) that are on your wavelength, and agree with most of what you say.
Rhetorical question...to a point. Sure Blair is a target etc etc... it takes 5000 of our finest to ensure he makes it through this golf weekend? BTW do you realise how many of his own security forces are here? It numbers in the hundreds...
Oh, like Russia or China or the other 2 thirds of the world's population. Your anti US slip is showing...
In real terms, correct, they don't count. Nauru, Antigua, The Gambia? Yes, giants of the world stage...Please.
If you think I am the only person questioning the relevance of the Commonwealth you are deluded. Your 'evidence' (taken from the Commonwealth handbook perhaps...) does not alter my stance one iota. It is an old boys club desperately seeking relevance. This esteemed organisation can't even take the one obvious action: suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth and so called 'smart' sanctions. It seems the other African nations may vote against such action. Top stuff huh?
Yeah, whatever...
Disband, call it a day. Then we can raise a Pimms or two and become misty eyed as we reminisce about the good old days in our comfy leather armchairs...
Probably not, although sharing a special relationship with such notables as Tonga, St Lucia, Seychelles, Darussalam doesn't mean a whole lot though does it.
At least that tiger has some teeth...
Any relevance this point has is rendered obsolete when one considers that Indonesia is not a member of the Commonwealth. It is the only nation truly on our doorstep whose political instability is a real concern for Australia.
Clutching at straws here; so out of a grand total of 54 members you can come up with 7 decent luminaries? Right. Malaysia and India's leaders aint even here, shows how much they value the commonwealth. Pakistan has been booted out of the commonwealth since 1999, obviously it's hurting them real bad. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the effect it has had on Pakistan? Nigeria??
Plenty of people I come across in my travels question it's relevance. Just this morning The Australian newspapers foreign editor Greg Sheridan had this to say about those lovely aid programs you are fond of quoting "Nor is there any sense...{these programs} amounts to more than a hill of beans". Of the 53 member countries, more than a THIRD chose not to send their leaders to the golf weekend at Coolum. Don't let the facts get in the way...
If they had any real ticker or relevance they would have done it well before now. As it is now it is a watered down exercise in face saving for all concerned (particularly Howard).
See my earlier response. Oh and the Kenyans seem to be having great time at Coolum don't they? Seem to be spending their time getting plastered in Noosa nightclubs, chatting up the locals. Real dignified stuff.
Yes they have. Apart the ruling elite the country is poverty stricken. There is also the terrible issue of the up to 500,000 men, women and children have died due to the lack of outside aid and medical supplies reaching the country.
I do remember Downer mincing about when these countries had their problems.. Yes these countries are a real concern to us with their political problems aren't they...Apart from the travel plans of Aussies tourists, in real terms, their problems mean nothing to us. A hill of beans you could say.
That's not correct, 19 of the 52 CHOGM countries elected not to send their leaders. I can list them for you if you really want...You still haven't answered my question as to how Pakistans expulsion is hurting them.
Again, incorrect. 19 of the 53 CHOGM countries leaders aren't here. That's over a third in fact.
Helen clark, the NZ prime minister said CHOGM had to "get its act together" after describing its attempt to grapple with human rights abuses in Zimbabwe as a failure. From The Age as well by the way.
Greg Sheridan is an expert in foreign affairs, although I don't always agree with what he says. In this case I do.
The UN whilst it does have ticker, can be slow to react. Quite understandable given its member size. It should also be noted that the US and European Union already HAVE imposed sanctions.
My point regarding the Kenyans (which I thought was rather obvious) is that the seriousness with which some of these delegates approach CHOGM is reflected in their behaviour.
Sadly, the sanctions were powerful enough to claim the lives of many innocent people. They were in fact initiated to force Hussein to allow weapons inspectors back in the country, not to remove him from power as such (although that unspoken intent was probably there).
I'm surprised you ask this question. Given the significant numbers of terrorist cells in Indonesia, not to mention a huge muslim population, I would have thought Australia's concern would have been obvious.
The absence of these 'commonwealth programs' is having such an adverse effect on Pakistan that they are clamouring to get back in? Obviously not. On paper, these programs no doubt look like a 'positive work agenda', in reality they amount to very little of real susbstance. As you say these programs are not available to Pakistan, that however is not an effect. That is a result. I ask again, What is the REAL effect on Pakistan of its exclusion from the Commonwealth. How many of these programs were being applied to Pakistan before their expulsion? How many people benefitted? What was the 'value' of these programs, specific to Pakistan?
Your opinion. I however, thought it was quite apt.
As I said earlier, 19 countries chose not to send their leaders. That in itself is a statement as to the relevance of the Commonwealth.
Not really, I have played in numerous corporate golf days where up to 750 players played in one day, let alone spread across four days. Not hard when you think about it, 4 players teeing off on each of the 18 holes every 10 minutes etc. By the by I know but you did ask...
It appears that the Commonwealth might act on Zimbabwe after the election. That's a big if given two of the three man super committee are African leaders. We all know they tend to stick together when it comes to defending a fellow African nation. Incidentally, Tony Blair called this delayed decision as "the lowest common denominator". His frustrations at CHOGM have been obvious.
I think The Australian editor got it spot on, the Harare declaration essentially upheld the principles of democracy and the democratic process (as well as racial tolerance and other things). There have been numerous incidents previous to this election process that the Commonwealth should have acted on a long time ago. They haven't and I assume that's where the editor of The Australian was coming from.
No it doesn't logically follow at all, particularly when you made the point that the Commonwealth exists of essentially 6 or 7 relevant countries (I would put that figure at 3).
No I don't have a problem with after hours 'partying'. This case is totally different; these people are representatives of not just an organisation but their country, are you trying to tell me that carousing in nightclubs at 1.00am in the morning is acceptable for such a 'momentous' event. I don't think so. No they don't have to work 24 hours a day, what they can do is show some decorum and respect for the event. It shows to me they weren't taking the whole thing too seriously.
You can argue the merits of their success or otherwise, what you can't argue is the massive impact they have had on the country. I can't see the cancellation of Commonwealth 'programs' having any real impact at all. Again, I don't hear Pakistan begging for mercy from the Commonwealth.
Given the song and dance Howard and others made at CHOGM about the Commonwealth's new focus on the war on terrorism (which in reality is an attempt to make the CW relevant), I would have thought terrorist cells operating in Indonesia would have far more relevance/importance to Australia (and the Commonwealth) than the issue of tourist visas in Fiji, New Caledonia etc.
Replace the word 'Indonesia' with the word 'Zimbabwe' and perhaps you can answer the question yourself. I would have thought political instability literally on our doorstep is far more relevant than political instability half a world away.
I think you have provided the lack of substance yourself. So Britain cancels 2/3rds of its 28million pound aid money. Whoopee, pales into insignificance compared to the estimated US $1 billion aid The US (in consultation with the UN) now flowing back into Pakistan since September 11 doesn't it?
Pakistan have agreed to democratic elections largely due to UN pressure and sanctions. You would be hard pressed to find any evidence to suggest it is due to Commonwealth influence.
Sure, right and where is Benazir Bhutto now...?
Would you expect them to say anything else publicly? It's called diplomacy.
The UN, previous to this request, declined an offer from both Pakistan and India to help out with the Kashmir situation. The UN declined, saying it is an issue for those two countries alone to sort out.
As stated previously, Commonwealth sanctions (their dollar value) pale into insignificance compared to other organisational sanctions (not just the UN). We're talking BILLIONS of dollars here. No comparison.
Not spurious at all, just evidence. What are your excuses for the other 17 leaders non attendance? As for CHOGM 2002 being the biggest meeting of 'international statesman' (including high ranking public servants I see...) since CHOGM 1981, big deal. That's as much a reflection of Australia's relevance on the world stage than anything else (as well as the growth of tin pot, 3 men and a dog 'countries' joining the Commonwealth). BTW, Matt Price, commentator for The Australian said in the weekend edition "...the Coolum farce indicates CHOGM is all but redundant."
The Commonwealth has had ample evidence to act on Zimbabwe well before the election process. Expulsion from the UN is far harder for a country 'to achieve' because the UN well knows the impact of such a move. The associated actions can devastate a country. Expulsion from the Commonwealth is in real terms,no big deal, hence they are quicker to do so.
