asianaffairs

The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Kamalesh Sharma, sees the organization as a role model for the world. Already many global bodies are adopting its ideas, he tells David Watts.

Asian Affairs: What are going to be the main issues at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) in Perth?

Kamalesh Sharma: This is going to be a very ambitious CHOGM. In any event, CHOGM in Australia gets a lot done. Australia is the only country that has had three CHOGMs. The first one was in Melbourne in 1981, [then] Coolum 2002; both of them registered important gains for the Commonwealth. But this one, apart from the vibe from the host, is getting two reports to look at in order to lift the impact of the Commonwealth and its delivery and outcomes in contemporary times.

One report, mandated by the heads, to the Commonwealth ministerial election group is in respect of serious and frequent violations of Commonwealth principles. The level of engagement should be enhanced and not just for the most egregious violations but in a positive sense, the way the Commonwealth works, which is not in a way in which you are passing judgement without being a partner. Partnership is the key, not just strictures for the sake of strictures. We say look this is an area in which we could work and you could work to overcome a deficit.

Most of these are very young countries; last year Ghana was only 50 years old. There are a rash of countries which, if you exclude the Cold War, which was a very unnatural period in our global political history, as independent nations feel the warping effect. So it's very unreasonable to expect that the goals that they have set themselves will be reached in every respect, but as long as you have the political will to get there you can have an honest partnership between the member state and us on that road.

So the feeling is that the citizens would want the Commonwealth to be seen more to be doing more — so that's one report.

The other one is the eminent persons group that, of course, is not limited to democracy and the rule of law but covers the whole gamut. The report will be ready and it will have more than 100 recommendations. It's going to cover development, small states, governance, networking and the whole field. Apart from this are the ideas that will come up from youth interaction, business interaction and the civil society, which meet a few days earlier, with a special emphasis on youth with special consideration for the fact that the global issues of the time, whether they be those handled by the G20, or other institutions, must be things that we are adding value to. All of this produces a very large menu.

AA: All of this seems to foretell a much more interventionist organisation.
KS: No, I would not call it interventionist. The principle of the Commonwealth is that you are invited into partnership and it's more raising the ambit of your partnership and your engagement with member states; that would be a fair way of putting it. There's no point of engagement if it's not with the consent of the state.

AA: The country that comes most to mind, of course, is Zimbabwe. Would they be willing to engage in this way?
KS: The last CHOGM had a statement on Zimbabwe and I worked towards it and I personally would welcome a statement which would be helpful and appropriate at that time. There's three months to go, let's wait and see what can be said. I'm not sure at the present time how the conversation between SAADC and Zimbabwe is proceeding but I think it's pertaining to the circumstances of the next elections and some of the other guidelines which will guide Zimbabwe heading towards those elections. Those are under discussion and I'm sure that by the time CHOGM meets they will probably have a road map and it's possible that our leaders will have something to say about it. I would welcome it.

AA: When you say you would welcome it, does the secretary-general play a role in making it come about?
KS: Last time I played a role in speaking to the principal partners and parties suggesting what the way forward would be. That kind of preparatory ground work, as it were, is expected in many areas.

AA: I imagine that over your period in office you've been able to be much more effective in the sense that you're the first Asian in the post.
KS: Some people have described me as an understated secretary-general. I've no problem with that description: the visibility or high visibility or high audibility, if you like, of the secretary-general is desirable and I think I maintain a posture which I hope the public recognizes as communicating the organization. But much more important is to keep on thinking on behalf of our members in contemporary times what could be some of the initiatives, fresh thinking which could be of benefit to the citizens of the Commonwealth in all areas, taking into account several facts of life today — one, the availability of technology which didn't exist before to be able to reach the citizens, secondly, the fact that the world is much more of a melting pot in every possible way and what is the contribution we can make in terms of the wisdom function which has always characterized the Commonwealth when people are looking for ideas.

Thirdly, when the number of participants in the world who can make a difference is increasing, which is recognized by creating a G20 in addition to the G7, and when five of these members are from the Commonwealth, a quarter of them, what is the contribution that the Commonwealth could be making to the global discourse?

Fourthly, the proliferation of potential strategic partners for you by way of foundations and other institutions or even individuals or other regional inter-governmental organizations who are like-minded and want to reach the same place; joining up with them in order to get these outcomes. One example is the credibility of elections.

