London International Model United Nations 2016

LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Commonwealth of Nations (CoN) London International Model United Nations 17th Session | 2016

11 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Table of Content

Introduction to Commonwealth of Nations 3 Topic A: The question of the leadership of the commonwealth 5 History of the Problem 5 Statement of the Problem 8 Sources 10 Topic B: A Multilateral Free Trae Agreement for the Commonwealth 11 Statement of the Problem 11 Questions a Resolution Must Answer 15 Sources 17 Conference Information 18 Position Papers 19 Contact Details 20

22 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Introduction to Commonwealth of Nations

The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary international organisation that operates by intergovernmental consensus of the member states. The member states, which were once territories of the British Empire now run in communion through the Commonwealth Secretariat and NGO’s organised through the Commonwealth foundation.

The Commonwealth provides a platform for otherwise less able nations to speak at an international platform and have their voice heard at par with the bigger players of the world community. Apart from instilling a sense of importance and equivalence, the commonwealth aims at helping developing nations raise their standard of democracy, rights and governance.

Members: The Commonwealth is the only international organisation that boasts to have participation from all inhabited 6 continents and people from every religion and cultural background. The 54 member states have shared heritage in language, culture, law, education and democratic traditions, among other things, enables Commonwealth countries to work together in an atmosphere of greater trust and understanding than generally prevails among nations.

Charter and functional basis: Even though CoN has no official charter; there are several declarations that highlight the roles and ambitions of the commonwealth. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 was

3 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

the first to define the motives of the Commonwealth. The Declaration emphasised on the autonomous relationships shared between the British Empire and its former territories.

The Singapore Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting of 1971 resulted in a 14-clause article obligated the Commonwealth to the over ambitious goals of world peace, promotion of a representative democracy and individual liberty, the pursuit of equality and opposition of racism, the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease and free trade. Following the Lusaka Declaration, 1979 and the Langkawi Declaration of 1989, gender equality and environmental sustainability were added to these objectives. Most of these ideals were reinforced and underwent minor revision in the Harare Declaration of 1991. The legal framework is defined as per the Westminster Stature.

As of now, promotion of democracy and development take highest priority on the Commonwealth agenda.

Decision Making: The Heads of governments of the various members of the commonwealth meet every two years. The summit, known as The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), is held in a different state each year with the PM or President of the host state taking on the role of Chair in office. The CHOGM remains the highest decision making body of the commonwealth, the general purpose of the CHOGMs is the review the remits and roles of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG). The CMAG is an eight-member group of nations whose responsibility is to uphold the commonwealth values as illustrated in the Harare Declaration. However, recent accusations state that the CMAG has tended to limit its work only to unconstitutional changes of government, and that it is not tackling the full range of serious or persistent violations of Commonwealth values, this could result in a revised mandate to empower the action group more.

Distinctiveness: The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary organisation, which implies that coercion is not as instrument of imposing policy. This distinguishing characteristic has been of historical importance. It is a forum where every country despite their GDP and status reach agreement by consensus. This has been instrumental in the success of the commonwealth.

4 LONDONLONDON INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITEDUNITED NATIONSNATIONS 2016 ..

Topic A: The Question of the Leadership of the

Commonwealth

Introduction

The Commonwealth of Nations (CoN) has now existed for 67 years, with only one leadership change occurring within that time. This topic centers on preparations for the next change in leadership, and discussion of the advantages and limitations of the current governance structure. As it stands today, the monarchy of the United Kingdom has always acted as Head of the Commonwealth, with a rotating roster of leaders joining the Secretariat to maintain the CoN’s ability to provide debate and consensus on global issues. But when the time for change comes, is this current structure still suitable in the 21st century? And if it is to be changed, what should the new structure entail? Who should take up that leadership? These are the issues that delegates are invited to research and discuss.

History of the Problem

The London Declaration was created on 28 April 1949 at the annual Commonwealth Prime Minister’s Conference, where the leaders of eight self-governing countries gathered in London to decide the future of what was then known as the British Commonwealth. In light of Ireland’s recent exit due to its transformation from dominion of the United Kingdom into a republic, and India’s intention to do the same, a meeting was required to adjust the Commonwealth to this new global reality.

King George VI, the reigning monarch in the United Kingdom at the time of the declaration, endorsed the decision negotiated between the eight prime ministers. The

55 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

British Commonwealth then transformed into the Commonwealth of Nations, marked by three main provisions: i) It allowed the Commonwealth to admit and retain members that had not previously been dominions, which allowed it to include both republics and indigenous monarchies; ii) These members then became a voluntary body linked in a “free and equal association”i in which the monarch of the UK was accepted as the symbolic Head of the Commonwealth; iii) The name then changed from the British Commonwealth to Commonwealth of Nations in order to reflect the first change, leaning away from a British dominance of the organisation.

Upon the death of King George IV, Queen Elizabeth II was invited to take his place. Like her father, the Queen has been committed to the success of the Commonwealth in her role as its Head for the past 63 years. The association known as the Commonwealth Secretariat is housed in Marlborough House, London, a palace made available for this purpose by the Queen. The universal language of the Commonwealth is English, observing parliamentary forms largely used in Westminster, with laws, institutions and traditions based upon the common law of England. Therefore, despite having dropped the term “British” from its name, the Commonwealth of Nations still retains a large degree of British influence and support in the modern day.

Current governance of the Commonwealth of Nations

The Commonwealth of Nations has a two-tier hierarchy, with the Queen as its symbolic head at the top and the Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth Foundation just below it.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II acts as the Head of the Commonwealth. Her role includes a variety of symbolic functions, and has no maximum fixed term. It is up to the leaders of the member states of the Commonwealth to decide upon a successor, should the need arise.

The Commonwealth Secretariat is headed by the Commonwealth Secretary-General. The first Secretary-General post was created in 1965 and was filled by Arnold Smith of Canada, serving until 1975. The Secretary-General is the public face of the Commonwealth, and is also the Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth Secretariat. They are selected by Commonwealth leaders in the same manner as the Head of the Commonwealth, but are subject to a maximum of two four-year terms. The current Secretary-General is Kamalesh Sharma from India, and is the fifth Secretary-General to preside over the Commonwealth of Nations.

In support of the Secretary-General, there are the Deputies Secretary-General. Their roles range from having oversight responsibilities for various Commonwealth

6 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Secretariat divisions, advising and reporting to the Secretary-General on economic and social development, and overseeing the political and legal work of the Secretariat. There are currently three Deputies Secretary-General: Gary Dunn, Deodat Maharaj and Dr Josephine Ojiambo. All Deputies are appointed by the Secretary-General following a selection process.

The Commonwealth Chair-In Office is the leader of the Commonwealth country that is acting as the host for the current Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), with the role coming into effect at the start of the CHOGM for two years. Their purpose is to voice Commonwealth positions at high-level international forums, and to reinforce the work on conflict prevention and resolution carried out in Commonwealth countries by the Secretary-General.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) deals with all violations of Commonwealth political values when considered to be of a serious or persistent nature, and can recommend measures for collective action. CMAG may also consider situations of concern in member countries in a proactive, engaged and positive manner. It is noted that the CMAG’S power to suspend or recommend to Commonwealth leaders that a member state can be expelled for violations “is unparalleled by other international organisations”, which may be something to consider when debating the issue of the Commonwealth’s structure. However, the CMAG can only be convened by the Commonwealth Secretary- General, and is made up of a representative from the Chair-In-Office and foreign ministers from eight countries within the Commonwealth. These ministers serve a two- year term on the group.

Finally, the Board of Governors approves the Secretariat’s work plans and budgets on an annual basis, and the work of the Commonwealth Foundation. All member governments are represented via an AGM. This concludes the structure of the Commonwealth Secretariat, and those associated with it.

The Commonwealth Foundation is noted as a “development organisation with an international remit and reach, uniquely situated at the interface between government and civil society”. Their mission statement is “to develop the capacity of civil society to act together and learn from each other to engage with the institutions that shape people’s lives”ii. Their structure is smaller than the Commonwealth Secretariat, and is comprised of three main committees.

The Executive Committee is made up of selected members from the Board of Governors, who meet on a quarterly basis to review resources and programmatic and financial affairs. The Grants Committee is a sub-committee of the EC, assessing applications for grant funding three times a year from various Commonwealth countries.

7 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Finally, the Civil Society Advisory Committee is composed of representatives of non-government Commonwealth organisations to provide guidance on the programmes and long-term strategy of the Foundation.

Statement of the Problem

Criticisms of the leadership structure

A significant criticism of the structure of the Commonwealth’s leadership lies not with the symbolic head in the form of the Queen, but with the powers of the Commonwealth Secretary-General and Secretariat.

A recent controversy surrounding the decision to hold the 2013 CHOGM in Sri Lanka created a debate about whether a Secretary-General should have more power to lead the Heads of Government in a more determined direction. Given the well-publicised human rights violations of Sri Lanka at the time, a multitude of world leaders refused to attend the CHOGM in protest of its location. It even created rifts between countries, with the Indian head of state boycotting a CHOGM that had been organised by an Indian Secretary-General.

So should a Secretary-General and their Secretariat be more proactive in their power as a small international organisation and exploit the space provided to them in order to guide world leaders, rather than sit back and await the heads’ instruction? It has arguably been done before, for example at the 1979 Lusaka CHOGM. According to research undertaken at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, a great deal of time and preparation was put into ensuring that the United Kingdom was encouraged to press for a consensus with regards to the long-standing Rhodesia/Zimbabwe crisis at the timeiii.

Various forums associated with the Commonwealth of Nations meet in anticipation of the CHOGM in order to provide reports that also help the Secretariat in guiding debate. For example, at the most recent 2015 Malta CHOGM, the reports published by the four pre-CHOGM forums (Youth Forum, Women’s Forum, Business Forum and People’s Forum) highlighted the need for debate on the issue of migration and ways in which the Commonwealth can aid solutions to the problems faced by many Commonwealth nations. This was then recognised in the official statement and communiqué issued after the CHOGM had endediv.

Another issue that the leadership structure of the Commonwealth faces is the anticipation of having to select a new Head of the Commonwealth, in the event that Queen Elizabeth II should need to step away from her role. This is a decision that will be made by all members of the Commonwealth under the guidance of the Secretary-General and the Secretariat.

8 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

There are various options laid before the Commonwealth of Nations with regards to this issue: i) Should the successor to the British monarchy be selected as the next Head of the Commonwealth, in keeping with the previous decision taken back in 1952? In 1958, the Queen declared through the Letters Patent that Prince Charles and his heirs and successors would be future Heads of Commonwealth. Is this document now outdated? ii) If not a member of the British monarchy, how will a new leader be selected, and on what criteria?

If the second option were to be taken into account, delegates should also be mindful of the influence that the United Kingdom and the British monarchy retain within the Commonwealth today. They are the provider of the Commonwealth headquarters in London, and are responsible for the majority of the day-to-day maintenance of the Commonwealth Secretariat and Foundation. How would the redistribution of these responsibilities be carried out, if at all?

Many countries do not have a well-developed policy on the question of the leadership of the Commonwealth, as this debate has yet to come into fruition between today’s leaders. However, there are nations that would have a natural tendency to fall to one side of the debate, such as Commonwealth realms with strong monarchical ties. Some leaders of member states such as New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada have expressed their desire to see the Prince of Wales succeed the Queen as head of the Commonwealth when the time comes for her to step away from her duties, however the feeling is not unanimous amongst the CoN. There are others who joined the Commonwealth as ‘newly’ formed republics, such as India who has voiced a preference for a change in the leadership structure. A number of African leaders have referred to the British domination of the Commonwealth as neo-imperialistic and have thus called for a reform of the current leadership structure. The Commonwealth has been criticized as one of the last reminders of “days gone by,” as an illusion of the splendors of the empire upon “which the sun never set”. Similarly, the Commonwealth members located on the Indian Sub-Continent continue to yearn for a greater role in its leadership, as a reflection of the mainly economic influence they now poses upon the modern world. The Commonwealth’s smallest member states (located in the Pacific and Caribbean) seem to be content with the current leadership (and proposed Anglo continuation) and have voiced little to no critique.

It is up to the delegates of this committee to guide debate to reflect the views that they believe their leaders would evoke in this situation, keeping in mind the issues set out in this guide.

9 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Sources

Kirby, Michael. ‘Proposals for reform of the Commonwealth of Nations’, Law Quarterly Review (Jan 2012), vol. 128, p.37-40 http://www.commonwealthfoundation.com/about-us Accessed 03/12/2015 http://www.commonwealthoralhistories.org/2013/the-commonwealth-crisis- controversy-and-chogms/ Accessed 03/12/2015 http://thecommonwealth.org/media/news/commonwealth-heads-government- statement Accessed 03/12/2015

10 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Topic B: A Multilateral Free Trade Agreement for the Commonwealth

Introduction

As the Commonwealth is formed of a rather diverse group of nations, ranging from highly economically developed to moderately or barely developed countries, a free trade agreement would have to be designed to meet the diverse needs of each Member State. Furthermore, the Commonwealth inhibits an unavoidable geographic disadvantage, with its members strewn across the globe it is only physically connected through poor and patchy infrastructure.

