|
NAM and Contemporary World
************************
The Non-Aligned
Movement has covered a long distance since its inception in 1961 at
Belgrade, the venue of the First NAM Summit. India's first Prime
Minister Pt. Nehru, one of the founding father of NAM, described the
non-aligned as the policy of friendship amongst nations. From its very
inception the Non-Aligned Movement has successfully worked for promotion
of friendship and cooperation amongst member states, end of domination
and establishment of peace in the world at large.
India has played a
significant role in shaping and guiding the Non-aligned Movement which
began as a collective and constructive response of the newly liberated
masses of Asia, Africa, Caribbean and Latin America. The Movement is
responsible for inculcating self-esteem to these newly liberated
countries and to a great extent responsible for the creation of more
just and equitable world order.
There is a
widespread scepticism about the relevance of non-alignment itself.
Infact this scepticism is not new. So it was even during the Cold War
era. The change is that now it is quite prevalent among Non-Aligned
Countries themselves. Apart from the erroneous view held by many that
Non-alignment was simply a product of Cold War and, therefore, with the
claimed end of cold war it has lost its relevance there are other
criticisms of the movement also. Its amarphous character has led critics
to scoff at its marginality. The original criteria for membership have
been diluted and the dividing line between non-alignment and alignment
has been somewhat coloured. The regional quarrels and ambitions have
tended to displace the larger objectives and demands. The movement's
capacity to meet the rigrous of a new and more intensified cold war has
been further eroded. The economic power of the rich nations combined
with grave economic difficulties and challenges has placed new
constraints on the activity, initiative and bounce of the non-aligned.
These criticisms
are correct to an extent. But what they miss is the evaluation and role
of the movement in the context of its emergence and functioning. The
most important aspect in that regard is need to realise that NAM did not
originate as an ideological camp. It was, if anything, a revolt against
bloc divisions and dominance of the international system by a few
powers. A non-aligned country wanted a measure of freedom for itself
and, at the same time, to acquire some leverage through this bigger
association in the international system. In that sence NAM provided the
emerging and struggling countries a certain psychological security, not
fool-proof not even demonstrable, but nevertheless permitting some sense
of belonging. In a harsh and cruel world it offered them some kind of an
anchorage without entangling alliances and with their independence
intact, making it possible for their voice to be heard with a little
greater seriousness. The chief thrust of the movement, accordingly, had
been towards independence, against colonialism, neo-colonialism,
racialism and for the maintenance of world peace, democratization of the
international political structure and the establishment of a more
equitable economic order.
The end of the
Cold War has not made the essence of non-alignment irrelevant. The
essence is the right to consider every issue on merit and the right to
take whatever action is considered feasible against what is regarded as
a wrong irrespective of whether that wrong is perpetuated by one power
bloc in a bipolar world or by one or both the superpowers in a bipolar
world. As Nehru stated in his address to the United Nations, "where
freedom is menaced or justice threatened or where aggression takes
place, we cannot and shall not be neutral". To say it in another way,
taking the essence of non-alignment as the assertion of independence in
foreign affairs, non-alignment does not become irrelevant at any time.
NAM has achieved
much in these tasks but a lot is left. The end of Cold War
notwithstanding the developing countries, which also happen to be NAM
countries remain developing and so their interests for development with
dignity. Therefore, the last three non-aligned Summit Conferences in the
Post-Cold War era Indonesia (1992), Colombia (1995) and South Africa
(1998) expressly and categorically reaffirmed the continuing relevance
of non-alignment. The colombia Conference asserted; "The Movement today
constitutes a forum which provides us with a basic framework to
coordinate our interests and positions". However, the global situation
today presents a picture of strage paradoxes.
The end of Cold
War had raised various hopes as well as possibilities of creating a new
world order. But while economy has started moving along the path of the
new dynamics of globalization, expectations of humanity to attain a new,
just and equitable international system based on respect, justice and
equity among nations do not seem to be realised. Though wealth and trade
have grown in an accelerated fashion, life expectancy and access to
primary education have increased and infant mortality has noticeably
gone down in a number of countries, poverty, hunger, unemployment,
environment degradation and threat to peace through unjustified
stockpiling of nuclear weapons show no signs of abatement. Similarly,
notwithstanding the fact that a number of conflicts have been settled
through dialogue and agreement giving significant fillip to regional
peace, there has also been excerbation of existing disputes, emergence
of new conflicts and reappearance of ethnic, religious and
socio-economic rivalries making world a place far from being peaceful
and secure. Simmering disputes, violent conflicts, aggression and
foreign occupation, interference in the internal affairs of states,
policies of hegemony and domination, ethnic strife, religious
intolerance, xenophobia, new forms of racism and narrowly conceived
nationalism, national and transnational terrorism are, inter alia, major
and dangerous obstacles to harmonious coexistence among states and
peoples. They have even led to the disintegration of states and
societies. The NAM will have to take account of all these development,
particularly the way they are affecting developing countries.
