Every two years the heads of government of the 50-plus states of which the Commonwealth consists, embracing almost a third of the planet's entire population and several of its most dynamic economies, meet to discuss issues of common concern.

Nothing unusual about that except that this year, at the recent gathering in Trinidad (called CHOGM for short), there was a significant difference.

The familiar features were certainly there, with Queen Elizabeth arriving as titular head of the Commonwealth to preside at the ceremonies and quite a lot of internal wrangling about past, future and misbehaving members — notably Zimbabwe and whether it should now be invited back into membership. This was bound to be a difficult debate as long as the dreadful President Robert Mugabe still clings to office.

But the big difference is that this time the Commonwealth heads of government were looking outward and seeking to give the Commonwealth network a clear and useful place in the overall global agenda. They invited French President Nicolas Sarkozy and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to address them and mingle with the membership.

This new widening of the Commonwealth's embrace is thoroughly to be welcomed. It means that the Commonwealth is raising its game and developing a presence as a significant platform in the new global architecture. This expansion is all the more remarkable when one considers that the two most notable new invitees to the meeting this year represented, in a sense, organizations directly rivaling the resurgent Commonwealth system.

France has long attempted to match the Commonwealth with its own union of former member states of the French colonial empire and former French- speaking dependencies, La Francophonie in exact emulation of the Commonwealth Games.

As for the United Nations organization, this lays proud claim to be the policing authority of the world and the chief forum of global ideas and ideals. Yet its failures have been many, the democratic values of many of its members are in question and its structure is out of date. The Commonwealth, providing a far more intimate and direct pattern of contact between rich and poor nations, large and small ones, is in many ways a standing rebuke to U.N. ineffectiveness and a reminder that a better global platform, a truer league of democracies and free states, is badly needed.

Of course there are those who dismiss the Commonwealth as a nothing more than a nostalgic "old guys" club, or talking shop, of ex-British colonies and possessions, without the teeth to achieve anything very useful and bound only by a common language (English) and a love of cricket.

But such views entirely miss the point. It is precisely the "soft power" qualities of the Commonwealth network that give it such relevance and resilience in the 21st century. Together with the spread of numerous subgovernmental, informal and voluntary linkages between Commonwealth countries it creates a vast web of common understanding, common values and mutual trust that offers the ideal ambience in which different types of democracy can flourish, investment can prosper and common global initiatives develop.

It is no surprise that several new countries, not all of them English- speaking, are lining up to become Commonwealth members. In fact Rwanda, once French-speaking but now English-speaking, formally joined on Nov. 29, raising the number of Commonwealth members to 54.

In everything from joint action on climate change (a key theme at the Trinidad gathering) to cooperation in peacekeeping and human rights safeguards, the existence of a firm Commonwealth initiative means more and has more practical chance of delivering results than many a lofty (and often empty) U.N. resolution .

The denigrators and skeptics miss an even more fundamental point. The Commonwealth momentum comes from the bottom up, from the individual member states joining willingly together. For those who still cling to the old ideas of great power blocs and clashing spheres of influence, this grass roots-driven network of peoples, stretching across all continents and most faiths, must seem very puzzling.

For example, a prominent Financial Times columnist was only recently asserting that we are being pushed back into an era of "unsentimental Great Power politics," in which, so the implication goes, only nations bundled and strapped together by their political masters, will have the mass and weight required to make their mark.

No analysis could be more wrongheaded. The yearning for a titanic superpower bloc, which many people mistakenly want the European Union to become one, is a major error of our times. The future belongs not to giant blocs and blueprints but to networks of independent states, gathering together out of local preference and choice in common tasks and constructions — exactly on the model which the Commonwealth is becoming.

The only disappointment at Trinidad has been that another of the world's great democracies, namely Japan, did not have a high-profile presence. Japanese leaders at local government level have shown a strong interest in the Commonwealth's Local Government Forum, one of many such subgovernmental bodies with global relevance. It would have been good to see Japan represented at national level as well, to share experiences and develop new initiatives with the Commonwealth network and 54 heads of government. That should be put right next time they meet.

David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords.