Pakistan has reason to be angry that it is still suspended from Commonwealth membership. But to blame India for this state of affairs is a bad idea, if only because it could damage the goodwill that has been growing between the sub-continent’s powerful neighbors in recent weeks.
Though at times torn by rows, the Commonwealth remains a major international organization — the population of its 54 member states accounts for almost a third of the world’s total. Apart from important aid and educational functions, it provides many members with support — and clout — they would not otherwise enjoy. It is also a forum for members to resolve bilateral issues. That is why Pakistan is keen to come back to the fold.
Some very tough horse-trading went on behind the scenes at the organization’s summit this week in Nigeria’s new capital Abuja. The southern African states wanted Zimbabwe’s suspension ended. They argued that President Robert Mugabe’s electoral fraud and human rights abuses could best be tackled from within the Commonwealth.
A six-man committee, made up of delegates from Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, Mozambique and South Africa was given the job of deciding on Zimbabwe, which has been suspended since March 2002. Australia, Canada and Jamaica were all against readmission, while Mozambique sided with South Africa in favor. It is therefore clear that India’s vote swung the decision against. That much is undisputed. But should we therefore assume that India, in return for its vote, asked for Pakistan to remain suspended?
Probably not. What kept Pakistan out was the African vote, which wished to punish the white Commonwealth countries led by the UK for their hard line on Zimbabwe. The British have made little secret of their feeling that Pakistan has done enough to return to democracy and therefore to the Commonwealth. London’s diplomats have argued that the sweeping powers President Musharraf arrogated to himself before the last election made sense, given that so many civilian governments in Pakistan have been marred by corruption and inefficiency. Britain’s detractors, on the other hand, believe that Blair wanted to reward President Musharraf for his support for the US-led war on terrorism.
Pakistan can in no way be compared with Zimbabwe, where murder and intimidation have become political tools while Mugabe’s inept policies run the economy into the ground. Indeed, among the African countries that decided Pakistan’s fate, there are states like Uganda where democracy and political freedom fall far short of what exists in Pakistan. In short, the vote went against Islamabad for reasons that had little to do with its internal political record — and everything to do with outside arguments and rivalries. It is not clear that India played a pivotal role in embarrassing Pakistan. Islamabad would be wise to play down complaints that it did.
