'Do not remove a fly from neighbor's face with a hatchet'

Emeka Anyaoku*

I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to the Provost and to Professor Darby for inviting me to give this talk today and for their generous introductory remarks. I am grateful also to the Mayor and City Council of Derry for working with my hosts to produce an excellent programme, which will enable me to learn more about this historic city and to meet some at least of those who live here, while at the same time increasing my knowledge about INCORE (1)and about the University of Ulster. In addition, I should like to thank all of you present this afternoon for the warmth of your welcome.

There is nothing like the feeling that one is amongst friends, and that is certainly how I feel today in this particular part of the Commonwealth. From what I have seen so far, I can begin to imagine how St Columba, an early and perhaps the most famous of Derry residents before his years of exile on the Scottish island of Iona, came to feel as he did for this part of the world. As well as being a saint and a scholar, he was also a poet and Dr Kuno Meyer's translation from the Irish of one of Columba's verses shows the saint's great affection for this place, when he wrote:

My Derry; my little oak-grove(2), My dwelling and my little cell, 0 living God that art in Heaven above, Woe to him who violates it!

Having said that, I want to express my appreciation for the work which INCORE is doing. I would also like to commend INCORE for the way it is going about its work, especially its commitment to bringing together on the one hand those involved in research and theory and, on the other hand, those charged with developing and implementing policy. I very much favour that approach and I wish you well with it.

My talk today is intended to be a modest contribution to this process. But I hope that the Commonwealth's own involvement with INCORE will not end with this address. We have already had some discussions on the form that a constructive collaboration between us might take. I look forward to more, so that in the months and years ahead the Commonwealth can continue to contribute to, and learn from, INCORE's work.

Mr Chairman, before I go any further I should perhaps briefly explain what the modern Commonwealth is.

The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples to promote international understanding, sustainable development and world peace. After the United Nations, the Commonwealth is the world's largest multilateral organisation, the membership of which includes nations large and small, developed and developing. It has members from every major regional bloc and economic zone. Its total population exceeds 1,500 million; more than a quarter of the total population of the world. The Commonwealth is a remarkable example of co-operation between diverse countries and encompasses many races, religions, traditions, cultures and language groups. It is a living demonstration of the successful pursuit of unity in diversity.

Although the Commonwealth is a product of the decolonisation process, with most of the members being part of the former British empire, the term British Commonwealth was dropped from official use many years ago following India's decision in 1949 to become a republic. Today, while all nations of the Commonwealth accept the Queen as the symbol of their free association and as such Head of the Commonwealth, member countries are no longer bound by a common constitutional allegiance to the British Crown. The majority of Commonwealth countries are republics,(3) five have their national monarchs while 16 of them have chosen to retain Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State. Heads of Government meet every two years to review Commonwealth and world affairs as well as to decide on new policies and programmes. (4) The Commonwealth Secretariat is the main official machinery of the organisation and the focal point for the implementation of the decisions of Heads of Government.

The modern Commonwealth is as much an association of peoples as of nations. Informal networks of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), professional groups and committed individuals contribute immensely towards making the Commonwealth what it is; a global sub-system in which a diversity of cultures bound by common historical experiences unite around common values, objectives and principles. These were first formulated in Singapore in 1971, reaffirmed in Harare in 1991 and strengthened in Millbrook in 1995.5 Among them are the:

• commitment to fundamental political values, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and just and honest government;
• commitment to the sustainable economic development of its member states; and
• alleviation of poverty and a redressing of the balance between rich and poor nations.

A number of people have recently suggested that the Commonwealth seems to be paying more attention to the behaviour and activities of its members than used to be the case. The central truth of this observation arises from our increased efforts aimed at resolving the issue of unrepresentative governments within the Commonwealth. As Heads of Government demonstrated in Millbrook, adherence to the Harare Principles has become a "sine qua non" for membership of the organisation, because we believe that it is the most effective insurance against conflict. Encouraging the values of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, and assisting nations to enshrine in their constitutions such principles as the rights of minorities and the equality of all peoples under the law are important and basic elements of our strategy for conflict prevention.

The importance of applying such principles has never been greater. As we all know, the end of the cold war did not bring an end to the threat of conflicts in many parts of the world. Over the past five years, almost every continent has been touched in a variety of ways by a resurgence of intolerance. The prospect of increasing ethnic and sectarian tension is linked to the dangerous combination of shifting patterns of economic stability and rising chauvinism. I have before other audiences described this phenomenon as divisive pluralism.(6) It refers to situations where the existence in societies of groups having distinctive ethnic origins, cultural forms and religious affiliations becomes the source for disunity, destabilisation and conflict with negative effects on the political process. Many conflicts in Commonwealth countries centre around the struggle between different groups for political power. Such conflicts become accentuated when some groups believe or suspect that the democratic process is being manipulated or abandoned. The Commonwealth principles reaffirmed in Harare emphasise fundamental political values reinforced by socio-economic development. Since then, we have actively encouraged member countries governed by single party or military regimes to adopt multi-party democracy, not least because of its value in promoting accountability, responsiveness and equality of opportunities for all.

But our commitment to multi-party democracy does not end with advocacy. We have demonstrated our willingness to help non-democratic regimes to return to the path of democracy. This assistance takes many forms, such as supplying experts to serve countries contemplating new constitutions and electoral provisions, arranging seminars on administrative law and endeavouring to overcome practical obstacles to constitutional reform through help in legal drafting.

An especially important aspect of our assistance in the democratic process is the capacity we have developed in recent years for monitoring elections. Since Harare, we have monitored elections in 13 Commonwealth countries(7), thereby giving credibility to the electoral process and reinforcing democratic principles. The presence of Commonwealth observers at an election is both an insurance and an assurance against foul play; a safeguard against irregularities. Sometimes the work of our observers is all that stands between an election exercise in which the electorate has confidence, and one that becomes a prelude to tension and even conflict. Indeed, on a number of occasions the successful conduct of an election facilitated by the presence of our observer group has provided the solution to long-standing political crises.

Before proceeding to focus on a few examples of our role in preventive diplomacy and peace making, let me make it clear that the Commonwealth collectively is not involved in peace keeping and peace enforcement, although six Commonwealth countries are among the top ten contributing countries to the United Nations peacekeeping forces. However, in recent years the Commonwealth collectively has found itself increasingly involved in preventive diplomacy, through my personal intervention or that of special envoys acting on my behalf, or election observers. While we can only respond to requests for such interventions from Commonwealth countries, there are a number of factors which especially commend such action and assistance to our member states.

Commonwealth countries have English as a common language. We share many traditions and ways of working. We subscribe at the highest political level to a set of fundamental political values and we maintain a commitment to unity in diversity. Other helpful Commonwealth characteristics are; an established habit of consensus decision making, an informality of style, a minimalist structure which frees us from institutional constraints, and a wide experience of plural societies.

These attributes facilitate the development of the political will necessary for a serious attempt at a settlement, beginning with clarity about the type of solution which is being pursued. Those engaged in preventive diplomacy and peace building know that the aim is not just the cessation of violence, important though that is, but the creation of circumstances that would neither inspire nor sustain the re-emergence of violence. The task of the peace builder is like that of the doctor. It is not just to remove the symptoms of ill-health but to eliminate the obstacles to long-term health and well being, through political intervention reinforced as appropriate by social, economic and other action.

Our experience in the Commonwealth indicates that the over-arching aim of the peace-maker must be to find a truly lasting solution. In this regard, we believe that the peace-maker's efforts should be guided by considerations that include the following.

• Preventive diplomacy and peace-making can only be successful if those making the intervention have the confidence of the parties concerned.
• The peace-maker has to understand the essential interests of the parties to the conflict and the cultures within which they operate: otherwise misunderstandings will multiply.
• The environment in which talks take place must be conducive to the chances of their success: this extends even, perhaps especially in some instances, to the physical arrangements.
• To be effective, preventive diplomacy and at least the early stages of peace-making require quiet diplomacy, pursued well away from the glare of publicity.
• Preventive or arresting action is usually the more effective the earlier it takes place. This puts a premium on early warning, which in turn requires the close monitoring of political developments.

