Probably it is not a hyperbole that today’s world is completely presenting a new scenario altogether–communist regimes in Easter Europe has ended, 15 new republics have got created instead of the erstwhile Soviet Union, a united Germany is in full shape along with a new Europe with a new socio-economic and political identity. The argument some people give is that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) teas the product of cold war and biopolarism and it is said that after the end of the cold war and the Erstwhile Soviet Union, NAM is believed to have lost its relevance.
It is correct to say that NAM emerged as a child of the cold war but during the three decades of its formation, it has established its identity on its own and thus, it can no longer be defined just in terms of cold war politics. NAM is a movement that has achieved dynamism of its own and has got different third world issues as its agenda and not just super power rivalry and confrontation.
Some others are of the view that NAM’s task has, more or less, been achieved. For example, independence of colonies and dismantling of apartheid. The phase of cold war is also over now. Foreign bases have lost their relevance and due to disintegration of alliances, there is no need for non-alignment any more.
These people will have to understand that the primary concern of NAM, both as a national policy of many newly independent states and as a global movement, has been the liquidation of economic imperialism in order to strengthen economic growth and development. In addition to this, a number of issues NAM have to address in the coming years. Those issues can be like the democratisation of international relations, particularly in context of the UN Security Council, security for small and weak nations, disarmament, collective efforts for economic growth, overcoming the burden of debt of the developing countries, working on deteriorating terms of trade, the North-South dialogue, human rights, environmental issues, drug trafficking, international terrorism, ethnic and religious conflicts, new international economic order, new international information and technological order and so on.
Secondly, those skeptics who are of the view that the need for Non-Align Movement is losing its importance should bear in mind that despite many drastic changes in the 350 years old sovereign-state-system, the system has constantly and continuously maintained two important features: Great power hegemony and the opposition of the overwhelming majority of other states to that hegemony. So, the Non-alignment has a brief answer that works against the hegemonies or whoever is dominating the world. There are some other who are of the view that NAM should no longer be continued because of its being less dynamic and is characterised by slow response to today’s rapidly changing world. The example of NAM’s poor response to the recent Gulf crisis is often cited. However, organisations can not lose relevance just because of a few defects. The decisions should not be in haste about the relevance and significance of old organisations. Therefore, instead of having second thoughts about the relevance of NAM just because of its poor response to the Gulf crisis, we should take steps to strengthen NAM just like other organisations like the UN.
Former President R. Venkararaman while delivering the Indira Gandhi Memorial Lecture to the Association of Indian Diplomats made an apt remark that ‘Non-alignment is not an Ism. It cannot become outdated any more than common sense can become outdated. The cold war has ended. That does not make the UNO charter irrelevant. Non-aligned countries represent the will and voices of three-fourth of mankind. No nation, no group of nations can disregard the NAM. There must be something to it fix China to seek membership and Germany to get observer status of NAM.... From the Fifties through to the Eighties NAM spearheaded the struggle against colonialism and racialism. It must today raise its voice against the injustices and inequities of the emerging 21st century
The Non-Aligned Movement is considered the largest peace movement in the world. But when dealing with NAM, it is important to distinguish between Non-alignment as an International movement and Non-alignment as a Foreign Policy choice. In context of an International movement, it may have its limitation or it may not be performing the role assigned to it but NAM as a Foreign Policy choice--an assertion of independence in foreign affairs-has always remained, still remains and will always remain valid and relevant. However, both are equally significant and need not have water-tight compartmentalisation between the two as the success of one depends on the support of the other.
Relevance ‘Our
approach to peace may then be called neutrality’ if such a nebulous word can be used to define a policy.’
Vijayalakshmi Pandit, President, UN General Assembly (1953) Because of this statement that possibly laid bare the basic flaw in her argument and defence of policies such as the Non-Aligned Movement in her book ‘India’s Foreign Policy’. Besides, the mistake of her brother Jawaharlal Nehru with regards to foreign policy was the dichotomous approach he took on it which he laid down as ‘a choice between peace and the hydrogen bomb’. Nehru could still be forgiven because of the fact that perhaps India, which was taking the first step in the direction of recovery after 200 years of British rule, could not probably afford entering a wrong alliance in a post-World War situation. However, world has changed a lot since 1945 and therefore, our approach should also change accordingly. If the debate is taken ideologically, there can be two grounds based on which it can be said that the previous Non-Aligned Movement has lost its significance or relevance in today’s world. The belief on which the foundation of the Non-Aligned Movement was laid was that all the founding nations like India, Indonesia, Yugoslavia and Egypt aimed to establish peace and this also helped these countries to develop after years of enslavement. However, despite more than six decades of independence, though not fully developed, we have undoubtedly made progress in different fields. Today, though we happen to be reckoned for the second fastest growing economy, largest conventional armed forces, very decent track record of democracy, higher rate of literacy, higher standards of living (as against 1947), if we have not made enough development to come out of our cocoon then when and how will we ever achieve our unique identity on the global stage?
