The Commonwealth and beyond

Commonwealth Secretary General DON McKINNON has just completed a two-day visit to Malta. He had a lot to say, as Steve Mallia found out.

What was the purpose of your visit to Malta?

It's very much an update. It's important for us and for you to have a successful CHOGM. There are certain things we are responsible for as the secretariat and certain things Malta is responsible for, so it is a matter of getting the balance right. For me, having regular meetings with the Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister, the High Commissioner, means we ensure that things don't fall apart and that things do happen and things are achieved.

And what have your impressions been since you've been here? Are things in danger of falling apart?

No, no sign of it. Malta has such huge experience in dealing with tourists that dealing with big numbers of people is not a problem.

But it doesn't have experience at dealing with a mass of heads of government.

But this is where we can bring good advice. It very much depends on six or eight people here in Malta who have distinct responsibilities for different aspects of CHOGM.

And what kind of advice do you have to offer?

We can tell you what are the pitfalls. We do say the media can be difficult. If you have 1,000 media coming to CHOGM, managing the media is a major exercise. Every leader wants to be able to talk to his own country, his own city, his own constituency. At the same time, they want to talk collectively about the issues, so it's a major one.

What would you say is the biggest challenge for the host country?

You want people leaving CHOGM on the last day saying: "This has been great. I want to come back for a holiday sometime. I must tell my friends about it". Malta has a big tourism business and if you can make it bigger, that's good.

Do you think a small island like this has adequate resources?

Small islands will always be stretched on a CHOGM at the human resource level. We readily recommend that you look at volunteers for a lot of things. People who have retired from government service can provide a lot of good support; liaison officers for delegations and things like that. You could easily use 150 people.

In terms of security, if you have 52 visiting heads of government here it's obviously a big headache. Do you get into that?

That is principally (the responsibility of) the host government. Obviously, we talk to them about it, we talk to other governments about it and we don't talk a lot about it publicly!

Are there any minimum standards that have to be met?

Every leader has his own security requirements and some are greater than others just by virtue of which country they are, the issues they're dealing with and that sort of thing...

How much is this CHOGM going to cost?

I don't know but what we do know is that the cost of security is about half the total cost of CHOGM. It's just got very much bigger because the demands of security are much bigger.

Are we talking thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?

Well, the cost of CHOGM certainly goes into millions of pounds. But you will find that the police may decide to upgrade their communications. Because they upgrade their communications in the CHOGM year, sure, that gets landed on that year. But what they're effectively doing is getting new communications for a 10-year period.

Was the cost of CHOGM one of the first things Malta asked when the idea of hosting it came about?

Malta first offered to host CHOGM in 1991... There are some Commonwealth countries that are just too small to host a CHOGM. But by hosting a CHOGM, one, you do very much identify the Commonwealth in Malta in a very strong way, and I would think at least a billion people would see Malta on their screens during the course of that CHOGM.

Costly advertising.

Not if you get those people wanting to come here as tourists. If you want to mount a tourism programme after CHOGM you will have people identifying the linkage.

I was in London last week and there was a general feeling that although the issue of Zimbabwe is not on the agenda for CHOGM, the subject would not be avoidable.

Oh, people are going to talk about it. It's not often we have a country walk out of the Commonwealth and there is a lot of feeling about how can we help get them back.

Some countries seem to be upset that Zimbabwe and Pakistan were treated in different ways: the former was indefinitely suspended for having a dictatorial regime while the latter was allowed back in.

I totally disagree because we had a lot of engagement with Pakistan over a period of time. They really worked to get back into the Commonwealth; to get their suspension lifted. And all the time that Zimbabwe was suspended, they never wanted to work with the Commonwealth, despite offering them special envoys, visits, that sort of thing. They rejected every overture.

Don't you think in retrospect the Commonwealth jumped the gun with Pakistan?

Well, we didn't expect (Pakistani) President (Pervez) Musharraf to reverse his solemn undertaking. But on the other hand, if you refuse to acknowledge leaders when they make a promise to you, you are putting yourself in difficulty anyway.

Naïve on the Commonwealth's part?

No, I don't think so. (It's) not a good thing to make a promise if you're going to breach it.

Does that make President Musharraf a dishonourable person?

Well, he decided later in the year that he wanted to readdress the issue. He went to his Parliament and asked his Parliament to endorse it; so it wasn't as if he did it by executive decree. We have to acknowledge that Parliament does have a supreme place in all the Commonwealth countries and it should do so. You might disagree with what they do but they do have a right to do it.

Was the UK, perhaps being pushed by the US, pressing for the lifting of the suspension?

There was a general feeling that Pakistan had been suspended for nearly five years and they had come a long way in bringing democracy back to Pakistan...

So there was no pressure from the UK.

Every country had a view. Every country felt something should happen. I don't recollect any who were saying "nothing should happen and that we must keep them frozen out". And when ministers were confronted with the whole issue "should we do something now or should we wait longer", on balance they felt "well, what can we do to show support for Pakistan?"

There is a meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) in September to review the position. You are not expecting them to change anything, right?

Ministers can do what they like. That's their prerogative and the CMAG ministers are a pretty good group of ministers; they look at all these issues in a pretty straightforward way: "What is the best thing we can do for this country?" I think they will be very heavy in their demands.

Pakistan is about to be invited to take part in CHOGM. Do you have any indications as to whether it is going to accept?

I don't have any indications but I have been aware that Pakistan has been very active in wanting to be re-engaged with the Commonwealth on technical assistance and they are very keen for us to help them. One of the areas they want us to work is, of course, bringing a more balanced curriculum for education...

But in the meantime they are developing their nuclear capabilities along with their neighbours.

Well, they are. They are a nuclear power.

And that's healthy in your view?

I was certainly opposed at the time to India detonating a nuclear device and therefore becoming a nuclear power and obviously we have said the same for Pakistan. We don't need more nuclear powers in the world even though, looking at what's happening in Iran right now, that may be more problematical.

Has CHOGM become more of a forum to talk about problems than solve them?

Before you can put a kid in a classroom in India you have got to have these people talking about what changes they can make. Policy changes get taken up here, get implemented here, financed here, become operational here. You've still got to have the people talking about how to achieve it and if there's one thing upon which Commonwealth leaders have expressed a wish, there must be real outcomes in what we're talking about...

Last week, you talked about the trade negotiations and said you were pessimistic. Who's to blame in your opinion for the trade negotiations going wrong?

Between the EU and the US, I don't see any sign of a major breakthrough on agriculture for developing countries, nor do I see a major breakthrough on the determination to eliminate agricultural subsidies in both those two areas, and in Japan.

Is any one party to blame for this?

Well, I think they all are. Because they are all sitting back and saying "apres vous, Alfons", you know. "You go first". (George) Bush has said "I am not going to move if the EU is not going to move". And after President (Jacques) Chirac's comments a week ago, I am not convinced that France is about to move.

You were disappointed by Mr Chirac's comments?

Oh yes. I mean, to talk about agriculture subsidies in Europe as being fundamental to Europe's social structure is going against everything world trade is all about.

Do you support Britain's position on reform?

Absolutely. I call for an elimination of agricultural subsidies. If you're going to take a few years to get there, okay. But at least say what you're going to do and how long you're going to take to do it.