Return
to Story Page
To print: Select File and then Print from your
browser's menu
J. N. Dixit
The millennium's last summit meeting of heads of state and government of the countries of the Commonwealth was recently held in Durban. It was India's act in declaring itself a republic and yet agreeing to join the Commonwealth which resulted in the British monarch's status being ch-anged from that of the sovereign of the Commonwealth countries to one of the head of an association of states belonging to the Commonwealth. Had India stayed out of the Commonwealth, one doubts whether other colonies which gained independence would have joined it. The Commonwealth in its present form owes much to the tactical and procedural flexibility shown by India when it became independent. Out of its non-white members, India is the only country with an uninterrupted record of remaining a democracy and adherence to norms of respect for human rights and good governance.
This was the third Commonwealth su-mmit held in Africa and the first in South Africa after it became a multi-racial and multi-ethnic democracy. On the one hand, it was the Commonwealth collectively paying homage to South Africa coming into its own out of the darkness of apartheid and racial discrimination while, on the other, it was South Africa affirming its increasing role as an actor on the international stage.
The summit meeting occurred in the context of significant political developments. This was the first summit after the nuclear weaponisation of India and Pakis-tan. It took place soon after the overthrow of an elected government in Pakistan by General Pervaz Musharraf. The summit deliberations were influenced by incremental concerns about terrorism and et-hno-religious violence. It precedes the Mi-llennium WTO meeting to be held in Se- attle within a few weeks. Shared commitment to the ideals of the Commonwealth at the formal and highest political levels was manifest in the fact that no less than 47 out of its 49-odd members participated in the summit.
Reports indicate that the military coup in Pakistan, problems related to the forthcoming WTO negotiations, and concerns regarding terrorism and violence were the focus of attention at the summit. Satisfacti-on has been expressed by the participants about the decisions taken and the policy orientations initiated on all these issues. India is voicing special satisfaction about the outcome of discussions on two of the issues.
The suspension of Pakistan from the councils of the Commonwealth and the unequivocal opposition to terrorism and violence have been claim-ed as a vindication of India's stand on these issues. There was a difference of opinion between the advanced wh-ite members of the Co- mmonwealth and the Afro-Asian members on WTO subjects which was as expected, but the final declaration contains a consensual approach to WTO negotiations in the form of a commitment to the br-oad ideals in pursuit of which the WTO was established to replace the GATT. The formulation would not have been objected to by any reasonable country. The points for consideration, however, are about the implications of, and the likely follow-up action, on the Durban declaration.
Speaking in terms of India's image and interests, it must be hoped that we did not take the lead in ostracising Pakistan. For, any such move would not be judged on the merits of our attitude, but would be seen through the prism of the antagonism between India and Pakistan. Secondly, we are not and should not be the custodians of democracy in other countries. That should be the concern of the people of the country affected. Our approach to Pakistan should be cut and dry: we should deal with it as a sovereign country and we should not show any interest in its internal affairs unless they directly impact on our territorial integrity and security.
It is understood that, in reality, India did not indeed take the lead in advocating Pakistan's suspension. It was the leaders of countries like Nigeria and Bangladesh who strongly opposed the military coup in Pakistan in the executive sessions of the summit.
India's expression of support for the suspension was natural and logical in the context of our commitment to democracy and in view of the fact that Mus-harraf was the primary architect of the war in Kargil. In fundamental terms, the suspension of Pakistan and even its possible expulsion later on is going to make only a marginal impact on Pakistan's interests or the legitimacy of its military government. Imp-ortant countries which can affect Paki-stan's future will continue to deal with Musharraf. The US, China, and the countries of the Gulf, led by Saudi Arabia, and important West European countries will follow suit in the bilateral framework. So will Britain.
This, after all, is what happened when the Commonwealth acted against Sout-hern Rhodesia, Fiji, and Nigeria previou-sly. One need not, therefore, have any excessive illusions of Pakistan being chas- tised by the Durban decisions.
The policy orientations decided upon in order to counter terrorism and violence are certainly satisfying. We should take follow-up action within the framework of these orientations, both multilaterally and bilaterally.As far as economic decisions, specially those pertaining to WTO, are concerned, it is reasonable to anticipate that individual members of the Commonwealth will participate in the Seattle discussions with different briefs based on their respective national interests and their linkages with the economically more powerful members of the WTO. We should not predicate our negotiating stance at the WTO on the Commonwealth declaration, either. We should base our approach in terms of our specific long-term interests regarding the international trading regime.
A fundamental question which arises is about the future of the Commonwealth itself. It is clear that the importance which it had in the past does not characterise the organisation now. With Britain's integration with Europe, special economic and technological links between the United Kingdom and the Afro-Asian countries of the Commonwealth have diminished. All the members of the Commonwealth are members of different regional groupings and arrangements with their specific priorities, based on their requirements. In substance of policies, therefore, the Com-monwealth will progressively have a lesser role than these regional groupings. This has to be acknowledged.
It is in terms of a shared ideals of democracy and human rights, commitment to good governance and shared institutions, system of law and language, that the Co-mmonwealth will remain relevant, particularly so for the smaller Afro-Asian nations of the organisation. It is also an ad- ditional instrumentality of international networking which will be useful for the members of this club. The Commonwealth can survive only if it continues to adjust to the profound transformations in international equations.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------
This story was printed from Net Express located at http://www.expressindia.com. Net Express provides a portal to India, with news from The Indian Express and The Financial Express along with sites on travel and tourism, the entertainment industry, the power sector, the environment and much more.
------------------------------------------------------------