Colombian meet to decide the future of NAM<\/p>\n
By Rajesh Kumar<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The ongoing 11th Non-Aligned Movement summit at
\nCartagena de Indias, Colombia, will be crucial for deciding the
\nfate of NAM. Depending on the outcome of the summit is whether
\nNAM remains just a relevant organization or whether it guides and
\ninfluences the domain of international economics.<\/p>\n
During its chairmanship, Indonesia kept NAM alive by
\nsuccessfully steering clear of all doubts about the movement's
\nrelevance. Now it will be up to its next chair, Colombia, to
\nguide the movement to further increase its effectiveness in the
\nworld fora, in the UN, in the GATT and others.<\/p>\n
The summit is expected to focus on poverty, debt, human rights
\nand other such issues of serious concern to the NAM member
\ncountries. However, one of the main tasks facing the summit will
\nbe to reach a consensus on whether the current membership of 112
\nnations should be increased, with a few East European countries
\neager to join. Moreover, appropriate changes in the criteria (for
\nNAM membership) have become necessary in order to reflect the
\nmembers' common stand on problems which beset the world today,
\nespecially their common position on the North-South dialog,
\nSouth-South Cooperation and the like.<\/p>\n
When independent India and Indonesia started defining their
\nforeign policies, the Cold War loomed very large. International
\npolitics at that time were likely to hinder both world peace on
\nthe one hand and accelerated socioeconomic development on the
\nother.<\/p>\n
Under such circumstances, the essential prerequisites for
\nkeeping one's integrity was to refuse any predictable
\nrelationship with the great powers, while offering, at the normal
\ncivilized level, the fully extended hand of cooperation. This
\ndissociation from bloc politics or military alliances was the
\npolicy which later came to be called \"non-alignment\".<\/p>\n
This policy of non-alignment was soon regarded by other
\nleaders as exemplary and worthy of emulation in some respects.
\nPresident Tito of Yugoslavia adopted a similar approach after
\nbreaking away from one of the blocs. President Nasser and many
\nother leaders also started treading a similar path in their
\nforeign policies. With the joining of Latin American and African
\ncountries in the list of countries following a more or less
\nparallel policy, non-alignment became a movement.<\/p>\n
The logic behind the formation of the movement was that if
\nindividual states could promote their interests through non-
\nalignment, collective action by many non-aligned states should be
\nmore effective. Collective action is possible only when its
\nmember states adopt a common foreign policy approach.<\/p>\n
The policy of non-alignment provides flexibility to the
\ncountry to produce its own synthesis, its own adaptation and its
\nown version of foreign doctrines. It frees a nation from the
\npressures to borrow foreign models or adopt other ideologies
\nwhich may be alien to a nation's civilization or its ethos.<\/p>\n
In a broader sense, this policy is relevant even under post-
\nCold War circumstances. What has become irrelevant is the
\nspecific meaning the policy acquired during the cold war, which
\nwas to align with neither the Western nor communist bloc.<\/p>\n
In fact the whole criteria, which is the basis for NAM
\nmembership, was framed assuming that the blocs were a remaining
\nfeature for many years to come. The visionaries were correct in
\ntheir judgment, for the world remained dominated by the two power
\nblocs for the next 25 years.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the criteria which was agreed upon during the
\npreparatory meeting for the first NAM Conference in Cairo, June 5
\nto June 12, 1961, outlines the common foreign policy approach
\namong the NAM member countries. It is this common non-aligned
\napproach to international circumstances which makes the movement
\neffective.<\/p>\n
Out of the five criteria for membership of NAM which remain
\nunaltered since its formation, only the first is broadly based.
\nThe second criterion specifically relates to anti-colonialism.
\nAnd the last three are in the context of Cold War circumstances.
\nThe Cold War is a decade behind us and hardly any colony remains
\nwhich is yet to be liberated. Therefore, it will be apt for the
\nNAM to reset or modify its existing criteria so as to reflect the
\nmembers' common approach to the present international atmosphere.<\/p>\n
The criteria in other words acts as a diplomatic vehicle to
\nserve two distinctive functions, one national and the other
\ninternational. In the domestic arena, it tries to safeguard a
\nnation's true strength and its basic interests. The criteria
\nprovides guidelines for behavior of nation-states in order to
\nprotect their sovereignty, dignity and territorial integrity. In
\nthe domain of international relations, it strives for a world in
\nwhich all nations, small or populous, rich or poor, would live
\ntogether in peace and have an equal chance to enhance their
\nwellbeing. Whether the Colombia summit adheres more vigorously to
\nthese tasks is anybody's guess.<\/p>\n
The author is a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic
\nand International Studies, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/colombian-meet-to-decide-the-future-of-nam-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}