Originally published on the CGS blog on April 18, 2014.
On Monday, Canada’s foreign affairs minister announced that the world’s 11th largest economy would be suspending its $10 million annual contribution to the Commonwealth of Nations until late 2015 in protest against Sri Lanka’s two-year leadership of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused controversy last year by joining the leaders of India and Mauritius in boycotting the summit in Colombo, the Sri Lankan capital. This persistent conflict stems from Sri Lanka’s continued refusal to address claims of human rights atrocities committed by government forces during the country’s 26-year civil war.
Since the end of hostilities in 2009, Colombo has continuously rejected all calls for investigation into the claims, most recently denouncing a March resolution by the UN Human Rights Council requesting a “comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations” by “both parties” in the war. Monday’s announcement has been met with similar obstinacy, as the Sri Lankan foreign ministry accused Canada of attempting to “hold the Commonwealth to ransom” for the sake of “scoring political points.” Human Rights organizations, however, have consistently praised the Harper government for its uniquely stern stance in dealing with Colombo.
The pulling of $20 million in total from the Commonwealth marks the strongest action taken yet in pursuit of accountability and an independent investigation into atrocities which continue to be ignored.
The Commonwealth of Nations, founded over 60 years ago as a successor to the rapidly dissolving British Empire, is a free association of 53 states dedicated to building cultural, economic, and political ties between its members. Its Charter outlines human rights, rule of law, and good governance as being among its core values, but the organization’s continuing unwillingness to take a stand against the actions of a member state accused of atrocities calls into question just how meaningful those values are. Even the Secretary-General’s statement in response to the funding suspension was brief and without substance, failing to even mention, let alone address, the conflict behind the boycott.
Canada’s temporary withdrawal of support, then, sends an important message. Should the Commonwealth, one of the largest and most influential international bodies in the world, fail to uphold its commitment to promote “human rights, democracy, and the rule of law,” it risks losing the support and cooperation of members who would rather devote money and effort to more meaningful endeavors.
In a notable demonstration of these values John Baird, the Canadian Foreign Minister, said that the funds once set aside for the Commonwealth would instead “go towards other programs that promote Commonwealth values,” with particular focus on efforts to eradicate forced and child marriage.
Such a proactive boycott presents a responsible model for other nations – simply starving an IGO of funding can be destructive in the short term, harming beneficial programs. If an organization is failing to uphold its core values, it would be better to divert funding to those that do. Canada has done just that, and other Commonwealth members should follow suit in hopes of restoring a genuine commitment to shared international values.
