As already observed in the previous article if there is any outstanding contribution of newly independent states of Asia, Africa and Latin America worth mentioning, it is giving of concrete shape to the concept of non-alignment. The concept of non alignment gained currency in 1955 at Bandung , Conference, albeit it was upper most in the mind of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru as early as 1946. However, as a movement it was formally established in 1961 at Belgrade Conference. it is as such a post war phenomenon of the time when cold war was at its height and the world was divided into two power blocs.
Some of the newly independent countries visualized the dangers to their newly gained independence in aligning with either of the two blocs. Their involvement in cold war was brought with gloomy prospects of their economic, social , and political development. They wanted to conserve their scarce natural and capital resources for the reconstructing of their backward economies. This could be possible only if they shunned alliances and power-struggle and strived for peaceful atmosphere.
The pioneers of the notion of non-alignment were ‘ Nehru of India, Tito of Yugoslavia,’ Nasser of Egypt. and Sukharno of lndonesia. Later, the idea gathered so much momentum and popularity that within a period of three decades more than half of: the nations of the world embraced this concept. It became 50 Significant a movement that it influenced ’ the nature of international relations in diverse ways. Thus, non-alignment both as a foreign policy perspective of most new nations and as an international movement remained a critical factor in contemporary international relations for many years.
MEANING OF NON-ALIGNMENT
The term non-alignment hm a specific meaning. Many Western scholars mean by non-alignment. neutrality or neutralism only; but it is not a correct interpretation. Before giving a precise meaning of the term non-alignment it would be better to through the related terms as suggested by Schwarzenbergeri.1 These related or synonymous terms are isolationism, non commitment neutrality neutralization, unilaternlism and non-involvement .
solationism stands for policies of aloofness varying from the known isolation of the US before the First World War to postures of inoffensiveness in international affairs. Non commitment refers to politics of detachment for other powers in a triangular or multi corner relationship. Neutrality describes the political and legal status of a country at war with respect to the belligerents. Neutralization means a permanent neutral status of a particular state which it cannot give up under any circumstances, e.g. Switzerland is a neutralized state. Unilateralism is identified with policies of calculated risks such as the destruction of own thermo-nuclear weapons at ones own instance. Non-involvement means keeping away from the ideological struggle between the different superpowers, though permitting a certain degree of flexibility when absolutely unavoidable.
Nonalignment has a broader meaning than all the above mentioned terms and thus has a distinct character has means that a nation pursuing such a policy need not be neutral under all circumstances. It can participate actively in world affairs under exceptional circumstances. Unlike neutrality, nonalignment aims at keeping away but it keeps away not from a particular conflict or issue but from a persisting international tension like cold war. Since military alliances was an important aspect of cold war, non-alignment naturally insisted on shunning from these alliances. Any military alliance-either bilateral or multilateral formed during cold war days was a violation of non-alignment. It is therefore, a foreign policy perspective that advocates freedom from commitment to any power bloc it stress? on the independence of choice and action in external affairs.
The policy of not aligning with any him, but at the same time being friendly to everyone, so that it might be feasible to have a moderating impact on international relations, came to be popularly called as non-alignment. It would enable a nation to judge each issue on merit and decide upon its course independently without being influenced by any previous commitment or bias.
Now-alignment is neither a passive nor a negative policy. In so far as the negative appearance of the term non-alignment is concerned, it should be understood in the foreground of the ways of contemplating of Indian people who have expressed many positive and constructive ideas through negative expressions, such as Ahinsa and Apramad.
As a positive concept it has several dimensions, It is natural that non-alignment should oppose certain values and at the same time promote some others which are in harmony with its basic orientation. The chief goals of non-aligned movement in fifties and sixties re decolonization and the preservation of international peace of late, it has been contributing positively for attaining a new international economic order and a new information order based on equity, justice, freedom and the eradication of exploitation and domination.
As an activist and dynamic policy it takes Specific sides on merit of each case. This implies that issue-bound tilts in nonalignment are considered legitimate and the concept, therefore, does not imply equidistant from both the super powers. But at the same time it also rejects the idea of natural allies recently coined to justify certain alliances of the non-aligned states with certain powers. It is thus an active policy as it envisages an active role for the non-aligned countries in world affairs. It is positive as well since it also strives for certain values and goals.
Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda elaborated on the goodness of this concept in 1964 in these words: “it is a determination to preserve independence and sovereignty to respect such independence and sovereignty in other States and to decline to take sides in the major ideological struggles which rend the world. We will not hitch our carriage to any nation’s engine and be drawn along their railway line.2 The criteria of non-alignment determined as early as June 1961 at Cairo were;
(i). A country should follow an independent policy based on peaceful coexistence and non-alignment, or should be showing a trend in favor of such a policy.
