Variety's the spice
Why do Western governments turn a blind eye to human rights violations in one African country and condemn abuses in another, wonders Gamal Nkrumah
The Commonwealth is facing another of its periodic moments of truth. On Friday, heads of state and government of the 54-member state Commonwealth meet in the Nigerian capital Abuja. The summit, which will be officially opened by the symbolic head of the organisation, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, will bring together leaders of countries that are former British colonies.
The Commonwealth leaders usually discuss economic, development and social matters of critical concern to member states. The Commonwealth has traditionally been a good forum for debating issues such as how best to contain the spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa -- which is also spreading through Asian Commonwealth countries such as India; the debt crisis of developing countries; international trade relations; democratisation; political liberalisation; and the defence of human rights.
Economic issues aside, however, the policy of singling out Zimbabwe for retribution is most damaging to the credibility of the Commonwealth. The atmosphere has been soured by the decision of the host nation Nigeria not to invite Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe to attend the Abuja summit.
As expected, the Zimbabwean leader lashed out against what he called the "Anglo-Saxon unholy alliance" of Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Mugabe and many influential voices throughout Africa -- as well as among the African diaspora in the Americas -- believe these three countries constitute a secret cabal of powerful rich white nations within the multi-racial Commonwealth who are determined to force their racist agenda on unsuspecting African, Asian and Caribbean Commonwealth leaders.
Many voices in Africa are highly critical of the Nigerian decision to exclude Mugabe from the Commonwealth summit. Nigeria, they argue, caved in to British demands that Mugabe be prevented from attending the Commonwealth meeting. "Snubbing Mugabe will do precious little to pull Zimbabwe out of its quagmire," pleaded South Africa's Sowetan newspaper. "Worse, it will not end the suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans," it warned.
Many in Africa applauded Mugabe's stinging tirade against the Machiavellian machinations of the "Anglo- Saxons".
Ironically, African countries constitute the biggest bloc in the Commonwealth, but the continent has not effectively utilised this tactical numerical advantage since the ousting of apartheid South Africa from the Commonwealth in the early 1960s.
The credibility of the Commonwealth is at stake. Is the Commonwealth a white-run organisation or is it merely an instrument of British foreign policy? Or worse, a repository of innate Anglo-Saxon racism?
The controversy could scarcely have happened at a worse time -- while British and American forces are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing needed was a brutal reminder that the old colonial powers and former white dominions -- Australia, Canada and New Zealand -- still dictate terms. The three countries threatened to boycott the Abuja summit if Mugabe attended.
There are profound questions of power and responsibility still to be resolved. The differences between Commonwealth countries cannot be ironed out in a single summit, or glossed over indefinitely. Credibility is vital. How can the Commonwealth remain relevant for countries that are inhabited by poor people of colour? If the Commonwealth is to survive, everyone must make concessions for the whole body to work. That is precisely the challenge. Can the Commonwealth continue to carry out its historical mediatory role, of taking a position of conscience in international affairs?
Commonwealth leaders at the Abuja summit are expected to try to cobble together a compromise.
In the meantime, New York-based Human Rights Watch warned against the Commonwealth's double standards in a recently released report to coincide with the Abuja summit. "Unless the Commonwealth addresses abuses in all of its member countries and denounces them accordingly, its credibility will be undermined," warned Peter Takirambudde of Human Rights Watch.
At its inception, the Commonwealth was envisaged as a bridge between rich and poor, black and white. The row over Mugabe's conspicuous absence from this year's Commonwealth summit makes a mockery of the organisation's stated goals and ideals. Still, there are many who strongly believe that for all its risible ways, the Commonwealth still carries the hopes of millions of people in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Pacific for a better, more democratic and more equitable world.
The principle responsibility for nurturing such hopes rests entirely with the leaders meeting in the Nigerian capital tomorrow. The Commonwealth's search for a more just, democratic and equitable world would not be a cake walk, but a long, arduous process.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 4 - 10 December 2003 (Issue No. 667)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/667/in5.htm