Dr. Shreesh
With the disintegration of the European colonial system after the Second World War, many things appeared on the international stage that changed the nature, style and strategies of international relations. Among those things, the emergence of new nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America brought about such a drastic change that the nature of international relations underwent a significant change in terms of its contents and style. Non-alignment is an Indo-Anglican word. With the only exception of the Random House Dictionary, no other dictionary recognises non words. So, as a concept, Non-alignment owes its origin to India. It was during our national independence movement, says Subimal Dutt in his memoirs ‘With Nehru in the Foreign Office', that "the principle of non-alignment was accepted by the Congress at Haripura session (1939). Even our culture and philosophy preaches what we refer to today as non-alignment, And this old Indian philosophy was asserted by Gandhi when he advocated that "India should be friendly to all, enemy to none."i
It
was long before India became free that Jawaharlal Nehru, when he was
in charge of External Affairs in the Interim Government, had
declared that independent India would keep away from power blocs. In
1946, he declared again that India would follow an independent
foreign policy. He said, "We purpose as far as possible, to keep
away from the power politics of groups, aligned against one another,
which have led in the past two World Wars and which may again lead to
disaster on an even wider scale."ii
It was however, after the attainment of independence by India
with unique historical experiences, geographical situation, and the
perception of its national interest by enlightened leadership
that non-alignment as a policy came to occupy an important position
in international relations.
Burmese
Prime Minister took the same stand when he declared in 1948 that "of
all of the three great powers, U.K. the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., Burma
should be in friendly relations with all the three." It was
again in 1950 that it declared that Burma does not desire "alignment
with a particular power bloc antagonistic to other opposing bloc."iii
Indonesia also reciprocated the same feeling after gaining
independence.
Certain
people trace the origin of non-alignment in cold-wars. It was at the
Algiers Conference of the Non-aligned held in 1973 that it was
discussed whether non-alignment is a product of cold-war or anti-
colonial struggle. Fidel Castro of Cuba advocated that non-alignment
is essentially an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist move. He
questioned its ant bloc tendency while pleading that socialism is a
natural ally of non-alignment. To illustrate his contention, he
pointed that Soviet Russia has given persistent support to the goals
and objectives of non- alignment.iv
Yugoslavia, on the other hand, advocated a policy of equidistance
from the power blocs. Equidistance implies its origin in cold- war.
According to him, the major object of non-alignment is to preserve
peace between the major powers. P.N Haskar says, "As far as
India was concerned, non-alignment did not originate in Belgrade. It
did not even originate in the Conference of certain number of Afro-
Asian States held in Bandung in April, 1955.”v
Its roots lay deep in the very struggle for our freedom against
British Imperialism and in the ethos and world view which Gandhi and
Nehru imparted to that struggle giving to the most down-trodden
Indian a sense of national identity, transcending the narrow confines
of our social, religious and regime structures.
Inception
of NAM: An Obvious Need to be Non-aligned
After
the Second World War ended, two major superpowers arose in the
world-USA and former USSR. Their mutual rivalry resulted in the
formation of two hostile military blocs. Consequently an atmosphere
of tension, distrust, and fear developed between 1945 and 1991 known
as the ‘cold war’. As many former imperialist colonies were
attaining independence, both sides tried to draw these new
independent nations into their respective blocs. The ones joining the
blocs were given economic and military aid and were expected to
provide military and political support in turn, if a conflict arose.
India did not wish to ally itself with either party because it was
aware of the high price of military involvement and also that the new
found freedom would become meaningless. Therefore, it tried to
initiate a movement for world peace independently. Our leaders also
felt that peace simply did not mean the absence of war. It also meant
healthy cooperation amongst nations for the benefit of all. This
policy, which was supported by many newly independent nations, came
to be defined as the Non-aligned Movement. It meant an impartial
approach towards world issues without being influenced by either
bloc.
Non-Alignment
does not mean being neutral or not involved in foreign affairs. It
means remaining apart from military and political groups while taking
an active part in promoting world peace and understanding amongst
nations. It also means taking an independent stand on international
matters. As discussed, non-alignment has its political, economic and
social roots in the anti-colonial struggles of the era of post-World
War II. It is a movement aimed at bringing in a new international
order which is just. In this new order, the States should not be
discriminated against because of their history, their social origin
and size. The new nations joined this movement with different
backgrounds, traditions and perceptions of themselves and their
interests.
