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.