Non-Aligned Movement Roles And Relevance
Yuba Nath Lamsal
As the 17th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was underway in Margarita Island of Venezuela on September 13-18, a real debate started outside on the role and relevance of the NAM in the changed global scenario. The NAM was created 55 years ago at the height of the Cold War marked by a stiff superpower rivalry and division of the world into two rival camps each led by a super power. The NAM was necessary at that time as many countries of the ‘Third World’ could not afford to side with any of the two rival blocs but chose to remain neutral. The NAM, therefore, became an appropriate forum for the countries wishing to have equal partnership and friendship with all countries irrespective of their ideological orientation and strategic alignment. But the international situation and scenario are markedly different at present. Now a question has arisen in the international forums and debates: Is the NAM necessary in the present situation or is it just a waste of resources, energy and time?
Common platform
The founding principles of the NAM were anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, which appealed to many countries in the world that had either recently been liberated or were still waging national liberation movements to free themselves from the yoke of colonialism and imperialism. The NAM, thus, became a common platform for them to push forward their common agendas as specter of imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism continued to hang around and afflict the countries around the world, more particularly the developing nations.
Immediately after the World War II, the global power scenario changed. Until the World War II, the United Kingdom was the center of international power as it used to boast that the sun never set in its empire. The fundamental bases of British power and wealth were its colonies. But after the war, the national liberation movement across the globe intensified so rapidly that the erstwhile colonies were liberated one after another, heavily weakening British power. As British power diminished, the United States emerged to fill the vacuum in the international power politics and became the dominant global power, while Soviet Union suddenly came into the international scene as a rival power challenging the domination of the Western powers.
In the juggling for influence and power in the international arena, two distinct rival camps emerged with the capitalist United States leading the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the communist Soviet Union commanding another rival block called the Warsaw Pact. The rivalry between these two blocs was so intense that the proxy wars between the two rival blocs were more dangerous than the traditional wars fought ever in the history of mankind. This was a period called as the ‘Cold War’ during which many inter-state and intra-state wars were fought killing more people than the number of people killed in five years during the World War II.
This new scenario caused dilemma to many developing countries. It was more dangerous situation than that of the past. Against this background, the non-aligned movement came into existence. An international conference of 25 developing countries in Belgrade of erstwhile Yugoslavia in 1961 formally gave birth to the NAM, and this gathering was dubbed as the first summit of the NAM. But the NAM did not come so easily and overnight.
There had been quite a lot hidden and otherwise exercises before than that. The Bandung Conference of Indonesia in 1955 was, in fact, a beginning of the NAM as 19 participating countries felt the necessity of an organisation of the neutral countries. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia were the mastermind behind this movement in which Nepal later joined as one of the founding members.
The Bandung Conference not only drew an outline of the NAM but also set some fundamental principles governing the new international organisation, which were later called as the “Ten Principles of Bandung”. However, the ‘Ten Bandung Principles’ were later modified in the first NAM Summit in Belgrade and shortened to five points, which are famously known as the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence’ or ‘ Panchasheel’ as the fundamental basis of international relations.
The non-aligned movement was initiated at a time when the colonial system was in decline and independence struggles raged across Africa, Asia, Latin America and other regions of the world, which provided a hope of a better international world order for hitherto oppressed and exploited countries. Started humbly with 25 countries, NAM has now 120 members, although the organisation appears to be more in name rather than in action especially after the end of the Cold War.
Nepal is a founder member of the NAM. It participated in several rounds of formal and informal discussions on the need and modality of the NAM and its formal announcement in the Belgrade summit in 1961. The participating countries in the first NAM Summit were: Nepal, Afghanistan, Algeria, Yemen, Myanmar, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yugoslavia.
Nepal strictly adheres to the principles of the non-aligned movement in the conduct of its foreign policy, international relations and diplomacy. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal has incorporated these principles as the basic guiding principles of Nepal’s foreign policy. This, in itself, is the testament of Nepal’s unflinching faith and commitment to the NAM and its principles. Moreover, the fundamental principles of NAM or ‘Panchaseela’ are more important for Nepal as these principles have their original roots in Nepal. Lord Buddha, who was born in Nepal, propounded the ‘Panchasheela’ consisting of five codes of human conduct and international relations some 2500 year ago.
Lost charm
The NAM is, perhaps, the first international organisation that advocated the rights and interests of the oppressed and exploited countries of the South and raised voice against the countries of the north. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War, there is no dearth of analysts both in the developed and developing countries alike who raise the question on the role and relevance of the non-aligned movement. The NAM has, of course, lost its original charm and but not its relevance.
The world and international balance of power definitely changed over the years and decades. The world is no longer bipolar nor will the present state of unipolarity stay forever. The world scenario has changed and is bound to keep on changing, continuously and steadily, in future, too, which is the law of nature. Several poles are slowly emerging challenging the US-led unipolar state, thus, requiring even stronger international movements to bring the developing countries together into a common forum for collectively safeguarding their common and shared interests refraining from siding with any of the poles, groups and blocs.
The NAM may appear irrelevant at present given the state of global order, but situation will not always remain as it is now and different world order is sure to emerge in which the NAM may be more relevant. But Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) requires reforms in itself with newer strategies and concepts to work better in coping with the newly emerged international situation and in achieving the shared objectives of the member countries.
As the 17th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was underway in Margarita Island of Venezuela on September 13-18, a real debate started outside on the role and relevance of the NAM in the changed global scenario. The NAM was created 55 years ago at the height of the Cold War marked by a stiff superpower rivalry and division of the world into two rival camps each led by a super power. The NAM was necessary at that time as many countries of the ‘Third World’ could not afford to side with any of the two rival blocs but chose to remain neutral. The NAM, therefore, became an appropriate forum for the countries wishing to have equal partnership and friendship with all countries irrespective of their ideological orientation and strategic alignment. But the international situation and scenario are markedly different at present. Now a question has arisen in the international forums and debates: Is the NAM necessary in the present situation or is it just a waste of resources, energy and time?
Common platform
The founding principles of the NAM were anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, which appealed to many countries in the world that had either recently been liberated or were still waging national liberation movements to free themselves from the yoke of colonialism and imperialism. The NAM, thus, became a common platform for them to push forward their common agendas as specter of imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism continued to hang around and afflict the countries around the world, more particularly the developing nations.
Immediately after the World War II, the global power scenario changed. Until the World War II, the United Kingdom was the center of international power as it used to boast that the sun never set in its empire. The fundamental bases of British power and wealth were its colonies. But after the war, the national liberation movement across the globe intensified so rapidly that the erstwhile colonies were liberated one after another, heavily weakening British power. As British power diminished, the United States emerged to fill the vacuum in the international power politics and became the dominant global power, while Soviet Union suddenly came into the international scene as a rival power challenging the domination of the Western powers.
In the juggling for influence and power in the international arena, two distinct rival camps emerged with the capitalist United States leading the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the communist Soviet Union commanding another rival block called the Warsaw Pact. The rivalry between these two blocs was so intense that the proxy wars between the two rival blocs were more dangerous than the traditional wars fought ever in the history of mankind. This was a period called as the ‘Cold War’ during which many inter-state and intra-state wars were fought killing more people than the number of people killed in five years during the World War II.
This new scenario caused dilemma to many developing countries. It was more dangerous situation than that of the past. Against this background, the non-aligned movement came into existence. An international conference of 25 developing countries in Belgrade of erstwhile Yugoslavia in 1961 formally gave birth to the NAM, and this gathering was dubbed as the first summit of the NAM. But the NAM did not come so easily and overnight.
There had been quite a lot hidden and otherwise exercises before than that. The Bandung Conference of Indonesia in 1955 was, in fact, a beginning of the NAM as 19 participating countries felt the necessity of an organisation of the neutral countries. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia were the mastermind behind this movement in which Nepal later joined as one of the founding members.
The Bandung Conference not only drew an outline of the NAM but also set some fundamental principles governing the new international organisation, which were later called as the “Ten Principles of Bandung”. However, the ‘Ten Bandung Principles’ were later modified in the first NAM Summit in Belgrade and shortened to five points, which are famously known as the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence’ or ‘ Panchasheel’ as the fundamental basis of international relations.
The non-aligned movement was initiated at a time when the colonial system was in decline and independence struggles raged across Africa, Asia, Latin America and other regions of the world, which provided a hope of a better international world order for hitherto oppressed and exploited countries. Started humbly with 25 countries, NAM has now 120 members, although the organisation appears to be more in name rather than in action especially after the end of the Cold War.
Nepal is a founder member of the NAM. It participated in several rounds of formal and informal discussions on the need and modality of the NAM and its formal announcement in the Belgrade summit in 1961. The participating countries in the first NAM Summit were: Nepal, Afghanistan, Algeria, Yemen, Myanmar, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yugoslavia.
Nepal strictly adheres to the principles of the non-aligned movement in the conduct of its foreign policy, international relations and diplomacy. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal has incorporated these principles as the basic guiding principles of Nepal’s foreign policy. This, in itself, is the testament of Nepal’s unflinching faith and commitment to the NAM and its principles. Moreover, the fundamental principles of NAM or ‘Panchaseela’ are more important for Nepal as these principles have their original roots in Nepal. Lord Buddha, who was born in Nepal, propounded the ‘Panchasheela’ consisting of five codes of human conduct and international relations some 2500 year ago.
Lost charm
The NAM is, perhaps, the first international organisation that advocated the rights and interests of the oppressed and exploited countries of the South and raised voice against the countries of the north. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War, there is no dearth of analysts both in the developed and developing countries alike who raise the question on the role and relevance of the non-aligned movement. The NAM has, of course, lost its original charm and but not its relevance.
The world and international balance of power definitely changed over the years and decades. The world is no longer bipolar nor will the present state of unipolarity stay forever. The world scenario has changed and is bound to keep on changing, continuously and steadily, in future, too, which is the law of nature. Several poles are slowly emerging challenging the US-led unipolar state, thus, requiring even stronger international movements to bring the developing countries together into a common forum for collectively safeguarding their common and shared interests refraining from siding with any of the poles, groups and blocs.
The NAM may appear irrelevant at present given the state of global order, but situation will not always remain as it is now and different world order is sure to emerge in which the NAM may be more relevant. But Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) requires reforms in itself with newer strategies and concepts to work better in coping with the newly emerged international situation and in achieving the shared objectives of the member countries.
Comments
Post a Comment