start losing faith in the State.
   The Commonwealth, in what’s called the Harare principles and later the Latimer House principles, tried to have these very basic and fundamental benchmarks in governance and they’re really very basic. This is one.

AA: Presumably, there is also an economic dimension to all this?

KS: Yes. The other strand, which is very important and what many developing countries think is equally important, is that prosperity must become visible. You cannot have a state where you are completely meticulous on the governance side but material advancement is not taking place — because then the pressures cannot be withstood. So here it’s a question of trade — how well are you doing it; job creation — are you able to attract investment? All these indicators must also be moving ahead at the same time.
   The Commonwealth tries to advance these too. It has a Commonwealth Business Council. Although this is a new field, I think it is a field on which the Commonwealth can concentrate much more. Private industry and private capital can be attracted and can impel growth.
The third is the social agenda. The social agenda cannot be confused with the need for resources on the other side. Private capital, by and large, doesn’t move into the social agenda because we cannot show much profit in it. At the same time, there needs to be progress on things like literacy, empowerment of women, reduction of infant mortality and maternal mortality, all of this complex which is now described loosely as MDGs, or Millennium Development Goals.
   I was there in New York and participated in prescribing these. The great thing about MDGs is that they have given a common goal to international institutions, regional institutions and national institutions to work towards. And there was recognition that this is something that has to be addressed separately.
   So these are the three legs of the tripod. The Commonwealth has to be active and contribute to all of them.
   The second role, which I think is very important for the Commonwealth, is what you would call loosely advocacy of enlightened globalisation. Globalisation is not just a question of separating the world into winners and losers, or reflecting on the emerging economies. Globalisation derives its root from globe, which embraces everybody. Globalisation has to be a universal process. One of the strengths of the Commonwealth is that it is predominantly an organisation of small states. More than 30 states are small states. These are vulnerable states and their special concerns have been addressed. The first formal declaration of this was at the CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) in Delhi in 1983 when the declaration was adopted on the needs of the small states.
   The Commonwealth is very strong on this and to a very large extent conditions the way the success and challenge of globalisation is addressed.

AA: How is the Commonwealth different from the UN?

KS: I think the Commonwealth has a clearer culture, compared to the UN, about the needs of the small states. The small states have to be helped in trading negotiations. Look at their dilemma now, they’re negotiating with Europe on economic partnership agreements, they’re negotiating in the Doha Round and at least some of the countries in the Caribbean are negotiating in the economic spheres of the Americas. Their perspectives and the intellectual depth of their argumentation, all of this has to be supported.
   This the Commonwealth is doing. It has to do much more of this.
Then the smaller states have problems of vulnerability because of natural catastrophes; they have issues of investment, issues of human resource capacity because of the migration of skilled people. On a smaller state all of these impact much more than they do on larger states. So I think the Commonwealth has to keep on stepping up its act. The big issue that has obviously taken over is climate change and global warming. Clearly, many small island states will be the first to feel their impact. What is it that we can do about it as an organisation? This is unique to the functioning of the Commonwealth.
   The Commonwealth also has a consensual approach: it always tries to create common ground on which everyone can stand. It’s a very non-divisive body. There are hectic debates within the Commonwealth, but they all lead to a ground which has been created and which everyone accepts.

AA: Is the balance between the Commonwealth’s economic and political role about right or does it need fine-tuning?

KS: I think the Commonwealth has to advance on all fronts, that’s very clear. The membership would like to see that.

AA: Does the Commonwealth have any regional priorities?

KS: There are three groups that are regionally very well identified in the Commonwealth. One of course is Africa, the largest group. Another is the Caribbean. The third is the Pacific Rim states. Many of them have collective considerations as well.
   Africa has set very ambitious and progressive standards for itself, both with the NEPAD (New Economic Partnership for African Development) as well as with things like their Peer Review Mechanism, where they inspect each other’s standards of governance. It’s an internal mechanism where you volunteer to be appraised by your peers. This is a very significant thing done by Africa as a group. So they are in harmony with what the Commonwealth does. I believe that the Commonwealth should take a strong hand in institution building, which covers one of these areas I mentioned.

AA: But the Commonwealth has no regional priorities as such?