Nature does not suffer a vacuum, especially power never shows this character. It is absolutely correct that even with the decline of power of the United States and the Western World, the world is seen to become more and more multi-polar. However, it may also be a passing phase. There cannot be so many equals in the world. In words of Orwell, ‘there will always be some more equal than the others’. Today or tomorrow, some nation or the other will definitely attempt to be at the top spot and while doing so will certainly undercut others in the process. India being in that race, common sense suggests that it will be finally our alliances that will ensure our safety and security from overambitious competitors. Therefore, alignment should not be considered an anathema to us.
The Growing Power of China
The Middle Kingdom is not unwilling to acknowledge itself as probably the next global leader in a post-American world. Its economic might has got translated into diplomatic and military clout very steadily for some time. Perhaps, there is one country that can overtake China’s aspirations to lead the world. India is growing by leaps and bounds for this top position. China completely understands this threat posed by India. So, it has been making systematic efforts to hinder the Indian growth story. A three pronged strategy has been designed by China with an aim to ensure that India does not reach a stage where she becomes too powerful to be contained.
a. Denial: Denying India to any influential position like the UN Security Council which will provide veto power to the country.
b. Provocation: Instigating India with frequent false claims over the territory of Arunachal Pradesh and issues like stapled visa, etc
c. Intimidation: Threatening with building up of huge infrastructure near the borders.
In fact, some Indian strategists believe that China may plan to attack India by the end of 2017. Their claims to some extent get a backing from Wiki leaks disclosure that mentions a report provided by the Pentagon to the US Congress. According to the report, China has been making all attempts to deploy nuclear capable CCS5-MRBM missiles near the border regions with India. (The Indian Express, 25 August 2011). Now, though one can accept that it is not desirable to pander to the paranoia of war mongers, preparing for the worst will always be a wise thing to do. And the attack by China will mean a realisation by India for alliances as she may not be in a position to combat a Chinese blitzkrieg on her own. Russia may still have a tremendous power though may not be in her previous glory days of the USSR. The most important thing is that Russia has been an all-weather friend to India and she can be safely trusted for an alliance as a possible shield against China. After all, the Soviets alone helped India combat the pressure from Pakistan, the US and China at the time of Bangladesh War. This move may not please the US but may finally agree to have a similar understanding as they would understand a greater priority for containing China first in the region.
The Decline of Pakistan
It is unlikely that a nation state born out of anti-India sentiments will ever give away such sentiments despite our confidence building measures that we choose. At some point, we will have to realise that the day when Pakistan makes a choice to resolve all its problems with India will also be the day when it will give up its existing legitimacy as a nation (ideologically). Today, a downward spiral of Pakistan can be observed vividly as its national fabric is being torn to shreds because of the problems like fundamentalism and hate used against India. No doubt, it continues to follow the path of self-destruction, and in doing so, it will definitely make some more attempts to hold itself together and whip up the old enemy India. Pakistan may also consider attacking India and in the process can damage us considerably despite its inferior military capabilities. In other words, though we may end up getting victory in the war, it is not possible that we emerge unscathed. Therefore, the need of the hour is to align with nations such as the United States that has the ability to reign in Pakistan.
The Surge of Regionalism
A country willing to command global influence must first start maintaining regional influence. Though fairly good relations have been maintained by India in its neighbourhood (exceptions: Pakistan and China), the peak of those good relations will only be realised through an alliance aimed to protect each other’s interests. It is high time that India not just look to have ‘cordial relations’ but also build credible and long-lasting alliances with neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Burma, Bhutan, Thailand, and so on
The Foreign Policy with Changing Role
In the Nehruvian days, India might have allowed its foreign policy to highlight its moral position across the world, but in today’s context, the situation has changed completely and India’s foreign policy is focusing more on securing her energy interests. The growth story of India is also dependent on her abilities to look for cheap and reliable energy suppliers and thus the previous policy of global moral grandstanding and non-alignment can be abandoned to forge a pragmatic and well-crafted alliance that looks to promote national interests at all costs. Therefore, though it may still be debatable as whom to align with, need to have an alliance can no longer be delayed. In sum, the death knell of non-alignment has been sounded. Now, it is on India if it is listening.
Relevance of Non-Aligned Movement in Today’s World
Non-alignment, as the word indicates, can be referred to as a decision in which one does not associate completely with any of the groups. People following non-alignment remain neutral and do not back any of the blocks in case of a conflict, be it a conflict over land ownership or oil, as they believe in the ideals of sovereignty.
