NAM-striving for relevance
In a significant move, Indian PM did not attend 17th Non Aligned Movement (NAM) summit which was held in Venezuela recently.
The only other time when an Indian Prime Minister stayed home was in 1979, when the historic Havana summit took place. Prime Minister Charan Singh’s absence, however, had nothing to do with NAM; this time, the absence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a political message. His absence was deliberate as he did not find NAM to be important enough.
Non-alignment has not been in the vocabulary of Prime Minister Modi.
He has been on a quest for selective alignments to suit his needs for India’s development and security.
His advisers have now begun to rationalise India’s distancing from NAM. One argument is that NAM did not have any binding principles and that it was a marriage of convenience (arranged for practical, financial, or political reasons) among disparate countries.
Right from the beginning, the word ‘non-alignment’ conveyed the wrong notion that it was not aligning with the power blocs and that the be-all and end-all of non-alignment was to remain unaligned.
But the essence of non-alignment was freedom of judgment and action and it remained valid, whether there was one bloc or two.
Seen in that context, non-military alliances can also be within the ambit of non-alignment, which was subsequently characterised as ‘strategic autonomy’. In other words, India does not have to denounce non-alignment to follow its present foreign policy.
Why NAM is failing?
The traditional foreign policy approach of non-alignment was a central component of Indian identity in global politics.
However, since independence, India has been in pursuit of strategic autonomy. It has led to semi-alliances shaped under the cover of non-alignment and regional dynamics.
NAM countries did not come to our help on any of the critical occasions when India needed solidarity, such as the Chinese aggression in 1962 or the Bangladesh war in 1971.
Even in the latest struggle against terror, NAM has not come to assist India in any way.
But the whole philosophy of NAM is that it remains united on larger global issues, even if does not side with a member on a specific issue.
India itself has followed this approach, whenever the members had problems with others either inside or outside the movement.
NAM positions have always been the reflection of the lowest common denominator in any given situation.
NAM ideology?
That NAM has no ideal or ideology as a glue is a wrong assumption. Though the criteria for NAM membership are general, anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism and anti-racism were essential attributes of NAM countries.
There was a consensus on nuclear disarmament also till India broke ranks by keeping out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The diversity reflected in both Singapore and Cuba being NAM members has been its strength. Therefore, Egypt signing the Camp David Accords with Israel in 1978 or India signing the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1971 did not result in any disruption of membership.
Positives about NAM
The golden age in India’s foreign policy was in the first 15 years after Independence, whenNAM provided a constituency for India because of our non-violent victory over the British and the leadership it provided to the newly independent countries.
India led the NAM effort to resolve the Iran-Iraq dispute.
As expected, political issues continued to engage NAM and we benefitted from its activism occasionally.
In fact, it was through NAM that we operated to counter the efforts to expand the UN Security Council by including just Germany and Japan as permanent members. NAM submitted its own proposal and ensured that no quick fix was permitted.
NAM is particularly important in elections at the UN, including the possible identification of new permanent members of the Security Council.
No NAM country may agree to isolate Pakistan, but the NAM forum will be an effective instrument to project our anti-terrorist sentiments.
India’s current foreign policy- a shift from past
Why ?
India seeks to balancethe benefits and risks of an increasingly assertive neighbour (China) and a network of alliances with like-minded countries.
China’s rise and assertiveness as a regional and global power and the simultaneous rise of middle powers in the region mean that this balancing act is increasing in both complexity and importance, simultaneously.
China’s growth presents great opportunities for positive engagement, but territorial disputes and a forward policyin the region raise concerns for India, particularly in the Indian Ocean and with Pakistan.
Forward policy= a foreign policy doctrine applicable to territorial disputes where emphasis is placed on securing control of disputed areas by invasion and annexation or creating a buffer state.
The region itself is riddled with rivalries; a desire to balance China may push states together, while other issues divide them. The same applies on the global level as noted by the unpredictability in Sino-US relations.
To conclude:
The decision to say farewell to NAM is very much in keeping with the new transactional nature of the foreign policy we are developing. NAM was a part of our larger vision for the world, but today it is seen as inconsequential to our present preoccupations. This transformation will not be lost on the world community.