(ii). It should consistently have supported movements for national independence.
(iii). It should not be a member of multilateral military alliances concluded in the context of Great Power conflicts.
(iv). If it has conceded military bases these concessions should not have been made in the context of Great Power conflicts.
(v). If it is a member of a bilateral or regional defense arrangement, this should not be in the context of Great Power conflicts.
The disintegration of alliance systems in recent years is indeed a vindication of the non~aligned position. Subsequent to the process of disintegration, nonaligned movement (NAM) is increasingly concentrating on economic issues and emancipation.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-ALIGNMENT
The conceptual imperatives and major features of non-alignment can be enumerated as below:
1. Averse to Military Alliances.
Non-alignment opposed military alliances, of all types like NATO, SEATO, CENTO, Warsaw Pact etc. The non-alignment nations also oppose the rat race armaments as this in their view inevitably misappropriates world resources towards massive arms build up at the super power levels and their subsequent worldwide proliferation. Alliances and arms race charge the atmosphere with war hysteria.
2. Averse to Cold War.
Non-aligned Movement was definitely a reaction against the cold war that surely undermines the existence of newer national identities and the nation on considered as satellites of either American or Russian bloc. Cold war in any form set at naught the developmental mods of the new states and undermine: the prospects for peace. Nonaligned countries preferred to keep out the power mule between the two power blues.
3. Averse to Ideological Polarization.
Non-alignment always remained averse to the ideological polarization between socialism and capitalism. On the other hand, it advocate: that the ideological differences are exaggerations arising out of statistic digitizes to legitimize state-eccentric power device of the super powers.
4. Own Path of Development.
As a corollary to the above feature, non-aligned countries refused to accept the economic, political and social systems of either bloc in to to. These countries are eager to develop their economy, polity and society in conformity with their own outlook and way of life. They considered it more appropriate to keep themselves free to take plus points from any country or any system in order to have a healthy and quick development.
5. Revolutionary Outlook.
Non-aligned countries attained independence after a revolutionary struggle with their colonial powers. Independence satisfied their aspiration for political freedom but they were far behind the economic freedom. As these countries were interested in self-reliance in economic sphere at the earliest, they adopted revolutionary methods to achieve fast progress. Some succeeded in their mission whereas many others faced difficulties. Some countries had to abandon democratic methods and resorted to dictatorial or authoritarian techniques to achieve quick results.
6. Friendship and Equality.
Non-alignment is also concerned with friendly relations among all nation-states on the principle of equality, justice and reciprocity. it is committed to the theories of national self-determination and peaceful coexistence among state. in and or to achieve the cherished values of the international polity and brotherhood.
7. Support to UNO.
Non-aligned countries have always endeavored to strengthen and support the UNO. it aims at imparting new vigour and vitality to the UN in order to prevent it from becoming a battlefield of superpower rivalry and misapprehensions. By their active participation, they have made this world organization more democratic and influenced its deliberations to a great extent.
8. Able Leadership.
The outstanding and renowned leadership has been its characteristics from the very beginning. Able leaders like Nehru, Tito, Nasser, Sukarno, Nkrumah, Kaunda etc. have been its torch bearers in the post World War II period. Like Nehru in India, other leaders enjoyed a great status and respect not only in their own re5pective countries but also throughout the world. It was only due to the brilliant leadership of these personalities that non-alignment became popular and assumed the form of a worldwide movement.
9. Doubtful Genuineness.
There is no paucity of scholars especially Indians who claim that many so-called non-aligned countries are not ”genuinely non-alignment”. They point out that many non-aligned countries have special military or diplomatic relations with one cold war bloc or the other and on most of international issues that arise from time to time the position that the latter would take are almost predictable. This predictability of behavior determined by such close relationship is definitely not a characteristic of non-alignment.
The claim of few countries like India and Yugoslavia that they are genuinely non-aligned has been challenged by the US and some other Western countries. According to the latter India is not truly non-aligned, it is biased in favour of the Soviet Union” and it takes an anti-West view on many issues “irrespective of their merits”. But India refutes these charges by saying that in 1956, 1968 and 1979 it criticized the Russian actions and demanded the withdrawal of its troops from Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan respectively though this denunciation was less harsh than the one it used against the invaders (Britain, French and Israel) of Egypt on 1956. Thus India’s attitude towards the rival powers blocs was not largely affected by pro-Soviet bias.