But the question still exists: Is NAM a relevant organisation in today’s world?
Nihal Rodrigo, a former secretary-general of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is of the view that NAM still has an important role to play, however the organisation may not be important as considered before. The very aim of formulating NAM was to combat the bi-polar ideology existing during the civil war. The group has its own importance at a political level.
Ever since its institution in April 1955, the rotation of the chairmanship among the third world countries and some developing countries including India has been done every 3 years.
Within the body itself, a lot of division and conflict on various economic and political issues can be observed as the members usually do not completely agree on any issue. The body does not put any kind of pressure upon its members for any rules and regulations of the body.
Today, NAM is losing its significance because of its inability in putting its influence on the member countries. At the global level since the movement does not create any major economic power, they are not really holding that much importance.
Their power, if any, actually comes only out of being consumers of product and services. To get the actual status of a world leading organisation, the movement must correct the efficiencies in each member country’s social and economic issues. They should also focus on doing research and have sound evidence that they could be utilised while dealing with other international bodies and countries.
The movement must also realise and make efforts to be a unified force or else no one will take them seriously.
Is the existence of NAM relevant in this Unipolar world? Nilava Nandi (20 November, 2008) questions if the non-alignment movement relevant only in a bi-polar world. It is believed that it is not relevant now when the world is unipolar. But it is actually correct to say that the policy of non-alignment has its own relevance even today.
The new developments in different realms of politics and emerging contemporary approaches in political science have created confusion about the so-called unipolar world among the students of international relations. This situation has a lot of significance with regards to international relations, especially in context of the foreign policy of a nation. Among them, one relates to the repeated relevance of the nonalignment policy to the multitude of states of the non-aligned movement.
As the emergence of policy was observed in a bipolar world in the late 1940s, when the Cold War was in place, many believe it to relate only to a bipolar world. But when the Cold War began to retreat in the 1970s with the first wave of easing strained relations between countries, some writers began to question the relevance of nonalignment policy. In the 1980s, the mistake was noticed. But from 1988 onwards, some writers inadvertently committed a mistake with the emergence of a new détente between superpowers. People started making a view that in the changed context, nonalignment no longer continues to show its relevance.
The fact is that the non-alignment policy was not fully correlated with a bipolar world and the Cold War between the two blocks of superpowers. It is simply that non-alignment flourished in the post-World War phase, after struggle against the hegemony of superpowers by small or weak countries for about 350 years since the emergence of sovereign states in the mid-17th century in Europe. So, whatever be the situation of the world – bipolar, multi-polar or unipolar, non-alignment will be used as a foreign policy of the small/ weak states. In other words, the policy is going to last till the time sovereign nation states exist.
It seems meaningless for a person to question today the continuing relevance of the policy which over the years has become fundamental to the operations and functioning of sovereign nation-states. The jaded question of the day is non-alignment with whom. However, the answer is simple as before, non-alignment with the hegemony of superpowers. Though practising non-alignment may not be easy in a unipolar world, its relevance as a policy cannot be said to cease.
Till the time the functioning of sovereign nation-states is interrupted by power politics, i.e. till the time system starts operating as per the theory of sovereignty (independent and equal) of states in real sense, the policy of non-alignment will hold its validity and relevance in international relations despite periodical or marginal changes in the system.
It is the great tragedy of NAM that one member of the NAM (Iraq) has brought about a blatant violation of the UN Charter and NAM norms against a fellow member of both (Kuwait). Today the extant multilateralism is considered to be pretty weak but the community of states are not going to desert them. Earlier, they have survived bi-polarism and now they will survive uni-polarism too. Because of the huge progress made in the developing international law and international organisations, it can never be considered that they would allow the resurgence of the hegemony of one or more superpowers over the rest of the states
Non-alignment Movement and Its Relevance in the 21st Century
In the present-day global situation, non-alignment or to be precise, its role and utility in general has caused a lot of controversy today as against before. Thus, the movement is going through a critical phase in its life. Today, it is at the crossroad and finds it tough to understand the path it has to rake. It is making all efforts to find its own recognition, reorient its viewpoint in a bid to ensure the role it has to perform in the changed international relations situation. This has led to a heated debate with regards to the validity and contemporary relevance of NAM and non-alignment as foreign policy behaviour in the newly created ‘unipolar world’. As in the case of UN, the purpose of establishing NAM is more to be seen on a long-term basis.
