National 1 (Spotlight Weekly)

Talking Shop

Sharp disputes and staid rhetoric mar the spirit of non-alignment

By KESHAB POUDEL

Although a large number of heads of state and government from developing and least-developed countries gathered at the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur with the mantra to revitalize the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), urging the United States not to attack the Iraq seemed to be the major agenda of the summit. Leaders, as usual, spent time boasting of their own successes and preaching the rhetoric of non-interference and elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

PM Chand leaving for Kaula Lumpur : How will Nepal benefit ?

Deep down, the leaders of the poor countries that dominate NAM know that the movement is nothing more than rhetoric and that each member state stresses its virtues to protect their own interests. Despite the difficulties in protecting the movement in today's world, some developing and least developed countries actually see the possibility of revival.

Since the inception of NAM in the 1960s, the movement has hardly resolved substantive issues. Nor has it proved to be an effective tool in building pressure against the actions and motives of big powers. Interestingly, NAM failed to stop its some of its own members from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.
"There is no utility in taking part in non-alignment summits today, since the movement was formed at the initiative of the dissolved Soviet Union to counter the presence of the United States," said a former foreign secretary. "How can a movement that was unable to pressure powerful countries during the Cold War bring any change in the behavior of the world's only superpower?"

However, Nepal, which is seeking donor support to rebuild infrastructure destroyed in seven years of conflict, saw it fit to send a mini-jumbo team to the summit under the leadership of Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand.
Participated by heads of the state and government from 114 countries, the 13th NAM summit set out to discuss different issues related to developing and least-developed countries. Although the slogan of summit was to revitalize the movement for the 21st century, there are a large number of scholars who are questioning the existence of a movement that has no relevance or strength.

At a time when several NAM members are busy building new alliances in the post-9/11 international environment, in direct contravention of the movement's founding principles, those arguing against spending huge amounts of money to take part in the summit are reaching out across a wider audience.

"The Cold War division of the world has ended and the impact of NAM as an active forum for many Third World countries has become less relevant," said Professor Krishna Khanal in a paper presented at a seminar organized by the Institute of Foreign Affairs.

Others agree that NAM is waging a useless struggle for survival. "During the Cold War, the former Soviet Union encouraged the leaders of Third World countries to use the NAM forum to oppose the United States," said a former foreign secretary on condition of anonymity. "Frankly speaking, the United States and western countries never took NAM seriously."

There is no shortage of defenders of the movement. "NAM is very important for least developed countries like Nepal. After the end of the Cold War, NAM still has utility as a forum for member states that share similar challenges and aspirations," says a former foreign secretary. "We must continue participating in the summits."
That sentiment found voice in Prime Minister Chand's address to the Kuala Lumpur summit. "NAM can still play an important role in promoting the interests of developing countries," he said. Like many of his counterparts, Chand used Iraq as a test. "We cannot justify the use of force until there is a way out for a peaceful solution."
Although most NAM members have always aligned with certain factions to advance their national interests, they wasted no time in praising the sanctity of the movement.

In an era dominated by a single superpower and several regional powers, NAM is facing an identity crisis. If such an organization is still needed to collectively foster the hopes and aspirations of its members, it must be based on reality, not on the rhetoric of the days when the Soviet Union stood to protect many nations.