10. Alignments within Non-alignment :
Many groups formed on the basis of regionalism, religion, ideology, security considerations and economic cooperation have raised their heads within this movement. Many countries have been virtually reduced into the satraps both the super-powers. Whenever a cold war issue is discussed in any non-aligned meeting or in the United Nations, they tend to support their respective patrons. On the question of Palestine, almost all Arab countries have formed another faction. Most of the other members of South Asia Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sir-Lanka have recently grouped themselves in such a way as to take an’ identical view on several issues, different from the Indian Stand on those issues. These countries are apprehensive of India’s big brother attitude.
11. Not “Double Alignment”.
As most of the non-aligned countries are poor, they gladly accept aid from any quarter. If receiving such aid does not involve compromise with one’s independence, it is neither the violation of non-alignment nor the opportunism. Non alignment does not mean that a country cannot have the friendly relations with both the super-powers and this is not “double alignment” as alleged by certain critics. Such a policy has the following benefits. Assistance can be expected from both the blocs and neither side is likely to do any harm to the concerned non-aligned countries. At the same time the latter may continue to play their role in the easing of international tensions. Thus, having good relations with both the super powers is not contradictory to the spirit of non alignment.
12. Growing Institutionalization.
From the very beginning Pandit Nehru insisted that the non-aligned countries had not to form a separate third bloc but to create a third area which would be “an area of peace” .That is why, in the initial years, India resisted the efforts of some members of the non aligned group to have a “secretariat” of its own. It apprehended that the setting up of a secretariat would be an endeavor to make the movement put on a straight jacket institutionalization that would tantamount to the formation of a separate bloc which is against the principles of non-alignment. Moreover NAM is not an organization but a movement that recognized the need for a back up system that could provide service and continuity.
But India’s efforts to check institutionalization proved futile as in the Algiers Summit (1973) it was decided to have a coordination bureau with the host nation of each summit as the Chairman for the period between that summit to the next summit. The original strength of the Bureau was 25 which was subsequently raised to 36. The Bureau meets at least once a year and deals with matters of common interest from time to time. it also takes decision regarding the next summit. it also seeks to strengthen cooperation and coordination among the member states inside the UN and help them in making united efforts for the realization of the goals of the non-aligned movement. As per the Lusaka (1970) decision to hold nonaligned summits at the interval of every three years, the same are held regularly since then. The Foreign Ministers of Member states usually meet some time before each summit mainly to prepare the agenda of the summit. The above developments indicate “the gradual institutionalization of nonalignment is a reality and does not appear to be reversible. Some degree of permanence in structure and regularity in behavior pattern have been injected into it”3 remarks Prof. Baral.
BASES AND CAUSES OF NON-ALIGNMENT
Non-alignment has two types of bases upon which this policy is relied-positive and negative bases. It will be pertinent to discuss them below.
1. Dissolution with Military Alliances.
The single negative basis of non alignment is its Opposition to military alliances and cold war politics. These military pacts like NATO, SEATO, CENTO, Warsaw Pact etc. Accelerated arms race, enhanced rivalry and tensions and thus were considered harmful for world peace. This was the basic reason for adopting the policy of non alignment by the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa.
Non-alignment has many positive bases also Which are explained as under:
2. Ideological Basis.
Instead of following any of the then prevailing and competing ideologies of capitalism and communism the newly independent nations thought it better to evolve their own ideologies and system that may conform to their indigenous need and traditions and fulfill the aspirations of their people. Neither the American nor the Communist socioeconomic and political system could suit those new nations in to, that prompted them to pursue the path of non-alignment.
3. Independent Foreign Policy.
Many countries were convinced that they can enjoy real independence only if they pursue an independent foreign policy and examine each international issue on its merit. It is feasible only if they detach themselves from either bloc and declare themselves as non-aligned. The principle of freedom of opinion or independence of judgement in the conduct of foreign affairs was the main basis on which the edifice of non-alignment was erected.
4. Economic Basis.
Another reason for the emergence of non-alignment is economic development. Most of the nonaligned countries were economically backward and were in dire need of capital and technical know-how for achieving the goal of economic development and self-reliance. This goal could possibly be achieved in a better way if they maintain cordial and friendly relations with both the power blocs and gain maximum economic benefits from them without any political string. Notwithstanding the charge of the critics that it was nothing short of double alignment many non-aligned countries succeeded in getting help from both the super powers.
5. Strengthening of UNO.
Lest it should meet the same fate as the League of Nations or fall a victim to cold war rivalry or become an arena of super power tug of war or a battlefield 0f super power polarization many Afro-Asian nations realized that they would be strengthening UNO and its principles remaining non-aligned.
Growth and role of NAM
The causes, bases and background of the origin of the non-aligned movement have been discussed above. Owing to these reasons, the NAM was originated in 1955 when 29 Asian and African nations met at Bandung (Indonesia) to thrash out the means of combating colonialism and dealing with the situation arising out of the cold war and bipolarism. Bandung conference was a grand assembly to stimulate cooperation among Asians and Africans. The background to it comprised the treaty between the United States and Taiwan and the signing of military pacts like SEATO and the Baghdad Pact. Calvocoressi observed : “the principal achievements of the Bandung Conference were that they had met and got to know one another (most of them were new to international politics); that they had laid the foundations for joint action at the UN and, through solidarity, increased their security, their status and their diplomatic weight in the world; that they had attracted I new men like Nasser to the group and made it bigger; that they were making the giant powers take them seriously and treat their policies as respectable.” With an Asian-Nehru, an African-Nasser and a European-Tito leading them the non aligned countries became more and more ambitious in international relations and hoped to be able to bring pressure to bear on the superpowers in cold war matters. Bandung Conference is taken as the beginning of the non-aligned movement. This conference was followed by a string of conferences and the number of participating countries swelled in each conference and the movement was invested with more and more popularity conference after conference. By Sept 1992, NAM’s membership rose to 108. In Lusaka Conference (1970) a decision was taken to hold summit conferences of NAM countries after every three years. The following table gives a bird eye view of the evolution of NAM through different conferences.
Summit Conferences of NAM
|Date||Host country||Host city||No Of Participating Nations|
|1–6 September 1961||Yugoslavia||Belgrade||25|
|5–10 October 1964 ||United Arab Republic||Cairo||47|
|8–10 September 1970||Zambia||Lusaka||54|
|5–9 September 1973||Algeria||Algiers||76|
|16–19 August 1976||Sri Lanka||Colombo||86|
|3–9 September 1979||Cuba||Havana||94|
|7–12 March 1983||India||New Delhi||99|
|1–6 September 1986||Zimbabwe||Harare||100|
|4–7 September 1989||Yugoslavia||Belgrade||103|
|1–6 September 1992||Indonesia||Jakarta||108|
|18–20 October 1995||Colombia||Cartagena|
|2–3 September 1998||South Africa||Durban|
|20–25 February 2003||Malaysia||Kuala Lumpur|
|15–16 September 2006||Cuba||Havana|
|11–16 July 2009||Egypt||Sharm el-Sheikh|
|26–31 August 2012||Iran||Tehran|
|13–18 September 2016||Venezuela||Porlamar|
Role in 50s and 60s
In the initial years nationalism on the one hand and opposition to military alliances on the other were main planks of non-aligned movement. In fifties and sixties non-aligned countries strives for early end of colonialism and racialism With the passage of time, as more and more colonies won their independence, there was decline in their demand for decolonization and rise in their expressed concern for international peace. By opposing world public opinion, against dangerous arms race, they urged upon the super-powers for disarmament. They supported UN’s efforts for peaceful settlement of regional conflicts. Wherever feasible, they mediated between regional belligerents for sorting out a peaceful , resolution of their disputes. By Opposing the cold war, calling for disarmament and endeavoring to settle disputes through negotiations NAM played its significant role in achieving the goal of international peace.
Role in 70s
In the 705 though cold war had not completely disappeared, yet the process of detente assumed great significance. Secondly, the danger of Neo-colonialism increasingly came to the light. Now economic independence and development became the chief concern of NAM. Non-aligned countries boldly gave a call for New International Economic Order (NIEO) whose attainment would mark the fall of Neo-colonialism.
By the end of 70s the process of detente suffered a serious: set back and the New Cold War appeared on the horizon. While there was an increase in the number of non-aligned countries, there was also a spurt in the establishment of military relations between them and the superpowers. The difference between the early cold war and the new cold war phase was that the military relations in fifties were overt whereas the same were covert in the late seventies and early eighties. Some of the non-aligned countries which had military linkage with one or the other superpower were not prepared to admit so. This new development caused intensification of regional conflicts and the danger to the independence and development of the non-aligned countries.
Role in 80s
During the 80s, NAM’s approach towards peace and development witnessed a distinct change. Besides attempting at the peaceful settlement of regional disputes like Iran-Iraq war, Afghanistan crisis and the Kampuchean conflict, they also strongly pleaded for holding arms control talks. They also demanded an early end to racialism and apartheid in South Africa. The fervor with which the demand for new economic order was made during the seventies slack . ed and the attitude of these countries became more soft and cordial towards rich countries. Instead of criticizing them they were now politely demanding for aid on the plea that it would help not only the developing countries but also the donors themselves Cooperation rather than confrontation became the keynote of their appeal for aid.
