Comment: Gloomy outlook for CMAG

Further down the street, I saw paint drying. I digress, but only to due to the fact that events outside of the 39th meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) were eminently more interesting than those occurring inside.

After a short meeting, the group released a bland statement which would have disappointed both Maldivians and Sri Lankans who waited outside, urging the group to take action against their respective governments. Neither country even made it onto the ‘official agenda’ disclosed to the public, with discussions on Fiji being the only content that saw the shifting light of day.

After an allegedly dramatic meeting in New York last September, the Maldives was informed that it would be allowed to resume its current (rotating) membership of the group “in the absence of any serious concerns”.

The complete failure to mention the Maldives yesterday suggested that it had resumed its seat, a move which suggested the group was satisfied with the Maldives implementation of CoNI’s recommendations. However, the fact that the country is now placed on CMAG’s confidential ‘matters of interest’ list alongside Sri Lanka – a country facing universal condemnation for its failure to adequately investigate war crimes that have killed up to 40,000 people in 2009 – is hardly a ringing endorsement.

The secretive and often counter-intuitive nature of CMAG signifies a major dilemma as it attempts the private and painstaking art of diplomacy in the full glare of the world’s media. During Friday’s press conference, Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma batted away suggestions that the Commonwealth was out of step with the international community, whilst one disgruntled minister was reported to have commented during the meeting that they should not be held to ransom by human rights groups.

Throughout the press conference, there was a clear (but diplomatic) frustration with the media’s inability to appreciate the Commonwealth’s work.

“If anything, the Commonwealth is making a contribution to the international community because, if you look at who is making statements and who is doing the real work on the ground, you will be able to tell the difference. It is the Commonwealth who is on the ground and making a difference on those issues which most people are talking about,” bristled Sharma.

Diplomacy is by its very nature dull. It is about taking small steps, confidence building, discretion, and, above all, dialogue. The art of diplomacy and partnership is how the Commonwealth has always operated, and these are methods to which the supposedly beefed up CMAG is an anathema.

Apparent difficulties with the Maldives and Sri Lanka have made it abundantly clear that CMAG is doing the Commonwealth more harm than good. Steady (and secret) progress may well have been made in both cases, but without the ability to communicate this progress to the world, the Commonwealth’s credibility will inevitably suffer.

Sharma yesterday argued that the organisation’s “real work on the ground” was in fact increasing its credibility. This might true in the murky realms of statecraft, but any boosts to the Commonwealth’s integrity will come in spite of, rather than thanks to, the work of CMAG.

Sharma told the press that CMAG was choosing to work via his own ‘good offices’; diplomatic-speak for ‘behind closed doors’. Perhaps this is where the Commonwealth’s ‘real’ work should stay, as its attempt to be more proactive and relevant risk nullifying its strengths. Maybe the Commonwealth’s inner workings should be kept private and we could talk about the weather instead.