P Kharel

HARDLY had the conclusion of the 18th summit of the two-day Non-aligned Movement concluded at Baku in the Central Asian state of Azerbaijan on October 26 than global focus and academics’ attention began to be trained once again on the issue of making the world’s largest grouping—second only to the United Nations—more relevant than ever.
At Baku, the participating leaders from 120 nations made an announcement to observe 2021 as International Year of Peace and Trust. In the presence of more than 20 officially recognised observers, they stressed the need for efforts at making the organisation additionally relevant and effective, in addition to reforming and strengthening the United Nations. Emphasis on South-South Cooperation was another aspect of the gathering’s recommendation.
Relevant reiteration
Echoing an appropriate reiteration among member states, Prime Minister KP Oli termed NAM’s objectives, based on the five principles of co-existence, or Panchsheel, as carrying as much relevance today as they did yesterday. He said: “They make a perfect sync with the essence of Nepal’s foreign policy principle that believes in ‘amity with all, enmity with none’.”
A grouping officially not committed to military alignment with any power bloc, NAM, since its founding in Belgrade in 1961, grew in terms of membership and regular gathering of top leaders of the member states, representing as it did more than 55 per cent of the world’s population. All South Asian countries are its members. But questions have been raised over how effective its approach has been. Could it be more proactive in addressing NAM-specific issues, including those related to disputes between member states?
At the time of its formal launching at the 1961 Cairo summit, NAM generated considerable enthusiasm among its founding members, including Nepal. Peace, harmony and cooperation were the recurring themes in subsequent editions whereas membership grew markedly. The collective voice was neither for the interference of the capitalist bloc nor for the socialist bloc during the Cold War decades until the collapse of the Soviet Union, which paved way for what was termed “unipolar world” since the 1990s through at least the first decade of the new millennium. The 1979 Havana Declaration emphatically reiterated “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries”, and firmly rejected foreign interference or hegemony.
Nepal has demonstrated to NAM members and the rest of the world of its staunch commitment to adhering to NAM principles and the United Nations Charter. This reputation contributed to Nepal being elected in 1968 to serve as a non-permanent member on the United Nations Security Council. It obtained the unanimous support of the Group of Asian the UN Security Council. Nepal had obtained the unanimous support of the Asian group of countries while an overwhelming majority of the rest of the UN members also voted for it. After the two-year stint (1969-70), Nepal awaited two decades for a second stint when it again won a thumping support in 1988.
For that matter, King Birendra was given the opportunity to address the 1981 UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), held in Paris, on behalf of all the LDCs in the Asian, pacific and West Asian regions. The meet was a follow-up to the UN General Assembly’s June 1974 call to create New International Economic Order. Yugoslavia’s President Josip Broz Tito, Egypt’s President Gamal Adel Nasser and India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Ghana's President Kwame Nkrumah and Indonesia's President Sukarno were seen by the power blocs as “frontline leaders”. Down the decades, much has happened in regional and world events, the challenge being to ensure that NAM does not lose its lustre.
Cyprus, a founding member, exited from the organisation to join the European Union. Poland became a member in 1989, only to quit 15 years later. Malta and Yugoslavia, too, opted out. Yugoslavia had hosted NAM summits twice. Ukraine was among the countries that dropped their observer status. Credibility gets enhanced only if conflicts among NAM members are addressed early on to prevent war. Bilateral issues among member states are quite regularly found deteriorating to full-fledged war after failing to resolve their disputes through diplomacy and dialogue. An effective mechanism for NAM could prevent such serious situations. There are persistent questions over member countries allowing foreign troops being stationed in NAM member countries. A section argues that such practice goes against the commitment to NAM principles in both letter and spirit.
To recall the 1980s, many hundreds of thousands were killed during the decade-long war between Iran and Iraq, both NAM members. In this war, the United States supported the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad. The US-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in the new millennium was another war that did not see any concrete step from NAM as a grouping.
For an organisation of its size and breadth—and consisting mostly of developing and least developed countries with obvious potential influence—it is disconcerting that NAM does not recede adequate media coverage, except on summit eve every three or four years. This is especially so since the 1990s. The so-called “forefront” leaders, too, seem to be less enthusiastic than during the first 25 years of NAM existence.
Over the years, NAM either failed to assertively reiterate its stated official objectives in practice or the numerous strands of individual state interests put the idea of a pro-active grouping into the backburner. It could very well be that the larger states in NAM appear to be turning indifferent to the losing lustre of an institution that in its heydays captivated world attention.
Road ahead
The need for NAM is to focus more on action and less on reiteration of its goals and objectives. Determined steps for promoting South-South cooperation and also in addressing differences among member states should go a long way in enhancing the oganisation’s global credibility. How often do NAM member even bother to mention their organization at major international forums?
“Multilateralism is undoubtedly under strain,” said India’s External Affairs Minister S Jayshankar at Azerbaijan during the 18th NAM ministerial meet in preparation of the summit. He warned against “narrow interests” being given the NAM platform and called for the grouping to move with the times. He may be wrong here. For, departing from NAM’s basic tenets would dilute its original character at a time when multilateralism would find them no less relevant today than any time previously.
Commitment to NAM principles should be demonstrated in action. Prompt reaction and specific voting pattern at the UN and other international forums, reflecting the organisation’s fundamental goals, should echo proactive members’ religious faith in what NAM stands for.

(Former chief editor of The Rising Nepal, P. Kharel has been writing for this daily since 1973)