Mr. President Lord Trend, Mr. Chairman Sir Eric Norris, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Fellows of the Royal Commonwealth Society, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am very happy to be with you today; indeed, I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Council of the Royal Commonwealth Society for inviting me to deliver the Opening Address at this Conference on the Commonwealth and the Small States.
This being my very first Commonwealth engagement in London, I would also wish to convey to Her Majesty The Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth, the sincere greetings of the Government and people of the Republic of Maldives. We have had a long and honourable association with Britain, which has stood the test of time, and we regard our membership of the Commonwealth as a happy continuation of that association.
Mr. Chairman, though the Maldives became a member of the Commonwealth only two years ago, we have been greatly encouraged by the spirit of mutuality and shared assumptions which is a prominent feature of its deliberations. Such an atmosphere of mutual concern and purpose justifies in good measure my country’s decision to become a member state. It is our wish and intention to participate in Commonwealth activities as fully as circumstances permit. While the special membership status held by the Maldives does not permit it to attend the biennial meetings of Heads of Government, we closely observed the progress of its November 1983 Conference at New Delhi, and had good reason to take particular interest in member states’ vigorous concern with events in Grenada of the previous month.
Consequently, the Government of the Maldives entertained a keen appreciation of that part of the 1983 Commonwealth communiqué which, with regard to Grenada, reaffirmed members’ “commitment to the principles of independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for the strict observance of these principles”.
Similarly did we welcome that part of the Goa Declaration on International Security which pronounced a notable concern at the “vulnerability of small states to external attack and interference in their affairs” and further expressed a “moral obligation to provide effectively for their territorial integrity”. True to the very best traditions of the Commonwealth, such sentiments were given particular substance by the decision to request the Secretary-General to institute a study of the special needs of small states within the Commonwealth “consonant with the right to sovereignty and territorial integrity that they share with all nations.” This is a study I at once wished to be associated with, being of the opinion that the Maldives, as one of the world’s smallest island Republics, could make a positive contribution to. Accordingly, I wrote as such to Sir Shridath.
In the eight months which have elapsed since the invasion of Grenada, little has taken place to dispel the concern and apprehension we in the Maldives felt at the beginning of the crisis. Indeed, to the contrary, the precarious nature of the times in which we all live, with the condition of the international community being one of tension and charged with violent potential, the situation the small states of the world contemplate is, put at its best, uncertain.
There is an ancient saying in neighbouring India which I will, with your kind permission, quote: “When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”. While elephants are not a feature of life on coral islands, the evident message of the quotation is not lost to us. Indeed, it contains an unyielding truth and one that states such as my own are obliged to constantly take into account.
Now I accept that in a world and at a time dominated by the military strengths of the Eastern and Western blocs, the affairs and expectations of the Third World are of secondary importance. That, while the super powers’ monopoly on the control and manipulation of world events remains as it is the interests and destiny of small states is of no real significance, can only be given serious attention when in some manner an interruption of grand designs takes place. The instance of Grenada is a clear example of this; indeed, may I suggest, proof of it. For it was only when the administration of the late Maurice Bishop was perceived to be conducting its affairs in a manner deemed incompatible with the vision of the Caribbean region held by the West, that it became subject to foreign military intimidation. These facts are now matters of established history and the conclusions to be drawn from them are very real and immediately apparent upon even the most cursory examination.
Even though the concern which was expressed at the deteriorating situation in Grenada by her island neighbours, following Maurice Bishop’s assassination, was well understood and appreciated, the invasion was essentially based upon the dangerous precept that if one state does not particularly like the social and political climate prevailing in another it can carry out a military adventure. The British Prime Minister was quite correct and well justified when she condemned the invasion of Grenada in similar terms. She upheld a high and enduring principle – that of territorial integrity.
And of course we cannot ignore the fact, indeed it is pivotal to the whole debate, that the state invaded was a small island one, that it became subject to the hostile designs of others when the policies of its Government were deemed to be unacceptable. It is unfortunate in the extreme that the Commonwealth which by its very existence and endeavour emphasizes the principles of mutual respect, tolerance, understanding, co-operation and, perhaps most significantly of all, the principle of interdependence, could not have played a more effective role in the Grenada saga.
Grenada is yet another alarming manifestation of the increasing trend towards the use of force in settling international disputes, a trend that has grown in strength as a result of the apparent success of Israel, in spite of worldwide condemnation and relevant UN resolutions, in occupying and holding to territories in four neighbouring Arab countries after the so-called “Six-Day War”. The use of force on many occasions such as this has constituted invasion by one state of another. Further afield there has been the invasion of Afghanistan and, further still, the invasion of war-torn Kampuchea. It is a practice that has now assumed a fearful momentum of its own.
Where the Commonwealth is of considerable help is in its provision for co-operation for the social and economic development of member states. In this context, the very special problems relating to the development of small states have for some time been given particular consideration by the Organization, for which many have good cause to be grateful.
Mr. Chairman, given that small states together constitute half of the total membership of the Commonwealth, you will understand when I remark that I do not believe such a level of consideration to be inordinate, particularly during recent times when the rough winds of economic recession which blow so strongly over the landscape of industrial society reach hurricane force when they arrive on our shores and at our borders.
Indeed, and in not a few instances, the effects of the prolonged recession in the western world has played havoc with the economies of small states, which fragile at the best of times, have been unable to contain the situation and continue with vital development plans. The Maldives has not, in company with so many others, been immune from the devastating effects of the recession; they have adversely effected our economy and, therefore, our ability to institute and carry out programmes of national development. In this respect, the widely held notion that many have of the island states as being remote and isolated “far from the pressures of contemporary living” is, in all terms practical, a fiction. While we could be so described in geographical terms, it is quite simply no longer true when related to the speed with which the effects of the conditions of the world beyond reach us.
The recession has, of course, caused the most intractable problems on industrial society. Of this we are well aware and indeed sympathetic to. But it is because so many problems of a political nature arise from economic decline that I believe it quite imperative for the Commonwealth, in the overall interests of stability and progress, to exercise its collective influence in international fora to achieve a greater awareness of the very special problems being experienced at this time by the primary producing small states which, again Mr. Chairman, comprise half of the Organization’s membership. To embark upon such a mission would be to be true to the highest ideals and purpose of the Commonwealth and, in hard practical terms, of ultimate economic benefit to both primary producing small states and the large industrial ones within its membership. It would be a most fitting example of the Commonwealth in action, from which we could all emerge greater in individual strength and greater collectively in our belief in the convictions and principles which bring us together.
The influence I call upon the Commonwealth to exercise is that which will lead to a re-structuring of those international trading and financial arrangements which at this time inhibit the economic development of small states. These states, more often than not, lack a variety of natural resources upon which a sound national economy can be constructed. Small states, by their very definition, have severely limited infrastructures around which a viable economy can be built. They possess equally limited means of protection at times of economic decline in the wider world.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it should be apparent to all those committed to rational thought that it is only through greater equity in international trade that effective and durable development of the Commonwealth’s small nations will be achieved. And it should be equally apparent that it is only economic development, and with it social advancement, which will obtain national progress and, consequently, a greater national strength which would undeniably be in everyone’s interest. For without the generating of such national climates through a re-organization of the world’s financial institutions, so many of the small states will continue to remain in the doubtful pastures of economic crises and, therefore, in potential instability.
The West often describes small island states as constituting ‘paradise’. Though it is true that many small countries, including the Maldives, are richly endowed by God and nature, the gross over-working of such a description has a marked tendency to detract from the reality of our having many of the challenges which confront people and governments in the industrialized manufacturing nations. We too have to find employment for our people, provide them with adequate health services and educational opportunities, improve our systems of communication and do so with not only severely limited resources, but at a time of prolonged international recession and in the face of quite often discriminatory trading and financial arrangements.
That is why urgent remedies are sought. If more Grenadas are to be avoided, the very best manner in which the long term security of the Commonwealth’s small states can be obtained is to introduce without delay economic and trading reforms in the international market place which will in turn introduce economic justice and equity. For without such a remedy, the possibility that small states will look to measures to solve their economic and social ills, that would be regarded by others as extreme, remains very real.
Yet none of this need be so.
Indeed, such a possibility is clearly avoidable; reform is in the interests of the industrialized world every bit as much as it is in the interests of the small primary producing states.
There was a phrase very much in evidence a decade ago – “small is beautiful”. In the uncertain times in which we all live, it is a phrase that, for the greater majority of us in the small states, is most effectively disguised. But with a concerted will and a practical application of the Commonwealth’s founding ethics – mutuality and co-operation – as opposed to the unholy creed of enlightened self-interest and confrontation, it can again be said with truth and pride, “small is beautiful”.
It would be for the Commonwealth a triumph of human will to take up the challenge of advocating a change of direction in the way the international community runs its affairs. And few Organizations are so suited to help turn the world away from the concept of dependence and dominance to the reality of interdependence and the imperatives for change which this produces. It is a task the Commonwealth is well placed to assume, and it is my earnest hope and prayer that it will have both the courage and the initiative to take it up.
I have spoken with candour about what I see as the likely consequence of failure to institute economic reform. Let me now be equally candid about what I mean when I call, as I now do, for a new deal between the “Davids and Goliaths” of this world.
By ‘interdependence’ I essentially refer to the mutuality of interests of primary producing and industrial manufacturing societies. For it is an inescapable truth that the latter depends upon the raw materials – the natural resources of the former – as much as the former needs good reliable markets. The Maldives, for example, has vast reserves of fish of a quality which we are informed is remarkable. We have husbanded these stocks well and we seek markets with a return that will do justice to the product and will, thus, be equitable. Such reserves of fish as we have constitute our most valuable national asset – our greatest natural resource – and upon its successful marketing depends much of the future development of our Republic and its people.