History of the Problem

Economic giants in the developing world for instance India or Nigeria would have to coordinate their interests with developed nations such as Canada or Malta who in turn are tasked with reaching an agreement with their smaller colleagues such as Belize or Nauru. This cycle, of interest alignment is further complicated by already existing international institutions with a strong economic character, such as the European Union. Malta, Cyprus and the United Kingdom are not able to negotiate free trade agreements with their Commonwealth colleagues unless they cease their membership status within the European Union. This restriction, together with the rise of Euroscepticism and the “in-out” referendum in the United Kingdom, has prompted a rise in discussions concerning a Commonwealth Free Trade alternative to the European Union, especially in the United Kingdom. With India, reporting a 7% GDP per annum growth in 2015 and African economic powerhouses such as Nigeria and Rwanda growing at a 9.5% GDP per annum for 2015 and 7% respectively, the Commonwealth is beginning to look like an attractive alternative to the crisis riddled European Union. British economists, such as Ruth Lea have argued that “the Commonwealth in its richness and diversity mirrors today's global economy in a way

11 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

that the EU simply cannot start to aspire to. In its global reach it speaks of the future, and should not be regarded as a curious relic of Empire, whereas the EU will continue its inexorable, relative decline.”

In general, the Commonwealth has agreed to work towards reducing trade barriers whilst ensuring that those least developed and smallest in geographical size are not presented with ‘the short end of the stick.’ Indeed, many Commonwealth nations fear that if a Free Trade Agreement would be implemented their economies would be exposed to a larger number of aggressive competitors from abroad, as more developed nations would ‘swoop in’ and flood their domestic markets with their foreign products, making it difficult for domestic producers to keep up with their often, cheaper competition. Some, particularly powerful sectors of the domestic markets might be able to exercise enough political influence to erect a protective mechanism against threatening imports. Hence, even with numerous Free Trade Agreements in operation around the world, in practice trade barriers continue to prevail.

Free Trade amongst nation states is viewed, by the vast majority of economists, as capable of improving the overall economic welfare of a collectivity. Free Trade is defined as trading without tariffs, quotas or other governmental barriers. This allows each country to specialize in an area capable of export and generate competitive products, which possess the qualities needed to penetrate foreign markets.

Currently, the Commonwealth provides its members with some preferential trade conditions but there is no trade agreement between all member States. Historically, most Commonwealth countries had some kind of special trade arrangement with the United Kingdom, with Britain formally joining the then, European Economic Community in 1973, these nations were forced to look elsewhere for favourable trade conditions. Australia and Canada, two of the Commonwealth’s biggest economic players have, for instance concentrated on trade relations outside the organization (with the United States, for example), only a small percentage of their trade sector hinges on the Commonwealth. Similarly, India has chosen to expand eastward for economic and political influence whilst the African nations have looked inwards for greater trade opportunities. Malaysia and Singapore have in turn, shifted their focus towards South East Asia. However, Commonwealth nations are subject to a few regional groups and agreements operating between one another, including but not limited to: -agreements falling under the umbrella of the African Union (AU) (for example the Economic Community of West African States) between some of the following AU members Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo Brazzaville, Cote d’Ivoire, DR Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sahrawi, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, the Seychelles, Sierra Leone,

12 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe. -the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) between Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam -the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, the United States, the People’s Republic of China, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Peru, the Russian Federation, and Vietnam -the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) between Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela

Some argue that a Free Trade Agreement for the Commonwealth is in fact, unnecessary or unprofitable. A vast majority of member states have already joined some type of alternative economic collectivity, such as ASEAN or the FTAA. It is unclear how, or indeed if a significant number of Commonwealth nations would benefit from such an undertaking. Canada and Australia for instance, two of the Commonwealth’s export giants have expressed their skepticism over such an agreement as their interests lie at odds with traditional import heavy nations, such as Samoa and the Seychelles.

Advantages and Limitations

In the last few decades, the notion of a free trade agreement for the Commonwealth has seen a revival amongst a number of Commonwealth-related organizations. The Commonwealth Secretariat, for instance has expressed its interest in expanding the trade relationships amongst the members of the Commonwealth, whilst many members in turn have publicized their desire to cultivate such relationships but have also asserted the practical difficulties associated with such proposals. In 2005 at the Commonwealth Business Summit in Malta, member states were urged to consider “the possibility of establishing a Commonwealth preferential, or free trade area.” Intra- Commonwealth trade is responsible for about one-sixth of total trade within the Commonwealth, with the average fluctuating around the one-third mark of each member’s total trade capacity (for some States intra-commonwealth trade accounts for as much as half of their total trade). Intra-Commonwealth trade has grown slowly yet steadily over the last decades from 12% in the 1990s to 16% in 2008. In some member states, Commonwealth trade makes up the majority of total trade such as in Botswana and Namibia, who rely heavily on Commonwealth imports as well as St

