Non Alignment Movement
Introduction
Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) emerged after World War II, focusing on preserving the newly earned
freedom and sovereignty of third-world countries.
It played a significant role in the decolonization process and contributed to world peace and security.
History and Evolution
1. Bandung Conference (1955):
Considered the immediate antecedent to NAM.
Attended by 29 Heads of States from post-colonial countries.
Aimed to address global issues and pursue joint policies.
Focused on economic development and avoiding alignment with either the Western or Eastern bloc during
the Cold War.
The Ten Principles of Bandung were proclaimed, which later became the core principles of NAM.
2. Belgrade Summit (1961):
The First NAM Summit held from September 1-6, 1961.
Attended by 25 countries from Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America (Cuba).
NAM was declared as a 'movement' to avoid bureaucratic implications.
Aimed to play an active role in international politics and reflect the interests of its members.
Ten Principles of Bandung:
1. Respect for human rights and the UN Charter.
2. Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations.
3. Equality of all races and nations.
4. Abstention from intervention in the internal affairs of other countries.
5. Right of each nation to defend itself as per the UN Charter.
6. Abstention from using collective defense arrangements to serve the interests of any big power.
7. Refraining from acts or threats of aggression.
8. Settlement of international disputes by peaceful means.
9. Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation.
10. Respect for justice and international obligations.
NAM Summits
1st NAM Summit, Belgrade (1961): Establishment of NAM as a platform for third-world countries to assert their
sovereignty and independence.
Early Objectives and Achievements
Focused on:
Support for self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty.
Opposition to apartheid, colonialism, and imperialism.
Struggles against racism and foreign occupation.
Strengthening of the United Nations and democratization of international relations.
Promotion of socio-economic development and international cooperation on an equal footing.
NAM played a key role in supporting nations' struggles for independence and against colonization, gaining
diplomatic prestige in the 1950s.
Evolution and Present Status of Movement
Non Alignment Movement 1
1960s-1970s: Expanded to include most Asian and African countries.
The focus shifted to the political and economic rights of third-world countries.
The Algiers Conference (1973) launched the concept of a ‘New International Economic Order’.
End of Cold War (1980s): With the collapse of the Socialist Bloc, the relevance of NAM was questioned, as the
ideological divide between blocks had ended.
However, NAM's principles remain relevant today due to new global challenges like terrorism and climate
change.
14th NAM Summit, Havana (2006): Reaffirmed the commitment to NAM's ideals and updated its purposes
and principles in response to the changing global scenario.
Conclusion
NAM succeeded in creating a strong front for third-world countries.
Current challenges for NAM include:
Protecting international law.
Eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
Making the United Nations more effective.
Defending human rights and ensuring security and stability.
Promoting justice in the international economic system.
The long-standing goals of peace, development, and economic cooperation remain to be fully realized, and
NAM is expected to play a more prominent role in the future.
According to Prof. T.D. Paul (McGill University)
NAM is an example of ‘soft balancing’ by weaker states against great powers involved in intense rivalry and
conflict.
As these countries lacked material ability to constrain superpower conflict, they adopted soft balancing
through normative power.
Normative power refers to a new set of values like peace, disarmament, development, autonomy of choice,
and the creation of a new world order.
Aims of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
Pandit Nehru's Vision: NAM was not meant to become an institution but to retain its dynamic nature.
Evolution of Agenda:
In the 50s and 60s, the agenda focused on anti-imperialism, anti-racialism, opposition to block mentality
and the arms race.
It aimed to provide a platform for developing countries to prioritize their concerns and maintain principled
positions on global issues.
Success in Early Years: NAM was successful in promoting anti-racialism and anti-colonialism.
NAM in the 70s and 80s
The agenda shifted to development.
New International Economic Order (NIEO) was proposed in response to neo-colonialism and the drain of
wealth from peripheral to core countries.
Theoretical Basis: Dependency theory.
Key Proposals:
1. Imposing responsibilities on Multinational Corporations (MNCs).
2. Better valuation of goods exported by developing countries.
3. Pressuring Western countries to transfer funds and technology.
Outcomes:
No success due to lack of solidarity among third-world countries.