If you could fix that in the Commonwealth with 54 countries and create a gold standard for the rest of the world then that one pivot of democracy, if you take care of that, would have great significance for the whole world. That's just one example. There are others as well, we're working on it. We've created a network of election-minded bodies and have given them a lot of encouragement to work among themselves to create this gold standard: level playing field in media; in security; voters' lists; transparency; demarcation of boundaries, all that gives credibility to the exercise. So the interface between what the Commonwealth does and what the world does has become much closer than before and we have to be more responsive to this new challenge which is actually an opportunity.

This is a very long answer to your question about what the secretary-general should be doing. I think this is what the secretary-general should be doing. I hope that people do recognize that it is happening.

I think in Perth we will have a portal announced that will create a new paradigm of partnership called Commonwealth Connects and this is using two developments in the world, technology plus a proliferation of active participants in national, regional, economic, social and political activity.

I often say that in the cyber world one plus one doesn't make two, it makes 11. That's why we call it a new paradigm of partnership. We're not constrained by inter-governmental relationships now. One of the examples I cite is that the year before last one person contributed more to global health than the World Health Organization: these are the new global facts now.

AA: It does seem to me that in terms of democracy in Africa, progress is being made; elections are being conducted more fairly.
KS: I think because it's a political lesson, they've learned sometimes in a very hard way. After seeing what's happened in elections in some countries in Africa, nobody would like to go that way again. It is socially so damaging and devastating; you can't just pull yourself up again and again. That has to be put behind you for all time to come as a lesson learned. This is the kind of area, if the national will is there, in order to give it effect, you come in as a partner because your credibility and the feeling of trust which exists between our member states and us is so enormous. If you look at other bodies, parliamentary and local government associations, there are more than 90 associations all available to pull in the same direction.

AA: What lessons can the Commonwealth give the rest of the world and what lessons are you attempting to give them?
KS: Firstly that differences, divisions, frictions will always exist, the potential is always there, but you can always demarcate common ground despite these. One of the points of genius of the Commonwealth has been how skilfully it has been able to sidestep the north-south and east-west and other divisions with which we are beset in order to give yourself a common goal and a template of aspiration.

That is one lesson, the other lesson is making whatever you do people-friendly and citizen-friendly, not just taking decisions at the top but in a participatory way so that people at all levels feel there is a difference that the Commonwealth is able to make. The regional influence it has had, for instance we have NEPAD and the New Africa peer review mechanisms. I believe that these were made possible by the contributions that the 18 Commonwealth countries were able to make and these are very significant states from north Africa, southern Africa and eastern Africa. This is a contribution by the Caribbean which is largely Commonwealth and has a very deep history of democracy and also in south Asia where the majority of countries are members. This is an unregarded but very important influence of the Commonwealth in value-creation in the world.

AA: What has surprised you about the Commonwealth since you took office?
KS: Though it's an organization created in the middle of the last century, how fit for purpose it is and how prescient our leaders have been in creating our practices and mechanisms for decision making. For instance, when it looked like it might get formalised and become over-rigid, the innovation of the retreat was started. What used to be a side feature of the earlier meetings became the main feature. Our formal component is actually a very small one. Meeting together and discussing where you want to go is the main feature.

It's probably the only organization in the world where the small states and the vulnerable states get a hearing and where their views are listened to more, and the views of the larger players, in a setting where you have countries that have potential globally to carry influence.

I noticed at the last CHOGM that it's mainly the smaller states who speak and the states like the UK, India, Malaysia, South Africa, the older Commonwealth, they all listen. This is a unique platform for the smaller states of the world who otherwise find it very difficult to have their concerns appreciated and their voice listened to.

AA: The format is that each country is allowed to make a presentation, is that so?
KS: No, there are not even name plates, you sit where you want. In every session of the retreat you have leaders sitting in different places if they so wish. There is an agenda, there is a chair and they try and do things methodically in order to cover the ground which the heads have agreed. They can hop between subjects and the pace is set by the chair and by themselves: it is one of the most productive meetings of heads in the world.

AA: Do you see any of these smaller states moving into a leadership role, assuming some of the positions that have been occupied by India and the white Commonwealth?
KS: There are 32 countries with a population of less than a million and a half so it's basically a small state organization but it is the organization with the most variety within its membership of richer, developing, landlocked and island, small and big, all faiths represented there, it's really quite astonishing. India's role has been significant from the beginning.

If you look at the London Declaration it's a very interesting document, possibly the only one of its kind where it says that the leaders met, India decided as follows and therefore the modern Commonwealth came into existence. An acknowledgement of one country and, indeed, one personality, Nehru, who came down here for three days together with the prime minister of Pakistan and then-Ceylon and with the old Commonwealth hammered together what was the founding charter of the new Commonwealth. India was present at the birth and people did recognize that Nehru was the primary midwife.