Another notable change in the attribute of the non-aligned countries is self-introspection. They have understood that for development, aid from rich countries is essential. But that does not exclude the self-help by the non-aligned countries themselves. Along with the North-South dialogue, they have felt the need of South-South c00peration. Towards this direction trend towards regional c00peration is discernible.
Role in 90s
In the early 19905, there is a great change in the world situation. Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union and East Europe and with this their bloc remained no more. Military alliances have been disintegrated, ideological factors in international relations receded in the background and cold war came to an end. In this changed situation many felt that NAM has outlived its utility in a post-cold war era. There are proposals to either change NAM’s name to Third World movement or to merge it with (3-77 to enlarge its options of economic cooperation and assistance.
The meeting of NAM Foreign Ministers, held at Accra from September5 to 8,1991 to prepare agenda for next summit conference to be held at Jakarta in 1992 rejected the above proposals. The Declaration issued after the meet stated that the end of the era of .East-West clash had opened up unprecedented vistas for world peace and cooperation. The Action Plan adopted at the meet dealt with the reform of the . UN, international security and disarmament, regional conflicts, South Africa Fund, the process of decolonization, the external debt problem, science and technology, North-South and South‘ South cooperation. According to the plan document, the recent developments “constitute a crisis for the NAM” and therefore its member countries must endeavor to ply a key role in Shaping the UN in the future and not submit themselves to the move for marginalization.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF NON-ALIGNMENT
Achievements of non-alignment and their impact on international relations are summarized as below:
1. World Peace.
Non-aligned countries had launched an active international struggle for world peace in the days of cold war, bipolarism and militarism They have made a principled contribution towards the maintenance of world peace and prevention of global and regional conflicts.
2. End of Cold War.
Recent end of cold war is in itself a great achievement of non-alignment. From the very beginning NAM adhered to the principle of peaceful coexistence and ‘ denounced cold war. In making big powers to realize the futility of engaging themselves in cold war and in warning the weaker nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America not to fall a prey to super powers rivalry, NAM played its role in ending‘ the cold war.
3. End of Bipolarism.
The rapid growth in the number of non-aligned countries had prevented the process of polarization in the world. Antagonistic power blocs would have had a dangerous effect on preservation of international peace. Proliferation of non-aligned movement helped in the ending of bipolarism and emergence of multipolarism.
4. End of Colonialism.
By supporting the unconditional, immediate and total abolition of colonialism, withdrawal of foreign troops from colonial territories, support for the peoples fighting for the right to national self-determination and concerted efforts to end all varieties of Neo-colonialism and imperialist domination, the NAM helped in the rapid decolonization of the world.
5. End of Racialism.
Non-aligned countries also struggled for the end of racial discrimination, apartheid in South Africa, racialism and hegemonism of all types and thus played a significant role in eradicating these evils from the world.
6. End of Military Alliances.
Opposition to military alliances and discouraging newly independent states from joining these alliances were the chief objectives of non-alignment which it has successfully achieved. Crumbling of SEATO, CENTO, NATO, Warsaw Pact etc. justify the stand taken by non-aligned countries.
7. Minimized the arms race.
The nonaligned countries made the world aware of the dangerous implications of arms race both conventional and nuclear. They contributed a lot towards achieving the disarmament.
8. Preservation of Independence.
Non-aligned countries had to wage a hard and long struggle to win their political independence. As they do not want to lose their hard earned independence they endeavor to keep out of world power struggle lest their independence should be endangered again. The non-alignment implies independence of judgement and the countries following this policy judged events and problems on merits rather than preconceived ideological notions and affinities.
9. Strengthened U.N.O.
On the basis of their numerical strength in the UN, the non-aligned countries have exert a notable influence on the decisions of the General Assembly, even though they cannot do anything against the use of Veto in the Security Council. Therefore, no majority decisions can be taken without their support. The non-alignment has helped the UN to carry on its peace-keeping function effectively. It also made the working of the UN more participate and democratic.
10. Universal International System.
The NAM has for the first time given the weak nations the role of subjects rather than merely of objects of international relations and thus laid the foundations of a universal international system based on the principle of equality and justice. It converted Europe eccentric international relations into world wide relations and thus internationalized the international relations in true sense.
