What was most significant about the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit
that was held in Tehran recently was that almost all of its 120 members
gathered there in the face of U.S., allied western nations and Israeli
attempts to pressure and isolate Iran to abandon parts of its nuclear
programme. Great pressure was even brought on United Nations Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon by Washington and Tel Aviv not to attend, but the
mild and generally pliant Ban could not bring himself to abandon the
precedent set by his predecessors and skip the event.
Confidence booster
The attempt to isolate Iran failed completely. Hosting the summit was a
great confidence booster for Tehran which was able to present its case
to the largest international organisation of developing nations. It
showcased the lethal attacks on its scientists, suspected to be by
Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad. In its final declaration the
Summit unanimously supported Iran’s right to develop all aspects of its
nuclear programme for peaceful purposes within the framework of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and criticised attempts to isolate Iran and
punish it with unilateral sanctions. Even though NAM may not have the
political, economic or military strength to successfully resist those
powerful nations, it cannot be doubted that its support undermines the
legitimacy of sanctions, especially those outside the U.N. framework, as
well as diverse forms of undercover sabotage and killings by Israel
with or without U.S. involvement, including any military attack if it
were to take place.
It is in this context that the decision of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
to resist U.S. pressure and attend the Summit himself has to be seen.
Even though he made no mention of the Iran nuclear issue at the Summit,
his very presence was seen as expressing the Indian government’s support
for Iran and for NAM more generally. Further, there was considerable
warmth in his meeting with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
Besides, the Indian Foreign Minister met his Iranian counterpart ahead
of the Summit to develop bilateral economic ties.
On the other issue on the international agenda, the Prime Minister spoke
out forthrightly against “external intervention” in the Syrian crisis,
which, he said, would “exacerbate the suffering of ordinary citizens.”
He added that “NAM should urge all parties to recommit themselves to
resolving the crisis peacefully through a Syrian-led inclusive political
process.” This was directly in opposition to the U.S. stand and actions
on the issue. But NAM could not come out with a clear stand because of
many internal differences, especially among the Arab and Islamic
nations, and the final declaration made no mention of the issue. This
showed some of the limitations of NAM in areas involving conflicts
between and within its member nations.
Is NAM still relevant in the post-Cold War world, in an era where the
U.S. and its allies are politically, economically and strategically more
dominant than ever? NAM is routinely derided by the western media and
policymakers as an irrelevant “relic of the Cold War.” U.S. policymakers
have explicitly stated that they would like to see India out of NAM
altogether and even abandon the concept of non-alignment in its foreign
policy thinking. Alternatively, they would like India to join their
alliance of democracies against non-democracies, which in their opinion
is the defining agenda in the present global scenario. Another idea is
“multi-alignment” — participation in diverse international groupings of
nations like G 20, G 77, IBSA, RIC, Brics, Basic, among others, for
promoting different interests.
The reasons are not far to seek. Even from its pre-origins in the
Bandung Conference of former colonial nations in 1955, NAM has meant
much more than not being aligned with the two Cold War blocs. It was
also conceived as the voice of the former colonies and poor nations in a
world overwhelmingly dominated by the rich western nations. The G 77
which takes up the cause of the developing countries in international
fora on economic and development issues was complementary to NAM.
Solidarity within NAM provides strength to its member nations. Hence,
NAM has that flavour of anti-imperialism associated with its origin and
history which the rich and powerful nations would like to see forgotten.
In such a context what should NAM’s role be in Indian foreign policy?
The Prime Minister in his address reaffirmed the continuing relevance of
NAM. And he emphasised that NAM was important “to preserve our
strategic space.” A recent policy perspective document developed by the a
panel of “independent thinkers,” some closely linked to the Indian
Government, titled Non-Alignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the Twenty First Century, argues that the objective of non-alignment is to preserve and enhance the nation’s “strategic autonomy.”
Interestingly, the phrases “Non-Aligned Movement” and “G 77” do not find
any place in it. Non-alignment has been redefined in exclusively Indian
national terms to enhance its independence or sovereignty and provide
room for manoeuvre amidst diverse pressures to promote its ambitions and
interests.
What has been decisively abandoned is India’s solidarity with the
developing countries and the aim of mobilising them on the basis of
common interests and agenda. This perspective has become more
influential in Indian policy circles especially after the collapse of
the Soviet bloc and the initiation domestically of radical economic
private sector oriented reforms at the start of the 1990s. However, the
founding fathers of NAM saw the two objectives — national independence
and the solidarity of developing countries — as profoundly
interdependent for the former colonies which were embarking on the path
of development in a deeply unequal world. Can they be separated in an
age when there is no communist bloc to provide a countervailing force to
the almost complete dominance of the rich and powerful nations?
In recent decades, the Indian government seems to have more faith in the
U.N. as a forum to protect its independence and interests. But after
the collapse of the Soviet Union and its communist allies, that
institution has almost completely been dominated by the powerful
nations. The U.S., long hostile to many of its associated organisations,
has been openly sceptical if not downright contemptuous of it, even
though its West European allies are keener to work within its framework.
Whether in the context of lack of solidarity among the developing
nations, the U.N. will be able to provide a check on those powerful
nations is doubtful.
Change in perspective
This change over the last quarter century in the Indian perspective on
NAM has to be seen in the context of its revised foreign policy agenda
being almost exclusively focused on transforming the nation into a great
power. The way towards this objective, it is felt, is to start thinking
big, join the rich man’s club and enter into friendly relations with
the rich and powerful nations for economic, hi-tech and military
benefits and a place at the high table where the great powers decide the
fate of humankind. Hence, one of its chief priorities is to become a
permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Another, to be allowed
hegemony in the South Asian region. To advance this agenda, friendship
with the most technologically and economically advanced and militarily
powerful nation, the United States, is seen as the most promising path.
But India wants to also maintain its “strategic autonomy,” “to preserve
our strategic space.” Hence, the continuing ambivalence and shifting
stands. India voted against Tehran earlier but has since resisted
additional sanctions by the U.S.-led western nations. Also, it tried to
resist attempts to restrict its oil purchases from Iran, before
ultimately succumbing to U.S. pressure. It has also actively tried to
increase its bilateral trade and economic ties and maintain more
friendly political relations with Iran.
Even if building better relations with the rich and powerful nations has
benefited India in recent decades, abandoning the solidarity with other
developing nations within NAM may well end up adversely affecting the
nation’s economic, political and strategic interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment