DO YOU THINK THE NON-ALIGNMENT MOVEMENT

HOLDS ANY RELEVANCE IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES?

JUSTIFY YOUR ARGUMENT WITH PERTINENT CASE
STUDIES.

The Afro-Asian revival and bipolar world politics were two concurrent global trends that
gave rise to the idea of non-alignment. The phrase 'non-alignment' refers to the foreign policy
of states that chose to pursue an autonomous path in international affairs rather than aligning
with one of the two Superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. The previously
mentioned movement began when various non-aligned states united and coordinated their
activities on a shared platform; the leaders of this endeavour were Josip Broz Tito of
Yugoslavia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of
Ghana, and Sukarno of Indonesia. During the Cold War, it was essentially a constructive and
calculated tactic to preserve the sovereignty of recently independent governments.

Non-alignment has frequently been mistaken for isolationism, noncommitment, neutrality,

neutralism, and non-involvement by certain Western academics. Neutrality does not mean
non-alignment. While neutrality is a legal term, non-alignment is a political one.
Furthermore, non-alignment is a positive idea rather than a negative one, in contrast to
neutrality. It represents (a) taking an active part in international affairs and (b) friendliness
and collaboration with all nations. I shall seek to examine NAM's relevance in this paper,
especially in the Indian context.

Now, if we come to the context of its relevance in contemporary times, Vice President M.
Hamid Ansari had led the Indian delegation to the 17th summit of non-aligned countries in
the Venezuelan island of Margarita on September 17 and 18, 2016. This was the second time
that the Indian Prime Minister had not participated in the Summit, the last occasion having
been in 1979 when the then caretaker Prime Minister Charan Singh decided to give it a miss.
Questions have been raised on the reason for Prime Minister Narendra Modi declining the
invitation, although reportedly, the timing of the Summit was moved from July, 2015 to
September this year to suit his convenience.
As far as India is concerned it would be useful to distinguish between the philosophy and
ideology of “Non Alignment” which lays emphasis on strategic independence and
autonomy, and the “Non Aligned Movement” which seeks to take a collective position on
challenges faced by the developing world. This necessarily tends to be the lowest common
denominator. The essential fundamentals of Non Alignment were enunciated by Nehru in the
early 1950s and were encapsulated in the Bandung Declaration in Indonesia in 1955. India’s
experience of the Non-Aligned Movement was disappointing as the Group decided to take an
equidistant position in India’s 1962 war with China, in the 1965 war with Pakistan and in
India’s 1974 peaceful nuclear explosion. India has however felt it useful to continue to
support and actively engage with the Movement because it has provided a high profile and
strong voice to India in international fora and affairs.

What is often overlooked, though, is the reality that NAM had little to no impact on India's
ability to safeguard and advance its interests and security, which is the main yardstick by
which the value of a multilateral organisation should be assessed. Initially, during the 1962
War with China, Ghana and Indonesia, two of the NAM's co-founders along with India,
openly supported China. Ghana, which had become close to China economically, even
advised the UK not to provide military support to India, citing the possibility that it would
"exacerbate the unfortunate situation." The majority of NAM nations generally took unbiased
stances and refrained from vehemently denouncing China's aggressiveness.

The 1965 War with Pakistan broke out three years later. Once more, Indonesia not only took a
stand against India, but it also gave Pakistan some weapons. West Asian NAM members,
such as Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, took up pro-Pakistan stances. In general, India had
few sympathisers and no active supporters throughout the world. Of course, the worst
occurred during the War of 1971. Several Arab nations, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, and Libya, were ardent supporters of Pakistan. India was especially appalled by
Egypt's stance since it showed no empathy for the enormous refugee crisis that India was
facing. If the diplomatic stances taken by NAM members from West Asia disappointed India,
conditions in South-East Asia were scarcely better. Once more, Indonesia opposed India.

The breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991 proved to be a turning
point in the development of NAM. NAM had to redefine its purpose because, at that time, the
goals of decolonization and the abolition of apartheid had mostly been accomplished.
Although the movement's new credo is to ensure the peace, security, and economic
development of emerging nations, members have reached a difficult consensus on the policies
necessary to achieve these goals. This is due to the fact that a number of the grouping's
members, notably India, have increased their interactions with the developed world in an
effort to improve socioeconomic conditions by attracting capital, technology, better
management practices, larger markets, foreign direct and portfolio investments, and other
resources.

Because of the extreme absence of economic pragmatism, NAM has essentially vanished.
Additionally, after the end of the Cold War, a number of new NAM-like entities have
emerged, like the G-77, ASEAN, and the Common Wealth, which are better at handling trade
and economic difficulties. India has established itself as a prominent player in a number of
multilateral alliances, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ASEAN-focused
organisations, G4 for enacting reforms to the UN Security Council, G20 for overseeing the
global economy, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and IBSA (India,
Brazil, and South Africa) for bolstering economic cooperation with nations in comparable
circumstances, and Russia-India-China grouping for pursuing political and security interests.
By now, it should be quite clear that this paper mainly focuses on the very irrelevance of the
Non-Aligned Movement. Today the world is no longer bipolar. However, there is also no
consensus about the nature of its configuration. Some feel that it is unipolar with the U.S.
being the sole Superpower. Others argue that it is multipolar with the European Union, Japan,
Russia and China being important centres of power together with the U.S. Some others have
referred to it as "uni-cum-multipolar. Whatever the terminology, that may be used, there
is no doubt that the U.S. and the G-7 powers together are in a position to work in
concert and manage the rest of the world. There has also emerged the new Northern concert
of powers. Within this global scenario, the practice of nonalignment becomes difficult
because there is no longer the space for manoeuvre nor the intermediary role. Regardless, I
do believe that there is a need for a revitalised Non-Alignment Movement. Earlier the NAM
was a political movement, but now the movement is shifting its political concept to the
economic. It’s also true that the bipolarity of the world has receded after the Cold War.
Notwithstanding, the world still has an economic gap between the first world and third world
nations. So, as long as the economic gap among the nations exists the NAM would probably
continue to be relevant, in an extremely subdued form, as most of the important constructive
dialogues are being engaged in by the other similar groups of nations.

