Political Commentary

Will Amin wreck the show?

John Grigg

The original idea was that this year's conference of Commonwealth leaders should be held in Zambia, because since the Singapore conference in 1971 it has been accepted practice to move from one part of the world to another, as a means of demonstrating the modern Commonwealth's polycentricity. In 1973 the venue was Ottawa and in 1975 Kingston, Jamaica. This year it was Africa's turn and the host country was to have been Zambia.

But the Queen wanted the meeting to be in London in Jubilee year, and so — for reasons that may have included partypolitical calculation — did Sir Harold Wilson. Between them they secured a decision in favour of London, the Queen herself persuading President Kaunda to waive his country's claim.

This was certainly a mistake and may turn out to have been a disaster. It was a mistake, because holding the conference in London was bound to encourage an out-of-date view of the Commonwealth among friends and foes alike, suggesting that it is, after all, only a continuation of the British Empire by other means, and that this year's gathering. is a sort of Jubilee durbar.

In fact, the Commonwealth is not only entirely different from the Empire, but is also far less top-heavy than the only comparable institution, the French Community — because Britain is not the unique metropolis of the anglophone world that France is of the francophone world, and because Britain is neither the most populous nor (per capita) the richest country in the Commonwealth. It is therefore true to say that the Commonwealth has the makings of a genuine partnership, and quite wrong to regard it as a planetary system, with Britain the sun and other members the satellites.

But in politics appearances may count for more than objective reality, and the decision to hold this year's conference in London can only mislead the ignorant and give satisfaction to ill-wishers. If the argument for it was that the Jubilee conference should naturally be held in London, it was a ridiculous argument, because the Queen is celebrating her twenty-fifth anniversary as Head of the Commonwealth quite as much as (indeed, one might suppose, even more than) she is celebrating it as our local sovereign. And nothing could have proclaimed the reality of the. modern Commonwealth more vividly and dramatically than her presence in Zambia as 'fairy godmother' to the conference in Jubilee year.

Insistence upon London was therefore a mistake, and a splendid opportunity has been missed. But the potential disaster is that President Amin may be serious in his

determination to come and that Britain, as host country, may have to face the odium either of admitting him or equally of excluding him.

Optimists believe that his threat to attend, repeated the other day in Zaire, is no more than bluff, and they comfort themselves with the thought that he is unlikely to risk the fate of his predecessor, Dr Obote, who was toppled by Amin while attending the 1971 conference in Singapore. But this may be wishful thinking, because Amin is clearly not the most rational of men and has recently travelled as far afield as Egypt.

A special attraction to him may' be that the weekend in the middle of the conference — the second weekend in June — is to be spent by the Commonwealth leaders at Gleneagles. Granted his embarrassing taste, for all things Scottish, that alone may make the temptation to attend irresistible.

Amin is as little loved by many black leaders as by his brown and white colleagues, and he is particularly detested by Presidents Nyerere and Kaunda. All the same, if the British Government were to refuse to let him in, it might be necessary for them to join in denouncing the action as arbitrary and a breach of Commonwealth custom. Either way, the situation would be desperately awkward.

The general attitude towards him at the official level in Commonwealth countries, including African countries, was well stated by S. S. Ramphal, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, in an address to the Oxford University Africa Society on 8 March. 'There will be times,' he said, 'when one member's conduct will provoke the wrath of others beyond the limits of silence. Any other relationship would be so sterile as to be effete. What we must work for is an ethic which constrains meddling but which also inhibits excesses of the kind that demand and justify protest from without. Even so„ of course, there never will be unanimity that criticism or complaint is not improper 'interference but legitimate comment; but the truth is that although the line may be indefinable all the world will know when it is crossed'. And he went on to refer specifically to 'the problems of despair and dislocation in Uganda'.

For his ingenuity in making a contradictory position appear logically coherent Mr Ramphal is, in that statement, almost the equal of A. J. Balfour. There must be something rather odd about a line concerning which there can never be unanimity, which cannot be defined, yet the crossing of which is recognisable by all the world. Such defiance of logic in logical guise is, however, the essence of good politics, and the

Spectator 30 April 1977 Secretary-General's message may be paraphrased roughly as follows by those of us who do not have his delicate duties to perform: Amin is a loathsome tyrant, we all know he is a loathsome tyrant, but it may not at the moment be judicious for us to treat him as such.

By the.way, routine business between the Commonwealth Secretariat and member governments is normally conducted through their high commissioners in London. But at present there is no Ugandan high commissioner here, because diplomatic relations between Britain and Uganda have been temporarily severed. In these circumstances one might expect another Commonwealth mission to act for Uganda, but significantly Amin has to-work through the Saudi Arabian embassy. What better evidence could there be of his true standing in the eyes of other Commonwealth governments? For African leaders, however, it is hard to anathematise him publicly, because theY know that his Afro-chauvinism has con erable appeal to the masses in their OW° countries, and because in any case he has, not been expelled from the Organisation 01 African Unity. (Indeed, he recently Pres: ided over it.) If they are prepared to acceP; him as an OA U partner, how can they relec' him as a Commonwealth partner? Even for the non-African members rejee: tion is no easy matter, because it is a rule of the Commonwealth that members shoal° not interfere in each other's domestic affairS and that the Commonwealth as a Whole should not sit in judgment on a member's internal policies. This rule was, of course, flagrantly broken in the case of South Africa; though it is strictly incorrect to say. (ast many do) that South Africa was thrown nu of the Commonwealth. In fact, Dr Veilwoerd himself took the decision to

draw.

It is inevitable, at this stage of the Cornmonwealth's development, that racialisia practised by a white regime against noni whites should be held to justify a breach c)„ the normal convention. Until European dominance in the Third World is a remote

"

, memory, double standards in this respect _ will persist. Besides, there is a distinction ru be drawn between a regime which has the majority support of a substantial elector e as in South Africa, and a one-man regial, established by force and maintained by terror. The Commonwealth can have no Var. lad rel with the people of Uganda and sbn not, therefore, contemplate expelling that—s country out of disgust at the behaviour 0f it present ruler. 'n be The question remains, should Anil allowed to enter Britain for the conferet: in early June, if he does not oblige eve47te body by staying away? On balance, i'ess answer is surely Yes. It would be with damaging to the Commonwealth, and we any luck more damaging to him, if he woo permitted to attend the conference ra _as than given the chance to say that he ,Tish excluded by a racially prejudiced BO' Government.