Ever since then the great theatre of experiment, which India has been, has been so relevant for the other members to draw upon and a lot of what is seen and heard and discussed, in fact, gets translated into the bilateral programme India has with these member states.

If you look at the number of scholarships that are awarded it runs into thousands between India and the Commonwealth and the number of projects and training slots, apart from students that are at the universities, are in the thousands. The number of training slots is in four figures which are given to Commonwealth countries by professional programmes.

The large experience we have in holding elections is offered to others both institutionally and bilaterally: there is no example in the world like the electronic voting machine in India. We now have an electorate of close to 700m and in the sub-continent all the elections are run paper-free, through machinery, and they are never challenged. I know that, for instance, India went to Kenya and gave a demonstration. The fact that India has been able to do so much is the main feature. It is not in theory that we say we are doing this, that and the other.

Ever since I've come I've felt it as my responsibility as an Indian secretary-general, through my knowledge personally of what India can do, to draw India out and various actors whether they are banks, chambers of commerce and industry, research organizations and, of course, the government itself to offer to share all of this in various Commonwealth programmes and it's happening a lot.

One bank, at its own cost, has sent here a person to share that bank's experience with the rest of the Commonwealth banks on how they are creating 'financial inclusion' projects, how they are trying to include segments of population that used to be out of the credit economy, young people, women, illiterates, the disabled. That's what we have to do, the practical route.

AA: As we are marking India's independence, what do you think the generations who were ruling India at the time of independence would make of modern India?
KS: There's a great deal of satisfaction at the fact that India has started to grow economically. Being the biggest democracy was all very well but if you're growing at 2.5-3 per cent you can't find solutions. Better to have the pressures and challenges of a country growing, but growing unequally, than to have the pressures of a country uniformly poor and growing in population. At least there is a possibility of lifting others because so much is taking place in the country; there's momentum, there's velocity, there's opportunity. No-one has done that before; there is no guide book which can tell you what you should be doing. It has to be done in real time and it has to be done hands on. I think the experience of India and China on that scale is without parallel.

AA: At the same time India is emerging as an important regional power and has apparently allied itself with the American security apparatus. That, in itself, seems to draw India into a process of spending more and more on defence and becoming more and more involved with geo-political issues. This is something we didn't see with India before; they played this Third World role.
KS: As you get richer your capacities increase and then your role grows. I have the background to speak about India, though I don't speak for India now, but one of the most important lessons of the world transiting from the nation state is that it is not usually individual countries that lift themselves up on their own, it is regions that lift themselves. After two of the most destructive wars in the history of mankind, Europe finally learned that lesson. And subsequently we have ASEAN in Asia which says you must put aside that which creates friction among yourselves and concentrate on areas where you can act in a benign way in the mutual interest.

Because the areas of shared economic activity and policy-making are growing so rapidly it puts the areas of difference in perspective, they become smaller and smaller compared to what you do in co-operation. In Mercosur you saw the same thing; big organizations in Africa and SAARC in Asia. I think the Indian role which is beneficent will first of all be felt in its own region in what it is able to do and then be a kind of a locomotive for the growth of all its neighbours. That's a primary benefit that will accrue to everybody.

AA: The problems with Pakistan, of course, remain overarching. What, in your opinion, might the Commonwealth do there?
KS: I see a great deal of new possibility and hope in the last meeting between the foreign ministers. I see that it has been decided that the consultation is going to be on a continuous basis. The commerce ministers are meeting already to discuss our investment which has been mutually excluded so far; our trade beyond the goods that have been identified so far, how that can be expanded. That is exactly what I meant by concentrating, as evidence and example, how quickly you can get on to a mutually beneficial habit that the people can see and to build on that and concentrate on that and not the negative.

AA: For example are there any Commonwealth programmes which help the Pakistanis with their education to steer them away from the madrassas?
KS: I look forward to a visit to Pakistan. Pakistan did not have a foreign minister for quite some time and as soon as this CHOGM is over I want to be in contact with them to take up their invitation. The former foreign minister of Pakistan was good enough to visit me here and he congratulated the Commonwealth on its engagement on behalf of democracy. There are many areas we can work on, education is one of them; local self-governance is another one; the election commission, the human rights commission, the judiciary, the Aberdeen principle. So we'd be very happy to discuss issues with them that they feel we could be partners in. It's not only what we can bring to them but what they, with their experience, can bring to the rest of the Commonwealth.

top