11. More Economic Aid.
By pursuing the policy of non alignment, many countries, were able to receive economic aid and assistance for their development from both the power blocs. For instance, India received maximum aid from the Soviet Union as well as the USA. India as a nonaligned country secured more aid from both the sources in comparison to Pakistan which received aid from the Western bloc alone.
12. New Economic Order.
The initiatives taken by nonaligned countries at the non-aligned summits and various international forums have led to a general recognition of the need for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) based on both political and economic equality. In this connection they are endeavouring for North-South dialogue and South~South C00peration.
13. New Communication Order.
NAM has successfully ended the monopoly of Western agencies over the news dissemination services. Western monopoly over mass media created a lot of distortion in projecting the image of the nonaligned countries. Realizing the crucial role of the dissemination of in formation and communications in enlarging mutual understanding, they have set up the non-aligned News pool. It is indeed their great achievement.
Several scholars especially Western have bitterly criticized non-alignment as a selfish policy, a baseless ideology and an opportunistic attitude. The critical aspect has been dealt with in detail as follows:
1. Ambiguous Concept.
It has been criticized that there has been no full treatment of the term, no analysis and precise description, no exposition through which others might examine the importance and future prospects of policy of non alignment The term is in common use but no attempt has been made by . its exponents to properly analyses it. This job was undertaken by the Western scholars. Consequently. there is no popular understanding of the concept among the majority of the people But of late many scholars from non-aligned countries. have endeavored to explain and analyze this term scientifically and vividly.
2. Not a Model of Behavior.
The propounders of nonalignment claim that the concept is of great value in so far as it provides a model of international behavior which all countries should adopt in the interest of peaceful relations. But critics observe that it is a vacillating policy of unrealistic expediency, of blackmail, of irresponsibility and of opportunism. It is even dangerous for the world peace and nations should avoid it in their international dealings and behavior.
3. Selfish Policy.
Non-alignment is nothing but a policy of selfishness. No doubt, national interest is the main basis of all foreign policies, but the general expression that non~aligned countries are not self-seekers has not been admitted by the , Western scholars. Like all other concepts-Bissau-afire, balance of power, collective security etc.-this concept too has come out of expediency and self-interest.
4. Opportunistic and Immoral.
Many Western observers have alleged that non-alignment is immoral as well as opportunistic as it is based upon selfishness. To them, nonalignment is alignment with both cold war camps. But nonaligned countries refute this criticism as baseless. The desire of non-aligned countries to have friendship with both power blocs has been misinterpreted as a policy of double alignment.
5. Bloc Mentality.
Many nonaligned countries suffer from bloc mentality and bias. They are neither impartial nor judge issues on merit. From time to time they have chosen to associate themselves with one or the other of the superpowers, so closely that their status as non-aligned might be questioned. India, for example, chose in 1971 to conclude a treaty of J ace and friendship with the Soviet Union. Cuba, too has cl. J ‘: relationship with the Soviet Uni n. M . t nations of the West Hemisphere for example members of the Organization of American States (OAS) have traditionally been closely assoc ted with the United States. Many other Third World count es have also been closely linked with the United State security and defense. They are Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Thailand, Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea.
6. Harsh towards West
Soft towards East. It has been charged that non-aligned countries, in general, have been “harsh” towards the capitalist powers and ”soft” towards the communist powers. They have been criticized on the ground of following a policy of ”double standard”. No doubt, by and large the object of criticism of non-aligned countries is Often the Western powers rather than the communist powers. But for this the fault lies with the Western powers themselves as they always followed colonial or Neo-colonial policies.
Over time, the NAM has lost much of its unity and its corresponding political clout as the diversity inherent among Third World nations badly affected its cohesiveness. In part, diversity finds expression in the various means nonaligned countries have adopted in efforts to realize their political objectives, even while they have remained committed in principle to non-aligned. NAM countries had many inter-state or regional conflicts among themselves which they failed to resolve amicably. Critics take a very pessimistic view of the role that these countries may play in resolving international issues keeping in view their disunity and differences of the 200 odd conflicts of the past two decades, all of them involving third world countries, very few can be described as proxy wars prompted by the superpowers.
8. Serious Dilemma.
The NAM is passing through a serious dilemma of more members and less strength. It increased its strength by admitting more and more of new members. But the big increase in the size of its membership has not been matched by corresponding increase in its effectiveness and purity. The ideals of the movement have been diluted and it has become increasingly difficult to establish unity of purpose and coordination of action with the group.
The critics allege that relatively prosperous and rich countries among them are not kind towards their poor and backward colleagues in the Third World, though they severely attack the Western developed powers on that ground.
10. Labour Union Approach.
in mid 1970:, the non-aligned countries adopted a militant posture and radical rhetoric towards the North, while demanding for a New International Economic Order. They adopted a path of confrontation and turned movement for NIEO into a ”class war” against the developed countries. But this “labor union” approach did not help them in achieving their goal. However, of late. the demand of non-aligned countries for NIEO seems to have been significantly moderated and the call for ”class-war” appears to have been replaced by the call for cooperation.
11 . Factionalism.
The diversity and factionalism within the non-aligned movement was evident at the 1979 Havana Summit, which was attended by 94 nations. Non-aligned countries might he divided into three groups: radicals, conservatives and independents. “Radicals are those generally leaning toward the Soviet Union or China; conservatives are those generally tilting toward the West, and independents are those still ’ committed to the principles of non-alignment in the East~W6t conflict”, explain Kegley and WittKope. Based on this division, roughly about half of these countries can be considered truly non-aligned. The rest can be divided into about three to two respectively between conservatives and radicals.
12. Like Alliance System.
While pretending that they were not a bloc, the non-aligned assembly decided to have a chairman, a bureau, a regular calendar of meetings at different levels, and a summit every three years. Thus, while not creating a military infrastructure, non-alignment by increasing institutionalization stepped into the diplomatic style of the two alliance systems.
13. Worthless Declarations and Conferences.
There are nothing in the last seven long declarations of the non-align summits. These are simply the repetition of resolutions of the UN and its agencies. Conference involve heavy ‘ on large delegations from 100-odd poor participating nations.
For the host country it may require a 500-1000 million dollar outlay on the conference infrastructure, five hotels, sometimes “separate villas for heads of government, import of hundreds of limousines, large scale entertainment etc. and all for momentary prestige and international publicity.
14. No Results.
Exclusively NAM has nothing concrete to its credit in solving international problems after the end of atmospheric testing leading to the Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963). It is the UN which is working hard in Kampuchea, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Iraq and elsewhere to sort out the things. Despite its tall claims movement could not solve any international or regional problem exclusively.
Notwithstanding the above criticism, non-alignment has played a positive role in international relations and has had several impacts on the world affairs which have already been discussed above. Various scholars have refuted the above criticism and explained that non-alignment had to seek compromises, adjustments, accommodations and mutations in order to validate itself in accordance with the growing complexities of the global scenario. It is as much economically relevant today as it was politically relevant in the days of cold
RELEVANCE OF NON-ALIGNMENT
Relevance of non-alignment has become a subject of great debate in post-cold war contemporary world. Broadly speaking there are two schools of thought regarding the relevance of. non-alignment movement now. According to first school, it is no more valid in the present changed conditions. Whereas the second one still believes in its relevance notwithstanding the changed world environment. Both schools are explained below:
Irrelevant and Invalid .
Previously Western scholars used to not only criticize but also jeer at non-alignment movement. They underrated it by calling it hypocrite, ineffective and worthless. However, tn the last few years non-Western scholars and even leaders and representatives of few non-aligned countries have also started realizing the redundancy and irrelevance of this movement. The circumstances that led to the creation of this movement have undergone a sea change. The following changes have rendered the utility of the NAM doubtful.
(i). Decolonization has become a fiat accomplice.
(ii). Cold war has ended and detente is again burgeoning with new vigor and vitality.
(iii). Military blocs have tumbled down.
(iv) Military bases have become a thing of the past owing to advance in science and technology and its use for
(v). Bi-polar world is non-existent.
(vi). Collapse of communism and communist bloc and resultant de-idealization of world politics.
(Vii). Irreversible trends towards peaceful coexistence and active economic cooperation.
(viii). Trend towards disarmament has been gaining momentum since 1991. The aligned of the East and West have taken steps towards 20-30 percent reduction in defense forces.
(ix) Since the US has emerged as the sole world power following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many non; aligned countries want to leave the NAM in Septemba 1991 Argentina actually dropped out of the NAM Where is the question of keeping aloof from rival blocs, some people ask, when there is only one effective power and the other is in ruins?
At the latest Accra session of NAM Foreign Ministers (September 1991) even, some of theme member States keeping in view the above changes proposed to re-name it as Third World Movement Egypt even suggest to merge NAM with the Group of 77 (which now numbers over 100 many countries being members of both). Though time proposals were turned down, indicate that umber-States doubt the relevance and continuing utility of the Movements very reason for existence. Before the Accra meeting the first since the collapse of the Eastern bloc) there had been an impression that NAM was now in a vacuum and had to find a new role and a new identity.