13 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Vincent and Samoa, who export primarily to the Commonwealth (90% of foreign trade). This trend does not only hold true for the smaller, least developed Commonwealth countries but also speaks for economic giants such as India. The Commonwealth accounts for around 21% of India’s exports and approximately 17% of its imports. For Australia and South Africa, the Commonwealth market is responsible for around 23% of their total exports. Furthermore, studies have shown that despite the lack of a common trade agreement within the Commonwealth, trade is nevertheless still easier due to common languages, legal systems, principles of democracy, good governance and corporate customs. The Canadian author, Cameron wrote: “if the Commonwealth today were an economic bloc, it would be equal in size to the United States; it would have 13 of the world’s fastest growing economies; it would possess most of the world’s leading knowledge economies outside of the US; it would have one third of the world’s population; and would represent 40 per cent of the membership of the World Trade Organisation.”

On the other hand, economists have forecasted a further decline of trade in goods amongst the Commonwealth nations, with only six of the Commonwealth’s 53 member states accounting for 84% of the organizations exports and the overall trade in goods having decreased since the 1960s (admittedly at a moderate rate). The 36 smallest States (who compromise the majority of the Commonwealth countries) are only able to enjoy a tiny share of the ‘Commonwealth Export Pie’, many of these States had previously relied upon preferential trading terms with the United Kingdom and have since been forced to settle for sometimes, less than favourable arrangements. These smaller States have thus begun to look elsewhere for import needy markets, the Caribbean Commonwealth members for example, sought to export their fish to the United States due to its proximity. Others have negotiated with the European Union for Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) which are aimed at “promoting sustainable development and growth” but also the “gradual integration of ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries into the world economy”. The European Union provides its partners with the following structure: -political dialogue -development support -economic and trade cooperation

Therefore, some have concluded that the Commonwealth is gradually becoming obsolete with 80% of all its exports destined for markets located outside the organization.

Free Trade Agreements encourage nations to specialize in a sector capable of export; indeed some Commonwealth country’s industry is already concentrated in such a manner. Many of the Commonwealth’s smallest economies rely on the export of services, such as tourism and yet these circumstances are unlikely to develop further with the introduction of a free trade arrangement (i.e. flights are unlikely to become cheaper and a boom in hotel real-estate cannot be derived from a Free Trade Agreement).

14 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

In recent years, free trade agreements have come under public scrutiny for failing to take into account environmental and labour concerns. Activists fear that unrestricted trade within a collectivity will generate a “race to the bottom” scenario and contribute to a stagnating fall in labour and environmental standards. Labour rights and environmental protection mechanisms would be tossed aside in favour of cheaper products and greater profits. Countries, whose industry is sharply regulated through legislative measures (such as Canada), might thus want to consider the broader implications a free trade agreement inhibits.

On the other hand, free trade has historically encouraged cross-border technology sharing which has allowed for a rise in real wages and the investment in more environmentally friendly production techniques. The Commonwealth, as an institution has already raised awareness for such concerns, amongst other causes, it has focused on “inclusive economic growth and sustainable development” and championed the “creat[ion] [of] climate financing frameworks” which is why some have argued, that the Commonwealth as an organization would be the ideal breeding ground for an inclusive, fair Free Trade Agreement.

Indeed, the United Kingdom has often drawn parallels between “increased free and fair trade” and “an increased commitment to democratic values.” Recently, the idea of a trade agreement for the Commonwealth has been shifted back into the spotlight “we want the Commonwealth to become a leading voice in the global economy, working to liberalise trade, break down barriers for international business, resist protectionism and contribute to the Doha Development Agenda.” The Commonwealth has the unique ability to give smaller, more vulnerable countries who often wield only a limited degree of soft/hard power, the chance to voice their opinions as equals and receive assistance from other Commonwealth States. Furthermore, as it currently stands, the Commonwealth includes some of the fastest growing markets in the global South such as India, South Africa, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Singapore; a common trade agreement might very well act as an incentive for further economic growth.

Questions a Resolution Must Answer

As the delegates embark upon further research in anticipation of the conference, they will undoubtedly uncover a variety of sources either applauding a free trade agreement or rejecting it on a number of grounds. Delegates are asked to remember that they are not required to support the idea of a free trade agreement but, in line with their nation’s foreign and economic policy, may suggest other means of increasing trade within the Commonwealth and strengthening its economic character.

15 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 .

Whether delegates choose to back the creation of a Free Trade Agreement for the Commonwealth or a more general expansion of intra-commonwealth trade, they may want to consider a formal meeting with the Ministers of Trade or Industry of all Commonwealth countries, the implications of the Doha Development Round and the World Trade Organization (WTO) Rules (which virtually all Commonwealth countries are part of).