People's Democracy

REJOINDER TO CONDOLEEZZA RICE

The Meaning Of Non-Alignment – II

N D Jayaprakash

EVOLUTION OF NAM

THE tenets of Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) evolved over a long period. One of the prime movers behind the evolution of NAM was undoubtedly prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru's own thoughts were first moulded by the deliberations at the 1927 Congress of Oppressed Nationalities held in Brussels, which he had attended as an official delegate of the Indian National Congress and which had subsequently elected him as one of its 9 executive committee members. Thereafter, Nehru gradually began voicing his concerns regarding inter-state relations. In a radio address on September 07, 1946, Nehru, who then headed India's interim government, went on to declare that India would not join groups of states that were aligned against each other but would strive to establish friendly relations with all countries.

Interestingly, it was on March 05, 1946 that Winston Churchill, who lost his premiership following the defeat of the Conservative Party in 1945, had made his oft-quoted "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri, USA. The speech sought to portray the world as divided between Western and Eastern spheres of influence where communism, represented by the East, posed a “growing challenge and peril to Christian civilisation”, represented by the West. It is in this context that Nehru's speech of September 07, 1946 achieves added significance; Nehru was opposed to nations joining opposing camps and pitting themselves against each other.

To assist the evolution of a common foreign policy, the first Asian Relations Conference was held at a non-governmental level, under the auspices of the Indian Council of World Affairs, in Delhi from March 23 to April 02, 1947 and was attended by delegations from 28 countries including some of the Asian republics of the then Soviet Union. Observers from the UN, the Arab League, and from research institutions in Australia, Britain, USA and USSR too attended it. The challenge before the Asian nations, according to Nehru was: “How to terminate foreign domination, direct or indirect, and to achieve freedom to direct their affairs in accordance with the will of the people concerned…” In his welcome address on March 23, 1947, Nehru categorically stated: “We stand on our own feet and co-operate with all others who are prepared to co-operate with us. We do not intend to be the play things of others.” (at http://pib.myiris.com/speech/article.php3?fl=010512181836)

Mahatma Gandhi, who delivered the valedictory address on May 02, 1947, too had implored the delegates at the Asian Relations Conference to play a leadership role for establishing global peace. In a forceful plea, Gandhi said: “I believe in one world. And how can I possibly do otherwise.. …West today is in despair of multiplication of atom bombs, because a multiplication of atom bombs means utter destruction, not merely of the West, but it will be a destruction of the world….. It is up to you to deliver the whole world, not merely Asia but deliver the whole world from that wickedness, from that sin." (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Speech_at_Inter-Asian_Relations_Conference)

(More details on the evolution of NAM can be found in an article commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Bandung Conference of 1955 at http://pd.cpim.org/2005/0529/05292005_nd%20jayaprakash.htm)

NEHRU's PRINCIPLED STAND

Another development that had an important bearing on the shaping of a non-aligned policy was Nehru's visit to the United States in October 1949. The US administration had timed the visit in such a way that it coincided with the ascendance of the Communist Party to power in China. During the visit, the US establishment exerted considerable pressure on Nehru to draw India into the anti-communist camp. However, Nehru spurned all such attempts by summarily rejecting the US proposal of setting up military bases in India in return for the economic aid that Nehru had gone there to seek. Nehru opted to return home empty-handed without US economic aid rather than let India become a camp follower of the US establishment.

The talks held between the Chinese premier Chou En-Lai and Nehru, which ended in the signing on June 28, 1954 of a joint statement on the principles on which relations between India and China were to be based was another important milestone in the history of the NAM. These principles, which were subsequently known as the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence or Panch Sheel, were: (1) mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty; (2) non-aggression; (3) non-interference in each other's internal affairs; (4) equality and mutual benefit; and (5) peaceful coexistence.

POSITIVE NEUTRALITY

Positive neutrality consisted in non-participation in military blocs combined with active moves against the conclusion of military alliances, and championing the cause of disarmament. It also entailed mediation in the settlement of international disputes for the purpose of easing international tensions; anti-colonialism manifesting itself in active support of all peoples fighting for independence and, once that had been gained, for complete elimination of the colonial hangover. The struggle against apartheid and racialism was expressed in the demand for complete equality of races and the banning of discrimination against any people. India's change to positive neutrality manifested itself, above all, in a more active struggle for preserving and strengthening peace.

