BBC NEWS Americas Africa Europe Middle East South Asia Asia Pacific
BBCi NEWS   SPORT   WEATHER   WORLD SERVICE   A-Z INDEX     

BBC News World Edition
 You are in: Talking Point: Forum  
News Front Page
Africa
Americas
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Middle East
South Asia
UK
Business
Entertainment
Science/Nature
Technology
Health
-------------
Talking Point
Forum
-------------
Country Profiles
In Depth
-------------
Programmes
-------------
BBC Sport
BBC Weather
SERVICES
-------------
EDITIONS
Tuesday, 26 February, 2002, 14:02 GMT
Don McKinnon: Talking Point special
Commonwealth Secretary General Don McKinnon was our guest on in a special edition of Talking Point, presented by Robin Lustig.

To watch coverage of the forum, select the link below:

  56k  


As Commonwealth Secretary General, Don McKinnon will be a central figure at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Queensland, Australia, from March 2 to 5.

The topics discussed in this forum were:

  • Zimbabwe
  • Democratic institutions
  • Land issue
  • Elections in Zimbabwe
  • Pakistan
  • The Queen
  • New members
  • Democracy
  • Trade
  • Relevance
  • Achievements
  • Divisions
  • Continuing role


    Robin Lustig:

    Secretary General welcome to the programme. Thank you very much indeed. This will be your first summit meeting as Secretary General. In a sentence what do you hope to get out of it?


    Don McKinnon

    Well more than just one thing - I wouldn't restrict myself to one sentence because the Commonwealth leaders will be looking principally at the future of the Commonwealth, looking at a report that President Mbeki of South Africa has been developing and that thrust forward will determine where we're going for the 21st century. But there's also a host of other issues - have we got our aid programmes right? Are our political issue in balance? Are we doing the things we should be doing in conflict resolution?

    Zimbabwe


    Robin Lustig:

    Our first caller is Ian, who is in New Plymouth, New Zealand. He is originally from Zimbabwe.


    Ian:

    Greetings from New Plymouth. Mr McKinnon, as a very interested party here, looking from the outside, why does the Commonwealth by its actions - either wringing its hands in inaction or alternatively sitting on its hands - by not doing anything it gives very good credence to the perception that violent dictatorships by a black ruler onto a black population seems to be viewed with far less seriousness than a white dictator such as Ian Smith who was mistreating his own black subjects?

    At the moment the Commonwealth seems to be remarkably reticent about taking action about this state of affairs. To my mind, this supplies ammunition to those people who maintain that African rulers seem to be less capable of looking after their own subjects. They seem to be judged by different benchmarks and different standards.


    Robin Lustig:

    Let me stop you there because I want to add in an e-mail on a very similar subject. This one comes from a New Zealander who is currently in Dublin, Claude Dewerse, Dublin, Ireland: I believe that the Commonwealth is still relevant as a force for democracy and that it has a responsibility to do whatever it can to help resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe. However, by imposing sanctions aren't we simply meddling in the country's affairs - should this really be the role of the Commonwealth?


    Don McKinnon:

    Thank you very much for both questions. I'm sorry the first one from New Plymouth, I couldn't really hear you. But what I got from it was - is the Commonwealth doing enough about Zimbabwe?


    Robin Lustig:

    And is it judging Mugabe by the same standards that it judges other people?


    Don McKinnon:

    Well, we have the same set of rules, we have the same guiding mechanisms. The issue is - can we change the behaviour of people or governments from the point of view of the Commonwealth and the weight of the Commonwealth. To some degree we've had some success in some countries. We've had a notable lack of success in some other countries. Just historically there was no way that the Commonwealth could convince Britain to oppose nuclear testing by France in the Pacific. There was no way that the Commonwealth could convince Britain that sanctions were a major issue in South Africa. On this issue we have not been very successful in creating what one could only call an apt climate for elections in Zimbabwe.

    We have remained engaged. We've sent a lot of messages, we've made a lot of comments - Commonwealth ministers have made comments, many Commonwealth leaders have made comments indicating their concern about Zimbabwe. Maybe there hasn't been a lot of listening. But nevertheless we've remained engaged and currently we are looking at probably 40 plus observers being there. If there's one message that I've got very constantly, it's that the Zimbabwean people want election observers. So we will have election observers there - more than are even there now - we want to keep that engagement up, we want to ensure we're doing what we can.


    Robin Lustig:

    What do you assess though are the current conditions in Zimbabwe - not long now until the election takes place - is Zimbabwe in a fit state to have a free and fair election?