In conclusion, I would argue that it would be inconsistent to entirely write off the movement
even though its potential has significantly decreased. The current state of multipolarity
creates an environment that is unclear, complex, and dismal for developing nations, where
there may be more vulnerability than new chances. Even though trends towards protectionism
are on the rise in developed nations, Third World countries are still under pressure to comply
with all of the developed world's demands regarding market opening and intellectual property
rights at a crucial juncture when developing nations are attempting to reform their economies
and provide for market deregulation. Thirdly, industrialised nations have a propensity to place
severe limitations on the transfer of technology to poor nations.Fourthly, there is still a
nuclear split between the "haves" and "have-nots" in the world. The 'haves' with nuclear
weapons appear committed to holding onto their stockpiles, albeit in smaller amounts, and to
keeping others from obtaining them. The irony is that, despite being perceived as the primary
danger to the security of nuclear-armed powers, Third World nations are now the targets of
nuclear weapons. Fifth, the United States-led alliance has effectively launched an all-out
drive to demolish the multilateral nature of the international body in order to change its
agenda and impair its functioning in specific areas, rather than revitalising multilateralism
under the UN. The United Nations' agenda now excludes "hard-core" economic issues like
poverty alleviation, development plans, trade, money, finance, and debt. Instead, these issues
are handled by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement
on Trade and Tariffs, which have more authority and are able to employ cross-conditionalities
and cross-relation.

None of the NAM countries or groups of countries, no matter how large or wealthy, can deal
with these new realities on their own for all the previously indicated reasons. As a result, the
nations of NAM need to stick together and take shared positions. However, how to do so is
the question. The non-aligned nations have three key options to counteract the
aforementioned negative trends: a) bolstering and reforming the UN; b) promoting
South-South Cooperation; and c) solidifying the movement by enacting the required reforms.

Many of the economic theories that were popular in the past have been revised. But a lot of
NAM members have their roots in the socialism and state control that were common
throughout Nehru's and Nasir's administrations. They keep complaining about the WTO and
the IMF in this pursuit, but they don't have the power to take any action. The countries need
to adapt to the new trade regime and learn how to use it to their advantage rather than
whining about it. Regarding topics like gender issues, child exploitation, and human rights,
NAM is neutral. Its members are therefore forced to comply with Western demands in this
area. Disagreements exist among the members and there is no leadership on international
matters. Consequently, there is a major lack of directional vision within the organisation. The
NAM's new focus needs to be on ending poverty, hunger, malnutrition, and illiteracy at a time
when the globe is shifting from less hostility to more collaboration. A progressive platform
centred on the principles of democracy, human rights, and multiculturalism ought to be
developed by NAM.

What the world should be focusing on is that the NAM will continue to lose relevance in the
world of international relations unless it makes strong, coordinated efforts to improve its
standing. This is because there is concurrence from other international groups of nations that
are actively working towards improving and resolving urgent global issues, which creates a
need for duplicity in NAM's efforts. The relevance of NAM should have seriously been
questioned when The NAM could not first prevent the conflict between two of its
members-Iraq and Kuwait and neither could it play an effective role in the subsequent Gulf
crisis. Nor could it halt the civil war in Yugoslavia, itself an important member.

The NAM has valid complaints at the moment, and it is indisputable that nations like South
Africa, Indonesia, and India are becoming more and more influential globally. It is vital to
reassess the international legal frameworks that support the current system as the globe
moves into a new era of state alliances and diplomatic ties. Progress in this area needs to take
into consideration how national identities are evolving, particularly the challenges associated
with coming up with and approving shared narratives and conventions. At the same time, a
generation ravaged by the scourge of modern warfare gave rise to the norms of the
international liberal order. A key component of the NAM's formation was its dedication to the
three fundamental liberal ideals of territorial integrity, sovereignty, and nonaggression. Power
must not subvert or abandon these ideals.
REFERENCES:

1. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/has-nam-become-irrelevant/
2. https://www.insightsonindia.com/international-relations/important-international-instit
utions-agencies-and-further-structure-mandate-etc/nam-and-its-relevance/
3. Non Aligned Movement and its Relevance Today- Dr. Aruna R. Mittal,
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research ISSN: 2455-2070;
Impact Factor: RJIF 5.22 www.socialresearchjournals.com Volume 2; Issue 7; July
2016; Page No. 22-27
4. A.P Rana : The Imperatives of Non-Alignment: A conceptual study of India;s foreign
policy strategy in the Nehru period given the New Northern Concert of Powers.
5. Was The Non-Aligned Movement Ever Relevant for India? Manohar Parrikar
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.