Is Non-Aligned Country Just a Euphemism?
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is an international organization of 120 countries that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. It was founded in 1961 with the aim of advancing the interests of developing countries in the context of the Cold War confrontation.
But is non-alignment a realistic and meaningful concept in today’s world? Or is it just a euphemism for countries that are unable or unwilling to take a clear stance on global issues?
The Origins of Non-Alignment
The idea of non-alignment emerged in the aftermath of the Korean War, as some countries sought to avoid being drawn into the bipolar rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. One of the key events that shaped this idea was the Bandung Conference of 1955, where 29 Asian and African countries met to discuss common concerns such as colonialism, racism, and economic development.
The founding principles of the movement were summarized by Fidel Castro in his Havana Declaration of 1979 as to ensure “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.”
The Challenges of Non-Alignment
The Non-Aligned Movement gained the most traction in the 1950s and early 1960s, when it achieved major successes in decolonization, disarmament, opposition to racism and apartheid in South Africa, and persisted throughout the entire Cold War, despite several conflicts between members, and despite some members developing closer ties with either the Soviet Union, China, or the United States.
However, the movement also faced many challenges and criticisms, such as:
- The lack of a clear and consistent definition of what non-alignment meant, and how it differed from neutrality or non-intervention.
- The difficulty of maintaining a unified and coherent position on various global issues, given the diversity and complexity of the members’ interests, perspectives, and ideologies.
- The accusation of being hypocritical or opportunistic, as some members were accused of violating the principles of non-alignment by engaging in military or economic cooperation with one or more of the major powers, or by intervening in the affairs of other countries.
- The marginalization or irrelevance of the movement in the post-Cold War era, as the bipolar world order gave way to a multipolar or unipolar one, and as new issues such as terrorism, climate change, human rights, and globalization emerged.
The Future of Non-Alignment
Despite these challenges, the Non-Aligned Movement still exists today, and claims to represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations’ members and contain 55% of the world population. The movement holds regular summits and meetings, and issues declarations and resolutions on various topics. The current chair of the movement is Uganda, and the next summit is scheduled to take place in 2024 in Kampala.
The movement also claims to have adapted to the changing global context, and to have renewed its relevance and role in the international arena. Some of the goals and priorities of the movement today include:
- Promoting peace, security, and multilateralism, and opposing unilateralism, interventionism, and sanctions.
- Supporting the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under foreign occupation or oppression, especially the Palestinian cause.
- Advancing the interests and rights of developing countries, especially in terms of economic development, social progress, debt relief, trade, and technology transfer.
- Addressing the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, such as climate change, sustainable development, human rights, democracy, and cultural diversity.
However, the question remains: is non-alignment a viable and meaningful concept in today’s world? Or is it just a euphemism for countries that are unable or unwilling to take a clear stance on global issues?
Non-alignment provides a platform for dialogue and cooperation among countries that share common values and interests, and that seek to preserve their sovereignty and independence from external pressures or influences. It offers an alternative and balanced perspective on global issues, and challenges the dominance and hegemony of the major powers and their allies. Non-alignment represents the voice and aspirations of the majority of the world’s population, especially the developing countries, and advocates for a more just and equitable world order.
However, non-alignment is an outdated and irrelevant concept, that does not reflect the realities and complexities of the contemporary world, where the lines between allies and adversaries are blurred, and where new actors and issues emerge. It is also an ineffective and inconsistent concept, that does not provide a clear and coherent position on global issues, and that fails to translate its principles and declarations into concrete actions and outcomes. Non-alignment is a hypocritical and opportunistic concept, that allows some countries to avoid taking responsibility and accountability for their actions and policies, and to pursue their own interests at the expense of others.