Turning to concrete examples of the work of the Commonwealth in preventive diplomacy, I should like to begin with South Africa. This is because the emergence of a non-racial government in that country is a triumph for the most cherished of all Commonwealth principles and a ringing affirmation of all that we stand for. For over thirty years, the Commonwealth provided moral leadership and the political momentum to the global effort to end apartheid. But our activities were not confined to the international isolation of the regime. We sought ways of avoiding "the catastrophe that was waiting to happen" should apartheid be allowed to continue. It was our belief in the virtues of preventive diplomacy that led to the establishment of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group in 1986.' The Group came close to securing a formula agreeable to all parties which would have ushered in peace and secured the release of Nelson Mandela. But despite exhaustive meetings with all parties, 23 times with the government and three times with Nelson Mandela in Pollsmore Prison, the leaders of apartheid did not avail of the opportunity.

The historic Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare in 1991 took place when the South African government had begun to take steps to dismantle the structures of apartheid. In Harare, Commonwealth leaders, having received the report of the High Level Appraisal Group, adopted the Harare Commonwealth Principles which included among others the promotion of consensus on global issues and the prevention and resolution of conflict. Harare also reaffirmed Commonwealth support for the United Nations (UN) in its task of promoting and maintaining world peace, stability and the prevention and resolution of conflict. We have therefore been working closely with the UN wherever appropriate.

It was at the Harare Summit that Commonwealth Heads of Government mandated me to become the first Secretary-General of the organisation to visit South Africa. The aim was to ascertain how the Commonwealth could assist in the launching and maintenance of negotiations between all parties which would lead to a new constitution. In 1992, 1 was able to advance the idea of an international observer mission from interested international organisations (including the Commonwealth) to help address the widespread political violence which threatened to abort the negotiations. With others from the UN, the Organisation of African Unity and the European Union, the Commonwealth Observer Mission in South Africa (COMSA) worked behind the scenes from 1992 to 1994 to bring people together in trouble-torn areas such as Kwa Zulu-Natal, in the violent townships of the East Rand and elsewhere in the country. COMSA used the same formula in each case. It helped tribal leaders to exert their traditional authority as "fathers of the people", to rise above political divisions and to act in the interests of all by leading a non-partisan peace drive. And it offered the parties to the conflict the opportunity of escape from a vicious circle of increasing death and destruction. It was able to help bring about a dramatic fall in the number of political killings and, by arresting the spiral of violence, gave new confidence to the process of negotiation and transition.

For details of the activities of the Eminent Persons Group see Mission to South Africa: Forward by Shridath Ramphal: Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, United Kingdom, 1987.

Apartheid is now an evil of the past and South Africa is back in the Commonwealth family. But we realise fully that the stability of political institutions and systems must be underpinned by socio-economic development. The non-racial government of South Africa needs assistance to overcome the legacies of apartheid. This task is an essential element of our policy of preventive diplomacy. The Commonwealth co-sponsored a Donors Conference to assist South Africa to meet its developmental needs and helped in discussions that led to the adoption of a final constitution. We provided technical assistance during the preparations for the local government elections, facilitated culture and policy change in the South African police service and contributed to the restructuring of the judicial system and public administration. The task of consolidating South Africa's democratic gains and assisting it to play its role in the Commonwealth and in regional organisations continues to be of paramount importance.'

Kenya

In 1991, the Kenyan Government, in an apparent response to pressure from the Commonwealth, international organisations and individual governments, embarked on a process of transition from a single party to multi-party democracy. In April 1992, 1 visited Nairobi to initiate practical Commonwealth involvement in that regard. Soon afterwards. I responded to the request by the Kenyan Attorney-General to provide an expert to advise on the adaptation of the constitution to conform to the requirements of multi-party democracy. We were, of course, aware that the transition from a one-party system would be a difficult process and that the ethnic tensions in Kenya would raise complex issues for the electoral process. However, we were determined to help minimise any negative effects that such issues might have on the democratic process and to do our best to ensure that the elections would be conducted in accordance with the best democratic traditions.

This was why, in June 1992, 1 sent a Secretariat planning mission to Nairobi headed by a Deputy Secretary-General to ascertain that Commonwealth Election Observers would be welcomed by all political parties. The mission also aimed to explore the logistical parameters of the election exercise and to gain an appreciation of the major issues involved in the transition process. It reported that Commonwealth Observers would be welcomed but pointed to the need for:

• an independent and impartial electoral commission;
• the necessity for the proper registration and a credible electoral register of voters;
• the need for equitable access by all political parties to the state owned news media;
• the importance of separating the institutions of state and government from the ruling party; and
• the need for the authorities to take steps to contain communal violence.

Lesotho Restoring confidence in the electoral process contributed in no small measure to the resolution of the conflict in Lesotho. The Commonwealth role in the return to multi-party democracy in that country effectively began at the Harare Heads of Government Meeting in 1991 during an exchange of views which I had with the Chairman of the Military Council, Major General Elias Ramaema. As a result of that discussion, a formal invitation was issued to the Commonwealth Secretariat on 15 November 1991, asking for technical assistance in the transition from military to civilian rule, and for the Commonwealth to observe the multi-party elections which would form a fundamental component of the transition.

However, the exile to London of King Moshoeshoe II, and his subsequent deposition by the military government followed by his replacement by his eldest son, created a political environment that was not conducive to the conduct of free and fair elections. The problem was further complicated in May 1992 when the exiled King announced his intention to return to Lesotho, notwithstanding the objections of the government. In my London office on 5 June 1992, 1 held a 14 hour meeting with the Head of the Military Government Major General Ramaema, some of his ministers, and King Moshoeshoe II and some of his supporters. We were able to reach agreement that the King should return to Lesotho in a manner that would enhance the prospects for peace, stability and national reconciliation. It was recognised that this implied the continuation in office of the existing administration, and the protection of the integrity of the ongoing process of democratisation leading to national elections. Two Commonwealth Secretariat planning missions were sent to ascertain that conditions would permit free and fair elections and a smooth transition to a stable democratic government. The elections were held on 27 March 1993 and the Commonwealth Observer Group expressed its satisfaction with the conduct of the poll." The Chairman of the Observer Group stayed behind to witness the transfer of power to the newly elected Government of Lesotho.

The goodwill created in the process enabled the Commonwealth to intervene when factional fighting broke out in the army in 1994. In the second half of 1994, a constitutional crisis occurred when the King dismissed the elected Prime Minister and dissolved parliament. The Commonwealth worked through the Presidents of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe to resolve the dispute. In March 1995, 1 visited Lesotho to stem a looming crisis that had been created when some members of the National Security Organisation abducted their Director and another senior officer. The abducted officers were eventually released on the last day of my stay in Lesotho. 12

Sierra Leone

The case of Sierra Leone belongs more in the realm of conflict resolution. As part of the Commonwealth effort to encourage adherence to the democratic ethic, I visited Sierra Leone in July 1994 to discuss with Captain Strasser, Chairman of the National Provisional Ruling Council, the proposed transition to democratic civilian rule. At the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Auckland in November 1995, Captain Strasser assured his colleagues that the transition would take place as planned. Brigadier General Bio, who replaced Captain Strasser in a palace coup on 16 January 1996, confirmed that the democratic process would continue unabated and that his government was committed to holding the presidential and general elections on 20 January 1996. But the political climate in Sierra Leone was adversely affected by the existence of the rebel Revolutionary United Front (RUF). It had been formed to topple the former government headed by Brigadier Momoh but continued its activity against the governments of Captain Strasser and General Bio, claiming that they too were illegitimate. Following the receipt of a letter from General Bio asking the Secretariat to send observers to the elections, I despatched a planning mission consisting of three Secretariat officials to consult with all the major parties and make an initial assessment of the practical arrangements that would need to be made to facilitate the work of the 'Observer Group. Based on their report and following General Bio's confirmation that the elections would go ahead and that, notwithstanding rebel activities, the army would provide adequate security for the polling, I sent a group of twelve observers supported by six Secretariat officers to the elections, which were scheduled for 26 February 1996 and extended to the following day. The team reported that despite the fact that the rebel RUF repeatedly announced its disapproval of the elections and created a situation of insecurity, the people of Sierra Leone demonstrated their determination to participate in the elections and ensured that they were held. Their resolve illustrates a general trend that Commonwealth support for the democratic process is backed by the people. After the announcement of results, officials of the Secretariat, in co-operation with the UN Secretary General's special envoy to Sierra Leone, participated in the dialogue between the outgoing military government, the President-elect and the members of the rebel revolutionary United Front with the aim of bringing about a situation of permanent peace. A new civilian government is now in place and the people of Sierra Leone are currently enjoying a much more peaceful atmosphere than has existed in recent years.