Non Alignment Movement 2
Geopolitical conflicts among third-world countries hindered progress.
The proposal was seen as utopian, akin to applying socialism to international trade.
Oil diplomacy of OPEC inspired this but lacked similar bargaining power from other countries.
NAM between the 80s and 90s
Agenda: Disarmament.
Outcome: No significant success.
NAM in the 90s
NAM faced an identity crisis after the end of the Cold War:
1. Some countries, like Egypt, proposed dissolving NAM.
2. Yugoslavia, a founding member, disintegrated, and NAM played no role in resolving the crisis.
3. NAM had no unified stance on the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, as both were NAM members.
What Should Have Been India’s Approach?
1. Views of C. Rajamohan:
India should have agreed to disband NAM as it had no achievements or prospects for the future.
He argued that NAM had effectively ended the Cold War, and countries could declare ‘mission
accomplished’.
2. Views of T.V. Paul:
NAM didn’t receive the credit it deserved due to intellectual bias.
Despite flaws, NAM acted as a soft-balancing mechanism for weaker states:
1. De-legitimizing superpower threats.
2. Credited for contributing to the end of colonialism.
3. Pressuring for Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT).
NAM used ‘naming and shaming’ tactics against great powers.
Present Relevance of NAM
1. C. Rajamohan:
NAM was irrelevant even before the end of the Cold War.
Post-Cold War, NAM has been in a coma, as countries prefer maintaining the triennial meetings.
2. T.V. Paul:
There is still a space for resurrection of NAM as a soft-balancing mechanism against powerful states.
As great powers engage in arms races, militarization of oceans, and territorial expansions, weaker
countries need to unite to de-legitimize imperial ventures.
NAM’s soft balancing will play a key role in restraining great powers and preventing global conflicts.
Relevance of NAM for India
India’s Soft Power: NAM provided India with the foundation to build its soft power.
Need for Third-World Solidarity: India still needs solidarity from third-world countries for its global role.
1. Views of C. Rajamohan:
NAM never benefited India, as NAM countries did not support India in critical moments (e.g., 1962 War,
1965 War, 1971 War).
NAM countries, like Indonesia, supported Pakistan in several conflicts, even supplying weapons.
2. Scholars Who Favor NAM:
T.P. Srinivasan:
NAM benefited India, allowing the country to promote its interests independently of great powers like
the US, Russia, and China.
Martand Jha:
Non Alignment Movement 3
NAM is relevant for India, providing a platform for autonomy, peace, and security.
India needs to reinvent NAM and provide leadership for the third world in global governance.
3. India’s Current Stance:
Under the Modi government, there has been little inclination towards NAM, though India is rebalancing
itself.
India’s foreign minister visited the 18th NAM mid-term ministerial council in Baku, Azerbaijan (2018).
NAM needs to be reinvented as a platform for developing countries outside the UN, providing India with
an opportunity for natural leadership.
Conclusion
NAM was originally a policy for autonomy and peace but needs reinvention to address current global issues.
India can revive NAM to counter the hegemonic ambitions of great powers and maintain global peace.
Key Points on the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and its Relevance Today:
1. Soft Balancing by Weaker States:
NAM and its precursor, the Bandung Conference (1955), were examples of soft balancing by weaker
states against great powers (superpowers) engaged in rivalry and conflict.
Founders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Sukarno, and Josip Broz Tito led this movement to
challenge superpower excesses and prevent global war.
2. Achievements of NAM:
NAM’s activism at the UN helped delegitimize superpower threats, promote nuclear disarmament, and
end colonialism.
"Naming" and "shaming" were key tools for norm entrepreneurship on nuclear control and
decolonization.
3. Impact on Nuclear Tests and Disarmament:
NAM played a crucial role in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, the creation of nuclear-free zones, and the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Their activism helped establish the nuclear taboo, which restrained the use of nuclear weapons.
4. Relevance in Today’s Global Context:
With the new arms race and territorial expansions by great powers like China, the U.S., and Russia,
smaller states can act as a soft balancing force.