    Don McKinnon:

    Many would say it could be a lot better. Some would say it may have been worse. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC, said yesterday when I was discussing this matter with him on another programme, he said - unfortunately 40 years of bloodshed have marred the Zimbabwe elections. So it's going to take hopefully a rapid time to turn that around. But we're certainly doing what we can and I know all the Commonwealth leaders in southern Africa have indicated to me their very real concern about what it's doing to their countries.

    Return to the top of the page


    Democratic institutions


    Robin Lustig:

    A call now from: Charles Tubakike, Windhoek, Namibia.


    Charles Tubakike:

    Here in Southern Africa, we're in a process of change. My question is: how will the Commonwealth accommodate socio-economic changes that are embedded within these democratic changes?


    Don McKinnon:

    That's a very real challenge - to meet the desire to develop programmes of good governance, good democratic institutions along with the social, cultural, economic situation within a country at any one time. What we're obviously putting a lot of effort into is building those democratic institutions - the institution of elections, the institution of justice departments, the institutions of audit offices of parliamentary democracy. There is a whole host of institutions that make up democratic countries and by and large people do like to have some say over the way their future is being run and what happens in their country on a day-to-day basis. We certainly want to give the kind of assistance that countries can move ahead - even though many might say they are moving too slowly.

    Return to the top of the page


    Land issue


    Robin Lustig:

    On a related issue, we had an e-mail from M. Chikukura, Gaborone, Botswana: The British ruled Zimbabwe for nearly a century, they systematically abused and violated the rights of Africans. Why can't the British do the honourable thing by facilitating the return of land to the majority rather than lead an international campaign against the Zimbabwean Government?


    Don McKinnon

    I wouldn't quite agree with all of that. We all know the land issue in Zimbabwe has to be resolved and the United Kingdom Government is very much part of that. We, the Commonwealth and the UN have all endeavoured to assist that process to create an environment where people do understand the need for land redistribution. The present landownership structure in Zimbabwe - the feudal-type system that is there - is just not sustainable in the long run. However, neither will be the absolute aggressive take over of land that has been going on - you're looking for a UN, Commonwealth process which people can have faith in and is sustainable.

    Return to the top of the page


    Elections in Zimbabwe


    Robin Lustig:

    We've had an enormous number of e-mails on the Zimbabwe issue. This one comes from: Andrew Young, Oxford, UK: Since we don't want electoral monitors to be kicked out before the election and given that the summit - COGM - ends before the electoral process begins, could it decide that Zimbabwe will be suspended automatically if the election is not declared free and fair?


    Don McKinnon:

    The heads of government can do anything they wish - they will do it by consensus. They will listen to the views of southern African leaders who'll have much more impact on them than we'll have here in the United Kingdom. So it is very much a question of leaders saying to themselves - what can we do best for the future of Zimbabwe?


    Robin Lustig:

    So what happens - the observers present a report after the election. They say either it was free and fair, in which case fine or they say it was not free and fair - then what?


    Don McKinnon:

    There's a great danger in developing hypothetical situations for what may happen afterwards. A lot will depend, of course, on the result of the election too. Although the observers themselves are not there to comment on the result, they're commenting on the process. But for the world at large, the result is very much a part of that.


    Robin Lustig:

    So far are those observers telling you that they are being able to do what they want to do in Zimbabwe?


    Don McKinnon:

    I've had not indication that there's any restriction on what they want to do. We've got most of our observers on the ground - there's a few more coming in this week. They've been guaranteed open free access to wherever they want to go. There was a restriction put into the law about them being able to make comments to people near a polling booth etc. but that's not a big issue. The issue is, will they be able to witness the day and the lead up to the day.

    Return to the top of the page


    Pakistan


    Robin Lustig:

    Caller: Sriram Damaraju, Hyderabad, India: One of the things that the Commonwealth has done is to suspend Pakistani membership from the Commonwealth as soon as President Musharraf took power. My question is based on two points: firstly, the people of Pakistan believe that the previous two governments, which were elected governments, were plutocracies and never answered the problems of the people of Pakistan. So what is wrong if you have a military dictatorship which is in power which is accepted by the people of Pakistan and we've taken accepted governments into the Commonwealth? Secondly, something which is important to me, especially living in India, is that we are acutely aware that there are several people, like the killers of Daniel Pearl, who live in Pakistan. One of the reasons why President Musharraf has difficulty in bringing these elements under control is because he does not have much to show his people. So if we do return Pakistan into the membership of the Commonwealth, will he have something to show the people and wouldn't that strengthen his hand further so that terrorism can be weeded from the society in Pakistan?