Each
had a strong sense of national identity along with a common passion
for an international order based on equality. It means to be friendly
with all but only on a footing of equality and reciprocity and not be
hooked to military alliance. Non-alignment means efforts to retain
independence of thought, judgment and action under conditions of
cold-war which generated military alliance and agreements of all
sorts. Its purpose is to enlarge the areas of peace and co-operation.
So, the essence of non-alignment lies in the freedom and independence
of a country to judge each issue as it arises on its own merits, as
it affects the national interests, of the country concerned and the
interest of peace in the world but not on the basis of a
predetermined attitude because of alignment with one great power or
another. This movement became an important forum for those countries
that did not want to support either bloc, but wished to work for the
cause of peace and cooperation amongst nations.
Most
of the new nations sought to realise this object through a movement
which has come to be known as non-alignment. The whole story of
non-alignment from Belgrade Conference (1961) to the latest, Harare
Conference (1986) confirms the resolve of the new nations in
reshaping the international order. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is
a Movement of 118 members representing the interests and priorities
of developing countries. The Movement has its origin in the
Asia-Africa Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955. The
meeting was convened upon the invitation of the Prime Ministers of
Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia and Pakistan and brought together
leaders of 29 states, mostly former colonies, from the two continents
of Africa and Asia, to discuss common concerns and to develop joint
policies in international relations. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first
Prime Minister or India, President Sukarno of Indonesia and President
Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt led the Conference and later the
Movement. At the meeting, Third World leaders shared their similar
problems of resisting the pressures of the major powers, maintaining
their independence and opposing colonialism and neo-colonialism,
especially western domination.
Non-Aligned
Movement: Meaning and Nature
Most
of the western scholars take non-alignment as a negative concept
because of the existence of the word. In this respect, they consider
it as something comparable to neutrality, because it is primarily a
response to the cold-war, and only a part of a product of rising
nationalism. Afro-Asian nationalism is a function of bipolarity. Let
us, however, discuss its true nature.
1.
Non-alignment is not to do with Neutrality:
The
concept of non-alignment is altogether different from the concept
of neutrality. Neutrality is an attitude of non-participation or
refusal to take sides on any issue irrespective of its merits.
Alignment is an attitude of openly declaring in advance that the
country will be on the side of another country aligned with it
irrespective of the merits of the case. Non-alignment, on the other
hand, does not decant in advance. A non-aligned country will judge
each case as arises on its merits as it sees it and not as others see
it. It is a concept of liberty and freedom at State level. Neutrality
is a concept relevant only in times of war.
Neutrality
means to keep aloof from war. Non-alignment, on the other hand, is a
concept relevant both in peace and war. Non-alignment has thus little
to do with neutrality or partiality. Neutrality imposes certain
limitations and confers some rights. A neutral country has to prove
in practice its neutrality in war. Non-alignment, on the other hand,
believes in furthering one's own interest in the light of the
prevailing circumstances according to one's own independent
judgment, both in peace and war. Non-alignment means freedom from
obligations and commitments. Non-alignment does not debar alliance
with a country to advance national interests. Even Nehru declared
that, "We are free to join an alliance." Speaking before
the U.S. Congress in 1949, Nehru said, "India cannot and shall
not be neutral where freedom is threatened or justice denied. To be
neutral would be a denial of all that we stand for."vi
The conclusions of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and
Cooperation and the treaty of Friendship between India and Bangladesh
do not detract India from the path of freedom of choice to adjudge
her own interests.
Secondly,
neutrality is different from non-alignment in the sense that neutral
countries acquired this status through or as a result of the
provisions contained in either their respective municipal laws, or by
international treaties and agreements. This means the commitment of
those countries to neutrality continues irrespective of governmental
changes in those countries. The status of Switzerland as a neutral
country stands even though the Government changes. But in case of
non-alignment, the commitment of a country may change with
change in Government. We find that India under the Janata
Government opted for what they termed 'genuine non-alignmentvii'
which stressed policy of equidistance.
2.
