Non-alignment: A Realistic Alternative

The superpower rivalry is intensifying at breakneck speed. China and Russia appear together on one side, while the United States, supported by its allies, including NATO, is leading its adversarial front. And Ukraine is the battleground for a proxy war. The bloody confrontation, unleashed by Moscow in February 2022, has already claimed tens of thousands of lives on either side. The possibility of the ongoing hostility ending anytime soon seems bleak. The world is getting rapidly polarised between the two camps, and independent countries around the world are being persuaded to become allies of either the United States or China. The concept of neutrality, says Richard Fontaine in his recent Foreign Affairs article, is no more than a "myth."

Is the world then really left with Hobson’s choice? Can’t neutrality persuade potential foes to think twice before fueling a killing spree? Couldn’t countries grouped in the non-aligned movement play a role in mitigating the dangers of armed conflicts plunging the entire universe into ruins? And what about the United Nations, which was founded "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war"? While the world consists of a UN, which in turn has 193 member states, membership of the non-aligned movement, formally launched in 1961, presently stands at 120. This is a formidable number; shouldn’t it matter at all?

 Needless to say, the numerical strength alone can make the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) a moral force to be reckoned with. But it is not merely a numbers game. What then could be the other factors and features that can help initiate a topical debate about the relevance of NAM? Readers keen to find answers to these and other related questions are encouraged to look for this book, titled "Non-Alignment: Quest for an Independent Foreign Policy". This is a recent publication of the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS), attached to Tribhuvan University. The author, Dinesh Bhattarai, Ph.D., is a seasoned diplomat who served not only as Nepal’s ambassador to the UN (Geneva) but also as a foreign affairs advisor to two prime ministers—the most recent assignment kept him engaged until 2018. Earlier, as a career foreign service officer, he had stints in New Delhi and Washington.

The collection of reliable information on NAM (and its precursor, the Bandung Conference of 1955) is just one aspect of the book under review; the analytical segment is much more valuable. That’s why I consider this treatise a highly useful volume for those who take an interest in foreign policy matters in general and NAM in particular. The vicissitudes NAM faced during its long journey, from Belgrade (1961) to Baku (2019), have been discussed at length. In the process, the author has extensively quoted from the speeches of King Mahendra and King Birendra read out at various international forums.

The statement BP Koirala, Nepal’s first elected prime minister, delivered at the UN general assembly in 1960, too, has been dissected with dexterity. It may also appear unusual for advocates of a republic (‘revolutionaries’), but the author has unhesitatingly touched upon the historic value of the Zone of Peace, the proposal King Birendra made in 1975. As has been publicly recorded, this persuasive royal approach eventually received endorsement from more than 115 countries, including five permanent members of the UN Security Council—at least initially. However, India resisted the idea without assigning any specific reasons. When Nepal received a new constitution in 1990, politicians found it expedient, ironically, to avoid even references to the original commitment on the peace zone proposal. In any case, Dr. Bhattarai offers a lot of food for thought, good enough to generate a healthy discourse against the backdrop of geopolitics prevalent in Nepal’s immediate neighbourhood—and beyond.

Scholars, politicians, and policymakers across the world have been offering divergent views on the relevance of NAM. This is understandable. Those who think the non-aligned movement has lost momentum with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s tend to conclude that it has ceased to influence the decision-making process of the global powers. On the contrary, those who disagree with this contention see NAM as a potent instrument to counter-hegemony, enabling smaller nations to be assertive amid concern that a new cold war is afoot.

In a way, ‘neutrality’ can be interpreted as a passive position on armed conflicts threatening global order and security. Conversely, the principles on which non-alignment is based take an active stand, aimed at restoring peace through understanding and negotiations.

"Non-alignment does not imply indifference to the pressing issues of the day," writes the author in the preface. Dr. Bhattarai elaborates on his point through these words: "It is not isolationism, and it is neither anti nor pro to anyone. "

Were Nepal, a founding member of NAM, to choose isolation or indifference, it would not have voted for a UN resolution that deplored the "aggression against Ukraine" on March 2, 2022, with the support of 141 member states. Only four countries (Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, and Syria) opposed the resolution, with 35 abstentions. India and China chose to abstain!

Undoubtedly, Nepal did what it needed to do given the growing animosity between the US and China and the ongoing competition between India and China. Calibrated steps are needed to avoid a Ukraine-like situation across Himalayan Asia. On matters of crucial national interest, the author puts forth compelling evidence to arrive at a logical conclusion. In the chapter that deals with the ‘Zone of Peace’ proposal, Dr. Bhattarai presents an assessment in the following words: "Nepal is not in a position to influence the course and direction of global events and trends, but it can work with others to do so. The author acknowledges that Nepal's unique geographic location requires it to maintain "deep and extensive" relations with India and simultaneously retain "equally close and friendly" ties with China. In short, the author has injected an assertive tone and tenor into his analyses.

Divided into ten chapters plus appendices, the book contains a pithy foreword written by Executive Director Dr. Mrigendra Bahadur Karki of CNAS. He rightly says the publication critically examines the "relevance of non-alignment and Nepal’s perspectives" in the context of shifting power balances.

 Dr. Bhattarai has illustrated the book with succinct remarks and references attributed to scholars as well as diplomats who have studied the NAM process from its early stages. His painstaking efforts to gather nuggets of pertinent information are visible literally on every page of the book. This makes the title a compelling read. 

Errors and omissions are accepted!

Finally, reviewers of the literary world often quote George Orwell’s prescription to be "brutal” and justify their stinging comments. But we are living in a different era, and the book at hand is a nonfiction work. Diplomatic deftness is well displayed. Dr. Bhattarai deserves kudos!

(Adhikary is a senior journalist, intellectual, and media analyst.)