Reply #22: I've been trying to figure out ... [View All]

[iverglas]

... what it is that seems "off" in your assessments.

First, I'm no Chrétien fan. He's better than what a USAmerican could ever hope to have, and he's better than that sport of nature Brian Mulroney whom he succeeded (and who is simply *not* the standard against which to measure Canadian politicians), but he's not my choice for the proverbial dogcatcher.

But I'm not sure what your assessment of the Commonwealth is based on ... and if it's based on knowledge of the organization, how you could even consider saying something like:

I believe the fault lies with Queen Elizabeth ... .

The Queen is the head of state of some, but not all, Commonwealth member states, but is no more than a figurehead in those cases (e.g. Canada, and even the UK). Her role as "Head of the Commonwealth" is no less titular. Neither any of the states in the Commonwealth nor the Commonwealth itself would brook any interference by her in its affairs.

Here's a bit about Canada and the Commonwealth, obviously from an official source: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/commonwealth/menu-en.asp

The Commonwealth has no constitution per say <my dog, "per say"??? I'm embarrassed beyond belief>, but it does have formal principles. The 1971 Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, adopted by Heads of Government in Singapore, states that member countries must strive for:

- the pursuit of international peace and order in support of the United Nations,
- the promotion of representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law,
- the recognition of racial equality and the need to combat racial discrimination and racial oppression, and
- be dedicated to lessening the disparities of wealth in societies.

In 1991, the Harare Declaration recognized the special emphasis the Commonwealth places on values such as human rights, the democratic ethic, gender equality, sustainable development and environmental protection. States who do not uphold these principles may incur suspension. This is currently the case with Pakistan and Zimbabwe.

The Commonwealth is not meant to have police powers.

The Commonwealth struggles with the same "constructive engagement" vs. loss-of-influence dilemma as any other state or international organization, and with the same lack of answers, to date, to the question of how best to deal with human rights violating governments to persuade/compel them to stop.

There is an argument to be made that Chrétien is perceived, in Africa, as a "friend of Africa", and therefore wields some degree of moral authority -- if not against an Idi Amin, at least among any others who might have a tendency to resist outside "interference" against an Idi Amin on general anti-colonial principle.

"I take the view that as far as Africa is concerned the problems
have reached such a magnitude that 'anchormen' and women must
take second place to hard nosed lawmen/women prepared to impose
the kind of sanctions that allow for financing massive health programmes,
clean water and sanitation initiatives and social reform.

Hmm, yes. If only there were some "laws" for such "lawmen/women" to be enforcing in that respect. The fact is that it is still up to the member states of the UN -- and its affiliated international organizations -- to make those "laws", and that this is precisely what they aren't doing. There's nothing for someone like a Chrétien to enforce, as long as the member states don't start doing the precise opposite of what they are doing in most respects, e.g. loan-granting policies.

In the meantime, a little street cred, which he must be acknowledged as having among many African leaders (at the same time as being vulnerable, himself, because of his claim to moral authority himself, to moral suasion on the part of those in Africa with moral authority), can't hurt.

.