Is NAM still relevance in post-Clod War world?

Is NAM still relevance in post-Clod War world?

Kavi Chongkittavorn, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

Since its establishment in 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement
(NAM) has never enjoyed high expectations from its 114 members
and the world at large. Being the world's largest gathering after
the United Nations, the NAM has to take its multiple roles
seriously.

Disturbing questions arise about the movement. Will it be able
to stop the pending war in Iraq? Is it in a better position now
to shape the future world? What can the NAM do to curb terrorism?
How can its members help each other in more tangible ways? Can
the grouping influence the process of globalization to ensure it
would be beneficial to less-developed countries?

During the Cold War, the NAM was created as an alternative to
the Eastern and Western blocs fighting for domination. The NAM's
more than four-decade history has stood the test of time and
adverse international political currents. The movement could
prosper if it were not so divisive and dwelled more on actions
rather than verbal attacks.

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as the host of the NAM summit
beginning today, has personally wrangled with these issues and
come out on top. So, it will not surprise anyone if he is more
assertive at the gathering, trying to steer and shape up the
NAM's future. As a moderate and developed Muslim nation, Malaysia
has an edge in dealing with the NAM as almost half of the members
belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The host stands out because it has successfully defied all
conventional wisdom. Malaysia refuses to conform to foreign
pressure and continues to stick to its own agenda. None can stop
Mahathir from doing what he wants to do. Many less-developed
countries are looking at the Malaysian model since they want to
be more independent and self-reliance.

Given Malaysia's pragmatism, its chairmanship could help turn
the NAM into a more a practical movement that can help poor
nations cope better with the impact of globalization. That is a
big question mark. Other difficult issues the NAM must address
with realism are an equitable balance between the rights and the
obligations of investors (especially multinational corporations),
the extraterritorial application of domestic laws, and the
opening up of national economies tied to the grant of aid and
trade concessions.

The NAM's relevancy will be judged this week by how the
members handle the above-mentioned questions since they are major
concerns of member countries in the post-Cold War era. If history
is any judge, the NAM can rise to the occasion only if its
members -- which comprise all ideologies and political
orientations -- can forge a common stand and plan of action.

At the ministerial meeting over the weekend, the NAM went
through extremes similar to those exhibited in past summits.
Iraq's call on the NAM countries to ban U.S. troops from using
their territories and North Korea's insistence to play but its
rule on nuclear-related issues were just two examples. These
predispositions reflect self-interest without taking into
consideration the NAM as a whole.

Certainly, Mahathir will ensure that the NAM comes out
opposing the U.S. threat against Iraq, but he will not push it to
go as far as condemning the U.S. and call on North Korea not to
take the nuclearized path. A revitalized NAM must serve as a
balancing wheel which can engage the superpower as well as lesser
powers, not turn it off.

To strengthen the NAM, one of the host's original ideas is to
establish a secretariat to coordinate members and policies. Apart
from Malaysia, the plan faces difficulties because other NAM
members are not that enthusiatics. Otherwise, it could be a snub
for ASEAN as it comes after Malaysia's proposal to host the
secretariat of ASEAN plus three (Japan, South Korea and China)
was repeatedly turned down by its ASEAN colleagues.

Malaysia might alternatively push for the ASEAN model by
empowering the NAM chair and setting up the NAM Troika. As such,
Malaysia can still take the lead.

Thailand's role at the summit is marginal. It was a latecomer
as the last ASEAN country to join the movement in 1993 following
years of a wait-and-see attitude.

The decision came amid the country's desire to expand external
relations with countries from afar which shared the same economic
and social outlooks.

A decade ago, Thailand was a humble nation going through a
democratic transition without any regional ambitions. It was
searching for an appropriate role within regional and
international frameworks. Apart from the United Nations, ASEAN
and existing regional economic groupings, NAM membership gave the
Kingdom some added rapport and solidarity.

At the time, Thailand was presented as an open and democratic
society. Its hopes were modest that its democratic experience and
economic management could be useful to NAM members.

It remains to be seen how Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra
can steer Thailand to fit in at the NAM.