Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

The Non Aligned Movement came into being 55 years ago when leaders of 25 developing countries met
at the 1961 Belgrade Conference. 17th NAM Summit was held at Margarita Island in Venezuela in
September 2016.

Presently 120 developing countries are members of this Movement. The NAM Summits are among the
largest gathering of countries, after the UN.
• 53 countries from Africa, 39 from Asia, 26 from Latin America and the Caribbean and 2 from
Europe (Belarus, Azerbaijan).
• There are 17 countries and 10 international organizations that are Observers at NAM.

NAM's current relevance in context of India (MEA Website)

1. NAM is also an important forum for interaction with partner countries across continents, including
from Africa, CARICOM, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and LDCs, with whom we have
longstanding development partnerships in a spirit of south-south cooperation.
2. NAM continues to represent space for action in pursuance of the collective interests of the
developing world, alongwith the G-77, especially on subject such as the reform of the global
economic system and disarmament.
3. At the UN, the NAM is an influential grouping on a range of issues such as UN peacekeeping and
disarmament.

Vice President Hamid Ansari's address at the 17th NAM Summit (Sept. 2016)
The foundations of NAM Movement, are as relevant today as they were at the time of our first Summit.
• “respect for sovereignty”,
• “peaceful settlement of disputes” and
• “international cooperation”

NAM's theme for the next three years – “Peace, Sovereignty and Solidarity for Development” – is in
congruence with our founding principles.
• Cooperation, and Development Cooperation, is an essential means of SDGs in the Agenda 2030.
• Peace and Sovereignty – are a pre-requisite for development.

Main Challenge: To modernize the manner in which NAM functions (a discussion already began on this
at the Cartagena Summit in 1995). This discussion must continue and fructify so that NAM may achieve
its full potential.
• In order to enhance the role of the Movement, it is essential to bolster its internal strength.
• The need to extend and enhance co-ordination and to study the possibility of holding
consultations, on a regular basis through the Coordinating Bureau.
• To improve the mechanism for enhancing the role of the NAM in conformity with changes in the
international situation so that the Movement is able to respond effectively and expeditiously to
the current challenges.

Shyam Saran (Book: How India Sees the World): It is important to make a distinction between non-
alignment as a foreign policy choice for India and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
• NAM was born as a movement of developing countries that shunned military alliances and wished
to jointly play a role in promoting peace, disarmament and development.
 • Leadership of the NAM also fetched India great political leverage in its relations with the
superpowers and their allies, compensating to some extent its lack of significant economic and
military capabilities.

While the NAM lost much of its relevance with the end of the Cold War, non-alignment as a principle
governing Indian foreign policy remains relevant to this day.

C Raja Mohan: NAM - a movement in Coma

The non-aligned project has long stopped being a foreign policy priority for its members. The sparse
attendance by heads of government or state at the Venezuela Summit, is evidence that the key
developing nations have other pressing issues on their mind.
• In the previous summits, be it the Havana Summit in 2006, Sharm el-Sheikh Summit in Egypt
during 2009 or Tehran summit during 2012, the only point of interest was on bilateral between
India and Pakistan.
• While Nehru was solidly committed to non-alignment as a national strategy, he was none too
enthusiastic about a movement in its name. He wondered if it made any sense to set up a third
bloc when you are objecting to the very notion of blocs.
• The idea that NAM was a radical “anti-imperialist” project was really a product of the 1970s when
four summits in quick succession in Lusaka (1970), Algiers (1973), Colombo (1976) and Havana
(1979) unveiled sweeping rhetoric about constructing a “new world order”.

It was not the end of the Cold War that made the NAM irrelevant. The movement was dysfunctional well
before that. It was never really possible to harmonise the economic and political interests of so many
different countries. If the rhetoric of the 1970s papered over the internal contradictions, the 1980s
mercilessly exposed them; the NAM has not recovered since.

Although the movement has been in coma for long, few would dare to pronounce it dead, let alone call
for its burial. The triennial political ritual will therefore continue. For most countries its only diplomatic
utility lies in bringing their particular national issues to the fore in a large international gathering. It’s
no surprise then India was so focused on getting its concerns about cross-border terrorism from
Pakistan heard at the summit.

Prof. Vijay Prasad: At the 1973 NAM meeting in Algiers, the member states laid out the New
International Economic Order (NIEO), a charter for a different way to manage political disagreements
and trade across states. The NIEO proposed a new path. It had an electric effect, but it died in the rubble
of the debt crisis. A new charter for a 21st century NAM is needed. If the NAM is to be relevant, it
needs to develop such a visionary document.

A initiative to provide watermarks and bookmarks free pdfs to you.

Share and Subscribe our telegram channel
@visionpt3652019

https://t.me/visionpt3652019