The Rediff Special /J N Dixit

NAM: Is it still relevant?

The Non Aligned Movement foreign ministers meeting begins in Delhi on Monday. Former foreign secretary J N Dixit asks whether NAM's objectives and principles are still relevant in the post-Cold War era.

Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda has yet to participate in a summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. His introduction to the movement so far has been indirect through the G-15 summit in Harare which he attended late last year. Though External Affairs Minister I K Gujral knows the chemistry of the movement, Deve Gowda's perceptions are theoretical so far. He will get introduced to the movement when he inaugurates the non-aligned foreign ministers meeting on Monday.

Fundamental questions have been raised about the relevance and the role of the movement since the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of ideological power blocs. Though no member of this large and amorphous movement has withdrawn from the membership, the intellectual and ideological figure of the movement has diminished since 1989-90. Some of the movement's original objectives have disappeared. The remaining objectives are being pursued by different members of the movement through other instrumentalities and co-operative arrangements.

Two questions need to be answered: Is the movement necessary? Will it survive as a multilateral trans-continental forum of states?

The foreign ministers meeting could be an occasion for member-states to deliberate on these questions and come up with collective responses for them.

Prominent members of NAM like India, Egypt, Algeria, Mexico, and Indonesia have articulated their continuing support for the movement in ritualistic terms. Prime Minister Deve Gowda, responding to a question from the media recently, stated that in his view NAM should be nurtured and strengthened. His speech at the G-15 summit at Harare also underlined the continuing relevance of the movement.

Ritual genuflection to the movement and theological commitments apart, it is time to ask down to earth questions about how relevant the movement is in the post-Cold War age. The first point of examination should be as to what constitutes the movement. The creation and survival of a movement is predicated on there being a substantive parallelism, if not commonality of interests and concerns amongst members who become part of the movement.

The second predication is that there is agreement on steps to be taken and policies to be followed to meet the objective of fulfilling these shared interests and responding to shared concerns. The third predication is that the constituent elements of the movement share the conviction that the movement or association is an effective instrument or means to meet the shared interests and concerns.

There is also a definitional difference between being non-aligned and being part of an aligned movement. Being non-aligned means retaining complete freedom of options to take decisions related to your interests and objectives without being subjected to any extraneous or external influence to the extent possible. Non-alignment in this sense provides an abiding and valid terms of reference for the conduct of foreign policies and for fashioning one's defence and developmental policies.

Being part of a non-aligned movement, however, presumes that all the members of the movement are ideologically and operationally committed to the concept of non-alignment based on the conviction that it is the most effective approach to meet their individual and collective national interests in comparison to other options and equations which are available.

The functioning of the movement over the last seven years, examined on the basis of these criteria, makes one questioning about the relevance of the movement now and into the 21st century. Assuming defence and foreign policy stances, independent of Cold War and the ideological power blocs, has no meaning now for obvious reasons.

The other issues which united NAM members like de-colonisation, anti-imperialism, racial discrimination and the Palestine issue, have all been resolved more or less. These disputes were resolved not through the operational contribution of NAM but through other means reflecting the changing power equation in the international community.

Tell us what you think of this analysis