Round The World

New Delhi, 4 September 2012

Non-Aligned Movement

WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE?

By Monish Tourangbam

Associate Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi

Since the end of the Cold War and post India began actively engaging with the US, the relevance of Non-Alignment as a policy guide is persistently being questioned. In fact, the recently concluded XVIth Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit earned added ire from the US as it was hosted and chaired by Iran.

Undeniably, for the US Administration, Iran is a rogue State which not only sponsors terrorism but also flouts international nuclear energy laws; hence it deserves to be shunned by the international community. Needless to say, the Iran issue took centre-stage at the Summit, whereby the pleasantries and lofty speeches of shared concerns and goals could not drown the fact that some brain-storming is urgently needed to give NAM clarity of purpose and direction.

Importantly, NAM summits should not become be reduced to just another diplomatic fanfare, where individual countries come with their own sets of interests, with no meaningful result at the end. Specially, as NAM is a diverse group of 120 member countries and no international leader can ignore such a club, as was evident by UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon’s decision to attend the Summit, despite clearly communicated US displeasure.

But, such a diverse group of countries coming under one roof also raises one question: What does NAM stand for at present and what purpose does it intend to serve in the international arena?

Against the backdrop that NAM is essentially a product of the Cold War era, conceived so that newly independent countries like India could stay out of the global race for supremacy between the US and Soviet Union.

But, the implosion of Soviet Union ended the bi-polar structure wherein the world today is not unipolar either. Indeed, the US is the only super power, notwithstanding this power is more diffused now, with emerging countries like China, India and Brazil fundamentally changing international politics.

Besides, Non-Alignment is one of the most misunderstood concepts in international relations. Recall, Western countries including US was blinded by the Cold War power race whereby US officials deemed it as hypocritical and Communist leaning.

During the Cold War, Washington often equated Non-Alignment with ‘neutrality’ which was totally wrong. The basic idea behind Non-Alignment was to enable newly independent countries to make independent decisions based on the merit of the matter, keeping their national interests and interests of world peace in general.

Clearly, reticence as expected from neutral countries was not the nature of Non-Aligned countries. Non-Alignment was about maintaining independence to take independent decisions and not about remaining mute and neutral spectators. And, things have not changed much in terms of how Non-Alignment is perceived in Western eyes.

Notably, US should take due cognizance of this forum not as a political migraine but as an asset in international efforts towards problem-solving. But, first, members of the NAM should reassess as to what NAM means in this rapidly changing world and make it flexible enough to mirror the dynamics of international relations.

Undoubtedly, the Iran issue which has become a critical factor in India’s relations with the US could be a test case for how NAM applies itself as an asset towards problem-solving. Differences still linger among countries over the means to tackle the Iranian nuclear issue.

Further, like India, most countries do not want to see a nuclear Iran but at the same time, are against any US or Israeli plans to resort to a military solution, thereby opening another theatre of war in the already factitious and volatile Middle East.

Pertinently, India will not kowtow to US pressure on the Iran issue, despite New Delhi’s increasing convergence with Washington. The US seems encouraged by India’s decreasing oil import from Iran, but that is not a product of direct Washington pressure on New Delhi.

The US-led Western sanctions have highly affected the process of procuring energy from Iran for many nations, and India’s decreasing intake of Iranian oil has come not because of New Delhi’s decision to do so but as a result of impediments created by Western sanctions on commercial transactions.

Moreover, India contends that any effort towards making Iran a pariah State will not solve the problem but would not end up giving an overtly nationalistic rationale to its nuclear aspirations. According to records, sanctions are affecting Iranian middle class lives than those at the centre of the current regime or the powerful clergy.

Towards that end, New Delhi used the NAM summit to let all know that its s ties with Tehran remain strong as ever. But, at the same time, in view of India’s emerging strategic partnership with the US New Delhi needs to balance its foreign policy.

New Delhi’s message should be clear: India stands for sustainable ties with Iran, wants the US and Israel to solve issues with Iran without resorting to use of force. But at the same time, it does not support a nuclear Iran (emphasis added). What is more important, New Delhi needs to amplify this message to other world Capitals.

On its part, the US and Israel argue that countries like India along-with UN Secretary General visiting Iran to attend the NAM Summit have unnecessarily helped Iranian leaders boost their diplomatic profile. Thus, it becomes more imperative for India to emphasize that NAM has a much larger mandate but the movement definitely needs a leadership and a motto for its continued relevance.

Furthermore, the Indian strategic community has deliberated on this and produced the much-debated Non-Alignment 2.0 Document which has its equal shares of supporters and carpers. But, such brainstorming needs to be taken forward among NAM members to try and reboot the framework in order to reflect the changing dynamics of international politics.

In sum, it is not hard to discern why US was critical of the XVIth NAM Summit in Tehran. Washington sees the Summit as another opportunity for the Iranian regime to counter American and Israeli threats of reprisal. The US Administration is particularly worried that the leaders of NAM would give critical ammunition to Iranian leaders to prove that Tehran is not isolated diplomatically as the US-led Western sanctions desire it to be.

Thus, India has vital ties with both the United States and Iran. As such, New Delhi needs to clearly delineate its interests and concerns and at the same time US needs to be more nuanced. It needs to let it be known that US ire is not targeted against NAM.

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)