By Pratik Mall
The largest multilateral organization outside of the UN is the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a coalition of around 120 countries, 17 observer states, and ten international organizations. The NAM coalition, which stands for the developing world, is adamantly opposed to bloc politics and power struggles. Founded in 1961 and essentially a cold war construct, NAM was built on the core values of the Bandung Principles, announced at the Afro-Asian Conference in 1955. In the 1979 Havana declaration, Fidel Castro outlined the goals of NAM as follows :
NAM guarantees "National Freedom, Autonomy, Territorial Sovereignty, and Protection of Non-Aligned Countries in their struggle against Imperialism, Colonial rule, Neo-Colonialism, Racial prejudice, and all forms of Foreign Belligerence, Annexation, Subjugation, Intervention, and supremacy as well as great Power Politics."
One of the most hawkish Secretaries of State in US history, John Foster Dulles, mockingly referred to NAM as "Immoral" in its infancy. It was "India's exceptionalism" that the Americans found challenging to comprehend. Stalin viewed allegiance to NAM as opposition to USSR and aligning the other bloc to sabotage them. Jawaharlal Nehru, one of the five founding fathers of NAM, once said, "NAM is in harmony with India's culture and tradition. India will support global peace and harmony by refusing to join any armed alliances. Since the signing of the Treaty of Friendship between India and the USSR, which made India a "quasi-ally" of the USSR, Americans have largely come to view NAM as "Anti-Americanism" in the 1970s.
In the 1960s, NAM made decolonization and disarmament its primary goals. Although the world averted a nuclear winter during the catastrophic 1962 Cuban Missile crisis, the fear of a nuclear holocaust persisted throughout the Cold War. NAM could unite the developing countries worried about maintaining their arduously acquired sovereignty. The NAM gained status and weight when its efforts helped several countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia achieve political freedom. The PTBT and NPT were signed in 1963 and 1968, respectively, in response to the NAM's persistent attempts to portray nuclear weapons as "taboo."
The origin of a New International Economic Order, abbreviated as NIEO, was first mooted in 1973 during the NAM conference in Algiers. The rationale was that northern countries offer higher pricing for southern products, supply financing and technology, and control the behaviour of their multinational corporations (MNCs) devoted to indiscriminately plundering southern resources. The gains in this phase were mainly restricted because the west rejected the idea as unrealistic, and the oil economies of the Gulf, which were expected to demonstrate greater unity, failed due to the escalating geopolitical problems. The "detente" phase of the partnership ended in the 1980s, and the arms race started to heat up. A weakening USSR attempted to match the famed "Strategic Defense Initiative" established by the US under the Regan administration with an equivalent expenditure in resources and technology. NAM had failed, having made no notable progress. The INF Treaty, which prohibits all land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges between 500 and 1,000 kilometres (short- to medium-range) and 1,000 to 5,500 kilometres (long-range), is the only significant arms control agreement of this era (intermediate-range). The pact does not cover missiles launched from the air or the sea.
Declining Interest in NAM
The US emerged as an unopposed hegemon with the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, and Fukuyama pronounced the "End Of History". The relevance of NAM, primarily a Cold War construct, had become an essential point of debate and discussion. NAM began to seem out of date and lost its purpose. A new era of relative peace and a nuclear-weapons-free world was ushered in by the Cooperative Security Treaty Reduction Treaty (Nunn-Lugar Pact), the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the signing of SALT 1 and 2 and the CTBT in 1996, and the extension of the NPT. All of this occurred even though NATO was not disbanded and has significantly grown since the end of the Cold War. Commentators worldwide stated that NAM should prepare for a "graceful withdrawal," take some of the credit for the end of the Cold War and then declare "Mission Accomplished" to end its existence. At the Jakarta Summit in 1991, immediately following the fall of the USSR, even founder members like Egypt questioned the necessity of the NAM. Narshima Rao, the Prime Minister of India, said without a shadow of a doubt that "NAM has become all the more necessary to control the unilateral activities of the single superpower." The popularity of NAM has steadily waned over time. Only 8 Heads of State out of 120 attended the NAM conference in Tehran in 2012, and PM Modi's decision to send Vice President Venkaiah Naidu instead of himself in 2016 is a glaring sign that the idea of NAM is no longer appealing. This year, India did participate in the NAM virtual summit, although it seemed more out of need than out of choice.
Relevance of NAM in Present Context
Therefore, the moot question that should trouble us is whether NAM is still relevant or if it has passed into oblivion. It would be inaccurate to claim that supporting NAM demonstrates "intellectual lethargy" and a fixation on a Cold War idea. Since other nations do not seem to be interested in NAM, India is well-positioned to take advantage of its inherent leadership qualities, tap into its potential, and forward its goal of South-South Cooperation. India is well poised to use the platform of NAM to exercise its "strategic autonomy". India cannot help but be fascinated by NAM because it has become a part of its identity. In addition to participating actively in international politics and being able to negotiate power politics successfully, it aided India in pursuing a foreign policy that was primarily independent. India was free to be independent instead of merely becoming a "camp follower". In domestic politics, it had given Prime Minister Nehru the opportunity to manage the polarizing domestic pressures delicately. Even Henry Kissinger, who had nothing but contempt for NAM, now acknowledges that it was the best course of action India could have taken at the time.
NAM offers the best model as the arms race heats up, alliances become obsolete, and India struggles to retain an independent foreign policy. According to the US Nuclear Posture Review, China and Russia are becoming more reliant on nuclear weapons, posing a new nuclear threat to the US. The expiration of the NEW START treaty last year and the USA signaling that it may withdraw from the INF treaty further escalates the already dangerous situation. The ongoing Ukraine crisis and the spectre of a nuclear winter further remind us of the horrors of the nuclear holocaust that the world already witnessed in 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. NAM could play a pivotal role in creating a stigma and a taboo for nuclear weapons, as it successfully did in the early years.
Next, for a nation like India that wishes to sit at the high table, the unwavering and ongoing support of NAM countries is equally crucial. NAM desperately needs leadership, direction, and an action plan since it is like an orphan and has to start moving. India must grasp the opportunity's potential and try to use it. India would be wise to use NAM as a forum for inter-civilizational interaction. India can also utilize the NAM to strengthen South-South cooperation and establish its position as a "Standard Bearer for South. The time is apt to harness the enormous potential of NAM to develop the "INDIA WAY" as analogous to the "THIRD WAY" of the 1960s and 1970s. The time has arrived to revive the "Bandung Spirit" and recreate NAM, albeit with a modified objective and fresh vigour, in this period of "Militarization of the Sea" and "Territorial Expansion."
Pratik Mall is a Student of M.A PISM batch 2021-2023 SIS, JNU.