South China Sea tensions and naval competition could escalate, and smaller states would suffer if
conflict arises.
5. Current Challenges for Smaller States:
The rise of China and India makes it difficult for either to lead a new Bandung-like movement.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative and strategic influence over many developing countries limit their choices,
but countries are still showing strategic autonomy.
6. Role of ASEAN and Developing Countries:
Smaller states, particularly in ASEAN, can engage in soft balancing by restraining great powers (U.S.,
Russia, China).
Norm entrepreneurship remains valuable, even if it doesn’t yield immediate results.
7. The Way Forward:
The alternative to soft balancing is leaving great powers to engage in an arms race and interventions that
rarely bring stability.
Nehru-like leadership is still needed to unite developing countries for normative soft balancing.
8. Conclusion:
NAM’s legacy of soft balancing continues to have relevance in managing the challenges posed by great
powers in the modern world.
Non Alignment Movement 4
Relevance of Non-Alignment for India
1. Non-Alignment as India’s Grand Strategy:
Non-alignment is often seen as Indian exceptionalism, aimed at protecting national interests without
aligning with any superpower.
Non-alignment policy (as distinct from NAM) has been India’s grand strategy since independence,
though its interpretation has evolved.
2. Ambiguity in Non-Alignment:
According to Martand Jha, non-alignment remains ambiguous as Indian elites never fully explained its
substance.
Cold War era: India had a quasi-alliance with the USSR; after the Cold War, strategic partnerships with
the USA emerged, especially in defense and interoperability.
3. Criticism from Superpowers:
John Foster Dulles (US Secretary of State) termed India’s non-alignment as immoral and opportunistic.
Stalin critiqued it as a stance of “against us,” since it avoided committing to either superpower.
Despite criticisms, India built a coalition of non-aligned nations, challenging superpower hegemony.
4. Comparison with Other Policies:
Non-alignment should not be confused with isolationism or neutrality. It represents a principled distance
from superpower blocs, akin to India’s secularism.
Nehru emphasized that national interest should not be compromised for ideology.
5. Nehru’s Leadership and Strategic Needs:
Nehru’s non-alignment allowed India to:
1. Maintain independence in world politics despite economic and military weakness.
2. Engage with both superpowers without coercion.
Scholars like Michael Edwards and K. Natwar Singh describe non-alignment as a defense by friendship,
with India maintaining flexibility and strategic autonomy.
6. Internal Political Dynamics:
Paul Power emphasized domestic consensus on non-alignment, considering India’s internal divisions
(rightist favoring the West, leftist the East).
Teresita Schaffer argued non-alignment made sense for India, except when its neighbors allied with
external powers.
7. Post-Cold War Shift:
After the Cold War, India’s strategic partnership with the USA led to doubts about its non-alignment
stance.
Congress shifted its stance, while BJP never favored non-alignment and openly sought alliances with the
USA and Israel.
Modi's government has shown a shift towards strategic autonomy, emphasizing India’s balancing act
among USA, Russia, and China.
8. Modi’s Approach:
In his Shangri-La Dialogue speech (2018), Modi highlighted strategic autonomy, balancing cooperation
with USA, Russia, and China, while promoting peace and a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific.
Modi’s attempts to reassert non-alignment are seen in his informal summits with Russia and China and
his call for a balanced foreign policy.
9. Non-Alignment 2.0:
Civil society experts suggest a shift from Cold War non-alignment to a new framework of multiple
alignment, known as non-alignment 2.0.
Martand Jha advocates for a clearer definition of India’s non-alignment policy, which should focus on
protecting national interests without contradicting strategic alliances.
Non Alignment Movement 5
10. Legacy and Current Status:
Non-alignment remains a Nehruvian legacy; right-wing parties now prefer strategic autonomy over the
traditional concept.
India’s foreign policy has evolved with shifting global power dynamics, seeking to maintain independence
while engaging with key global powers.
Strategic autonomy is the modern interpretation of non-alignment, balancing relationships with the USA,
Russia, and China while safeguarding India’s national interests.
Non Alignment Movement 6