ABUJA: At a state banquet opening the Commonwealth conference, Australian Prime Minister John Howard commended President Olusegun Obasanjo for returning Nigeria to democratic rule. Howard was handing over the chairmanship of the 54-member Commonwealth, which is mainly made up of former British colonies. Howard’s praise for Obasanjo was an eloquent expression of the double-dealing that characterises the organization.

The very building that Howard stood in was evidence of the lack of democracy in Nigeria. It cost an estimated N5 billion. A total of N21 billion ($150 million) was spent on the entire conference. The bill included renovating the International Conference Centre in Abuja, and the guesthouse where Queen Elizabeth stayed, as well as buying 400 bulletproof cars. This obscene expenditure took place in country where many citizens earn less than a dollar a day.

Further evidence of the political situation in Nigeria came with the publication of a report by Human Rights Watch. The report itemized evidence of “ persistent violence, corruption and poverty.” The impression that there had been an improvement in freedom of expression was misleading, the report’s authors said.

When President George Bush toured Africa in July the Concerned Youth Alliance of Nigeria delivered a letter of protest to the US embassy. Thirty of them were arrested and detained for two weeks. They have told Human Rights Watch that they were tortured.

The evidence against Nigeria is all the more striking because of the campaign that Britain, Australia and Canada waged to maintain Zimbabwe’s exclusion from the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe has been suspended since the UK challenged the result of the 2002 elections.

Despite opposition from some African countries, the Commonwealth upheld the ban.

In the light of Nigeria’s human rights record it is difficult to disagree that forwarding British interests rather than human rights is the main consideration for Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The dispute over Zimbabwe led to tension at the Commonwealth conference. Unusually, the post of secretary general was put to a vote when a rival candidate challenged former New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister Don McKinnon. Normally the post is agreed privately without the necessity of a vote.

President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa backed Lakshman Kadirgama, a former foreign minister of Sri Lanka, for the post of secretary general. Mbeki opposes the continued exclusion of Zimbabwe and clearly hoped to unseat McKinnon, who is a vociferous proponent of the ban.

Despite this break with the usual consensus politics of the Commonwealth, McKinnon succeeded in winning a second four-year term. He had the support of Britain, Australia and Canada. Only 11 countries backed Mbeki’s candidate. How much political pressure Britain brought to bear to get this result is not known.

As a face-saving gesture a six-member task force was set up to consider the question of readmitting Zimbabwe. It consisted of South Africa and Mozambique, who are supporters of readmission, Canada and Australia, who are opposed to it and India and Jamaica, who are thought of as neutral. Setting up a committee avoids complete humiliation for the African governments who want Zimbabwe back in the Commonwealth. It gives the appearance that the organization is in some way democratic and listens to the opinions of all its members. The reality is that Britain continues to dominate an organization that perpetuates a colonial relationship.

The current African governments are desperate for aid and trade. They will not seriously oppose the British government. At the same time they want to appear as anti-imperialists to their own populations at home.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s own strident anti- imperialist rhetoric has put them all in a difficult position.

Mbeki cannot afford to distance himself from Mugabe. If he is seen to side with Britain he will lose all political credibility as a supposed leader of the national liberation struggle. His failure to mobilize any significant level of support at the conference points to the impotence of Mbeki’s nationalist politics.

Principally the Commonwealth offers a place on the world stage for the leaders of semi-colonial countries. Nigeria’s expenditure on the conference is an indication of how seriously they take it. Their desire for political kudos makes them easy for Britain to manipulate.

As an old colonial power, the United Kingdom excels in this kind of politics. Blair himself may be a political lightweight in comparison to many of the African leaders with whom he has to deal, but he has the weight of generations of experience behind him.

Zimbabwe finds itself denied aid and expelled from the International Monetary Fund as a result of its clash with Britain.

Zimbabwe is suffering the same fate in worse degree. Many of its people are starving. Mugabe opposed the free market measures that the Commonwealth and the IMF tried to impose on him, but his autarkic economic model is not a viable alternative.

If the UK and the international financial institutions bear the primary responsibility for the condition of Zimbabwe, Mugabe has played a secondary role. For two decades he has remained a member of an organization that perpetuates the colonial relationship. This most militant of nationalists loved to strut on the Commonwealth stage. Even now he would go back to it if he could. At no point did he ever envisage breaking with the imperialist framework of international relations. His own nationalist outlook locked him into the Commonwealth and all that it stands for.

Blair’s role in the conference was characterised by his usual sanctimonious moralizing. And also as usual this failed to conceal his rank hypocrisy. He demanded that Zimbabwe was excluded, while pressing for the readmission of Pakistan which remains a military dictatorship.

If human rights were indeed criteria for Commonwealth membership, then both Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her prime minister would have found themselves excluded. The UK government is systematically violating human rights in its “war against terrorism.”—World Socialist Website (Copyright 1998-2003).