Revitalizing NAM

The POST, Sun, June,4, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


The final communiqué of the Non-Aligned Movement’s(NAM) issued at the end of its two day meeting recently in Malaysia reminded all of us that the movement is not yet dead. Most important aspects of the recent NAM declaration are the identification of factors and developments troubling the world currently which was followed by assertion of certain principles that have been frequently trampled. Admittedly the NAM declaration does not have a binding status but the voice of 116 member body cannot be indignantly brushed aside. If nothing else it does have a moral force in its own rights. 

Among the notable assertions that NAM has made included clear support for every country’s right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without any discrimination and in conformity with operative legal obligations, demanded  from Israel to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), condemned Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestinian lands and reaffirmed their support to the People of Palestine and their leadership to bring an end to the Israeli occupation that started in 1967. 

While forcefully condemning Israel’s occupations of Palestinian lands, it extended its support to the people of Palestine and their struggle to bring an end to the Israeli occupation. Although the Israel is unlikely to be ruffled by such condemnation as long as it enjoys complete support of the US, the collective voice of all 116 member nations cannot be just ignored. It clearly reflects a consensus regarding Israel’s brutal and unacceptable policies. In many ways the idea of two states has once again been endorsed by a large body like NAM. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this condemnation is that it has the support of many who have good relations with Israel. Equally important aspect of the declaration is that struggle for self determination has once again been recognized as a legitimate pursuit and has been collectively highlighted. Almost all struggles for freedom and self determination should be pleased with such a dose of encouragement. 

Born in an atmosphere of unprecedented ideological conflict, NAM grew out the efforts of new independent states which did not want to join the then existing Cold War alliance system. One of the major goal of NAM was and still continues to be is to contribute towards peace and security; a goal which is also the main focus of the UN in general and Security Council in particular. 

Undoubtedly the NAM tried to concentrate on three major aspects with a view to ameliorate the security situation; to minimize the intensity of the Cold War, to encourage disarmament, and to accelerate struggle against colonialism. Being a movement that asserts state sovereignty, its emphasis on ensuring national independence and full sovereignty of all nations on the basis of equality is somewhat natural. The term non-alignment clearly indicates non-participation in the Cold War multilateral alliance system. Bilateral military links were not regarded as an impediment either for securing membership of the NAM or even exacerbating international tension. 

While the movement has significantly contributed towards lowering down of international tension but its record at the regional level is not all that impressive. Perhaps one major reason was that the states did not join the movement for security reasons. The overriding considerations were not only the avoidance of involvement in the Cold War alliance system but also to introduce collectively a certain amount of flexibility into the then existing rigidity of the bipolar world. The NAM provided a collective forum to contribute positively towards the amelioration of global tensions and provided a chance to the members to question the validity of notions like ‘balance of terror’ and peace based on nuclear deterrence. 

During the last five decades, many members of the movement were involved in some kind of conflict, directly or indirectly, either with a fellow member or with great powers, or with some aligned countries. It is not difficult to comprehend the inability of the NAM to prevent conflict within the group initially and later to resolve it quickly if the conflict had surfaced for one reason or the other. Several reasons account for this. Perhaps the most important reason was that states did not join NAM for security reasons and therefore not much attention was devoted to evolve a conflict prevention mechanism to deal with infightings as well as the conflicts at the regional level. The major preoccupation was how to make the world a safer place to live on one hand (especially within the context of East-West conflict) and to accelerate the pace of development without being party to bloc politics on the other. 

The inability of the NAM to prevent conflicts within movement, in some ways is, also the product of the heterogeneous nature of the membership. Over the years the membership of NAM has increased rather dramatically. The accompanying diversity of views and political perspectives have inevitably influenced the course of the movement and accounted for periodic fluctuation of emphasis accorded to various issue. Being such a large group it is indeed difficult to evolve a common policy for controversial issue. 

The end of the Cold War and the tragic events of 9/11 have radically influenced the global environment. The international associations and organizations that came into existence after the end of the Second World War were meant to deal with the then emerging realities such as security, bipolarity etc. have all undergone transformation in order to suit the new realities. Both NATO and NAM are making efforts to remain useful to the requirements of new emerging system and global environment. After a long time the consensus appeared to have emerged even in NAM on some issues.  

The assertion that all countries have a legitimate right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purpose does not reflect support for any particular country but for principles that has also been included in the NPT. The NAM also gave warning against any attack on peaceful nuclear facilities, whether operative or under construction, and would view such an eventuality as a grave violation of the international law. This reference indeed appears to be against the threats that have been recently issued against Iran by the US. Whether or not such warning would have some impact on American policies especially with regard to Iran is difficult to ascertain but one thing is certain that US would not ignore the collective voice of 116 members-many in the group are also friends of US. 

Equally significant is the demand on Israel to join the NPT. Theoretically Israel has not yet openly claimed itself to be a nuclear weapons state but everybody knows that it has acquired the requisite capability. Many refer to Israeli nuclear weapons as the ‘bomb in the basement’. Again Israel is unlikely to pay heed to NAM’s demand but it does pose a dilemma to the Israelis either to declare itself a nuclear weapon state or to join the NPT. In all probability Israel would just ignore such demands. Ignoring such demand could mean, at least implicitly, a confession of being a nuclear weapon state. 

Undoubtedly the recent NAM’s declaration has been received well in almost all the member countries. Perhaps the most significant aspect is the increasing realization that such declarations are needed to influence and avert the dangerous policy pursuits of the powerful and highlight the urgent need of collective considerations. Besides the declaration reminds all of us that NAM needs to be revitalized as it can still play a useful role in mitigating the international tension. 

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.