KS: If a group says, as a group can we have interaction with you, whether it’s the African Union or the Caricom or the Pacific Forum, the Commonwealth will be open to that completely.

AA: What about a stepped up role for India? Do you think that because of India’s growing economic strength, it could play a bigger Commonwealth role, not least by stepping up funding?

KS: I have always supported that and, indeed, we have done a lot for the Commonwealth in recent years in this direction. For instance, our contribution to the Technical Cooperation Fund, CFTC, increases by £50,000 every year automatically and we will keep increasing it until we reach a million pounds, which is a lot, and then we shall review it. We have made by far the highest contribution to something called       Commonwealth Connects, which in a nutshell is how to apply a digital bridge to a development divide. Not to talk about a digital divide, but see what is the application of latest technology, IT technology, digital technology, which can be made to solve development problems.
   We have also made a lot of contributions to the Commonwealth youth programmes. I am very conscious that youth as a group and women as a group have to always hold priority because in different ways they hold the keys to the future. The Commonwealth has an ambitious youth programme. We also have a youth centre in Chandigarh and we have made contributions there.
   One area I would like to explore is how countries can contribute directly to the Commonwealth by offering, not necessarily money to the CFTC, which is welcome, but training slots independently. One of the developments over the last few decades has been the enormous increase in capacity in countries of the South. The Commonwealth offers a perfect platform where these can be made available, if we have the right structures, to developing countries, together with what can be made available from the North.
   I think it is always important to keep an eye on the outcome — what is it you are getting done on the ground, at points of delivery — and be more imaginative in this respect.
   So I think trying to tap the capacity of member states of the Commonwealth, which hitherto has not been done in as concentrated and organised a manner as possible, is something we must try and do.

AA: You have been praised for previously helping to raise money for one of the Commonwealth institutions attached to the UN in New York. What is that?

KS: When I became ambassador to the United Nations in New York, I was very mindful of what it is that India is doing, not necessarily as an act of solidarity — although that sentiment is very strong among Indian diplomats — but simply as an act of necessity. If we believe that the world should not be divided into North and South and there should be positive engagement of the North with the South, you must follow the same argument between those countries of the South that have greater evolving ability and other countries of the South. It was in keeping with that I examined what more India as a country could do. I found that the contribution we were making to the small states office of the Commonwealth, which caters for the financial requirements being deployed in the UN of the smallest states, was really not very much. I succeeded in increasing it and it went up several times and now it’s close to US$100,000.
   The other issue on which I worked closely in New York was to tell our officers that whenever a small state joins the UN, they must be proactive in meeting them and rendering them such practical assistance as they may stand in need of, whether by way of what would be of interest to them in the agenda of the UN, and practical help. I also told my officers that when they were negotiating, they should not negotiate just for themselves. If there is an important cause for which the small states are negotiating, I said I wanted them to be there to support the small states. Most of the small states welcomed it.
   There was another project I was following, which was to introduce a line of partnership assistance for the smaller states, which could be worked from New York. Many of the states have only one or two missions abroad and New York is where, say, the Pacific Rim countries have the largest number of missions. So just recognise them and try and build a kind of regular line of assistance to them. This didn’t go through. One of the reasons was that I was posted away, but this idea is still there and I hope it can still be examined.

AA: What qualities are needed to be Secretary General of the Commonwealth? Is it a sort of job that requires hands-on learning?

KS: There are some elements in doing any kind of international assignment, which are absolutely clear, and I have a direct feel of this because for two years I was the UN Secretary General’s representative in East Timor. One of them is, you must get a sense of what the membership in the institution would like to see done. You may have your own ideas. It means travelling and speaking a lot to what’s called the Board of Governors here in London, which is made up of the High Commissioners. One of the great advantages I have had with travelling extensively in connection with this assignment was that the campaign part of it was very often a small part. Much more interesting was the discussion of what they believe should be done and where the contribution can be done. You can, of course, develop an idea and test it out. So when people say what’s your personal vision of the   Commonwealth, I reply that the vision is what I get from the members. I’m the chief executive officer and I see what I can do about it.
   That’s important. The other is to see where you are adding real value all the time as an organisation. In the international system there are any number of institutions and they are working on the same issues. You have to see that what you are doing may be a duplication of what some others are doing, but it shouldn’t be redundant. When it comes to the social sector, you cannot say only one institution in the world can look after this. It’s not possible.