    E. mail: Philip Suriak, USA: Do you think the recent killing of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, shows that Pakistan has a long way to go and a lot of internal problems to sort out before being readmitted into the Commonwealth?


    Don McKinnon

    The issue of Pakistani was very clear cut in Commonwealth terms - that the Commonwealth Harare declaration says if a democratically elected government is overthrown by a military regime it shall be suspended - no ifs, no buts no maybes. So it's very straightforward that one. Another issue is what up until that point also constitutes the issue of suspension or discussion. Now the view being that ultimately the people of Pakistan do have to decide who should be their leader - it should be for them to decide.

    I know there has been a lot of criticism of previous regimes and various definitions they've been given and a lot of people have told us that a military regime is in preference to the previous regime. However, that never lasts very long - ultimately people do want to have a say on who shall be their leader. All we can do is appeal to the people of Pakistan - elect the people you want and ensure that government operates a democratic regime, democratic systems, democratic institutions so you can see clearly what is happening in that country.


    Robin Lustig:

    I know that the so-call war against terror is going to be one of the things that's going to be discussed at the summit meeting. President Musharraf played a key role in what happened in Afghanistan following September 11th. Should it make a difference to the way in which the Commonwealth regards him and his government?


    Don McKinnon:

    The Commonwealth always regarded President Musharraf as one that we have to deal with. I was one person who was talking to President Musharraf quite a lot until September 11th - now everyone wants to have him to dinner and it's a little bit different. But we do recognise that he has some big problems on his plate. We do recognise that he has made a very strong commitment against terrorism and he has clearly drawn a line in the sand on terrorists within his own country. We certainly do believe that he has to work exceptionally hard to overcome what seems to have endemically built up inside Pakistan. So on the issue of the assassination of Mr Pearl, there's some way to go.


    Robin Lustig:

    But the principle of democracy is paramount - he was not elected, he came to power as a result of a coup and that remains the overriding factor.


    Don McKinnon:

    But also President Musharraf has given me undertakings to go through the electoral process - he's not breaching those undertakings - they've gone through the whole local government election procedure as he said he would. He's now said to me he remains committed to elections in October/November of this year. We will re-engage with the Government of Pakistan after this heads of government meeting - particularly in the area of technical assistance towards those elections at the end of the year.

    Return to the top of the page


    The Queen


    Robin Lustig:

    Nagaraja Sangwithy, Boston, USA: The stated objective of the Commonwealth is to promote democracy in its member countries but by having an unelected leader - the Queen - doesn't the Commonwealth lack the moral authority to carry out its main objectives?


    Don McKinnon:

    It is very much historical fact of life and it's not something that bothers many people in the Commonwealth - if any at all. Her Majesty the Queen was clearly endorsed as head of the Commonwealth not long after her father died back in the early 1950s. At the same time, Her Majesty is not an executive head - she is not a decision maker in terms of the Commonwealth structures or within Commonwealth countries. She certainly has reserve powers as head of a number of Commonwealth countries. But her role in the Commonwealth - I wouldn't like to say it is merely titular because she is one who follows everything in the Commonwealth with an enormous amount of interest. I have to say, dealing with her as I have and being with her at various times, the affection by which she is shown amongst Commonwealth people and Commonwealth leaders just tells you why she is still the head of the Commonwealth.


    Robin Lustig:

    Nagarajan, does it bother you that the head of the Commonwealth is the Queen?.


    Nagarajan Sankrithi:

    It does in merely a symbolic way because when she has to take these executive powers it bothers me that we have an unelected leader and then we go and tell President Musharraf or Robert Mugabe, for example, that they have to uphold democratic values.


    Robin Lustig:

    But she has not real power, Don McKinnon says - it's a titular position.


    Nagarajan Sankrithi:

    But he did say that she does have some executive powers.


    Don McKinnon:

    But they are the reserve powers she has as head of a number of Commonwealth countries. She is the head of state of a number of Commonwealth countries. But her relationship with the Commonwealth as a whole is mostly ceremonial.


    Nagarajan Sankrithi:

    If the powers are really diminished and she has no real power to exert - why have a leader?