Non-alignment doesn’t qualify as an Ideology:
So,
non-alignment is not an ideology or a dogma. It is not a fixed or
static philosophy. It is dynamic and adjusts itself to reality and
reconciles between the interests of one's own country and that
of other countries of the world. Non-alignment does not favour
intervention but non- aligned States sometimes do interfere in the
internal affairs of others as India did with respect to Nepal, Bhutan
and Sikkim. The aid given by India to Burma during the Civil War in
1949 is nothing short of interference in the internal affairs of
Burma. The opposition of India to the acceptance of arms assistance
by Pakistan from U.S.A. is also an instance to illustrate India's
interference into the internal affairs of Pakistan.
3.
Non-alignment is a Tool:
Non-alignment
is a means, a method through which peace and progress not only in a
particular country but throughout the world is sought to be achieved.
It is not a negative approach. It is definitely positive. In areas
where India's vital interests are involved, especially in
neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan, India
cannot afford to sit idle. India cannot watch merely as a
spectator. In case where distant countries are involved, a
non-aligned country must give moral and political support.
NAM:
Basic Values
As
a concept and movement, non-alignment upholds certain values- while
opposing certain other values. Let us discuss them in detail.
1.
No Association with Military Alliances
Non-alignment
stands- for dissociation from military alliances that came into
existence as a result of rivalry between the super-powers. Military
alliances attempt to create spheres of influence, promote arms race
and thus increase tension in the world. It was on account of the
membership of military alliances such as SEATO and CENTO that India
opposed that entry of Pakistan into non-aligned movement at the time
of the Colombo Conference held in 1976. It is now after having given
up membership of military pacts that Pakistan could be admitted as a
member at the Havana Conference held in 1979.viii
Rather, the alliances of which Pakistan was a member have
disintegrated. This has proved the truth of the contention that non-
alignment is gaining ground against military alliances.
2.
Attainment of National Interest
In
spite of the fact that non-alignment aims at ushering in a just and
peaceful international order, it is not blind to the fact that the
existence of a nation depends upon seeking its own national interest.
It is in this context that Nehru stressed that your relations with a
particular country can be more cordial and friendly.
3.
Amalgamation of National Interest with Internationalism:
Promotion
of national interest keeping in view the achievement of peace in the
world means that non-alignment is a synthesis of nationalism and
internationalism. The ideals of the leaders of the high priests of
non- alignment were shaped by the traditions of their ancient
civilisation as also the Western liberal education in which they were
brought up. The Indian leaders were in particular influenced by the
moralist traditions of Buddha, Ashoka and Mahatma Gandhi. It is the
Gandhian concept of non-violence at the national level that was
extended by Nehru to the international plane through the police of
peaceful co-existence and non- involvement with military rivalry of
big powers. Just as non-violence was based on courage and conviction
and the best and most peaceful way of achieving independence so was
non-alignment born out of conviction and sheer necessity of survival
of the newly independent countries.
4.
A Serious Concern for World Peace
Non-alignment
is concerned with the maintenance of peace in the world. This is but
natural in a world where nuclear holocaust can destroy the whole of
the world within no time. Moreover, the non aligned countries are
against the use of force in settling international disputes. They are
of the view that war instead of solving problems, tends to aggravate
them. Their concern for peace so much over-shadows other things that
at times they do not bother for their own national interest. Peace is
considered necessary for the eradication of poverty and squalor
from the world.
5.
Looking for Economic Support
All
the new nations that joined non-aligned movement were
under-developed. Their primary job was to develop their countries at
the earliest possible. Development could be possible only through
economic and technological assistance from the industrialised and
developed countries. This assistance was sought from countries of
both the blocs. But this assistance was given with certain conditions
and had therefore, politico-economic implications. Moreover, the
moral and psychological effect of this end was also not in the
interest of recipient country. This made certain countries like India
to receive aid in sectors which are critical for creating national
know-how and infrastructure for future development in a way that
the need for future assistance would end. In addition, efforts
have been made by the non-aligned countries to evolve self-reliance.
It is sought to be achieved through pooling of resources and reducing
dependence on the developed countries. India is taking a leading
position in creating self-reliance and self-confidence among the
non-aligned countries. In spite of the fact that India is a poor
country, its food position is satisfactory, and its foreign exchange
reserves are enough and it is without exaggeration one of the most
advanced countries in the field of science, technology and industry.
