It's a very, very serious question, and one to which I do not have the answer. I worry that the combination of a secretary-general who does not seem to want to draw any of these lines in any way, shape, or form, and a chair in office who will not be an enthusiastic supporter of this kind of engagement, could be quite toxic.
I am hopeful that at some point in the next two years some of the larger powers within the Commonwealth—by that I mean South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Malaysia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia—may in fact begin to think about some of the survival issues that the Commonwealth is now facing, and try to shape some strategy going forward. But there is no strategy, in my judgment, that sets aside the core values of the organization. It's not a defence organization, as you know. It's not a trade organization per se. It is about a cluster of values that have shaped a certain approach to civilization over the years, defined differently by different cultures and histories and backgrounds.
If those values are no longer central, somebody will say—we won't be the first, but others will—that the cost is not insignificant, the amount of time required is not insignificant: is it worth the candle? That's the risk we face, in my judgment, in the next two years.