Why is the non aligned movement important

Opinions , Sep Opinion: Non-Aligned Movement as relevant and important as ever before. The article reflects the author's opinion, and not necessarily the views of CGTN. While the world has changed profoundly over the past six decades, the NAM remains a very important international initiative, and its relevance and strategic importance are expected to continue for many years and decades to come.

The fundamental driving force giving rise to NAM was its founding fathers' desire to keep independence and refuse to be dragged into the rivalry between the two superpowers at that time, the United States and the former Soviet Union.

Since its inception in the bitterest period of the Cold War, NAM has been committed to ensuring national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of its member countries and to promoting the fight against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.

In its first several decades, NAM contributed to the national independence of many countries in Africa and other parts of the world and to the prevention of war in the world. After the attainment of independence, the Conferences expressed a growing concern over economic and social issues as well as over strictly political matters. Something that attested to that was the launching at the Algiers Conference in of the concept of a "new international economic order. The end of the clash between the two antagonistic blocks that was the reason for its existence, name and essence was seen by some as the beginning of the end for the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.

The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries could not spare itself difficulties to act effectively in an adverse international political situation marked by hegemonic positions and unipolarity as well as by internal difficulties and conflicts given the heterogeneity of its membership and, thus, its diverse interests.

Nevertheless, and in spite of such setbacks,the principles and objectives of non-alignment retain their full validity and force at the present international juncture. The primary condition that led to the emergence of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, that is, non-alignment from antagonistic blocks, has not lost its validity with the end of the Cold War. The demise of one of the blocks has not done away with the pressing problems of the world. On the contrary, renewed strategic interests bent on domination grow stronger and, even, acquire new and more dangerous dimensions for underdeveloped countries.

During the 14th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana, Cuba in September , the Heads of States and Governments of the member countries reaffirmed their commitment to the ideals, principles and purposes upon which the movement was founded and with the principles and purposes enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The Heads of States and Governments stated their firm belief that the absence of two conflicting blocs in no way reduces the need to strengthen the movement as a mechanism for the political coordination of developing countries.

In this regard they acknowledged that it remains imperative to strengthen and revitalize the movement. To do so, they agreed to strengthen concrete action, unity and solidarity between all its members, based on respect for diversity, factors which are essential for the reaffirmation of the identity and capacity of the movement to influence International relations.

They also stressed the need to promote actively a leading role for the movement in the coordination of efforts among member states in tackling global threats. Inspired by the principles and purposes which were brought to the Non-Aligned Movement by the Bandung principles and during the First NAM Summit in Belgrade in , the Heads of States and Governments of the member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement adopted in their 14th Summit in Havana the following purposes and principles of the movement in the present International juncture: I.

Purposes: a. To promote and reinforce multilateralism and, in this regard, strengthen the central role that the United Nations must play. To serve as a forum of political coordination of the developing countries to promote and defend their common interests in the system of international relations c. To promote unity, solidarity and cooperation between developing countries based on shared values and priorities agreed upon by consensus.

To defend international peace and security and settle all international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the principles and the purposes of the UN Charter and International Law.

To encourage relations of friendship and cooperation between all nations based on the principles of International Law, particularly those enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. To promote and encourage sustainable development through international cooperation and, to that end, jointly coordinate the implementation of political strategies which strengthen and ensure the full participation of all countries, rich and poor, in the international economic relations, under equal conditions and opportunities but with differentiated responsibilities.

To encourage the respect, enjoyment and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, on the basis of the principles of universality, objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity, avoiding politicization of human rights issues, thus ensuring that all human rights of individuals and peoples, including the right to development, are promoted and protected in a balanced manner.

To promote peaceful coexistence between nations, regardless of their political, social or economic systems. To condemn all manifestations of unilateralism and attempts to exercise hegemonic domination in international relations.

To coordinate actions and strategies in order to confront jointly the threats to international peace and security, including the threats of use of force and the acts of aggression, colonialism and foreign occupation, and other breaches of peace caused by any country or group of countries. To promote the strengthening and democratization of the UN, giving the General Assembly the role granted to it in accordance with the functions and powers outlined in the Charter and to promote the comprehensive reform of the United Nations Security Council so that it may fulfill the role granted to it by the Charter, in a transparent and equitable manner, as the body primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

To continue pursuing universal and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament, as well as a general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control and in this context, to work towards the objective of arriving at an agreement on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time to eliminate nuclear weapons, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use and to provide for their destruction.

Continuing with the same nomenclature, therefore, would perpetuate the preset challenges. Hence, the organization should be renamed taking into account the larger characteristics that unite the member states and the fundamental objectives of the NAM today.

