A Conference for the Common Wealth?
By “Awake!” correspondent in Zambia
WHAT event would cause Queen Elizabeth II, of Britain, to travel over 5,000 miles from her London home?
What event would cause the host country to spend $9 million, although that country’s leaders acknowledged that it was going through serious economic difficulties?
The answer to these questions is the 22nd Commonwealth Conference, held in Lusaka, Zambia, from August 1 to 7.
The Commonwealth and Its Conference
The Commonwealth is an international association of 39 independent states whose total population is estimated at 1,000 million people, about a quarter of all mankind. Its members claim that it is an institution dedicated to peace, freedom and justice. Because it grew out of the old British Empire, all members accept Queen Elizabeth II as the symbolic Head of the Commonwealth.
The most important means of consultation between Commonwealth members is the Heads of Government Meeting—the Commonwealth Conference. The last five of these have been held every two years. This conference is unique in that, unlike many other international conferences, it does not pass binding resolutions but it seeks to establish consensus. It is informal in the sense that there is no podium and there are no formal addresses. The heads of government sit at a table, with only two advisers, having real dialogue.
On which international issues would the 22nd conference focus?
The secretary-general of the Commonwealth, Mr. Shridath Ramphal of Guyana, stated in a television interview that the two prominent issues would be the problem of apartheid in southern Africa, especially in Zimbabwe Rhodesia and Namibia, and world economic problems.
Political Issues
Tanzania’s president, Julius Nyerere, opening the debate on the southern Africa situation stated that three things must be done to solve the Zimbabwe Rhodesian problem. First, Britain should establish a democratic constitution; secondly, internationally supervised elections should be held covering all parties concerned in the conflict; thirdly, a Commonwealth resettlement programme and fund should be set up for whites opting to leave the territory in the event that a black government representing a minority party were to assume power. These suggestions were accepted and augmented by a nine-point communiqué issued towards the close of the conference. Backing up the communiqué, the prime minister of Britain, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, declared that the British government meant to move swiftly towards their immediate objectives to draw up an independence constitution.
Other political items discussed included the armed conflicts in Indochina and the real danger of the conflicts escalating over a wider area; they expressed their deep concern at the global growth of the international refugee problem; they expressed their grave concern over the situation in Cyprus; they gave their full support to the aspirations of the people of Belize for early and secure independence; they reviewed the serious situation in the Middle East, with particular reference to the Palestinian people; they noted with regret that not much progress had been made in the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace but, on the contrary, great-power military presence there had actually increased.
Yes, problems were discussed, viewpoints were aired, concern was expressed and proposals were made. But were the problems really solved? Will those whose situations were considered now enjoy real peace, freedom and justice?
Economic Issues
On money matters the economic imbalance between rich and poor nations was strongly criticised. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr. Michael Somare, accused the developed countries of concentrating mainly on their own interests. It was also observed that the problems of inflation, general recession, high unemployment levels and other issues had been passed on to developing countries. To illustrate this problem, the conference was told that developing countries owed the oil producers more than $40 billion, while the deficit of the industrialised states had been reduced to $2 billion. What action would counteract this trend?
It was proposed that representations be made to OPEC countries to recycle some of their funds into developing countries, some of whose economies were on the brink of collapse due to the energy crisis, instead of recycling their oil dollars into the industrialised economies as they do at present. A second line of action to meet this problem was an agreement to form an international energy institute to coordinate research into alternative power resources. They also believed that the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation would help remove the inequality between rich and poor nations, so they agreed to raise $8 million for this fund.
They put forward five areas where larger member states could help the developing countries. These included: assisting in economic diversification by encouraging greater local processing of raw materials; assisting the countries to increase their technological skills; guaranteeing small island states free access to markets for their products; increasing financial flows and simplifying aid procedures; giving financial and technical assistance to lessen their dependence on imported oil and to develop alternative energy resources.
But will the bigger countries really apply these proposals? Does their record give one reason to believe that they will really look out for the interests of one another in an unselfish way?
What Will It Achieve?
In his closing speech the chairman remarked that it was ‘gratifying that the fears expressed at the beginning have ended in a better understanding of one another’s point of view’ and that an atmosphere of friendship and a spirit of frankness had prevailed.
But what would all the talk, discussions, affirmations and verbal agreements achieve? It is necessary for the decisions to be transferred into a programme of action, for, as the chairman said, the meeting would be of no historic significance unless it led to historic changes.