How to shape NAM's
world view in the light of the political and economic changes all around
is a crucial question today. The United Nations system created after
1945 is out of date as far as developing country's issues are concerned.
This needs to be reformed carefully making it more responsible and
representative. Vetos and permanent members have lost much of their
relevance. But unfortunately NAM is ceasing to be either a cohesive
political grouping or an effective economic pressure group. Though NAM
has consistently sought to improve the bargaining position of its member
nations in global economic forums and at the U.N., it has had to contend
with the reality that in the Post-Cold War period several countries have
struck their own separate deals with the U.S. ultimately leading to an
acceptance of the idea of unipolar world and giving the only superpower
a total hegemonic role. The end of cold war and the birth of unipolarism
are aberrations in the 350 years old sovereign state system. Multi-polarism
is the traditional norm in the functioning of the sovereign state
system. And presently it is in the off-line and non-alignment does not
become irrelevant even in a multipolar world also.
NAM, therefore
has to set its priorities carefully. NAM can be the carrier of
South-South collaboration. It has a role to play in WTO negotiations to
advance and protect the trading rights and opportunities of developing
countries and in muscling up their negotiating positions and skills. NAM
can stand up to arbitrary economic sanctions against developing nations,
to the unfair cutting down of trade quotas with a view to protect the
economy of the developed North. Emergences of "fortresses" in Europe and
North America is a warning to the developing world that they must unite
for their own economic emancipation. The European community with a
market of 300 million people and the North America Free Trade Zone area
covering 500 million people pose a great challenge to the countries of
Asia, Africa and Latin America. To compete with them in trade and
business will be more difficult for the developing countries unless they
form an organisation for collective economic development. NAM can be an
initiator for that. NAM can make the protests of developing nations
against arbitrary application of western concepts of human rights. NAM
has now an potentially effective role to play in bringing about
meaningful nuclear arms control and disarmament by the nuclear powers.
With the end of
Cold War there might be visible dimination of inter-state warfare. But
with the rise of ethnic and religious nationalism, socio-economic
inequalities, collapse of state structures, withdrawl of super power
support etcetra, the changes and frequency of intra-state and regional
conflicts have increased. So far as U.N.s role in the achievement of
peace is concerned, it is increasingly becoming a rubber stamping body,
endorsing and legitimizing the decisions and actions of the adhocist
oligarohic political executive authority. UN seems to be becoming a tool
of intervention in the hands of the unipolare oligarchy leading to the
erosion of the sovereignty of the Third World and developing states.
The NAM,
therefore, has to think of its requvenation rather than taking of
becoming rededent. However, it has to redefine its role in the changed
international situation. The changed scenario necessitates a shift of
emphasis in priorities so as it can force new challenges. On the
occasion 50 anniversary of Bandung, it is important to have widespread
discussions and debates about identifying the challenges the movement
has to address in the wake of the dynamics of globalisation. NAMs role
in promoting a just international order would depend largely on its
inner strength unity and cohesion. It is, therefore, incumbent on all
member states to work earnestly towards promoting solidarity and unity
of the Movement. It is expected that in order to enhance its role at the
international level, the next NAM Summit of the Head of States or
Government will take necessary initiatives to continue to work on
exponding and reinforcing its ability and capacity for initiative,
representation and negotiation, as well as, its ethical, political and
moral strength as a forum representing the interests and aspirations of
the developing world.
The fact remains
that non-aligned has not lost its validity, since most of the problems
faced by the developing nations during the cold war continue to persist.
If India has ambition to play a major role in the global economy and
rapidly to develop its technology, it must necessarily think of taking
the leadership of the non-aligned, while taking into account the norms
of international relations.
The time is ripe
to evaluate the past and formulate the future policies of the
non-aligned countries to change the existing international order and
establish a new international order based on friendship, cooperation,
justice and fair play to improve the lot of third world and to restore
human rights, democracy and world peace.
***************************************
by
Dr. R. N. Srivastava
Director, FPSD
on the
Foundation for
Peace and Sustainable Development
Admn.
Office:
RZ-A1/131 B,
Vijay Enclave, Palam Dwarka Road, New Delhi- 110 045
Ph.
91-11-25033089, Telefax: 91-11-25033089, (M) 9811487475
E-mail: fpsd_org@yahoo.com |
