Its list of members may be growing, but the movement lacks cohesion on many crucial issues affecting the Third World
IT was meant to be a ministerial meeting. But PLO chairman Yasser Arafat had other ideas. H.D. Deve Gowda, as prime minister of the host nation, was supposed to be the only head of state to attend the recent XII Non-aligned Movement (NAM) ministerial meeting. But at the last minute, Arafat let it be known that he too wanted to address the meeting.
The Indian officials were caught in a bind. Finally, a special session on Palestine was arranged for Arafat to speak about the stalled West Asia peace process.
It was a telling moment. Arafat had been perceived to be moving away from the NAM, which has backed the Palestinian cause and Arafat's struggle so strongly in the past. But now, disillusioned with the US-brokered peace process, Arafat returned to take the NAM into confidence.
The movement, which some argue has become completely irrelevant in a unipolar world, still has its uses. It carries the weight of 113 members, though they show little inclination to act together on many crucial issues. Originally conceived as a forum for new nations of the post-colonial era, NAM claimed many successes, mainly the end of apartheid in South Africa and its support to the Palestinian cause. Today, apartheid is not an issue, the West Asia peace process has been hijacked by the US, and the New World's bugbears are no longer crude forms of political hegemonism.
Yet the grouping continues to grow. Ironically, even Russia, the direct descendant of a former superpower, now wants an entry. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, two other Soviet descendants, are full members and even NATO states like Canada and Italy want to join the movement. UN Secretary-General KofiAnnan set a precedent by attending the New Delhi conference.
The main focus of the meeting was the revamp of the UN (read Security Council), renewed support to the Palestinian cause, nuclear disarmament, the environment and the new world trade order. A special declaration on Palestine, hurriedly prepared and issued on the final day of the conference, called on member nations to "freeze ties with Israel at their current level." The call was a shot in the arm for Arafat. For, just days earlier, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) had ignored his appeal. Arafat had backed the OIC view on Kashmir at their recent meet in Islamabad, though that didn't stop him from seeking, and getting, India's support for his cause. But this declaration also revealed the chinks in the NAM's armour. Asked if India would review its ties with Israel, Indian External Affairs Minister I.K Gujral clarified that each nation, including India, would act according to its own interpretation of the declaration. That said it all. No one asked if Egypt and other Arab states would also freeze their ties with Israel. The resolution has little practical utility.
Which brings up the basic problem: with all its posturing and rhetoric, where exactly is the NAM going? "It's very difficult to quantify the NAM's achievements," says Richard Butler, the Australian ambassador to the UN. "But if the grouping doesn't discuss issues of importance to them, nobody else will. Having a voice is important. At a time when NAM is groping to redefine itself, there are fears of loss or dilution of its soul. It's a case of ideological purity versus practical outcome." Australia has been attending NAM meetings as a guest.
Nana Sutresna, Indonesian ambassador at large and head executive assistant of the NAM office, however, feels the fact that nations are queuing up to join the movement is indicative of its success. He sees no irony in the OIC's refusal to support Arafat while the NAM did. "The OIC is a different forum altogether, where mostly religious matters are discussed. Besides, many members of the OIC are also represented in the NAM, where they voted for Palestinians," he notes. He also feels the call to freeze ties with Israel was in line with the principles of the movement. "We are only telling Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu that what he is doing is wrong, and that it must stop before the peace process collapses altogether." The NAM, the ambassador points out, is a constructive political force for peace. "Our approach of moderation and non-confrontation has been paying off. The increased cooperation with the G-7, our ability to get special concessions from the IMF and World Bank for the Highly Indebted Poor Countries are proof that the movement is relevant today."
YET the vociferous debate over the restructuring, and relevance, of the NAM continues unabated even as it
calls for a revamp of the UN itself. "It is fashionable to denigrate the NAM today. The need of the hour is to give it more force. We need fresh ideas and concepts to face the next century," said Alfred Nzo, foreign minister for South Africa which hosts the next conference.
But members differ over how to acquire this extra force, or even what form it should take. One criticism levelled against the grouping is that since it only meets once every 18 months, its reaction to the fast-changing global scenario and events is limited. Hence the Iranian proposal for a permanent NAM secretariat on UN lines. But, says Sutresna: "If we become an institution, then what are we going to do with the UN? We'll bury the UN. Our principles clearly state that we will achieve our fight through the UN, not as a parallel body." Then, of course, given that its 113 members all belong to some regional grouping or the other—the Organisation of African
Unity, ASEAN, SAARC and the Arab League, among others—dovetailing the policies and priorities with the NAM principles on crucial issues is next to impossible. And herein lies the movement's weakness. The agenda of the regional groups is completely different from that of the NAM's. "Latin America," notes a senior external affairs ministry official, "is no longer an active player. It's lost to NAM due to US co-option."
On the issues of disarmament and nonproliferation, while India is adamant on a time-bound framework for nuclear disarmament, most other NAM states are already signatories. There are also major differences over whether the World Trade Organisation is a subtle expression of imperialism.
Which may explain why the draft final treaty of the conference pays lip service to the ideal of a world free of weapons, particularly nuclear-weapons. The reference to time-bound disarmament comes as a sop to India. The treaty also appeals for concessions for the least developed countries. But, the report does not suggest any fresh ideas on any of the issues that it takes up, like development, environment, regional ties, drug control, human rights. In fact, it recycles ideas from earlier declarations and fails to address issues of discriminatory regimes in various international sectors.
As for representation in the UN, while stressing that "there shall be no partial or selective expansion of the Security Council to the detriment of developing countries", disagreement prevails over the number of permanent and non-permanent seats as well as over who should occupy them. India, hoping to join the Security Council, can hardly expect any help from NAM states.
Sutresna, admitting that "unfortunately the movement is not yet ready to address this", says that consensus was achieved on the eventual elimination of the "undemocratic" veto powers held by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. This, despite nations like Zimbabwe wanting more members with veto powers. But though the movement lacks consensus on such crucial issues, it does serve a crucial purpose. As the external affairs ministry official noted, NAM in today's unipolar world, "acts as a thorn in the side of the Western conscience." But is that enough?