The Hindu Business Line : Can NAM show its teeth?

It remains to be seen how the future will unfold for the Non-Aligned Movement which has lost its moorings but which is loathe to be cast into the limbo of history. That it can still gather together in one place for a summit meeting suggests that the yearning to play a useful role on the international stage is still there. NAM may not be in a position effectively to establish itself in a garb different from what it sported 30 years ago because of the eclectic nature of its membership.

Can the Non-Aligned Movement show its teeth in today's world, or is it just another debating club which is on the decline? Clearly, this is the question that one has to answer first before one can seriously consider the utterances of the world leaders who have currently assembled in Havana to attend yet another of the movement's summit meetings. Clearly, again, the answer is not simple principally because the international political environment — which in a way was the cradle of the movement in the 1950s when it was first proposed and set up — has altered beyond recognition today, leading sceptics to ask the inevitable question: Is NAM relevant today?

As a "non-aligned" movement, it may be argued that NAM is not relevant today simply because there are no longer two or more poles in international relations from which NAM would like to keep itself away. This is precisely what is meant by those who suggest that NAM is irrelevant today because there is no Cold War on from which it can stay aloof. On the face of it, this thread of reasoning is difficult to object to — for no other reason than the fact that the acronym by which the movement is known does not make any sense in today's world.

Movement of nations

This, however, is only one side of the NAM coin, as it appears today. The most critical attribute of NAM today is that it continues to remain a `movement' of a large number of nations — representing nearly two-thirds of the United Nations and more than half the world's population — as is indicated so very clearly at this very moment when the Havana Summit is on, which the Prime Minister is attending. Clearly, this very attribute of NAM suggests that there is still a bond among its members, which is holding despite the drastic change in the international political environment.

The next question that arises is: Can this existing bond be put to greater effective use today, in a world which has put the Cold War effectively behind it? To those who have always backed the idea of a "third independent force" in world politics, the answer has to be `yes', especially because their support has always rested on the inalienable tenets of justice, fairness and human dignity and freedom. This cause in its totality will always remain as long as humans populate the planet; and if the cause remains intact, the movement should live and prosper.

Principles intact

The founding fathers of NAM rested the philosophical direction of the movement on `panchsheel', namely, mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in internal affairs; equality and mutual-benefit working relationship; and peaceful coexistence. Clearly, these principles remain intact despite the end of the Cold War. Indeed, some may argue that they are even more important today than during the time when international relations was fashioned by a bipolar ideological struggle in that, following the collapse of one of the two poles on the world political scene, the other has shown a strong tendency to don the mantle of arbiter of the world's affairs, even going to the extent of launching full-scale military assaults against a fellow member of the international community in clear disregard of the views of the United Nations.

As things stand now, it would appear that there is need for a `movement' in the international sphere which could, from time to time, initiate and galvanise public opinion against such acts of arbitrary, military depredation committed by nations on each other. One would like to suggest that NAM would be a good candidate to fill such a slot but, of course, this is easier said than done given the veritable melting pot that NAM is today from all points of view.

To take just one example, very recently, Pope Benedict XVI made certain comments about Islam which has subsequently raised a howl of protest among Muslims the world over. The point here is not to deliver judgment on whether what the Pontiff said was justified or not but to take cognisance of the fact that a large part of the Muslim world is not at all happy with the statement. If NAM is to establish its mark as a `movement', it must have a view on the issue which must be broadcast effectively. The question is: Can it do so given the fact that its membership straddles a host of religions worldwide?

What this illustration seeks to establish is that, even though it continues to answer to the description of a `movement', NAM may not be in a position effectively to establish itself in a garb different from what it sported 30 years ago because of eclectic nature of its membership.

The basic interests of NAM developing nations today are far too diverse to be held in a single focus by anything else other than a platform from where the injustice flowing from oppression and exploitation can be propagated. Today, no such platform exists, the last nail into the coffin of such an exercise being driven when the Soviet Union was dissolved in the late 1991.

It is against such a canvas that one must view the urgings of leaders like the Cuban Foreign Minister who said that the world's developing nations needed to band together to promote balance in an unjust world, and that today the movement "was more necessary than ever (before)".

Or the more pointed view of Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, who said in his inaugural speech at the Havana Summit that the world today was shaped by Washington's "irrational pretensions for world dominance", which was not acceptable. He added: "To think that a social and economic order that has proven unsustainable could be maintained by force is simply an absurd idea".

What NAM should do

Contrast this with what Dr Manmohan Singh has said about what NAM should do, namely, turn itself into a "bridge of understanding" working towards "a confluence of civilisations". On more mundane matters, the Prime Minister would like the movement to constitute a high-level group on West Asia, work towards achieving universal nuclear disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons, set up a working group on energy, and launch a major development initiative on Africa.

It remains to be seen how the future will unfold for a grouping which has lost its moorings but which is loathe to be cast into the limbo of history. That it can still gather together in one place for a summit meeting suggests that the yearning to play a useful role on the international stage is still there.

The point is: Are there leaders still left in the movement who can give useful shape to this urge and lead to a resurrection of a force which was a power to contend with during the heyday of the Cold War?

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Wide Canvas

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
`Dead force'?

Can NAM show its teeth?

Banks face charges

Make knowledge utilitarian

Concern on the dilution of FRBM guidelines

Needed: Practitioner teachers in ICT

Reality check your buying decision

FDI in higher education