Round The World
New
Delhi, 30 September 2016
Non-Aligned
Movement
HERITAGE OR CORE
PRINCIPLE?
By Dr.S.Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
Prime Minister Modi’s absence from
the 17th Non-Aligned Summit (NAM) held recently in Venezuela gave rise to speculation regarding India’s foreign
policy, both from friends and foes of the NDA Government.
Notably, it has triggered debates on
NAM’s
relevance and even the future of this movement in the context of increasing
globalization.
The Prime Minister missed the Summit, but India was very much present and
represented by Vice-President Hamid Ansari.
Perhaps, this was to establish Modi’s contention that NAM is one of “India’s Heritage” though not its
“core principle”.
Questionably, should one respect, promote
and use this heritage instrument to encounter the challenges of today? Or dump
it in the backyard as a relic of the past to be remembered ceremonially without
any attachment or great expectations?
Pertinently, in the 55 years since NAM’s inception
in 1961, tremendous changes have taken place in global politics and economics totally
altering the basics of international relations. Given, bilateral, multilateral
and global agreements are all presently governed by factors far different from
those which were at work in the 1960s.
Remember, NAM
emerged in the context of the bitter Cold War which divided the world into two
antagonistic camps --- USA
and its friends on one side and the Soviet Union
and its associates on the other.
Moreover, alignment of countries
which were strongly driven by feelings of nationalism, anti-colonialism and
economic under-development and which were disinclined to join either bloc in
the bi-polar politics, gave rise to the Non-Alignment Movement on the
initiative of Tito, Nasser, and Nehru.
At the time of its creation, NAM had 25 members.
Of the three leading nations, Tito’s
Yugoslavia
broke into six independent nations in the early 1990s. Nasser’s Egypt has undergone internal
upheavals culminating in the big Tahrir
Square uprising in 2011. And Nehru’s India is
systematically and democratically redefining Peruvian politics and economics.
NAM Summit meetings, except those held
in 1979 and 2016 were attended by all Indian Prime Ministers. Primarily as it is the second biggest international
organization after the UNO.
Currently, it has 120 member States,
17 observer States and 10 observer organizations. A
bulk of members are from Africa totaling 53.
India’s Modi was not alone as several
other top leaders also skipped the Summit
this year and sent their representatives.
Bangladesh, Iran, Nepal,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka were
not represented by their Prime Ministers.
Interestingly, China is not a NAM
member but has been attending Summit
meetings as observer since the 1980s. Indeed,
being present in international forums wherever possible is a strategy in
foreign policy adopted by many upcoming countries keen on playing a role in
international politics to make their presence felt and their voice heard.
Undoubtedly, the relevance of NAM post the
Cold War is a big question. However, the over-all thinking seems to be in
favour of redefining its role. Namely, to assert the independence of individual
countries against Western imperialism of any kind.
Consequently, it has led to
enlarging the scope of non-alignment from international politics to various other
non-political global issues. Given that politics today is inextricably
intertwined with non-political affairs. There is no pure politics in
International dealings.
Further, many of NAM members today
have several kinds of bilateral relations and have formed blocs for
international cooperation and development in various spheres. Thus they cannot
assume a pose as anti-Western, anti- imperialism or even anti-colonialism. But, they can stand against hegemony politics
to some extent.
Surely, non-alignment in Cold War
politics cannot be transformed into anti-US or anti-developed countries under
the pretext of safeguarding the interests and independence of developing
countries which constitute bulk of NAM membership.
Think. Indo-US relations is an
important aspect of our foreign policy as also our interest in forging economic
ties with South and South-Eastern nations. Brazil,
China, Russia and South
Africa are India’s partners in different blocs
to present a united front and safeguard their common interests.
As it stands, in today’s world there
are multiple poles competing for primacy while the USA remains undisputed on top. New
power centres cultivate relationships with emerging nations in their struggle
for removal of inequalities and imbalances in social and economic progress.
Towards that end, the theme for this
year’s NAM Summit was chosen to defend the rights of nations for “Peace,
Sovereignty, and Solidarity for Development”.
The task set was to review the international situation vis-à-vis these goals thus fitting NAM in the
global march towards “development”. Hence, the question of debating NAM’s relevance
is irrelevant.
Besides, the Summit Declaration touches
a variety of objectives like revitalizing the movement, strengthening
international peace, security, self-determination, human rights, international
solidarity and fighting terrorism.
It stressed the importance of
dialogue, democratization of economic governance, South-South cooperation, New
World Information and Communication Order, education, science and technology
for development and cooperation for fulfilling the goals of Sustainable
Development.
The Summit also condemned the practice of issuing
unilateral sanctions, expressed alarm at climate change and urged developed
countries to fulfill their commitments even as it welcomed a high-level meeting
to discuss the refugees and migrants problem.
Also, the situation in the Middle East and terrorism were considered as destabilizing
factors requiring united action. While
the Declaration was common, NAM
countries themselves might have different approaches on these issues.
What’s more, NAM declared
that the UN peace keeping operation must adhere to the principles and purposes
enshrined in its Charter. While voting for
UN reforms it plumed for strengthening the UN General Assembly for which
concerted pressure of many countries in every international platforms is
required.
Certainly, continuing NAM membership cannot be an embarrassment to India though it has a number of separate
agreements with several countries including USA
and China. Globalization or global economic integration
allows every country to have more freedom in its foreign relations without
being understood as taking sides.
There is no concept as equal
relationship with every country under NAM. Additionally, non-alignment is
as much an economic strategy as political and helps a nation to frame its
economic policy to promote national interests.
Critics are inclined to remark that India’s foreign
policy is slowly and definitely changing with more importance being given to
regional organizations and bilateral agreements. ASEAN, BRICS, BIMSTEC and even EU appear to be
more important to India than
NAM.
So also are G 20 and East Asia
Summit. India’s
Logistic Agreement with the USA
is seen as a shift in its foreign policy involving a move away from
non-alignment.
But, this is not so as NAM is also
undergoing changes in its priorities and outlook. Its struggle is now entering
a new phase with the object of establishing a more equitable international
order in which politics (in the sense of regime changes, war and peace) is but
one aspect of international relations.
Clearly, for India every
international platform is important to gather strength and support for its
fight against terrorism. And every
international agreement which benefits the country in some way is worth
pursuing. Participation by the Government
is important and not who represents the country. ---- INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|