Still relevant after all these years

A former editor of a leading Indian newspaper contends that for India and other developing countries, solidarity within the Non-Aligned Movement is necessary not merely to preserve their 'strategic autonomy'. It is essential so that they can preserve the strategic space to secure a higher level of political, economic and technological development.

KN Hari Kumar

WHAT was most significant about the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit that was held in Tehran recently was that almost all of NAM's 120 members gathered there in the face of attempts by the US, allied Western nations and Israel to pressure and isolate Iran to abandon parts of its nuclear programme.  Great pressure was even brought to bear on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon by the US and Israel 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. 

The attempt to isolate Iran failed completely.  Hosting the summit was a great confidence booster for Iran, which was able to present its case to the largest international political 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 UN framework, as well as diverse forms of undercover sabotage and killings by Israel with or without US involvement, including any military attack if it were to take place.

It is in this context that the decision of the Indian Prime Minister to resist US pressure to at most send a low-powered delegation with junior ministers 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 Khamenei.  Besides, the Indian Foreign Minister met his Iranian counterpart ahead of the summit to develop bilateral, especially economic and business, ties.  Unsurprisingly, it was reported in the media that the US and Israel 'frown[ed] at India hobnobbing with Iran.'

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 US 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 US and allied Western and other rich nations are politically, economically and strategically more dominant than ever?  NAM is routinely derided by Western media and policymakers, who employ phrases like 'a relic of the Cold War' and sneer that after this 'talkfest, the world will not have changed'.  US 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.  Instead, 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 being advanced is 'multi-alignment', that is, participation in diverse international groupings of nations - the G20, G77, IBSA, RIC, BRICS, BASIC, among others - for promoting different national 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 a matter of non-alignment 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 G77, 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 be NAM's role 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 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 'G77' 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 in the international arena to promote its ambitions and interests.

What has been decisively abandoned is India's solidarity with the developing countries and 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 private- sector-oriented economic 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 had more faith in the UN as a forum to protect its independence and interests.  But after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its communist allies, that institution has been almost completely dominated by the powerful nations.  The US, long hostile to many of its associated organisations, has been openly disregarding, 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 UN will be able to provide a check on those powerful nations is doubtful.

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 UN Security Council. Another, for the present at least, is 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 also to maintain its 'strategic autonomy', 'to preserve our strategic space'. Hence the continuing ambivalence and shifting stands.  On the Iran nuclear issue, India voted in the Security Council for sanctions for Iran's violations of its non-proliferation commitments.  But after that it has resisted additional sanctions by the US-led Western nations.  Also, it tried to resist attempts to restrict its oil purchases from Iran, before ultimately succumbing to US pressure.  It has also actively tried to increase its bilateral trade and economic ties and maintain more friendly political relations with Iran.

It is undoubtedly true that developing friendly relations with the rich and powerful nations has benefitted India economically in recent decades, especially in IT outsourcing and IT-enabled services.  But for India and other developing countries to advance beyond the advantages of low labour and currency costs, raw materials, agro products and areas which the developed countries would like to abandon and leave to them, and develop more advanced technological and higher-value products and services which alone can take their economies and citizens to the next stage of income and wealth, they will have to develop their own technologies and economies.  For this a self-reliant strategy is required.  But if and when their products and services start to compete even a little with those of the developed countries, the developing countries are likely to meet with resistance of diverse kinds from those countries.  Hence, to go beyond even a modest level of development and prosperity, let alone to become the superpower that national policymakers increasingly want India to be, an independent foreign and strategic policy is essential. 

However, it is not just for this that solidarity within NAM is required.  There is also the increasingly aggressive interventionism on the part of the advanced Western nations in the first decade of the 21st century which seems to be worrying the Indian government. This has been seen not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also lately in Libya and now Syria and Iran.  The reasons given range from possession of weapons of mass destruction to human rights abuses.  The fear is undoubtedly whether India will come under increasing pressure from the latest version of 'the white man's burden', which now goes under the name of the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine that purports to protect the human rights of citizens of developing countries from the abusive actions or failures to act of their governments.

In conclusion, it can be said that go-it-alone non-alignment 'to preserve strategic autonomy' may not be adequate.  To preserve that strategic space and to develop technologically and economically, India and other developing countries need to develop solidarity within NAM, the G77 and other organisations in a more committed manner over the long term.  Otherwise their political, economic and technological independence and progression to a  higher stage of economic development may be at risk.

KN Hari Kumar is a former editor of the Deccan Herald. The above is a revised version of an article which first appeared in The Hindu (25 September 2012).

*Third World Resurgence No. 263, July 2012, pp 21-22