by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
The question often asked, and not yet convincingly answered, is whether Non-Alignment, first expressed as a response to the bipolar world, is still relevant with the end of the Cold War. The newly independent countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America were desirous of creating an international environment in which their newly won independence could be preserved. This prompted the Afro-Asian nations to meet in Bandung. Indonesia in 1955. Subsequently in 1961, twenty-five developing nations held the first Summit Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

Practically all the founding pioneers of the NAM - Tito of Yugoslavia, Nehru of India, Soekarno of Indonesia, Nasser of Egypt, and Nkhruma of Ghana - are no longer alive. Yugoslavia, which hosted the inaugural meeting and played a significant role in the development of non-alignment, has disintegrated into five different entities some of them in deadly confrontation with each other.

After the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, two NAM Summits have been held, in Jakarta, Indonesia (1992) and in Cartagena, Colombia (1995). The third post-Cold War Summit was held in Durban, South Africa from 2-4 September 1998, with world renowned statesman Nelson Mandela at the helm.

The Durban Declaration has been proclaimed and the heads of state or government and their retinues have departed to their respective countries. The question still persists: Are we any closer to understanding what the continued relevance of the Non-Aligned Movement is?

Nelson Mandela Chairman
Nelson Mandela, is assuming the chairmanship of the NAM, spoke eloquently of his conviction that the NAM was still relevant. But so, for example, did Suharto in September 1992 when he assumed the leadership of NAM. Not much has happened since then to confound the critics. Today, Indonesia's economy has crashed and Suharto's economic mis-management of the vast Indonesian archipelago has forced him to step down into reluctant retirement.

Previous leaders of the NAM have not been short on rhetoric to assure sceptics that the NAM does indeed have a role to play in the post-Cold War world. Nelson Mandela was no exception.

Mandela stressed the need for the NAM to "counter attempts to present the movement, which represents billions of people around the world, as a mere talking shop and anachronism in world politics."

But Mandela's aspirations can only be realised if the 114-member movement, comprising nearly two-thirds of the nations of the world, makes a difference in promoting economic development, social progress and the improvement of living standards in the movement's member countries in a globalised economy.

NAM's current concerns
The Durban Declaration covers a wide range of concerns of the developing world from the pitfalls of globalisation to nuclear testing and proliferation, poverty alleviation and terrorism. The continued relevance of NAM could be gauged if, by the time South Africa lays down the reins of office as chairman three years hence, some progress has been made in implementing the laudable resolutions adopted.

South Africa's Deputy President Thabo Mbeki, in line to succeed Nelson Mandela as president of South Africa in 1999, struck the right note when he focused the attention of the Summit to the reform of the relationship between the world's rich and the poor nations. For this, he said, the Non-Aligned Movement needed to use its leverage, as the largest grouping within the United Nations, representing nearly two-thirds of the world's population, to give itself enhanced bargaining strength with the Group of Seven leading economic powers and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

This is of course easier said than done, considering the different ways in which individual countries of the NAM are inclined to move today. Non-aligned nations are often undecided as to whether they should abide by the principles of non-alignment and the consensus reached at Summits or follow the dictates of institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF controlled by the G-7.

Domination of global economy
In the early years of its existence the NAM was a force to be reckoned with. Decolonisation, spearheaded by the NAM, resulted in more than one hundred former colonies gaining independence. The NAM played a crucial role in the liberation of South Africa from the evils of apartheid.

The nuclear race was contained and a nuclear catastrophe averted. NAM initiatives kept the disarmament process moving even though progress was slow and the process is still incomplete. The parameters for a peaceful settlement of the Palestine-Israeli dispute were laid down in UN Security Council resolutions 237 and 242 largely through the efforts of the non-aligned nations.

Unfortunately, the initiative has slipped from the developing countries. Both the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 - the economic arm of the developing countries - have been increasingly ineffective and virtually paralysed. Solidarity among members of these once vibrant bodies is non-existent.

As a result partly of the malaise affecting the non-aligned, the developed countries, as represented by the Group of Seven (G-7), dominate the global economic scene. Discussions in international fora lead to decisions not entirely favourable to developing countries though supported even by some of these countries themselves.

Economic globalisation
Thabo Mbeki rightly decried what seems to be an unqualified acceptance of "the new vocabulary of international discourse - globalisation, liberalisation, deregulation and the information society or the information super highway - almost as if these were elemental forces."

Mbeki argued that "the process of globalisation ineluctably results in the reduction of the sovereignty of states, with the weakest, being ourselves, being the biggest losers". He analysed the sharp inequalities between the rich and the poor nations, aggravated by the economic globalisation in operation today.

The impoverishment of the living conditions of the majority of the peoples of the world appears to be a necessary condition for the prosperity and enrichment of the minority, be this viewed in terms of relations among people or in terms of broader categories like nation states. Surely this was not the New International Economic Order that the NAM envisioned and strove to establish in the days when its voice counted in the councils of the nations?

In its final communique, leaders of the NAM called for a democratic review of international financial mechanisms, including the operations of International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, in full consultation with the developing world.

Disputes within the NAM
It is too much to expect that problems will not arise among the members of a heterogeneous conglomerdon of nations such as the NAM. at Durban, a number of disputes especially those in Africa, were brought to the open and debated vigorously.

The ongoing civil strife in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was a topic of heated discussion. Lawrence Kabila dropped by to explain he was engaged in repelling an armed insurrection, encouraged, as he said, by aggression from neighbouring Rwanda and Uganda. The president of Rwanda, on the other hand, accused Kabila's regime of genocide.

Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia, member of the 14-nation South African Development Community (SADC), saw their armed intervention in the DRC in a different light. They had deployed troops in the DRC to assist president Kabila as the legitimate head of that government. Nelson Mandela, who had earlier objected in principle to outside military intervention, reversed his position when president Sam Nujoma of Namibia explained the reasons for Namibia's military intervention.

Ethiopia's foreign minister dwelt on the "tension and conflict" in the Horn of Africa when he complained of Eritrea's "aggression". The crises in Indonesia, Nigeria, Cyprus and the Korean peninsula also came up for discussion in Durban.

Indo-Pakistan dispute
Nelson Mandela in his usual forthright manner could not be restrained from mentioning Kashmir and offered to mediate in settling the dispute. Pakistan's foreign minister, Sartaj Aziz, was pleased and commented. "It is the first time the issue has been raised at a NAM summit level and by a person of such great international stature."

Expectedly, Mandela's offer was bluntly rejected by India's Atal Behgari Vajpayee who did not see any role for a third party to mediate in a problem that India firmly considers should be resolved through bilateral negotiations. Vajpayee said that India was willing to talk about Kashmir if Pakistan agreed to talk about cross-border terrorism.

The anticipated meeting of the prime ministers of India and Pakistan on the sidelines of the Summit, at least to begin a dialogue on the problems between the two South Asian neighbours, suffered a blow when Pakistan's Nawaz Sharif cancelled his visit to Durban "due to pressing engagements at home".

International terrorism
Along with the eradication of poverty and the challenges of globalisation, the Durban Meeting called for an international summit to formulate a co-ordinated response to terrorism, to be held under the auspices of the United Nations. Only too acutely conscious of the havoc caused by terrorism in Sri Lanka, President Chandrika Kumaratunge made an eloquent plea for the effective implementation of a comprehensive international convention for combating terrorism.

The relevance of non-alignment will depend on the extent of its success in dealing with the agenda that the Movement has set itself for the next three years.