At this last meeting in Sri Lanka, only 26 heads of government attended. Canada stood by its principles; the Canadian Prime Minister refused to attend. The Australian government refused to criticise Sri Lanka, believing that its co-operation was necessary in stemming the flow of refugees to Australia. What would stem the flow are changes in the attitude of the Sri Lankan government so that there would be no need to flee the terror that government policy still inflicts in the minds and hearts of many Sri Lankans.

The Commonwealth has failed to take a responsible position. It has failed to live by its principles. It has failed to understand that ethics is a significant part of good governance.

How long can such an organisation survive? Above all, the Commonwealth needs a core of states committed to its purpose and committed to ethical government.

Britain is in the strongest position to play a role. It could give a lead, but it is many decades since the British believed that the Commonwealth was important to it. Britain at the centre of a powerful and cohesive Commonwealth is much more significant in world affairs than Britain standing alone. British governments seem not to have understood this.

All through the South African issue, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher regarded the Commonwealth as a nuisance. It was a nuisance because it was active. When she and United States president Ronald Reagan were calling the African National Congress communists and terrorists, most members of the Commonwealth believed that they were nationalists fighting for equality. I actually had a CIA report in the mid-1980s that made that point clearly. The ANC got support from communist countries because it could not get support from people who traditionally may have provided support.