She is rather helping countries of South, South East and West Asia in
many ways.
6.
Sovereignty of Judgment on International issues
The
root characteristic feature of the non-aligned is the independence of
judgment which the non-aligned countries enjoy on international
issues. They judge every issue on its own merit without any dictation
from any other country. This has been asserted by many leaders of the
non-aligned countries. Nehru declared that non-alignment is "a
policy of acting according to our best judgment.”ix
7.
Democratic Approach to International Relations
Non-
aligned countries believe in a democratic approach to international
relations by all the countries of the world. Vice-President
Nixon and Secretary of State Dulles used almost abusive language for
the concept of non-alignment in 1956. Nehru urged upon them neither
to suppress discussion nor give up tolerate in discussing
external relations of the new nations. Nehru said, "I submit for
consideration that Mr. Nixon and Mr. Dulles are saying something that
is opposed to the democratic way of life. The very basis of democracy
is tolerance for differing points of view."x
8.
Resistance to Colonialism and Racialism:
Non-aligned
countries are opposed to racialism and colonialism in any form. It
was to condemn Dutch action on Indonesia and plead for the freedom of
Indonesia that Nehru called a conference in New Delhi in 1954.
It was at the Bandung Conference held in 1955 where the
representatives from Asia and Africa condemned racialism and
colonialism.xi
Sukarno and Nehru were in particular concerned about the possibility
that anti-colonial struggle would become institutionalised.
Concern for the freedom of Zimbabve (Rhodesia) was expressed deeply
by the non-aligned countries particularly India. Non-alignment is
also opposed to racialism as practiced in South Africa.
9.
Opposition to Power Politics:
Morgenthau
and Schwarzen berger regard international relations as a struggle for
power.xii
Power implies a particular man's control over the minds and actions
of other men. Non- alignment rejects at least in theory, this game of
power politics. Instead, it believes in influence politics. Influence
politics differs from power politics in the sense that influence
believes in persuasion while power lies in compelling other by the
use of force to do what he would not have done otherwise.
10.
Establishment of New International Economic Order:
In
spite of the fact that the new nations have obtained freedom, they
are still dominated by the highly developed countries in the economic
sphere. They are tied in the economic system that believes in
exploitation of the poor and underdeveloped countries. In spite of
the fact that these new nations have made developmental plans, they
have not been able to make a little progress. The produce of the
poor, underdeveloped, countries is bought by the affluent nations at
a very low rate, while the finished goods prepared from that very
stuff imported from the underdeveloped countries is exported to them
at very high prices. This leads to deficit in balance of payments.
The aid given by the developed countries to the underdeveloped
nations is eaten back by the former to meet balance of payments
gap. The non-aligned countries plead for the replacement of this old
system by a New International Economic System.
Concern
for the new economic system was expressed for the first time at the
Conference held at Algiers in 1970.xiii
Consequently, many of the new nations providing raw-materials
decided to come together and act in unison to increase the prices of
their commodities. It was this strategy at Algiers that gave birth to
the demand for a New International Economic Order. This strategy
which was later used with great effect by the OPEC (Organisation of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries) provided a major threat for world
capitalist powers.
The
radical departure in the realm of economics gave the non-aligned
movement a new structural meaning in world politics. They became in
effect powerful bargaining groups within the context of international
economic relations. The bargaining power gave a new meaning to
their political demands, especially racialism and national
liberation.
Non-Aligned
Movement and World Politics
The
first Conference of Non-Aligned Heads of State or Government, at
which 25 countries were represented, was convened at Belgrade in
September 1961, largely through the initiative of Yugoslavian
President Josip Broz Tito.xiv
At that stage, the biggest concern was that an accelerating arms race
might result in war between the Soviet Union and the USA. Since its
inception the Movement attempted to create an independent path in
world politics that would not result in Member States becoming pawns
in the struggles between the major powers. This resulted in a large
part of its history being influenced by the global tension of the
Cold War between the two super powers. However, the Cold War was not
the sole or only critical issue on the agenda of the Non-Aligned
Movement.
