It’s not surprising at all that Commonwealth leaders, now meeting in Australia, have decided to indefinitely shelve a proposal to create the post of a human rights commissioner. Human rights is a contentious issue to begin with, and by asking for a “further examination” of the idea the consensus-driven Commonwealth has admitted a division within its ranks. Many countries, including India, are uncomfortable with the idea, though the reasons cited — lack of finances and duplication of the UN’s work — are hardly convincing.
For some nations, the West’s emphasis on human rights is little more than an intrusion into their internal affairs. Sri Lanka, which has come in for sharp criticism on this front, particularly after the end of the civil war, feels besieged and almost singled out. Other nations may not be as vocal, but resent the activism of international bodies and NGOs. The Commonwealth is generally benign on this; and a full-fledged commissioner would surely change things.
As it is there are questions of the Commonwealth’s own relevance in the modern era. No one is suggesting that it be wound up, but a body composed mainly of former British colonies is a bit of an anachronism as the world moves towards trading and regional blocs. There is a need to make it more connected with current needs — that should be uppermost in the minds of its members. While the idea of a human rights commissioner is worth considering, it’s not an immediate priority. By shelving it for now, the Commonwealth’s leaders have taken a sensible step.