The Jakarta Summit conference 1992 made a declaration in favour of NAM that has contributed to the ending of bipolar world and elimination of the cold war. These new developments in fact completely vindicate the validity and relevance of Non- Alignment. They accepted that NAM’s role is ensuring ‘its full participation in the building of the new world order’. This is the reason that the NAM membership has more than quadrupled from about 25 states in 19961 to 118 today. Though Non- Alignment had emerged as a new foreign policy behaviour during the period of the cold war and the bipolar world, it has little to do with either of the context today. It is further important to note that the policy was approved and accepted by the Non- Alignment minister conference that took place in Accra in 1991. It was again at the Non-Alignment summit conference that took place in Jakarta in Sept. 1992 and more recently at Durban, 1998, Kulalampur 2003, Havana, 2006, Sharm-el-Sheikh Egypt 2009, the relevance of the Non-Alignment movement has been validated.
Today, the world in a way is still divided into two blocks, one block having the nuclear weapons and the other without them. It is in this context, the relevance of NAM can still be validated as from the very beginning and even in more recently meets at Havana in 2006 and Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt in 2009 NAM always urged for the complete destruction of all nuclear weapons within a time bound framework but was opposed to treaties on Weapon of Mass Destructions which is not universal. However, NAM is of the opinion that the countries should have the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. In these contexts, NAM is still known to put forth the views of developing countries on different international issues with high moral standing.
NAM along with the Group of 77 (G77–most of the members are from NAM) has succeeded in keeping Third World issues at most of the UN forums and agencies because of their high numerical strength. In the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), NAM and the G77 have been giving a lot of emphasis on the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) in order to improve the perceived imbalances in information and communication flows between the North and the South.
In the UN General Assembly, NAM also made an important contribution in transferring the permanent seat in the UNSC previously filled by the Republic of China (Taiwan) to mainland China.
In words of former PM of India Narasimha Rao, he said in June 1992 in a speech in Tokyo that ‘the pursuit of a Non-Alignment policy is even more relevant to ever before NAM basically consists of the espousal of the right of nations to independence and development, regardless of the bloc phenomena. Whether there is one bloc or more at a given movement the urge of a non aligned country would continue to maintain its independence, to take decisions according to its light not tagging itself in advance to other’. Later in April 1997 New Delhi at the Foreign Minister summit, IK Gujral said, ‘NAM affords its members forum where they can discuss their common problems, evolve solutions and work out positions in trying to tackle the international problems of peace, security, development, environmental safety, human rights etc’.
In words of the Foreign Minister of Colombia, Dr. Maria Emma Mejiva Velez, who perhaps once best echoed the thoughts of many people with regard to the significance of NAM in today’s world when she said through a story that today Non-Alignment is much more than ‘not being aligned to the great power bloc’. The statement meant that nations instead of just being non-aligned with military alliances should look for ways to bring in peace in the Middle East region. She also brought the attention in this submit that NAM in today’s world has to address a number of issues that concern future rather than the past because the need of the hour is the development of the countries with environmental protection being at the core.
The recent 14th NAM submit in Havana further highlighted the relevance of NAM when it condemned all forms of terrorism irrespective of purposes and urged countries not to extend political, diplomatic, moral or material support or favour in any form to terrorism under the UN charter.
Probably the most significant role for NAM today lies in designing a concrete economic agenda with an aim to establish a just and fair international economic order. The globalisation and liberalisation trends worldwide have led to a number of complex economic problems. The rich-poor divide has got increased. The WTO rules and procedures have failed to provide adequate economic gains to the Third World. WTO summits have failed to bring about a consensus on a number of global issues. In this context, the role of NAM becomes important so as to keep the interests of developing countries without any partisan considerations.
The spectrum of NAM should further be expanded as there have been rising concern worldwide over issues like greenhouse gas emissions, health concerns such as AIDS, drug trafficking, increasing poverty, food crisis and unemployment particularly in the NAM members and LDC countries, the increasing digital divide between the rich and poor including fight against all forms of extremism, xenophobia, ethnic nationalism and regional wars.
In conclusion, despite the end of the cold war, there are many global issues of less developed countries for which justice is still awaited and therefore, for such issues NAM can still play an important role. In reality, today cold war has taken a new dimension as the world is witnessing the ongoing confrontation between US and Russia over issues like eastward expansion of NATO, Kosovo’s freedom and the Georgian crisis. As the world still has the fear of war or conflicts of some form, the world requires effective forums for the resolution of world problems for which NAM can be highly instrumental. In fact unless the world gets free from war and world peace is not guaranteed, the development of the Third World counties in real sense is not going to happen. Further since the past concept of colonialism has taken the place of neo-colonialism because of which there is economic exploitation by the MNC in the name of LPG (liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation), the NAM has to contribute positively in making the globalisation inclusive and achieve a faire, just international economic order. In other words, Non-Alignment does not seem to lose any of its relevance rather it has been instrumental in protecting and preserving the interest of the Third World countries just as it did in the past, so it is also expected to serve their interest in the coming future too with all authority. Thus, it can be concluded that even today the philosophy of NAM has the relevance for the Third World as it was ever before.