There
were three basic elements that influenced the approaches of the
Movement to international issues the right of independent judgment,
the struggle against imperialism and neo-colonialism, and the
use of moderation in relations with all big powers.xv
The Movement also worked towards the restructuring of the
international economic order. Non-Alignment has made
self-determination and equality of all peoples, the free development
of the individual, the economic and social progress of society and of
nations its central preoccupations. By combining the question of
peace and development with the emancipation of peoples from all forms
of subordination and exploitation, Non- Alignment has become one of
the principal promoters of a positive development of international
relations on a global scale and a movement whose political stance,
concepts and strategy are of worldwide relevance.
The
Non-Aligned Movement can also be seen in terms of the Movement of the
newly-independent countries from the 1940s to 1960s. They strived for
Non-Alignment to make their voice heard on the international stage.
The Cold War, the imminent danger of confrontation, the necessity to
defeat colonialism in its orthodox or new form, the necessity to
erase the global causes of anomaly for even distribution of wealth
and technology, but mainly the necessity of consolidating
independence for the newly independent countries and of creating a
new code of interstate relations strengthened the Non-Aligned
Movement.
The
Movement in a real sense represents the poor of the world. Over
eighty per cent of those countries classified as being the least
developed belong to the Non-Aligned Movement. Most of the countries
which are seriously affected by the balance of payment deficits, food
scarcity and inflation are members of the Movement. Whether one looks
at life in terms of the Gross National Product, terms of trade,
industrial stagnation, caloric intake, health and service delivery,
adult literacy, population growth or life expectancy at birth, the
non-aligned countries are among the world's disadvantaged.
The
Jakarta Summit in 1992 was a turning point in Non-Aligned history
since it was the first Summit after the end of the Cold War.xvi
It allowed the Movement to shift its focus from the rhetoric of the
past to concrete work. The emphasis has shifted from the demands from
the developed countries to cooperation with the developed countries.
The
Non-Aligned Movement does not have a formal constitution or a
permanent secretariat. It has a practice of a rotating Chair, under
which its Chair is formally rotated to the Head of State or
Government of the host country of the Summit. The Foreign Ministry
and Permanent Mission in New York of the Chair at the same time
assume the responsibility of the administrative management of the
Movement. The Co-coordinating Bureau (CoB) at the United Nations in
New York forms the focal point for coordination among the NAM
Members.xvii
Since the Non-Aligned countries meet regularly at the UN and conduct
much of their work there, the Chairs' Permanent Representative to the
United Nations in New York functions as the Chair of the CoB. The
Bureau reviews and facilitates the harmonization of the work of the
NAM Working Groups, Contact Groups, Task Forces and Committees.
Some
of the Working Groups, Task Forces and Committees formed by NAM are:
High-Level Working Group for the Restructuring of the United Nations,
Working Group on Human Rights, Working Group on Peace-Keeping
Operations, Working Group on Disarmament, Committee on Palestine,
Task Force on Somalia, Non-Aligned Security Caucus, Standing
Ministerial Committee for Economic Cooperation, and Joint
Coordinating Committee (chaired by Chairman of G-77 and Chairman of
NAM).xviii
An important mechanism of NAM is the Troika of past, serving and
future Chairs. This concept is exercised at the discretion of the
incumbent Chair and can act as a clearinghouse for solutions of
problems and issues confronting developing countries on which the
Movement must take a position.
Apart
from Belgrade, where the first and the ninth Summits were held,
Summits have been held at Cairo, Lusaka, Algiers, Colombo, Havana,
New Delhi, Harare, Jakarta, Cartagena de India's, Durban and Kuala
Lumpur.xix
The Non-Aligned Movement has been quite outspoken in its criticism of
current UN structures and power dynamics, mostly in how the
organisation has been utilized by powerful states in ways that
violate the principles of NAM. It has made a number of
recommendations aimed at improving the transparency and democracy of
UN decision-making. NAM considers the UN Security Council to be the
most distorted and undemocratic of all UN Organs.
Hence,
it demands for reshaping and restructuring of the Security Council.
NAM accepts the universality of human rights and social justice, but
fiercely resists cultural homogenization. In line with its views on
sovereignty, the organisation appeals for the protection of cultural
diversity, and the tolerance of the religious, socio- cultural, and
historical particularities that define human rights in a specific
region.
