Is NAM still relevance in post-Clod War world?<\/p>\n
Kavi Chongkittavorn, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok<\/p>\n
Since its establishment in 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement
\n(NAM) has never enjoyed high expectations from its 114 members
\nand the world at large. Being the world's largest gathering after
\nthe United Nations, the NAM has to take its multiple roles
\nseriously.<\/p>\n
Disturbing questions arise about the movement. Will it be able
\nto stop the pending war in Iraq? Is it in a better position now
\nto shape the future world? What can the NAM do to curb terrorism?
\nHow can its members help each other in more tangible ways? Can
\nthe grouping influence the process of globalization to ensure it
\nwould be beneficial to less-developed countries?<\/p>\n
During the Cold War, the NAM was created as an alternative to
\nthe Eastern and Western blocs fighting for domination. The NAM's
\nmore than four-decade history has stood the test of time and
\nadverse international political currents. The movement could
\nprosper if it were not so divisive and dwelled more on actions
\nrather than verbal attacks.<\/p>\n
Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as the host of the NAM summit
\nbeginning today, has personally wrangled with these issues and
\ncome out on top. So, it will not surprise anyone if he is more
\nassertive at the gathering, trying to steer and shape up the
\nNAM's future. As a moderate and developed Muslim nation, Malaysia
\nhas an edge in dealing with the NAM as almost half of the members
\nbelong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.<\/p>\n
The host stands out because it has successfully defied all
\nconventional wisdom. Malaysia refuses to conform to foreign
\npressure and continues to stick to its own agenda. None can stop
\nMahathir from doing what he wants to do. Many less-developed
\ncountries are looking at the Malaysian model since they want to
\nbe more independent and self-reliance.<\/p>\n
Given Malaysia's pragmatism, its chairmanship could help turn
\nthe NAM into a more a practical movement that can help poor
\nnations cope better with the impact of globalization. That is a
\nbig question mark. Other difficult issues the NAM must address
\nwith realism are an equitable balance between the rights and the
\nobligations of investors (especially multinational corporations),
\nthe extraterritorial application of domestic laws, and the
\nopening up of national economies tied to the grant of aid and
\ntrade concessions.<\/p>\n
The NAM's relevancy will be judged this week by how the
\nmembers handle the above-mentioned questions since they are major
\nconcerns of member countries in the post-Cold War era. If history
\nis any judge, the NAM can rise to the occasion only if its
\nmembers -- which comprise all ideologies and political
\norientations -- can forge a common stand and plan of action.<\/p>\n
At the ministerial meeting over the weekend, the NAM went
\nthrough extremes similar to those exhibited in past summits.
\nIraq's call on the NAM countries to ban U.S. troops from using
\ntheir territories and North Korea's insistence to play but its
\nrule on nuclear-related issues were just two examples. These
\npredispositions reflect self-interest without taking into
\nconsideration the NAM as a whole.<\/p>\n
Certainly, Mahathir will ensure that the NAM comes out
\nopposing the U.S. threat against Iraq, but he will not push it to
\ngo as far as condemning the U.S. and call on North Korea not to
\ntake the nuclearized path. A revitalized NAM must serve as a
\nbalancing wheel which can engage the superpower as well as lesser
\npowers, not turn it off.<\/p>\n
To strengthen the NAM, one of the host's original ideas is to
\nestablish a secretariat to coordinate members and policies. Apart
\nfrom Malaysia, the plan faces difficulties because other NAM
\nmembers are not that enthusiatics. Otherwise, it could be a snub
\nfor ASEAN as it comes after Malaysia's proposal to host the
\nsecretariat of ASEAN plus three (Japan, South Korea and China)
\nwas repeatedly turned down by its ASEAN colleagues.<\/p>\n
Malaysia might alternatively push for the ASEAN model by
\nempowering the NAM chair and setting up the NAM Troika. As such,
\nMalaysia can still take the lead.<\/p>\n
Thailand's role at the summit is marginal. It was a latecomer
\nas the last ASEAN country to join the movement in 1993 following
\nyears of a wait-and-see attitude.<\/p>\n
The decision came amid the country's desire to expand external
\nrelations with countries from afar which shared the same economic
\nand social outlooks.<\/p>\n
A decade ago, Thailand was a humble nation going through a
\ndemocratic transition without any regional ambitions. It was
\nsearching for an appropriate role within regional and
\ninternational frameworks. Apart from the United Nations, ASEAN
\nand existing regional economic groupings, NAM membership gave the
\nKingdom some added rapport and solidarity.<\/p>\n
At the time, Thailand was presented as an open and democratic
\nsociety. Its hopes were modest that its democratic experience and
\neconomic management could be useful to NAM members.<\/p>\n
It remains to be seen how Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra
\ncan steer Thailand to fit in at the NAM.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/is-nam-still-relevance-in-post-clod-war-world-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}