"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress." - Mahatma Gandhi
Friday, July 24, 2009
NAM Summit: New hopes
THE two-day long 15th NAM Summit ended successfully at the Egyptian Red Sea resort Sharm-el-Sheikh on July 16th with a 100-page Declaration. It gave new hope that a movement and an organization that was the product of the Cold War and was expected to die a natural death with the end of that war could revive once more. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon articulated that hope when he told delegates at the inaugural session "It is abundantly clear that no country - regardless of size or resources - can solve problems alone ...that raises the stakes and the space for the Non-Aligned Movement to shape a better world."
The bipolar world under which the two super powers had divided the world into armed camps created the need for a separate forum for a large number of developing nations that emerged as a result of de-colonization after the Second World War to carve their own destiny according to their own vision. Visionaries like Nehru of India, Tito of Yugoslavia and Soekarno of Indonesia, Nasser of Egypt and Nkrumah of Ghana were the leaders whose initiative historically called “the initiative of five” led to the creation of NAM. The term non-alignment was coined by Nehru in a speech in 1954 incorporating the five principles called “panchasheel” to guide China-India relations. When the first NAM Summit was held in 1961, the "panchasheel" became the five pillars of NAM.
These pillars were mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in domestic affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful co-existence. In 1970 Lusaka NAM Summit, peaceful resolution of disputes and opposition to military pacts were added as additional principles to which later opposition to allowing foreign military bases was included.
When the Cold War ended, everyone was counting days for NAM to fold as the NAM principles lost a lot of relevance. It did not; nor did it show much signs of life either. The world was expecting that the tense international situation would dissipate with the end of the cold war rivalry between the USA and USSR and their followers and peace and development would become sustainable features of world politics in a unipolar world. Concepts like globalization created additional optimism about the positive shape of things to come. Unfortunately world politics became more conflict ridden because the bipolar world, while threatening something ominous where even nuclear conflict was possible, kept disagreements among nations from breaking into uncontrollable conflicts and wars by balancing such disagreements. With early signs of the end of the Cold War, we saw the first Gulf War and then emergence of terrorism as a global phenomenon. With the beginning of the new millennium came the 9/11 terrorist act. The US took full advantage of its super power status in a unipolar world in pursuing the perpetrators of 9/11 and their supporters by declaring “war on terror” and attacking Afghanistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda that USA held guilty for the 9/11 terrorist act. The USA then invaded Iraq, where there was neither Al Qaeda nor terrorists, despite opposition at the UN and worldwide.
Globalization, that was supposed to make the world a global village, has also not worked for a more peaceful world as the developing nations had expected. Inequalities and injustice in the world economic order increased against the developing nations making it more difficult for them to break through the vicious circle of poverty.
The emergence of President Obama has brought some rationality back in world politics but with many lessons learnt. Although threats of colonialism and imperialism that had motivated the developing nations to join the NAM have receded or gone away, the new dangers from globalization and neo-con administration in USA during the Bush era have brought into play greater and graver challenges. These new challenges have created a new need for the developing nations for a forum to articulate their grievances in world politics and economics. In other words, these challenges have created the stakes and the space for a new role and space for NAM to which the UN Secretary General has pointed.
The Sharm-el-Sheikh NAM Summit has underscored the desire of the member countries to create that role and space for NAM and make it the main forum to represent the developing countries in all multilateral fora, specially the UN. The Declaration has thus articulated the issues of common interest of the member states in order to re-invent the organization in a world different from what it was when NAM was launched but one where they need it as much, if not more, to fight for their rights and aspirations that are now subject to a new set of challenges, more demanding than those faced during the Cold War. The common positions included in the Declaration are therefore on international issues such as disarmament, human rights and democracy, Palestine, world financial crisis, food security, UN reforms, climate change and regional issues. The Declaration has also documented a course of action over the next three years so that the objectives enumerated in the Declaration are realized.
The Sharm el Sheikh Summit also elected Egypt as the current Chairman of NAM for the next three years and also decided to hold the 16th Summit in Tehran. This is an important decision, one that is going to help invigorate the organization. Egypt is amply suited to play the crucial role that would be required to mould NAM under changed circumstances; for NAM would have to rid itself of a lot of rhetoric that had characterized the movement in the past. Although with a membership of 118 nations that makes it the biggest international organization after the United Nations, the group has still a great deal of divergent interests, even conflicting ones. For example, Egypt, the current Chairman, has deep differences with Iran, the next Chairman, but for the organization they must now work together. In choosing Iran to host the 2012 NAM Summit, the organization has placed on it the responsibility to moderate her rhetoric and foreign policy goals for the sake of NAM.
For Bangladesh, the NAM Summit has been eventful. The Prime Minister was visible with her active participation and was elected Vice Chairman from the Asia region. This will enhance Bangladesh's importance in global politics. In her address she articulated Bangladesh's position on such critical issues as climate change, food security, world economic meltdown and international terrorism. The meetings that she had on the side lines were perhaps more significant, particularly her meeting with Manmohon Singh, where, on the divisive and dangerous Tipaimukh issue, she received a positive commitment from her Indian counterpart.
Other member states also made good use of the Summit to hold bilateral meetings of which the one between the Indian and the Pakistani Prime Ministers was very significant. These bilateral meetings also highlighted the interest of member states to work out their bilateral differences in order to make NAM more effective. The positive environment and determination in Sharm el Sheikh and the feeling that the world needs a forum such as NAM notwithstanding, the ultimate objective for the organization to be treated by the developed world as equal is still a long way. Although, NAM makes up 56% of world population, their economic clout is still weak that they can make up only by uniting in negotiating with the developed nations. NAM's Chairman and Egyptian President Hosne Mubarak has articulated this need when he said at the Summit that its successful ending is “not the end of the road” and that member states must now endeavour to follow the decisions and outcomes to “take our vision to our partners outside the Movement.” Under changed international environment, the partners may be better poised to listen and accommodate. Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on a visit to India in 2007, had advised India to forget NAM and “move beyond old ways of thinking”. The optimism that has emanated from Sharm el Sheikh should make Rice's advice worth trashing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment