Non-Aligned Movement needs new focus

The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore

When the non-aligned movement (NAM) was first established in the 1950s, the world was deeply divided between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Non-alignment, as Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia conceived it, meant a refusal to be drawn into the orbit of either superpower.

In practice, almost every non-aligned country tilted in favor of one or the other superpower -- and more often than not, the Soviet Union. In the 1970s, nominally non-aligned Cuba, and even India, argued that the Soviets were natural allies of NAM.

But by that time, the movement had descended into irrelevance, and it was obvious to everyone, including the group, that it had little or no effect on the global distribution of power. It never did have much real influence, even in its heyday in the 1950s, only a symbolic power deriving largely from the prestige of its leading figures, the heroes of revolution and anti-colonialism like Nehru, Nasser and Sukarno.

The heroes soon died, and the revolutions they led mostly turned into disappointments. Worse still, the Cold War itself came to an end, with no help whatsoever from NAM. So what does it mean to be non-aligned now, when there is only one superpower left, and Russia is edging towards its orbit?

Of the original leading lights of NAM, India now has close strategic ties to the U.S., Yugoslavia has dissolved, Egypt is the second highest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel, and Indonesia is a friend of the U.S. Like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), NAM is a product of the Cold War; and like NATO, it has become a movement in search of a mission. Its survival owes more to sentiment -- a feeling of solidarity deriving from a bygone era when concepts like Afro-Asia, anti- colonialism and anti-imperialism resounded with significance -- than it does to any calculus of interest.

But this does not mean that gatherings like this week's NAM summit in Kuala Lumpur are not important; they are. The movement consists chiefly of former colonies of European powers, and as a result, they share a number of ideals in common -- among them, an adherence to the principle of self-determination, a commitment to uplifting the poor, and an insistence on political equivalence with the West.

All these are noble ideals. Alas, in the NAM context, they have also often been deflected in an anti-U.S., anti-Western, anti-globalization direction. Many nations in the group have been there, done that -- and failed miserably! It would be tragic if they were to go there again.

NAM could play a more valuable role if it became less political and more economic in its focus. It might, for instance, function as a lobby group pressing the interests of Third World countries in bodies like the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization.

It could strengthen the position of the developing world in the upcoming Doha round of trade negotiations. It could use its political clout to press the European Union and the U.S. to open up their agricultural markets to imports from developing countries. It could use that same clout to press for changes to patent laws that keep life-saving medications, like drugs to treat HIV-Aids, from reaching the world's poor.

But leadership would be required to change a movement that has always been more ideological than pragmatic. This year's gathering under Kuala Lumpur's aegis may provide a good opportunity to start, for Malaysia has always been among the most pragmatic of non-aligned nations.