Bangladesh

The impasse that developed between the Government and the opposition parties, and which had caused political and social instability involving loss of life, was focused on issues relating to the democratic process. The opposition had demanded that the government should step down and that a neutral caretaker government be established to oversee fresh elections. I visited Dhaka in 1994 and made a three point proposal for the resolution of the conflict. Thereafter, I sent an eminent Australian and former Governor General, Sir Ninian Stephen, to facilitate dialogue between the two sides. Sir Ninian spent five weeks in Bangladesh in October and November 1994, during which he put forward substantive proposals in an effort to break the deadlock. Although a resolution of the problems was not achieved at that stage, his proposals eventually became a point of departure for an eventual solution. We continued to negotiate with and impress on the major parties the need to come to an agreement. I sent two officers of the Commonwealth Secretariat to be present during the 15 February 1996 elections, which the opposition parties boycotted and the conduct of which did not appear to conform to acceptable standards. The opposition then refused to recognise the legitimacy of the new government and renewed its policy of non-cooperation, leading to wide-spread paralysis of economic activity. On 28 March 1996, the new government eventually bowed to public pressure for the installation of a neutral caretaker government. On 27 April 1996, a newly appointed election commission set 12 June 1996 as the date for fresh elections, which it is hoped will usher in an atmosphere of peace and stability in Bangladesh.

Let me now return to the title of this talk - "Space In Which Hope Can Grow". In relating the theme to the issue of preventing conflict and building peace, it is important to think not only of creating the necessary space but also of taking measures to facilitate the growth of hope in circumstances that promote peace. Hope cannot be sustained nor can the objective of peace be achieved in an environment that is not propitious for the growth of peace.

The new South Africa provides perhaps the best recent illustration of the creation of space in which hope was enabled to grow. Only few could have thought even five years ago that the transformation of apartheid South Africa into the democracy that has now taken root there would happen so relatively peacefully. It required the commitment and vision of leaders like

Nelson Mandela, F.W.de Klerk, Chief Buthelezi and others to create that space and sustain the negotiations and measures that ultimately brought a transformation of their conflict-ridden country. In this context, who can forget the reconciliation encapsulated in that unforgettable image of President Mandela wearing the Springbok rugby shirt at the time of the Rugby World Cup final last year? That was an occasion of instruction and a source of inspiration for us all.

Here in Northern Ireland, and indeed in Britain and throughout the island of Ireland, there is an urgent need both for the reconstruction of that space and the hope that must fill it. The collective Commonwealth, of course, has no direct role in building a political settlement here in Ireland. But it cannot be indifferent to developments that affect people here so seriously.

I therefore want to take this opportunity to add my voice to those of many others who press, rightly, for a resumption of the ceasefire and to wish, indeed to urge, every success for the political talks scheduled to commence in June 1996. Here, as elsewhere, there can only be political solutions to political problems.

No one can pretend that it will be an easy process. However, there are conjunctions of events and perceptions which make particular times particularly propitious for redoubled efforts. To quote Seamus Heaney, from his play The Cure at Troy (13):

.... Once in a lifetime The longed-for tidal wave Of justice can rise up And hope and history rhyme. So hope for a great sea-change On the far side of revenge. Believe that a further shore Is reachable from here.

As I have already indicated, such a sea change depends on many circumstances. Among these would be the commitment of all the parties concerned to the achievement of durable peace and a society in which your pluralism will be recognised as a source of strength. Finally, I would like to underline the importance of the beliefs on which INCORE'S role here and internationally is based:

• that there is much to be learned from the experiences of other societies;
• that what is learned can be used to make the world a better place; and
• that by working co-operatively we can overcome the many problems that confront us.

  In recent years so many physical barriers and political obstacles to progress have come down. But, to borrow a phrase from that great Ulster Historian, F.S.L. Lyons, there are still ghettoes in people's minds.

  That is why the beliefs and values upheld by INCORE are so important - openness to the world, a recognition of our common humanity and the conviction that problems made by human beings can be solved by human beings.

  They are beliefs and values worth protecting and pursuing. And those of us who cherish them are inevitably imbued with an optimism which leads us to say that:

  • if we work at our problems hard enough;
  • if we work at them together, and with tolerance;
  • if we work at them with idealism, as well as with intelligence; and
  • if, above all, we work at them with generosity,
  then we could be spared the appalling human suffering which is the main result of the many conflicts which afflict all regions of our world.

  Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: may I wish you all the very best in all your endeavours and particularly in your contribution to the clearing of spaces in which hope can grow.