Two factors are significant in this regard: 1 roughly defined, all of the NAM states are from the Global South, and 2 there is a sense of solidarity among the member states based on common colonial history and socioeconomic conditions. These two factors may form the basis for the new title of the organization. One of the options is to call it the southern Solidarity Movement or something of that nature.

Non-alignment denotes a sense of negativity as the organization has been defined as something that is not. Southern solidarity, on the other hand, could infuse much needed positivity into the community of states that are involved.

Most of the contemporary leading international and regional organizations are defined by the geographical factor. The Russian-envisioned supranational organization will be called the Eurasian Union. Therefore, defining the organization through the regional characteristic cannot be such a bad idea.

The term Global South does not only denote a region but also a socioeconomic condition. Most of the states of the Global South are economically challenged states. All states of the Global South could be members of the organization, except power-centers such as China. This should not be a problem because China is not a member state currently, but enjoys an observer status. The status quo could continue. The change of nomenclature, in this manner, will further reinforce the already operating notion of South—South collaboration.

Moreover, the solidarity of the Global South could continue unchallenged regardless of the changes that will take place within the international system in the long term. Since different forms of colonialism will continue to be resisted and member states will strive to be independent, borrowing titles from European states should be avoided.

Therefore, the term movement will serve the purposes of the revamped organization. Interestingly enough, an organization that has about member states has no permanent secretariat.

The idea of a permanent secretariat has been resisted by some of the major states within the organization, for example Yugoslavia, India, Indonesia and Ghana, from the inception. Leaders of these countries feared that such an institution could be costly and could expose internal differences and conflicts. They also probably did not want a small group of countries to highjack the organization. However, it is clear that the absence of a permanent secretariat has contributed largely to the limited success of the organization.

Emphasizing the need for a South Secretariat, the South Commission Report argued that the present arrangements of occasional high level political meetings and ad hoc working groups are inadequate to meet the demands and needs of the states of the Global South The South Commission This state of affairs has allowed NAM leaders to converge during summit meetings, make grandiose statements, and forget about the whole issue until the next summit. The fears of a permanent secretariat are baseless.

The United Nations with its vastly diverse membership, despite some of the inherent problems, has proved to be useful and is still surviving. In terms of cost, member states are not as poor as they used to be in the s and 70s.

Therefore, the organization should be able to sustain an adequately devised permanent secretariat. Differences among member states are not as sharp as they were under the condition of the Cold War. In fact, the contemporary common issues have the potential to forge greater unity among member states. A permanent structure should not cause or create division within the organization.

Therefore, the organization should seriously consider setting up a permanent secretariat. Ideally, a simple secretariat should be established in one of the original member states from the Asian or African region. The structure could be expanded depending on the needs and availability of resources.

A permanent secretariat would immensely enhance the image and capabilities of the organization. Additional institutions, such as an economic development council and an instrument for internal conflict resolution, could be established later due to the significance of these issues. Many international actors and commentators believe that some of the policies and agendas of the NAM should be transformed or reoriented The South Commission Originally, the NAM was launched as a political entity as global political issues dominated its concerns and agenda.

Later in the process, it adopted economic issues as several member states of the organization faced some very serious economic problems such as acute poverty and underdevelopment. Based on the notion that it is the policies and practices of the West that led to the grave economic problems in the Third World region, the organization demanded a new international economic order.

Thus, the organization evolved into a politico-economic institution. This should continue. The reformed and reshaped organization should dedicate equal weight to political and economic issues facing the Global South. Politically, the notion of non-alignment should be retained, not as the fundamental objective of the movement, but as one of the guiding principles.

However, the notion should be redefined and it should be given a clear meaning by the organization itself. This paper argues that the notion of non-alignment is still valid despite the absence of a Cold War. Alliance denotes that the union is not ad hoc or short term; it is a relatively long term commitment. In that sense, non-alignment is still a valid notion.

The culture, values, concerns, and ways of operation of the Global South are substantially different from the Western world. There is no need to form an alliance with the West. Staying non-aligned with the West makes sense even in the post-Cold War international milieu. However, the notion of nonalignment should not be defined as not cooperating with the West or other present and future power-centers.

The organization cannot aspire or continue to be a group of protesters Kochan Footnote 5 While promoting solidarity within the Global South, the movement must devise mechanisms to constructively engage the West and other centers of power.

One of the means to achieve the objective of constructive engagement is to focus on selective collaboration. The movement should be able to work with major international actors including centers of power on selected issues rather than becoming permanent allies or enemies of one or the other actor. This approach would have the potential to facilitate better outcomes from the perspective of the movement. Economically, the movement should become more introspective rather than continuing to depend on the West and rich nations for development aid and investment.

The need is to devise mechanisms to gain control over natural resources that could be exploited, and promote rich and resourceful nations within the region to invest in the member states of the movement. Most importantly, the organization should seriously consider setting up a bank in line with the ideas of the World Bank or Asian Development Bank. A similar recommendation was made by the South Commission Footnote 6 In essence, the movement should play the capitalist game rather than call for a new international economic order.

The NIEO is not a feasible project in the short run. Development from within perhaps is a more useful ideology than a new international economic order. The call for the dissolution of the Non-Aligned Movement gained currency with the end of the Cold War. The reality, however, was that some of the principal objectives of the organization became irrelevant even before the Cold War ended. For example, colonization ceased to exist. The end of the Cold War contributed to the perception that the organization has been rendered irrelevant.

This paper argues that there is a need for the movement to continue due to the unresolved issues that still haunt the Third World states, the fact that these states still need institutional support to effectively operate within an international order that is dominated by powerful Western interests, and the reality that the international system is evolving and may very well end up in a multipolar world.

This paper also argues that, in order to continue and be effective, the organization should be reshaped and reformed. This paper recommends three primary changes: symbolic changes, structural changes, and policy or agenda changes. One option is to call it the southern Solidarity Movement. Structural changes should focus on setting up a permanent secretariat in one of the original member states from Asia or Africa.

In relation to agenda the present political and economic emphasis should continue. Also, the reshaped and reformed organization may retain the notion of non-alignment as one of its guiding principles, but be willing to work with the West and other centers of power on the basis of constructive engagement. Economically, the movement should strive to become independent through mechanisms to promote South—South collaboration and control over natural resources within the region.

The rich and resourceful states of the region should be encouraged to invest within the member states. The movement should also consider setting up a southern development bank to promote economic development within the region.

Currently, the very small G77 secretariat acts informally for the NAM, which is inadequate and justifies the need for fully fledged secretariat. Many view the NAM as a protest movement. Babou, Cheikh Anta. Article Google Scholar. Brooks, Stemhen G. Reshaping the World Order: how Washington should reform international institutions.

Foreign Affairs 88 2 : 49— Google Scholar. Chhiba, Pratiksha. South Africa and the Non-Aligned Movement: still relevant or a relic? Accessed 24 Apr Chopra, Surendra. The emerging trends in the Non-Aligned Movement. The Indian Journal of Political Scince 47 2 : — Collins, Alan R. The deal commits Iran to transfer 1,kg 2, lb of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for kg lb of During the General Review Conference of the IAEA on September, the NAM presented a statement arguing that stability in the Middle East would be impossible given the current massive military capability imbalances, particularly in regards to nuclear weapons.

This directly critiqued U. In his statement he emphasized the contribution of the NAM to multilateral efforts to maintain and promote global peace and called for reform of the UN Security Council to better reflect the current political realities.

On 15 January the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations submitted a letter to the Secretary-General containing a statement from the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement on the non-compliance by Israel with the Security Council resolution and the escalation of the Israeli military aggression against the Gaza Strip.

The letter condemned Israeli military actions and called for immediate cessation of all military activities and violence in accordance with resolution The statement emphasized the importance of decision-making by consensus, called on possessor states to comply with destruction deadlines, and welcomed NAM member Iraq as the newest party to the CWC.

The Ministerial Meeting reaffirmed the five principles of the NAM and discussed regional and sub-regional political issues, human rights, social and developmental issues, the Responsibility to Protect, in regards to preserving multilateralism, and UN reform. NAM leaders announced their continued commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons, support for nuclear weapon-free-zones, especially in the Middle East, and the use of peaceful nuclear energy. The NAM indicated its positions on a variety of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation issues, with an expectation that they would be taken into account by the UNSC summit.

On 5 October the Indonesian Representative made a statement on behalf of the NAM to the General Assembly on all disarmament and international security agenda items. The purpose of this meeting, requested by the Iranian delegation, was to exchange views on the latest developments regarding the Iranian nuclear issue in advance of an imminent third sanctions resolution. On 14 February, a letter from the Permanent Representative of Cameroon was circulated, informing members of the nomination by the African Group of H.

A Note Verbale was circulated on 19 February setting a deadline for delegations to send comments on this nomination. The Security Council voted to adopt Resolution which continued sanctions on Iran. On 25 March, Mr. The paper called on possessor States to complete the destruction of all chemical weapons including abandoned weapons before the extended deadline.

NAM and China pledged to support activities related to the universalization of the Convention. The 14th Ministerial Conference was held in Tehran from July.

Paragraphs of the final document address disarmament and international security. On 17 October, the Chair circulated the 6 draft resolutions L. In this regard, the Chair highlighted the need for NAM members to participate in this session and support the NAM resolutions and decision. The statement was also circulated to the Conference on Disarmament on 7 February. On 9 March, as agreed in the last CoB meeting, a letter was sent to H.

In response to the aforementioned request, Mr. These documents WP. A ninth document on peaceful uses of nuclear energy was also agreed, as a result of consultations conducted in New York and Vienna WP. The Member States adopted a Final Document , which discussed a range of global, regional, and sub-regional socio-political and security issues including disarmament, threat of use of force, and international security.

The Final Document condemns the categorization of States as good or evil and adoption of doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, which includes attack by nuclear weapons.

On disarmament, the document stresses that efforts for nuclear nonproliferation should be parallel to nuclear disarmament. In this regard, the Summit calls for an international conference to agree on a phased program for nuclear disarmament. The NWS were reminded that development of new types of nuclear weapons would violate their commitments undertaken during the conclusion of the CTBT. It is also noted that implementation of national missile defense systems could lead to an arms race.

The Final Document recommends that a universal legally binding instrument on security assurances should be concluded as an interim measure awaiting complete nuclear disarmament.

As a precursor to a legal instrument, it called upon the NWS to give commitments to NNWS for non-use or not to threaten the use of nuclear weapons. At this meeting, a statement on the nuclear issue in Iran was released. The ministers expressed their belief that all issues of safeguards and verification, especially as pertaining to Iran, should be resolved only through the framework of the IAEA, and they encouraged Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA. The Final Document of the Ministerial Conference addressed various concerns relating to disarmament and nonproliferation and as such reaffirmed longstanding NAM positions.

The ministers reaffirmed their commitment to nuclear disarmament, expressing dismay at the slow rate of disarmament and voicing concerns about the US Nuclear Posture Review and the NATO Alliance Strategic Concept, which they felt contravened the security assurances given by the NWS.

They called for an international conference to focus on nuclear dangers, ultimately resulting in resolutions for a phased disarmament program. Nevertheless, they reaffirmed the right of developing countries to engage in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, stressing the responsibility of developed countries to aid developing countries in their quest to utilize nuclear energy.

Furthermore, the ministers expressed concern over the development and deployment of anti-ballistic missiles defense systems that they warned could lead to an arms race and an increase in the number of nuclear weapons worldwide.

The ministers emphasized their belief that multilateralism was the only method of addressing disarmament and international security issues, reaffirming their support for the UN Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament as multilateral tools for disarmament negotiations. The importance of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was reestablished and it was recognized that the convention should be strengthened through multilateral negotiations.

The ministers thus committed to work for a successful outcome of the Sixth Review Conference to be held in Geneva, 20 November — 8 December. Furthermore, the ministers invited states who had not yet signed or ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention to do so speedily.

Finally, the ministers also addressed the probability of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, stressing that the most effective prevention tool was progress in disarmament and nonproliferation. Noting the adoption of resolutions and by the UN Security Council, the ministers recommended that the issue of non-state actors acquiring weapons of mass destruction should be dealt with multilaterally at the General Assembly.

Furthermore, the document reiterated NAM positions on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, pointing out the slow progress of the former, and specifically a lack of progress by the NWS in taking steps towards eliminating their nuclear arsenals.

They also reaffirmed the need for confidence-building measures as well as both global and regional approaches to disarmament. The Ministers also addressed the central role of the Conference on Disarmament, and called for an international conference that would produce a phased program for eliminating all nuclear weapons. Regarding anti-ballistic missiles, the Ministers noted concern about the abrogation of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-ballistic Missiles and the possibility that the development of national missile defense systems could produce an arms race.

They also reaffirmed the importance of adherence to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and welcomed recent ratifications of the Chemical Weapons Convention CWC , encouraging additional States to ratify it as well. In addressing issues related to small arms and light weapons, the Ministers expressed concern regarding their illicit transfer and manufacture, and encouraged additional States to become party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.

At the conference, Heads of State or Government adopted a Final Document that addressed a number of key issues of disarmament and international security. The Heads of State or Government first addressed their great concern at the growing number of unilateral actions and unilaterally imposed prescriptions. The conference reiterated its strong commitment to multilateralism in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

NAM states that this concept promotes nuclear deterrence and opens the scope for possible use or threat of use of force by NATO. The Heads of State or Government issued a call for an international conference with the objective to reach an agreement on the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The safe control and reduction of chemical and biological weapons was an important topic of the Summit. The Heads of State or Government remain deeply concerned over the illicit transfer, manufacture, and circulation of small arms and light weapons.