NAM
has collaborated with other organizations of the developing world,
primarily the Group of 77, forming a number of joint committees and
releasing statements and documents representing the shared interests
of both groups. This dialogue and cooperation can be taken as an
effort to increase the global awareness about the organisation and
bolster its political clout.
Non-Aligned
Movement: Summitsxx
No.
|
Date
|
Country
|
Host
|
Brief
Outlines
|
1st
|
1–6
September 1961
|
In
this first summit of NAM, The participants in the Conference
consider that disarmament is an imperative need and the most
urgent task of mankind.
|
||
2nd
|
5–10
October 1964
|
The
Conference urges all nations to join in the cooperative
development of the peaceful use of atomic energy for the benefit
of all mankind; and in particular, to study the development of
atomic power and other technical aspects in which the
international cooperation might be most effectively accomplished
through the free flow of such scientific information
|
||
3rd
|
8–10
September 1970
|
The
Heads of State or Government of non-aligned countries, united by
common political and economic aspirations … recognizing that the
massive investments in the economic and social progress of mankind
can be made if agreements are reached to reduce expenditure on
armaments.
|
||
4th
|
5–9
September 1973
|
The
Conference declares itself in favour of general and complete
disarmament, and especially a ban on the use of nuclear weapons
and the manufacture of atomic weapons and warheads and the total
destruction of existing stocks. The
Conference
also declares itself in favour of the banning of all existing
chemical and bacteriological weapons.
The
Heads of State or Government welcome the adoption by the
twenty-sixth session of the UNGA of the Declaration of the Indian
Ocean as a zone of peace and the setting up by the UN of an ad-hoc
committee to consider the measures aimed at implementing the
declaration.
|
||
5th
|
16–19
August 1976
|
The
conference declared that the arms race is inconsistent with
efforts aimed at achieving the New International Economic Order in
view of the urgent need to divert the resources utilized for the
acceleration of the arms race towards socio-economic development,
particularly of the developing countries.
|
||
6th
|
3–9
September 1979
|
Heads
of state or Government of Non-Aligned Countries... support the
creation of nuclear free zones and zones of peace and cooperation
and that nuclear powers undertake to respect such zones.
|
||
7th
|
7–12
March 1983
|
appeal
to the great powers to give up mistrust, engage in sincere,
forward-looking negotiations in a spirit of shared good faith to
reach agreement on various disarmament measures and to find a
way
out of the deepening economic crisis which threatens all of us. In
order to prevent effectively the horizontal and vertical
proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapon States should
adopt urgent measures for halting and reversing the nuclear arms
race.
|
||
8th
|
1–6
September 1986
|
The
Heads of State or Government reiterated that the use of nuclear
weapons, besides being a violation of the Charter of the United
Nations, would also be a crime against humanity. The Heads of
State or Government affirmed the inalienable right of all States
to apply and develop their programmes for peaceful uses of nuclear
energy for economic and social development in conformity with
their priorities, interests and needs.
|
||
9th
|
4–7
September 1989
|
The
Heads of State or Government reiterated the need for non-nuclear
weapons states to be assured against the use or threat of use of
nuclear weapons, and urged for the early conclusion of an
international agreement for this purpose.
|
||
10th
|
1–6
September 1992
|
The
Heads of State or Government urged the negotiation of an
international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of
nuclear weapons under any circumstances. The Heads of State or
Government] continued to seek general and complete disarmament
under effective international control as an ultimate objective to
be attained within a specific time frame through the elimination
of all nuclear arsenals and all other WMD.
|
||
11th
|
18–20
October 1995
|
The
Heads of State or Government noted with concern the growing
restraint being placed on access to material, equipment and
technology for peaceful uses of nuclear energy by the developed
countries through imposition of ad-hoc export control regimes.