    Don McKinnon:

    That's just a factor of Commonwealth history isn't it, that leaders at the time of the Commonwealth back in the early 1950s - and I've got to say there was only about seven or eight leaders at time in the seven or eight Commonwealth countries as we know them, decided that she be the head of the Commonwealth. Now no one has bothered to try and change that in the whole length of time that she has been head of the Commonwealth. But no one sees it as being a problem - no one sees it as an assault on democracy. I think it's just merely seen as part of the history of the Commonwealth and we've lasted some 52 years, which is much longer than most international associations.

    Return to the top of the page


    Return to the top of the page


    New members


    Robin Lustig:

    But of course the Commonwealth does change - it's an organic organisation - it grew, as you say, out of the old British colonial empire. It now has some members who were not part of that empire. E-mail: Nurinda Dogra, California. What's stopping the Commonwealth from admitting Afghanistan to membership? After all Afghanistan is a part of the sub-continent, the interim government appears to be committed to peace and democracy.


    Don McKinnon

    We've got half a dozen letters from various countries indicating that they may like to join. Commonwealth leaders did put down a series of proposals a few years ago on the general ambit of membership because we have got former German colonies, former French colonies, former Portuguese colonies - plus some that were colonies of no one who've just joined too. There were a remarkable number of colonies in the middle 1950s who said that they might like to join as well. But as you say, it is a pretty organic organisation and there is a fairly broad footprint of those who could . What we say is - are you prepared to really sign up to the commitments that all Commonwealth countries have had. In the meantime most issues of increasing the membership are basically on hold.


    Robin Lustig:

    So Afghanistan, if they were interested, they should make a formal application?


    Don McKinnon

    Write a letter is a starting point, I would think and I guess it would join others and will be responded to.

    Return to the top of the page


    Democracy


    Robin Lustig:

    We have a call from Huw Morgan in the UK.


    Huw Morgan

    My question is: How can the Commonwealth retain any legitimacy as a force of democracy when so many of its members are one-party pseudo dictatorships which have got absolutely no respect for democratic western values? I thought they were the sort of values that I thought the Commonwealth were supposed to be promoting anyway. If the Commonwealth really wants to be an organisation with more respect I would suggest trimming it down just to the democracies that respect its values because appeasing the Mugabes of this world has obviously failed.


    Robin Lustig:

    Who were you thinking of Huw as these one-party dictatorships?


    Huw Morgan

    Well Zimbabwe comes to mind automatically. If you look at the majority of the previous administrations in most of the African countries - they're shaky democracies to say the least.


    Don McKinnon

    Let me put it this way - ten years ago there were 11 countries in the Commonwealth that had military dictatorships or one party systems - we now have one, that is Pakistan. And despite what you're saying about Zimbabwe, in the last elections, Morgan Tsvangirai won 57 seats in 120 seat elected parliament in Zimbabwe although 30 other people are appointed by the winning party. But basically that was a democratic election. Most other Commonwealth countries are pretty much in the same category. But as someone said to me yesterday, isn't it time you started campaigning against the House of Lords. They are not an elected group of people in a Commonwealth country. So you've got to get a little bit real on this and see at what stage of development our country is moving. We've made a lot of progress in the last 10 years - vastly more than in many other international organisations and we will continue to do so. It is very much a matter of encouraging all our members to strengthen those democratic institutions in order that people have faith in what you've got and don't want to see them overthrown.


    Huw Morgan

    That's true. But if you look at Zimbabwe, basically the Commonwealth is giving Mugabe a veil of legitimacy - he can say, look I'm a Commonwealth country - but he's behaving like an absolute dictator.


    Don McKinnon:

    I think if you read papers all around the world, you will see there's quite a different view and I think that view might be in fact more accurate. What we try to do is remain engaged. As I've said many times the easiest thing for the Commonwealth to do would have been to suspend Zimbabwe - that would have cut all dialogue, cut all contact, cut all engagement and as a result there would be no election observers there right now from the Commonwealth. It is one thing that the people of Zimbabwe wanted - the one thing various leaders in Zimbabwe said to me - we want Commonwealth observers there at the time of the presidential election. These are now the presidential elections - we have observers there - they would not have been there if Zimbabwe had been suspended.


    Robin Lustig:

    Huw, convinced?


    Huw Morgan

    Well, if the Commonwealth wanted to be a community of democracies - either it's going to admit just democracies or it's going to do some appeasement here and there. It sounds fair enough with the observer issue but how much are you going take? Do you want to be an organisation for democracy or one that's just sort of aiming to get there sometime?


    Don McKinnon:

    Huw, I only hearing part of your question.


    Robin Lustig:

    It's the basic point that there are concerns about the standard of democracy in Zimbabwe. Are you really prepared to allow these elections to take place in the current conditions without a word of condemnation?