After going over the history of non-alignment, Jagat S. Mehta, India’s former foreign secretary suggested ”that after the non-aligned nations came to command a safe majority in the United Nations (around 1970) the non-aligned movement had become redundant”. He further said, “W e should remind ourselves and the world that the non-aligned started with the independent right of nations to functionally determine international cooperation -and that is where the world has now arrived. Why not declare the mission accomplished and discontinue the ritual continuation of NAM.8
Still Relevant and Valid
On the other hand many non-aligned countries claim that all the changes enumerated above are mainly the result of their long struggle and so they take credit for it. All these changes indicate the vindication of their stand and principles. Even in the changed context it has assumed a novel role. If its political relevance has become obsolete, its economic significance has increased manifold.
The 22-page, Declaration issued after the latest meeting of NAM Foreign Ministers, held at Accra is September 1991, entitled “A World in Transition : from Diminishing Confrontation Towards Increasing Cooperation” emphasized that NAM’s new focus must be on eradicating poverty, hunger, malnutrition and illiteracy and called on the international community to help. NAM supported the present efforts at strengthening the UN so as to render it “more democratic, effective and efficient”. There was a consensus among the ‘ Foreign Ministers for a bridging agreement between NAM and the Group of 77 and proposed that a study should be made immediately of the made immediately of the modalities for reaching agreement between the two bodies for the introduction of a new system of periodic meeting of the joint coordination committee.
NAM has not outlived its utility in a post-cold war world, in fact the indications are that the movement is becoming more p0pular and its importance is being widely recognized. If that had not been so, why should more countries seek the NAM membership. Mongolia was granted admission. Germany requested to be allowed to attend the session as a guest along with the Netherlands.
To change its name to Third World movement will alienate a large section who has long cherished NAM’S ideology. In the growing multicultural world order with the decline of prominent status of the Superpowers, limiting NAM to a Third World movement would prevent it from getting a fair hearing from some of the emerging centers of power. Finally, to confine it in terms of geographical boundaries will act as reversal of its international role to that of a regional movement.
Though the bipolar world was dead, that does not mean that Washington should become the political Mecca of those who had avoided being identified with either of the two blocs. It is evident that the impression conveyed by the slogan NAM is dead” is nothing short of a canard being deliberately spread by some Western commentators. The current uni polar world is ‘an increasingly featureless international political landscape, regrettably Euro-center in nature. A replacement of the uni polar world by a multi polar world, NAM is perhaps even more relevant now to international relations and development than at any time in its history.
Non-alignment is fundamentally a political concept; Nehru, Tito, Sukarno and Nasser did not envisage full economic cooperation as part of NAM. But now the movement is shifting its emphasis from the political to the economic arena. The Accra meet, besides referring to political problems worldwide, also made references to the question of external debt as an obstacle to development of many countries. Obviously, if NAM is to give priority to economic problems, it is perhaps because it has little role to play in the political arena.
Referring to the apprehensions that NAM has lost its relevance in the present situation, Madhavsingh Solanki, Indian External Affairs Minister said the Accra meet of NAM Foreign Minister sought to give a “clear direction” to the movement. He asserted that the Accra meet had reaffirmed the relevance of NAM as a political forum which could give adequate emphasis to North-South cooperation. Those who contend that the end of the cold war had rendered NAM obsolete are in effect asserting that the Third World should leave it to the West to determine the destiny of humanity as a whole.
The heterogeneity and consensus approach that characterized NAM, far from inhibiting its effectiveness, reflected the diverse world in which every state enjoyed equality and independence of action. Most of the NAM countries still believe that in its present shape the movement is well poised to play an important role in the international community. NAM is neither willing to be marginalized nor invalidated. How far it succeeds in this is in the womb of future. To withstand tide of change in the world is indeed a great challenge for the NAM.
1. See George Schwarzenberger, The scope of Neutralism. Year Book of World Affairs, 1961 (London). PP 233-44
2. Cited in K.J Holsti, National Role Conception in the Study of Foreign Policy, International Studies Quarterly, 14(September), pp 233-309.
3. J.K. Baral, International Politics-Dynamics and Dimensions (New Delhi, 1987). p.298.
4. Peter Calvocoressi, World Politics since 1945 (New York. 1982) 4th edn.p.100.
5. Charles WKegley, It. and Eugene R.Wittk0pf. World politics : Trends and Transformation (New York. 1981) p. 99.
7. Jagat S Mehta, Non-alignment The underlying rational Indian Express, September 2. 1991, p.8.
8. Non-alignment-Minim Accomplished in M. September 3. 1991. p6.