THE RELEVANCE OF NAM TODAY
|
INTRODUCTION: The Non-Aligned Movement is passing through a critical period in its life. It finds itself today at the crossroads and seems unable to comprehend the path it has to take. It is trying to find its identity, reorient its perceptions and endeavouring to determine the role it has to play in the changed context of international politics. This has resulted in a heated debate about the validity and relevance of NAM as foreign policy in this post-Cold War “Unipolar” world. DEVELOPMENT OF THOUGHT: The Non-Aligned Movement was the product of the cold-war era. Representing the will and voices of three-fourths of mankind NAM spearheaded the struggle against colonialism and racialism without aligning itself with any of the superpowers. With the end of the cold war and hipolarism, it has been argued that NAM is no longer relevant. But the NAM is the largest peace movement in the world and is as relevant today as it was earlier. Only the issues it takes up may be different. Colonialism and Racialism are at an end, but economic Imperialism continues and NAM will be relevant in raising this issue. It must raise its voice against the injustices of the current decade and of the emerging 2Ist century; democratisation of the UN Security Council; human rights, economic progress, etc. CONCLUSION: Non-alignment has not lost any of its relevance even though the rigid attitudes of the cold war have softened. It has stood the test Of time. It has served the useful purpose of protecting and preserving the Interests of the Third World countries. It has been the vanguard of the conflicting struggle against imperialism, colonialism and racialism. And it has new challenges to face in the future |
 Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that today we are living in an altogether new world—the end of communist regimes in Eastern Europe. 15 new republics in place of the erstwhile Soviet Union, a united Germany and a new Europe as a socio-economic and political entity. Some people argue that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was the product of cold war and bipolarism: and that since the cold war is ended and the Soviet Union is no more, NAM has lost its relevance.
 It is true that NAM was a child of the cold war but during the three decades of its existence it has acquired a life of its own and should not be defined solely in terms of cold war politics. The movement assumed dynamism of its own and became preoccupied with Third World issues other than purely cold war superpower rivalry and confrontation.
According to some others, NAM’s task has, by and large, been accomplished. For instance, colonies have gained independence, apartheid is being dismantled, the cold war is ended, foreign bases are losing relevance and when alliances are disintegrating there is no more heed for non-alignment.
These people should understand that the main concern of NAM, both as a national policy of a large number of new states and as an international movement, has been the liquidation of economic imperialism to secure economic growth and development. Besides, there are a number of issues which NAM has to take up in the coming years, like the democratisation of international relations, especially of the UN Security Council, security for small and weak nations, disarmament, collective measures for achieving economic progress, lightening the debt burden of the developing world, halting the deteriorating terms of trade, the North-South dialogue, human rights, environmental issues, drug trafficking, international terrorism, ethnic and religious conflicts, new international economic order, new international information and technological order, etc.
 Secondly, those skeptics who think there is no need for Non-Align Movement since alliances are losing their importance should keep in mind that despite numerous changes in the 350 years old sovereign-state-system, including the most recent ones, the system has consistently maintained two standing features: Great power hegemony and the opposition of the overwhelming majority of other states to that hegemony. Hence, to the question of Non-alignment against whom—the brief answer is: against the hegemonies or whoever is dominating the world.
There are others who think that NAM should be disbanded because its present performance is not as dynamic as it was in the coast and it is characterized by slow response to today’s deep and rapid changes on the international scene. They cite the example of NAM’s poor response to the recent Gulf crisis. However, organizations do not become irrelevant simply because they have defects. The decisions about the relevance and rationale of old organizations should not be taken in haste since time changes everything. Hence, we should not have second thoughts about the relevance of NAM simply because of its poor response to the Gulf crisis, just as we do not have about the UNO.
 While delivering the Indira Gandhi Memorial Lecture to the Association of Indian Diplomats former President R. Venkataraman rightly remarked in this context that “Non-alignment is not an ism. It cannot become out-dated any more than common sense can become outdated. The cold war has ended. That does not make the UNO charter irrelevant. Non-aligned countries represent the will and voices of three-fourths of mankind. No nation, no group of nations can disregard the NAM. There must be something to it for China to seek membership and Germany to get observer status of NAM… From the Fifties through to the Eighties NAM spearheaded the struggle against colonialism and racialism. It must today raise its voice against the injustices and inequities of the emerging 21st century.”
 The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest peace movement in the world. But while dealing with NAM we should make a distinction between Non-alignment as an International movement and Non-alignment as a Foreign Policy choice. As an International movement, it may have its shortcomings or it may not be performing the role assigned to it but NAM as a Foreign Policy choice–an assertion of independence in foreign affairs has always remained still remains and will always remain valid and relevant. However, both are important and there cannot be any water-tight compartmentalization between the two since the success of one is dependent upon the support of the other.