AA: Where all did you travel in connection with your candidacy?

KS: In the last three or four months I travelled extensively in Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific. I visited more than 30 countries.

AA: What can you tell us about yourself?

KS: I was born in Varanasi on a day my mother considers very auspicious, which is Dussehra day. She thought the day and the place were both very auspicious. My Foreign Service language is German, we are a German-speaking family. I have had three postings in Germany.    My son lives in Berlin and works on a German-language radio station. Our daughter is a lecturer in London in Queen Mary College.

AA: Did you ever anticipate working for the Commonwealth in this capacity?

KS: There has been no Asian candidate as Secretary General. The sentiment has been building for a long time that Asia — three-quarters of the Commonwealth population is from Asia — should do it. To our leaders this argument was put by a large number of people that the general sentiment is that it’s the turn of Asia, and in Asia India should consider itself as the country that’s being looked at. So I think that’s why soundings were made by our government.
   We are conservative in offering candidates for such positions, but I think in the end our leadership was persuaded that we should respond to these expectations. And also by the feeling that India will be very largely supported in Asia itself. That in a way turned out to be the case because after me there was a candidate who was a minister from Malaysia, but in the end he has withdrawn and Malaysia is supporting India. That made for a clean Indian slate.
   Once the decision was taken they approached me and said, you have experience in South–South cooperation. I have been involved in the ITEC (India’s Technical and Economic Cooperation programme founded in 1964) programme from the very beginning. Whenever I have been at the Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi, I have resisted going to the more glamorous positions. I have always been inclined to go to a place where I could make a difference. And this is a place where you can make a difference.

AA: Where have you been head of mission?

KS: In New York and Geneva. I was spokesman for developing countries in UNCTAD in the Uruguay Round. I had three postings and I was involved with ITEC in all three postings. When I was at the Treasury in Delhi I was involved in the hydrocarbon sector, which was the largest sector, as well as aid from Europe. So I had a pronounced economic background. In the North–South context it is common knowledge that I believe in convergence. Consensus often becomes difficult but one should not allow oneself to live with division, as if it’s a permanent fact of life.
   In New York I took the lead in something called Financing for Development and chaired that group. There was a lot of scepticism about that. But then it became the landmark Monterrey Consensus. The idea was simple, that if resources are an issue, there should be adequate volume of resources; the two belong together. It’s a simple idea, but it still had to be accepted and articulated.
   Whether it’s trade or debt or development assistance, all of this becomes a key factor in how well developing countries can do. I was also involved in launching something called the Youth Employment Summit. I went to the Secretary General. My partner in this was Egypt. I did this together with Madam Hosni Mubarak. We went together to Kofi Annan. The idea was that we should launch something useful for the world and not just do the sign posting. The Secretary General was enthusiastic and we held the big side-event on this. This now has independent momentum. It’s called YES, the Youth Employment Summit.

AA: What about the Millennium Development Goals?

KS: Yes, I was very much involved in that, in the side discussions, because I was keen that the world should agree what the goal is. And that was the biggest meeting at that point of time of heads of state. As a souvenir of that I edited a book titled Imagining Tomorrow, Rethinking the Global Challenge. The idea was to define our attitude towards the twenty-first century and what we want to achieve together. Another book is Milles Fleurs: Poetry from around the World. The idea was to show unity in diversity. Everyone’s poetry traditions are different, but it’s a common inspiration everywhere. There could be no better symbol for the United Nations than poetry. And we insisted — my wife was a collaborator — that the original script must be there, not just the translation. It was a huge challenge, not just because of the artwork required.

AA: Your entire history seems to have prepared you for this consensus role.

KS: Definitely. I believe in being a team player. I believe in collective solutions to collective problems and I’m not a cynic about anything. I believe in the unity and shared destiny of the global community. I think we’re in it together. One of the images I once used was that we have to prevent a big train wreck in the world. If there is a train wreck, no one’s going to ask, ‘Who was travelling first class?’                       

top