Pretty neat, eh?

You'll recall in a recent entry in this corner I waxed despondent; or rather, sombre - about the Commonwealth's unravelling in terms of its social, economic and political integrity as a community of British nations and their natural cousins.

I regret the overall demise of the British Commonwealth as a force for solidarity between what I'll refer to as 'British' nations throughout the world. But I do understand it.

Her Majesty, however, in usual form, seems to be ahead of the game and eager to find new ways of moving forward. The Sovereign, who is head of the Commonwealth, has called on the Commonwealth to renew its sense of purpose around - at least partly - the crucible of climate change. Noting that climate change will continue to aggressively impact upon the worlds poorest, and that many of these population centres reside in the British Commonwealth, the Queen calls upon the Commonwealth to "lead once more" in the defence of global environmental integrity, and also in the pursuit of "peace and liberty".

In an interesting editorial from this weekend's paper, entitled The Comparative Moral Advantage, the Globe and Mail expresses the view that the Commonwealth may be uniquely positioned to drive the international community forward on moral issues, including the need to assist the world's vulnerable from the potentially deleterious changes wrought by climate change.

With the right kind of commitment, the Commonwealth can matter... (it) can exercise unconditional moral authority, with political consequence. By its constitution and function, the United Nations can bring out the worst, re-electing Cuba to its Human Rights Council and giving a platform to Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The WTO is a forum for smoothing trade, but also for attempts to find legal loopholes to free trade. The Commonwealth is relatively free of such constraints. Its stick, once wielded, is stinging; it has expelled or suspended Nigeria, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Fiji for turning their backs on democracy or human rights. In the 1980s, the Commonwealth led the international condemnation of South Africa's apartheid government, despite an internal fissure (Britain's Margaret Thatcher opposed sanctions). Few other groups have used moral suasion, which resulted in Nelson Mandela's release, so effectively...

The Commonwealth has several assets on the world stage: diverse representation in wealth and geography; a membership not too large to be unwieldy, or too small to be inconsequential; and a flexible mandate. Its traits endow it with a built-in ability to move issues forward and act as the world's conscience. Even Nicolas Sarkozy, France's President, is at this weekend's summit. It's not such an antiquated British-led body after all.

In international organisation, composed of a family of nations, driving a global agenda for the advancement of liberal values and concerted action in defence of the globe's most disadvantaged populations. Should those who affirm the Commonwealth - at least as a harmless and charming idea, and at most as a living community of British nations bound together both in history and potential - concentrate on this new formulation for the organisation?

Seems appropriate enough to me. How about you?