These impede the economic and social development of developing
countries.
|
||
12th
|
2–3
September 1998
|
The
Heads of State or Government expressed their satisfaction with the
work of the Non-Aligned
Working
Group on Disarmament under the co-ordination of Indonesia and
encouraged delegations to continue their active work in this
regard.
|
||
13th
|
20–25
February 2003
|
The
Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the inviolability of
peaceful nuclear activities and that
any
attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities
operational or under construction poses a great danger to human
beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of
International
law, principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and
regulations of the [IAEA].
|
||
14th
|
15–16
September 2006
|
The
Heads of State or Government emphasised the importance of the UN
activities at the regional level to increase the stability and
security of its Member States, which could be promoted in a
substantive manner by the maintenance and revitalization of the
three regional centres for peace and disarmament. The Heads of
State or Government reaffirmed the inalienable right of developing
countries to engage in research, production and use of nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.
|
||
15th
|
11–16
July 2009
|
The
Heads of State and Government emphasized the necessity to start
negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of
nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including
negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
|
||
16th
|
26–31
August 2012
|
The
Ministers reaffirmed that the total elimination of nuclear weapons
is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of
nuclear weapons and reaffirmed further that Non-Nuclear-Weapon
States (NNWS) should be effectively assured by NWS against the use
or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
|
||
17th
|
2015
|
|||
Changing
Concept of Non-alignment:
The
criterion of membership of non-aligned movement was laid down at the
first Belgrade Conference held in 1961. It isxxi:
-
The country should have followed an independent policy.
-
The country concerned should have supported the movement for national independence.
-
The country concerned should not be a member of the inter-national military alliances concluded in the context of Super-power conflicts.
-
If the country concerned is a member of the regional defence pact, this pact should not be deliberately concluded in the context of superpower conflicts.
-
If the country concerned has allowed military bases a foreign power, these bases should not have been allowed in the context of superpower conflicts.
Relevance
of Non-Aligned Movement
The
relevance of the NAM since the collapse of the Soviet Union has also
been questioned. With some commentators speculating whether the
organization has outlived its usefulness. In 2003 Thabo Mbeki,
President of South Africa, the NAM countries warned that the
movement’s future depended on its response to global challenges. He
called on the NAM to take stronger resolution on issues of concern.xxii
In the present international scenario, the dominancy of USA and the
other developed countries is gradually increasing. The American
hegemony is viewed not only in the United Nation's meetings, but also
in already intervention all over the world. Under these
circumstances, NAM has to play an important role in revitalizing UNO
so that it may remain a major entity in solving the international
problems.
Almost
all the countries are facing the threat of terrorism today. NAM has
been endeavouring for peace and complete nuclear disarmament ever
since its inception. It always asserts that disarmament is closely
related with the very survival of humanity. The rise of religious
fanaticism, ethnic nationalism and internal conflicts are other
crucial problems facing the world today. NAM can play an effective
role in drawing the attention of the world towards the present
problems. NAM’s conference has laid stress on many such aspects,
but got little success. NAM has to work more vigorously to achieve
its goal. NAM is facing many challenges in the present scenario. NAM,
an International movement, may have some shortcomings but as a
foreign policy it has a great value and will always enjoy great
importance.
To
say that NAM has lost its relevance is a wrong conclusion. It is
argued, that NAM couldn't get any positive success so far, still the
voice raised by NAM on so many issues forced the Super Powers to
vindicate their actions. The US or other developed countries were
bound to reply the points raised by NAM. In a nutshell it can so be
concluded that NAM has not lost its relevance. It has stood test of
adverse circumstances. It has served an important purpose of
protecting and preserving the interests of third world countries.
In
the words of R. Venkataraman (Former President of India)xxiii:
"NAM
is not an ‘ism’. It cannot become outdated any more than common
sense can become outdated. No national, no group of nations can
disregard the NAM. It must today raise its voice against the
injustices and inequities of the current decade and the emerging
21 st century."
With
fall of USSR as super power the world has become unipolar revolving
around US. During the cold war era NAM had helped in easing the
tension due to increase in its membership, giving moral check on
superpower overwhelming strength in UN assembly.
NAM
is committed to the universal problem of peace and freedom, equality
and fraternity. As long as it supports the cause of socio-economic
uplift of the developing country it will remain relevant. As long as
there is exploitation, injustice, war, destruction, hunger and
poverty, NAM will not lose its importance. New International economic
order needs its strengthening so that it can fight for the cause of
the poor. To consider NAM as a by product of bipolar world is in
itself a wrong premise. To eliminate the US hegemony, NAM can act as
a safety valve to the developing nation.
What
is Non-Alignment 2.0...?
