The Commonwealth has abandoned its commitment to defending human rights, according to a leaked document obtained by the Guardian in which the secretary-general tells his staff it is not their job to speak out against abuses by the 54 member states.
British Prime Minister David Cameron and British Foreign Secretary William Hague have both said they will put new emphasis on the Commonwealth in Britain’s foreign policy. However, the organization’s London-based institutions, the secretariat and the charitable foundation, are both in turmoil, riven by disputes over their purpose and direction, as well as internal wrangles over the treatment of staff.
Coming soon after the well-publicized shortcomings in India’s preparations for the Commonwealth Games, the latest revelations about dysfunction within the secretariat and foundation are likely to add to questions over what the Commonwealth is for. The most threatening internal rupture is over human rights. Staff at the secretariat were furious when the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations Kamalesh Sharma remained silent over a series of abuses by member states in recent years.
For example, when Gambian President Yahya Jammeh threatened to behead homosexuals in 2008; when government troops and Tamil Tiger rebels were accused of widespread atrocities at the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka last year and when a Malawi court in May sentenced a gay couple to jail for being homosexual, the secretary-general ignored calls from secretariat staff urging him to express concern at least.
“All those cases were all about the values the Commonwealth is supposed to stand for and we failed,” one staff member said. “I feel we could become moribund.”
In response to complaints from employees, the secretary-general’s office told his staff that the institution had no obligation to pronounce on the issue.
“The secretariat ... has no explicitly defined mandate to speak publicly on human rights,” Sharma’s office told senior staff. “The expectation is that the secretary-general will exercise his good offices as appropriate for the complaint and not that he will pronounce on them.”
Human rights activists said the comments represented a reversal of the Commonwealth’s tradition of speaking out over gross abuses, such as apartheid. They said the secretary-general was contradicting a key policy document adopted by Commonwealth heads of state in 1995 that calls for the “immediate public expression by the secretary-general of the Commonwealth’s collective disapproval of any such infringement” of democratic values and fundamental human rights.
Purna Sen, head of the secretariat’s human rights unit, said on Friday: “We have been accused of being over-cautious. Our work below the radar is extremely important, but we need to explore more fully where we can make public statements. Public comments need not be condemnations, but we need to defend our values.”
Others question whether quiet diplomacy by the secretariat has been effective, as states have little to fear from the Commonwealth.
Danny Sriskandarajah, director of the Royal Commonwealth Society, said: “I recognize the Commonwealth often works behind the scenes, but without public achievements on its values it will lose credibility.”
“Many of the Commonwealth institutions were created in the 1960s and have structures and hierarchies that now seem outdated. It needs to modernize its institutions if it wants to be fit for purpose in the 21st century,” he said.
The Commonwealth Foundation, a charitable trust that promotes cooperation between professional bodies in member states, has also been split since a decision last year to cut direct funding for HIV and AIDS prevention programs by more than half.
The internal dispute came to a boil last October when the woman in charge of the programs, Anisha Rajapakse, was suspended, escorted out of the foundation and then summarily dismissed, on the basis of allegations by an intern.
According to the foundation, the intern alleged that Rajapakse had tried to persuade her to forge a letter purported to come from a civil society group complaining about the cut in funding.
However, the intern, Elizabeth Pimentel, wrote to the foundation’s board of governors in August distancing herself from the allegations.
In her letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, Pimentel said her name had been “wrongly connected” with the disciplinary action against Rajapakse, and that she had not wanted remarks she made to the management “to be construed as a complaint at any point.”
“My discussions have been misinterpreted and used out of context,” she said.
Rajapakse and Pimentel both refused to comment on the dispute, which is due to go before an employment tribunal in December.
Two other members of the foundation’s 20-strong staff have started grievance procedures against its director, Mark Collins.
“There is a climate of fear at the Foundation. Everyone is afraid of doing something the director does not like because of what happened to Anisha,” a secretariat staff member said.
Collins said it was an “undesirable situation” to be the focus of so many staff complaints at the same time, but denied that there was any systemic problem at the foundation.
He said Pimentel had not formally withdrawn her original allegation against Rajapakse.
“At the time, she felt that an investigation was justified,” he said, suggesting Pimentel had since become “fearful” over the impending employment tribunal.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS