Nonaligned movement's members: United they stand, divided they fall

Nonaligned movement's members: United they stand, divided they fall

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly',
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta,
bandoro@csis.or.id

With war looming on the Persian Gulf, the 114 members of the
Nonaligned Movement (NAM) gathered in Kula Lumpur this week for
their 13th summit meeting. The Kuala Lumpur meeting will witness
whether NAM can initiate fresh initiatives to regain the
influence it enjoyed during the Cold War. The meeting will also
be a test of nerves for NAM members -- of whether they are united
against a possible war in Iraq and other global issues.

Can the moves by NAM to join the world movement in opposing
war on Iraq influence the big powers to back off from their plans
to attack that country? Or can NAM, with its diversity of
interests, now rise as a peace power, as expected by our Foreign
Minister Hassan Wirayuda?

Apart from their classic concerns over issues such as
globalization, South-South and North-South cooperation, the debt
crisis and international trade and disarmament, the present NAM
confronts tremendous global challenges as it enters into a new
type of world order.

It is a world that seems to consist of those supporting global
terror on the one hand, and those against terrorists on the
other. It is against such a background that the present NAM, as
expected by some of its founders, should focus more on issues
that unite the movement and not on matters that could divide it.
The question is whether the Kuala Lumpur meeting will be in one
voice in determining whether such issues are those that unite or
divide it.

While some have speculated that little will be achieved at the
Kuala Lumpur meeting due to divisions between NAM members with
regard to the current battle against terror and the issue of
Iraq, others are quite optimistic that the meeting will set NAM
into a more high-profile and more responsive, articulate and
aspirational movement.

Being the host of the summit, Malaysia is fully confident that
the meeting will produce a new spirit for NAM, one that will
really push the movement to become more dynamic and energetic.
The Malaysian foreign minister was reported as saying that there
was a need for a renaissance of NAM and for a reinterpretation of
what the movement could do.

From the Malaysian perspective, it is perhaps timely for NAM
to initiate policies that would not only force the big powers to
listen to NAM's voice, but also invigorate the power of NAM.

Many believe that NAM still has a role to play to promote the
well-being of southern hemisphere countries, although the
principle of nonalignment is now no longer that meaningful,
following the end of confrontation between the Eastern and
Western blocs. However, NAM would still be relevant as part of a
global coalition for world peace.

The question of NAM's relevance has been raised repeatedly,
but the fact remains that the 114 members of NAM, which
constitute almost two-thirds of the UN, with 191 members, need a
forum to articulate their position and promote their interests.
Because many still expect NAM to play a greater role in world
peace, they must work on revitalizing the movement.

For Indonesia, a former NAM chairman, it is to be expected
that it has high expectations from the upcoming NAM summit. As
the meeting takes place under the shadow of the possibility of
war on Iraq, Indonesia cannot refrain from making a judgment
about what NAM can do to prevent the possibility of war in the
Persian Gulf. It is reported that, with regard to the stalemate
in Iraq, Indonesia wishes to see NAM rise as a "peace power".
What does peace power really mean for NAM?

Peace power implies a kind of strategy for building a
nonviolent world community and organizational cultures
incompatible with violence, threats and coercion. Such a strategy
seems to be in line with the five key pillars that serve as a
basis for international relations, and that eventually formed the
basis of NAM, namely: (1) respect for territorial integrity, (2)
mutual nonaggression, (3) mutual noninterference in domestic
affairs, (4) equality and mutual benefit, (5) peaceful
coexistence. The main idea is to work in concert to prevent and
intervene, rather than punish the violent.

For the peace power concept to be seen as a reliable strategy,
it must have the following core components: It must recognize
contributions and successes, act with respect, share power to
build a shock-free world and make peace. These sound ideal for
NAM's role.

But the problem is whether NAM can really embrace such a role
when its members are also fighting among themselves over
political and security issues and face hard times in combating
structural diseases, such as famine, drought, poverty and
underdevelopment, etc.

If NAM is to be seen as successful in performing a peace power
role, perhaps peace should begin from within NAM first, before it
can really rally and spread the peace message throughout the
world. NAM must put its house in order first.

The emergence of new issues and challenges will certainly
unite NAM in its efforts to seek new relevance and play the part
of world peace promoter. But given the diversity in its members'
political, economic, cultural and historical backgrounds, as well
as their "political affiliation" with certain major powers, we
will witness the possibility of their deep disagreement over the
way to handle certain high-profile issues, thus causing them to
fall further apart. We shall see whether the Kuala Lumpur summit
can prevent this from happening.