When I refer to a re-structuring of the patterns of international trade, I imply a fairer return to those who supply primary resources to industrialized society. I imply also a lowering of the tariff barriers which prohibit the sale in the industrialized countries of much which the primary producing countries have to sell.
The Lome’ Convention, for example, will remain sadly short of its declared purpose if the ‘rules of origin’ are not radically amended. We look particularly to Britain, as a member of both the European Economic Community and the Commonwealth, to help the small nations of the Organization achieve this. Such an achievement would greatly assist us in the vital all important human task of economic and social development, and with it a fostering of a security based on an evident national progress in which all the people would share.
When I speak, Mr. Chairman, of ‘mutuality’ I mean just that. For if we can indeed prosper, if the standards of living in the small states are improved, then, and only then, will we be able to afford to purchase the manufactured goods industrial society has to sell in order to, itself, survive. If the principle of mutuality is difficult for some to grasp, basic self-interest provides the means to making the matter simpler. In that context, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, and irrespective of the priorities attending the larger nations of this world, we too matter.
Earlier I referred to the Commonwealth possibly playing a role of influence in the maintenance of the security of the small states. It is my belief, and which I have stated clearly here today, that the very best manner in which the Commonwealth can help small states to feel ultimately secure is for it to exert its influence in the wider councils of the world to ensure the means for our economic development. That in my considered opinion is the front line of battle, the point of rational departure for a journey which has to be embarked upon. Remove the threat and debilitating effects of poverty, and the first – the most important – battle will be won, and quite possibly, the war. It will never be enough, or indeed good enough, for the small states of the Commonwealth to be just well defended bastions of poverty.
However, Mr. Chairman, the security of our shores and borders presents quite the most desperate problems. The Maldives is, yes, small, but our nation encompasses 1,200 coral islands spread over 90,000 square kilometres of open seas. The protection of our people in the far flung islands of our Republic, together with the policing of our waters – the safeguarding of our vital fishing grounds – is quite truly a task of staggering proportions.
It is an immediate problem and a very real one. During recent years we have had many instances of the illegal plundering of our fishing grounds. It is not just that such blatant acts of poaching, or to give the incidents their true and most effective definition – theft, piracy and systematic depletion of our most precious natural and national resource – but the attitude of mind behind it that is so disturbing. In many ways it is an echo of the past when the primitive concept that the strong could treat the vulnerable as personal reserves of plunder held humanity in its dubious thrall.
If there is anything of conviction and strength that I can say today in the name of the small states of the Commonwealth, it is this. The time when international pirates and mavericks could regard the small nations as natural prey is at an end. And those who seek to engage in such unsavoury activities will certainly stand condemned at the bar of history. Yet, there are those who still have to learn this elementary lesson.
In the past decade there has been attempts at alien subversion in the independent Commonwealth nations of the Bahamas, on Abaco, Vanuatu, the Seychelles and of course there is the case of Grenada. And the Kingdom of Lesotho has suffered the gross injustice of military incursions into its territory of a particularly brutal nature by the armed forces of South Africa. To such a sad sequence of events there has to be a response.
We, in the Maldives, have made our own modest material arrangements, but which we pray will never have to be put into action, for we are most essentially a peaceful and peace-loving people. Indeed, it is in such a spirit and in keeping with such principles that we have, as a Government and a people, long supported the implementation of the UN resolution that the Indian Ocean be declared a Zone of Peace. This is a clear statement and an equally clear intention of what we seek to achieve in co-operation with our friends and neighbours in the region.
The demilitarization of the Indian Ocean is a goal we have yet to achieve, my Government is firm of purpose and will continue to pursue it through the currency of debate and discussion. However, it is much to be regretted that at the present time a stalemate exists as to the mechanics of achieving such a mutually desired aim, that of making the Indian Ocean a zone of peace, free of all military activity. This is a circumstance that, as long as it continues to exist, prompts a greater urgency on formulating a collective strategy which would make for the security of the small island states.
Mr. Chairman, with all this in mind, the Government of the Maldives looks forward to contributing to the exercise envisaged at the New Delhi Summit. It is a most necessary endeavour and will, furthermore, be continuing evidence of the high ideals of the Commonwealth of which the Maldives is happy to be a member.
In opening this Conference, and wishing it well, I reaffirm my personal belief that it can make an important contribution to the solution of many of the problems and difficulties with which we in the small states are beset.
We in the Maldives have every confidence in the Commonwealth’s endeavour and stand ready to play our full part, sure in the knowledge that the Organization will continue its progress, sustained by its past success and a vision of the future that, working together, we can achieve.
We joined the Organization in high optimism and good faith.
We hope that what the Commonwealth is able to achieve for small states will justify both our optimism and our faith.