Not sure why you are turning this into a discussion on the UN, suffice they say their operating budget of around 2.5Billion US$ would absolutely dwarf the budget of the Commonwealth. Do you know what the budget for the Commonwealth is? The real sting from the UN comes from its sanctions and embargoes which of course are outside its operating budget.
Blair wanted immediate action on Zimbabwe for all its previous wrongdoings. No wonder he was frustrated.
We don't know what the UN will do with Zimbabwe do we. As I stated before they issued a public pronouncement before the commonwealth. There is no evidence to suggest they will act any slower than the commonwealth.
They were denied general voting rights from 1970-1994. Consider yourself enlightened.
Big difference between partying AFTER your event has been completed to partying DURING and before your event has been completed is there not?
The pressure on Pakistan came largely from the US who were threatening the continuation/escalation of the massive sanctions imposed after the military coup unless democracy was seen to be restored. Very little evidence of any commonwealth impact, perhaps you can provide it.
Unfortunately Hussein seems to have been the prime beneficiary of the 'oil for food' program; thus he has been in no hurry for them to be removed. He is now making noises about readmitting weapons inspectors, probably to avert impending US military action.
Yep, massive impact.
Which country in the world would not issue a statement condemning terrorism? The commonwealths statement was I'm sure, pleasing to the US, but really, what did it achieve. Didn't we already know these commonwealth countries were against terrorism? What country would be silly enough to not support (at least covertly) a stance against terrorism?
Didn't side step the question, I think you missed the point. My point again, is this. Political instability in Indonesia is a huge issue for Australia for number of reasons, most notably for the mass of refugees who would flee to the nearest port of call - Australia. And what can the commonwealth do about it? Bugger all as Indonesia is not a member of the C/W. I ask you again, how does political instability in Zimbabwe effect Australia?
I think I have covered this with my point above. There is no comparison to the potential issues we could face if there was a civil war in Indonesia compared to similar problems in the countries you mentioned. Surely you can see that. Fiji? PNG? Please.
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
They were denied general voting rights from 1970-1994. Consider yourself enlightened.
Not at all, just highlighting the irrelevance of Commonwealth sanctions compared to other organisations.
I think you misread this part of my post, I was referring to pressure applied by the UN to resolve the Kashmir dispute AND sanctions applied by other organisations/countries. I didn't say the UN have applied sanctions to Pakistan, of course they haven't. The US btw, HAVE applied sanctions specific to Pakistans military coup (as well as imposing sanctions after the nuclear tests, which have primarily been removed post September 11). These so called democracy restrictions cover foreign military finance, military educational training, and aid from the Trade and Development Agency, Overseas Private Investment Corporation and Economic Support Fund. Post Sept. 11, even these are likely to be eased according to the US ambassador to Pakistan.
Not too difficult at all. There continues to be dialogue between the UN and India/Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. Whilst the UN continues to assist where possible essentially they believe it to be a bilateral issue and should be sorted out by themselves. Given the threat of a nuclear war has reduced dramatically, I would have thought that was fair enough.
As I stated earlier the UN has not applied sanctions to Pakistan, individual countries lead by the US (and including Japan, France, Britain, Italy) have had their own sanctions (or aid reduction/cancellation) over the last two or three years.
Not necessarily saying he is right, however in this case I obviously agree with him. What it does show is another political analyst decrying the relevance of the commonwealth.
Given that much of Mugabe's apparent wealth is due to the siphoning off of public monies, the UN has probably realised that sanctions against Zimbabwe would be ineffective in ousting him. Like Iraq sanctions would hurt the populace at large whilst having little impact on the government. Kofi Annan has made a similar point in the past regarding sanctions, particularly against dictatorships.
That's your opinion, my opinion is that it is irrelevant and I saw nothing at Coolum that alters that view.
As I said, they have done no less than the commonwealth at this stage. As for the commonwealth sub committee on Zimbabwe let's wait and see how long they take to actually make a decision once these 'elections have been held.
The UN imposed an arms embargo on SA during the apartheid regime.
Where is your evidence for athletes partying during their events (ie while their events where still on)? I'm sure they had a gay old time after the completion of their events, good on them, but during? I don't think so.
I think I have already covered this point - there are still sanctions in place due to the military coup.
And let's see how effective this 'co-operation' is.
