Non-Aligned Movement and Iraq crisis

Non-Aligned Movement and Iraq crisis

Riza Sihbudi, Centre for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS), Jakarta

The 13th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit, held in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia from Feb. 20 to Feb. 25, became a venue where
protests against the United States' plan to attack Iraq were
lodged. The 114 NAM member countries have joined forces with the
global movement against war. An anti-war declaration was prepared
at the meeting of foreign ministers, and the issue topped the
agenda.

Iraq is one of NAM's active members. For Saddam Hussein, non-
alignment, deemed to be the best strategy in facing the global
system, is the core of Iraqi foreign policy. A writer in The
Foreign Policies of Arab States, Ahmad Yousef Ahmad, once wrote
that the underlying reasons are as follows: (1) As an Arab
nationalist, Saddam is not inclined to favor either of the two
superpowers; (2) non-alignment is more necessary and possible in
the context of mounting tension and increasing conflict between
great powers than in a period of detente; (3) the Non-Aligned
Movement has a special role and responsibility in building the
New International Economic Order.

The Baath Party, the ruling party in Iraq, underlines the
concept of positive neutrality, a concept marked by: (1)
Liberalization from imperialism and foreign domination; (2)
refusal to be subjugated to either camp involved in the Cold War;
(3) linking Arab revolution with the revolution for liberation in
Asia and Africa; (4) Arab participation in an attempt to ease
international tension and create international peace.

Since the 1970s, Iraq has played a significant role in NAM,
particularly in the 1979 NAM summit in Havana. In the 1964 NAM
summit in Cairo, Iraq joined other Arab states in fighting for
the rights of the Palestinians. In the 1970 NAM summit in Lusaka,
Iraq backed a resolution supporting the resolution that the
Security Council of the United Nations issued on Sept. 5, 1970
calling on Israel to withdraw from Lebanese areas. Prior to this
summit, the Middle East was very tense as Israel, previously
already occupying Palestinian land, spread its aggression to
Lebanon.

In the Havana summit, Arab countries in NAM were split
following the signing of a U.S.-sponsored peace pact between
Egypt and Israel later known as the Camp David Accord. Arab
countries, with the exception of Sudan, Morocco and Oman, opposed
the visit that then Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, made to
Israel in November 1977. The fruit of this visit was the signing
of a treaty between Egypt and Israel in Washington on March 26,
1979.

On March 31, 1979, 18 Arab countries, including Iraq,
associated in the League of Arab, along with the PLO, issued a
resolution on the severance of economic and diplomatic relations
with Egypt. This conflict was brought to the NAM summit in Havana
as a number of hard-line Arab countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya
and Algiers, tried hard to expel Egypt from NAM.

The Arab camp, with the backing of host Cuba, accused Egypt of
being the stooge of the United States. Egypt's pro-West stance
and its willingness to compromise with Israel were considered a
betrayal to NAM and therefore the expulsion of Egypt from NAM was
necessary.

Iraq was then elected to be the NAM summit host in 1982 and
Saddam would chair the movement for 1982 and 1985 period.
Unfortunately, a war broke out between Iran and Iraq from 1980 to
1988. Therefore, the seventh NAM summit was postponed for another
year and the venue was moved to New Delhi.

In the 1993 NAM summit in Jakarta, the Iraqi delegation,
headed by then vice president Taha Yasin Ramadhan, brought up the
problem of a "no-fly zone" imposed by the U.S., Britain and
France in South Iraq. This matter, however, was not included in
the ministerial meeting of NAM when they were discussing the
conclusion of the summit.

In the "Jakarta Message", this case was not touched upon at
all. When he met then president Soeharto, Ramadhan conveyed
Iraq's desire and hoped that Indonesia as the new chair could
take steps that would lead to the lifting of a food and medicine
embargo.

Ramadhan argued this embargo was actually not part of the
resolution issued by the Security Council of the United Nations.
At that time, Soeharto give his word that he would look into this
matter. In 1994, Indonesia, in its capacity as NAM chair, again
promised it would try to have the embargo lifted. This effort
proved to be unsuccessful.

All this time, NAM has often been criticized because of its
failure to foster cooperation in overcoming various social,
economic and political problems in its member countries, such as
poverty, diseases, armed conflicts and backwardness.

NAM leaders are believed to be capable only of lashing out at
the East-West gap but they cannot restructure their own
countries. Corruption, collusion, nepotism and human rights
violations have been allowed to continue unhampered.

NAM member countries are generally more inward-oriented as
they have heaps of complicated domestic problems. They can
therefore play only a limited role in the international arena. To
this end, NAM member states must be solidly united to face
various strategic issues at the international level, such as the
present conflict between the U.S. and Iraq.

In responding to this conflict, the protests jointly voiced
from a strategic arena will exert a great influence. The official
call made by NAM will be more effective than the call made by a
developing country.

The anti-war movement has become a global phenomenon.
Recently, about 11.5 million people in five continents took to
the streets to oppose war. NAM's anti-war declaration certainly
lends greater force to the movement. By showing that it is
concerned over the Iraqi crisis, the presence of NAM in the
international arena remains relevant.