The
recent release of a report, ‘Non
Alignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the Twenty
First Century’,
has reignited debates surrounding the resurrection of the
Non-Alignment Movement. Indian foreign policy is often criticised as
ad hoc, lacking consistent strategic and ideological underpinnings.
With the intention to counter such allegations, Non Alignment 2.0
seeks to provide an ideological alternative for the future of Indian
international relations that centres itself on the fundamental notion
of strategic autonomy.xxiv
In the words of Sunil Khilnani, one of the eight esteemed
contributors, ‘Non alignment 2.0 is an attempt to identify basic
principles that may guide Indian foreign and strategic policy in the
decades to come and beyond’. It identifies an essential link
between India’s domestic policy and foreign policy and suggests an
outside-in approach to understanding the way in which foreign policy
will forge and influence domestic politics, emphasising that domestic
development will hinge on the management of international
opportunities. The report aims to fill the strategic deficit in
Indian foreign policy and seeks to facilitate a unanimous ‘strategic’
consensus to achieve India’s developmental goals. According
to the report,
a future policy of India must be centred on three “core
objectives”: “To ensure that India did not define its national
interest or approach to world politics in terms of ideologies and
goals that had been set elsewhere; that India retained maximum
strategic autonomy to pursue its development goals; and that India
worked to build national power as the foundation for creating a just
and equitable world order.”xxv
The
document rightly stresses that the core objectives non-alignment were
to ensure that India did not define its national interests or
approach to world politics in terms of ideologies and goals that had
been set elsewhere, that India retained maximum strategic autonomy to
pursue its own development goals and that India worked to build
national power as the foundation for creating a more just and
equitable global order. The document further says that our objective
should be to enhance India’s strategic space and capacity for
independent policy-making which will create maximum options for our
own internal development. This should be taken note of seriously by
our foreign policy-making experts and officials. The US has been
publicly urging India to leave the NAM. In this backdrop it is
welcome that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is attended the Tehran NAM
Summit, which gave us an opportunity to reassert our position in the
Movement and imparted new guidelines and a fresh vision as well as
renewed momentum to the NAM while reinventing our strategic
partnership with Iran.xxvi
Hence,
we see Non-Aligned Movement is reinventing itself to be so relevant
in present times and also in the challenges of future world as it had
been in the past.
End
Notes
i
Datt, Subimal (1977), “With Nehru in the Foreign Office”,
Minerva Associates Publications
ii
Sen, Sailendra Nath (2010), “An
Advanced History of Modern India”, Macmillan, p.326
iii
Collignon, Stefan (2001), “Burma:Political Economy under Military
Rule”, C. Hurst & Co. Publisher
v
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~triner/global/NonAlignment3rdWorld.pdf
vi
Man & Development, Volume 1, Issues 2-3, page no.56
vii
Jayapalan, N. (2001), “Foreign Policy in India”, Atlantic
Publishers & Dist, p.100
viii
Dixit,
J. N. (2002), “India-Pakistan: War & Peace”, Psychology
Press, p.236
x
Jha,
Nalini Kant (2009), “Domestic
imperatives in India's foreign policy”,
International
Academic Publishers, p.43
xi
http://www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/lr/sp001716/bandung.html
xii
http://goo.gl/i8XW8
xiii
http://cns.miis.edu/nam/documents/Summit_Summary/1973_4th_Summit_Summary.pdf
xiv
http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/non-aligned-movement-nam/
xv
http://www.nam.gov.za/background/history.htm
xvi Srivastava, Renu (1995), “India and the Nonaligned Summits: Belgrade to Jakarta”, Northern Book Centre, p.67
xvii
http://www.nam.gov.za/background/history.htm
xviii
Trivedi,
Sonu (2005), “Handbook
Of International Organisations”, Atlantic Publishers, p. 188
xix
http://www.nam.gov.za/background/history.htm
xx
http://cns.miis.edu/nam/documents/Summit_Summary/2009_15th_Summit_Summary.pdf
xxii
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2798187.stm
xxiii
http://goo.gl/71tUu
xxiv
http://www.cprindia.org/sites/default/files/NonAlignment%202.0_1.pdf
xxv
http://pinpointpolitics.co.uk/?p=934
xxvi
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3668.html
