Commonwealth Heads Define Primary Global Problems

Ron Fraser photo

Commonwealth Heads Define Primary Global Problems

Leaders struggle to come to grips with immigration, poverty, trade, terror—and peace.

St Julians, Malta—Following 10 days of talks, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (chogm), convened in Malta at a cost reported to be between $7 and $11 million, concluded on Sunday with the heads issuing their final communiqué.

Key issues debated during this high-profile meeting embraced migration, poverty, trade and terrorism. The importance that the 53 nations of the Commonwealth attach to this meeting, held every two years within one of its member countries, was underscored by the fact that 38 heads of state were present, other member nations except one being represented by senior government officials.

The chogm communiqué, issued soon after the recently concluded United Nations 2005 world summit, in immediate advance of the November 27-28 Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona and next month’s Hong Kong-based World Trade Organization summit, is designed to influence discussions on matters of international concern to be considered at these latter meetings. However, a dichotomy exists among these three international bodies, which represent the collective interests of all major nations around the globe.

This division is most starkly evident in the vast disparity that exists between the Commonwealth nations and the European Union. Although the Commonwealth embraces a much vaster geographical area than the EU and contains, by far, both greater population and more natural resources, for every single dollar that chogm’s Secretariat receives to fund the Commonwealth’s various institutions and initiatives, the EU receives the equivalent of $500.

This huge financial gap contrasts the power and wealth of the EU on the one hand with the relative poverty and weakness of so many of the Commonwealth countries on the other. Hence the stress by chogm, in its final communiqué, on the need for the EU to action longstanding considerations on the reform of the Union’s Common Agricultural Policy and the removal of barriers to trade from Commonwealth member nations.

The restrictive trade practices of the EU—while protecting often-less-cost-effective EU industries, especially agriculture—mitigate against the growth of many of the Commonwealth’s developing nations. They frustrate the efforts of lesser-developed nations to move beyond Third World economy status. Thus, these nations often find their populations involved in waves of mass migration to nations of higher economic status to seek a better standard of living.

So it is that First-World nations are caught in a vicious circle, the EU being a key culprit. Increasingly, EU nations are being agitated by the constant incursion of migration from African nations in particular. The Union’s restrictive trade practices, while shutting out African nations’ exports (in particular, their agricultural products) to the European continent, result in a greater and more costly problem: being forced to absorb migrants from cultures quite incompatible with its own. This is stimulating a xenophobic mindset within the EU, especially within Germany and France.

Unable to absorb these waves of migrants into their own strategic economies, these nations are increasingly suffering from societal reactions—witness the recent fires in Paris. With many of these often illegal migrants hailing from countries sympathetic to the cause of extremist Islam, the security of EU nations is also placed at great risk by the phenomenon.

It’s a catch-22 situation that the EU has failed to come to grips with. Hence, all four interconnected problems—migration, poverty, trade and terror—formed the heart and core of chogm’s deliberations and were threaded throughout their final communiqué.

The most evident fact that arises from being able to observe high-powered international conferences such as chogm in action is their obvious lack of ability to effectively mount any coordinated action to relieve the mountainous problems that challenge their member nations. The best these heads of nations can do is highlight the problems, issue statements of condemnation for the perpetrators of terror, declare deep concern at many seemingly unsolvable problems, affirm support to various UN resolutions with which they agree, and give themselves a resounding pat on the back for some degree of cooperation and settlement reached in several isolated instances where positive progress has been made.

Yet, among all the internal machinations of this huge international body of the Commonwealth—despite the pontificating, the politicizing, the rhetoric and the disparity of opinion—it is clear that most national leaders recognize that the effective administration of their countries is heavily dependant on effective government underpinned by a system of clearly defined, enforced law.

Of the 103 articles contained in their final communiqué, one in particular stands out as getting somewhat close to highlighting this truth. Article 32 of the communiqué states: “Heads of government also called for increased efforts to promote economic development and good governance as a means of tackling insecurity and conflict. They recognized that international cooperation to fight terrorism must be conducted in conformity with international law, including the UN Charter and relevant international conventions and protocols. States must ensure that measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.”

Yet, unless such law is accepted as having a common application to all members of society, unless it is backed up by a judicial system consistent and equitable in its administration of jurisprudence, any attempt at effective government will fail. In addition, unless those who administer government are constant, scrupulously honest, in complete cooperation and unity at all levels, the system will be rendered largely ineffective.

Bodies such as chogm strive for an effective form of world governance. Yet, as history so clearly demonstrates, that has never been possible under any of the systems adopted by man.

There is but one solution to the effective governing of mankind that will yield the world peace and a resolution of all world problems such as it has sought since creation. It is a solution literally out of this world. As Gen. Douglas MacArthur opined, “It must be of the Spirit, if we are to save the flesh.”

That system of government—government of the spirit in man by a superior Spirit, the Spirit of His Maker—is the only, and ultimate, solution to the myriad of world problems frustrating such world bodies as the Commonwealth of Nations. Read our free booklet No Freedom Without Law for a deeper understanding of this supreme reality.