    Don McKinnon:

    There's been a lot of condemnation, there has been a lot of antagonism spoken about Zimbabwe by a number of Commonwealth leaders up until now. I will be obviously very interested - as will others - in the report of our election observers. We'll have 40 plus observers there, led by General Abubakar from Nigeria. He was there last time at the June 2000 elections. The Commonwealth report on those elections was critical - we would have liked more to have been done between now and then that hasn't been done. But that is part of what will obviously make up our report.

    Return to the top of the page


    Trade


    Robin Lustig:

    Caller: Peter Worrall, Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK.


    Peter Worrall:

    The UK's torn between greater or lesser integration at the present moment with Europe. My point is that the Commonwealth is probably the largest bloc of countries in the world that represents 30% of the world's population. Could it not be used as a trading bloc, taking it one step further than obviously what it is at the present moment?


    Robin Lustig:

    We have an e-mail from Craig Jones, Munich, Germany: Do you think that the Commonwealth should promote trade between member countries more than it does at present?


    Don McKinnon:

    We do and we do a lot. But what is happening around the world that's probably happened in the last 15 years or so is trading areas tend to be regional rather than ethnically based or historically based. So Europe is a large trading area, North America is a large trading area. The APEC countries in the Pacific are a large trading area and there is a lot of overlap between them as well. If the Commonwealth was to be a trading bloc it would obviously create a degree of problem between Britain and the EU and it also create a problem between Australia and New Zealand and the APEC countries.

    So it's not the easiest thing however, what we do say and quite unequivocally is Commonwealth countries who trade amongst themselves in fact have a between 16% - 20% cost advantage simply because they all understand each other's accounting systems, legal systems, the language, the auditing systems - they're all very similar and familiar. So there's a lot of advantages in that kind of trade. But to talk about the Commonwealth as a trading bloc - to get unanimity between countries in South Asia, Europe, the Pacific, the Caribbean and Africa - difficult to say the least.


    Peter Worrall:

    Well Don, it's been done before but I'm afraid to say it's a word that we don't like using nowadays which is called empire. But at the end of the day, if you turn it back to the other nations, I'm a great believer going back to what the gentleman said before, is that if you want create democracy throughout the Commonwealth - if you bring wealth to all of those nations, not many dictators operate in a healthy democracy.


    Don McKinnon:

    Right but on the other hand, to create wealth in those nations has got to begin with trade and unless Commonwealth countries - be it in Africa, Caribbean or anywhere else - unless today you are able to trade within the European Union, North America or Japan, you are dead in the water and it's access into those three wealthy markets that will determine everyone's economic future.


    Robin Lustig:

    But isn't one of the things that the Commonwealth has to do is convince those people who live in the member nations that the Commonwealth is relevant to them and that membership is useful to them. Now one way presumably of doing that would be to persuade them that there are economic material benefits that accrue from membership of the Commonwealth.


    Don McKinnon:

    Yes that's one of them and the other one is the fact that we've got more people that want to join us - no one wants to leave us - so we know we've got a solid membership there. But every country looking out at its future - in terms of who do we want to engage with, who do we want to link up with - every country has got to make its own decision. So every country will decide which organisation it wants to belong to. You do it for your own personal advantage - nations will do that - as long as we've got more nations wanting to join the Commonwealth and none wanting to leave. They will make use of the Commonwealth to their own best advantage.


    Robin Lustig:

    But one of the things that makes the Commonwealth an interesting organisation is the way in which it links together the haves and the have nots - there are some very wealthy nations and there are some extremely poor nations. Surely one way in which the richer nations can help the less well off nations is by increasing trade links.


    Don McKinnon:

    That's right and we are thankful Britain keeps beating the drum in Europe for greater access for Commonwealth countries to trade with Europe. As a New Zealander who is a Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade - dealing with Europe is a long-term headache for any trade minister and you get to know Brussels far more than you'd ever want to know Brussels.


    Robin Lustig:

    Do you not though see the growth of regional economic and trading organisations - like the EU, like APEC, like NAFTA as a potential threat to the Commonwealth?


    Don McKinnon

    No not at all. Not at all because Commonwealth countries will still look at how can they can use the Commonwealth to an advantage which they can't get from regional organisations. The one great benefit that we are able to provide, especially our smaller countries, is this enables them to tap into everyone else's network. We are the original worldwide web. We're the original ones that are absolutely global. So you may not have easy access from the Pacific Islands into Europe but on the other hand if you work through Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, you've got better access than anyone else.

    Return to the top of the page


    Relevance


    Robin Lustig:

    So is that then the answer to a question like this one which came in an e-mail from Marten King, Portland, USA: What advantage does the Commonwealth really offer its members? I realise there is a strong sense of tradition but other than that does it really serve any function in the modern world? If not, what's the point of it?


    Don McKinnon

    That very much is the communication linkage of us.


    Robin Lustig:

    Interlocking networks.


    Don McKinnon

    Absolutely - interlocking. If anyone felt that belonging to our organisation was a waste of time - the money just wouldn't come in and we would fall apart inwardly. But the fact is they are prepared to continue to join. But they've got to balance us - any country, any treasury minister looks at all this expenditure and its up for that country to put their case - to say we really don't want to lose that membership.


    Robin Lustig:

    Michael, UK: Many people like myself feel that the Commonwealth has no part to play in the modern day politics of its enlisted nations. Examples such as the ongoing ethnic problems in Fiji and the current issues in Zimbabwe seem to be rooted in the legacy British rule has created. How does the Commonwealth intend to resolve these issues?


    Don McKinnon

    Well by remaining in engaged. Certainly in the time that I've been here, we're actively still working within Fiji to try and sort out quite deep seated problems in that country. In a number of African countries we're doing just the same. We're seen as a trusted partner - we're seen as a partner that can work with a country in a way which is productive, useful and understands what is happening to it. The Fiji Islands aren't on their own - we've got some parallel situations in other parts of the Commonwealth - the problems of Malawi aren't just the problems of Malawi, we've got them in other parts of the Commonwealth. So we can bring that element of knowledge, know how, understanding and trustworthiness which nations continue to want.

    Return to the top of the page


    Achievements


    Robin Lustig:

    Mike Barton, London, England: With reference to Zimbabwe, and particularly since Abuja, I have seen nothing in the past year to change my view that the Commonwealth is just a talking shop. What has the Commonwealth achieved in the last 12 months?


    Don McKinnon

    A health ministers meeting which has highlighted the very real problems of a number of countries who lose many of their health professionals to the developed world. So we're looking at developing a code of practice. An education ministers' conference that decided there could be a lot better exchange of information amongst Commonwealth countries. Unfortunately the finance ministers' conference got cancelled because of September 11th. But we're looking at rescheduling that and again it was the finance ministers that developed the whole initiative for highly indebted poor countries a few years ago. So continuously we work and continuously people want to engage with us because they see benefits for their countries.

    Return to the top of the page


    Divisions


    Robin Lustig:

    Do you not see what a lot of people say they perceive which is that there is still a division in the Commonwealth between broadly speaking the white Commonwealth and the black Commonwealth? Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom and the rest.


    Don McKinnon

    It's referred to as the old Commonwealth and the new Commonwealth - there's the Asian Commonwealth, there's the African Commonwealth, there's the Caribbean Commonwealth, there's the Pacific Commonwealth - you can cut it so many different ways. There's the wealthy Commonwealth, there is the poor Commonwealth. It just doesn't cut one way. Certainly our biggest financial contributors - the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India. Now there are six countries that contribute probably up to 80% of our budget, meaning the other 48 countries are contributing the balance. Now that is just a reflection of their current economic status.

    Return to the top of the page


    Continuing role


    Robin Lustig:

    You are convinced that an organisation which is rooted in empire still in the 21st century has a real concrete role to play?


    Don McKinnon

    I think the rooting in empire has been forgotten by most - I've got to say with the exception of this country because I get more questions about do you feel guilty and I'm prepared to say do you feel guilty about the fact that Rome once controlled this part of the United Kingdom. Countries tend to look forward rather than backwards. In other words, they are saying, where are we going, what can the Commonwealth do for us?

    Return to the top of the page


  • See also:

    01 Feb 02 | Country profiles
    01 Feb 02 | Country profiles
    13 Nov 99 | Asia-Pacific
    06 Feb 02 | Africa
    20 Mar 01 | South Asia
    21 Dec 01 | Asia-Pacific
    04 Sep 01 | Africa
    Internet links:


    The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

    Links to more Forum stories are at the foot of the page.


     E-mail this story to a friend

    Links to more Forum stories

    © BBC ^^ Back to top

    News Front Page | Africa | Americas | Asia-Pacific | Europe | Middle East |
    South Asia | UK | Business | Entertainment | Science/Nature |
    Technology | Health | Talking Point | Country Profiles | In Depth |
    Programmes