The tenets of NAM were first fully enunciated at the Asian-African Conference at Bandung, Indonesia, which was held from April 18 to 24, 1955. Altogether about 340 delegates from 29 countries representing a population of 1440 million (almost two-thirds of the world’s then population) had attended it. The Final Communiqué's section on “Promotion of World Peace and Co-operation” expressed precisely the central aim of the Bandung Conference and it was as follows:

“2…The Conference considered that disarmament and the prohibition of the production, experimentation and use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons of war imperative to save [hu]mankind and civilisation from the fear and prospect of wholesale destruction. It considered that the nations of Asia and Africa assembled here have a duty towards humanity and civilisation to proclaim their support for disarmament and for the prohibition of these weapons and to appeal to nations principally concerned and to world opinion, to bring about such disarmament and prohibition….The Conference declared universal disarmament is an absolute necessity for the preservation of peace and requested the United Nations to continue its efforts and appealed to all concerned speedily to bring about the regulation, limitation, control and reduction of all armed forces and armaments, including the prohibition of the production, experimentation and use of all weapons of mass destruction, and to establish effective international control to this end.”

The Final Communiqué also implored the participating nations to remain free from mistrust and fear, to show goodwill towards each other; to practice tolerance; to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours; and to develop friendly cooperation on the basis of ten agreed principles. (Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference, Bandung, April 24, 1955 at http://www.ena.lu/mce.cfm)

Enduring unity and co-operation among the Asian and African nations based on the above objects and principles would have had adverse impact on the interests of the militarist blocs. Therefore, they did everything they could to disrupt the possibility of any such unity and co-operation among the Afro-Asian nations. The failure of the Bandung Conference to launch a permanent Asian-African nations organisation was a sign that the writ of the pro-militarist lobby within the Asian and African nations ultimately prevailed.

RESURRECTION

Due to the untiring efforts of Nehru (India), Nasser (Egypt), Sukarno (Indonesia) and Nkrumah (Ghana) in the company of Tito (Yugoslavia), the objects and purpose of the Bandung Conference was salvaged in 1961 when 25 countries – eleven each from Asia and Africa along with Yugoslavia, Cuba, and Cyprus – came together to form the global Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Despite the hostility of the United States and its allies towards NAM, the membership of NAM has steadily increased from year to year and currently stands at 118 nations out of the total UN membership of 192 nations.

At the 14th NAM Conference held in Havana in September 2006, the purposes and principles of NAM was reiterated in the "Declaration on the Purposes and Principles and the Role of the Non-Aligned Movement in the Present International Juncture", which was adopted on September 16, 2006. (See: http://www.cubanoal.cu/ingles/index.html)

The Heads of State and Government of the member-nations of NAM also reaffirmed their political will to strengthen the Non-Aligned Movement. The Havana Summit also declared that one of the major Purposes of NAM in the present international situation was:

“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.”

The Havana Summit's reiteration that: “it is imperative that the Movement continues to be in the front-line in the struggle to change and transform the present unjust international order”, certainly did not go down well with the US administration, which perceives the revival and reactivation of NAM as an inherent threat to its interests. The US-India Business Council annual meeting was found to be an appropriate occasion to publicly convey to India that it should jettison NAM, a message that has placed the Indian government in an embarrassing position. However, the fact remains it is the signals the Indian government has been transmitting over the last few years by acting contrary to the aims and objectives of NAM that have emboldened the US administration to give a call to India to abandon NAM. In a damage control exercise, the government of India was forced to quickly reiterate its commitment to NAM. (Press Briefing, June 29, 2007 http://meaindia.nic.in/pbhome.htm)

However, the said Press Briefing by the spokesperson of the ministry of external affairs in response to Rice's statement was so brief that it provides further proof that the government of India did not intend to pay literally nothing more than mere lip service to the cause of NAM. It would be a complete betrayal of the cause of NAM if the government of India, as one of the founding members, fails to take on the mantle of responsibility and play a leadership role in propagating the cause of NAM by acting in accordance with its principles and proceeding to fulfil its purposes.

The government of India's present disposition towards NAM does not appear to be too favourably placed. Contrary to the explicit declaration of Nehru in 1947 that “We do not intend to be the play things of others”, there are apparently quite a few at the helm of affairs in India today, who are not averse to India playing second fiddle to the United States. Some groundwork was undertaken for realising Mahatma Gandhi's vision of a “One World” in the form of the “Action Plan for a Nuclear Weapon Free and Non-violent World”, which prime minister Rajiv Gandhi had placed before the UN General Assembly in 1988. However, after Rajiv Gandhi's assassination in 1991, the government of India chose to tread in a different direction. Thus, Mahatma Gandhi's counsel in 1947, that “It is up to you to deliver the whole world, not merely Asia but deliver the whole world from that wickedness, from that sin” [of war and destruction], remains unheeded. Only a vigilant and well-informed public and a strong and active mass movement can force the government of India to pay heed to the eloquent advise of Gandhi and Nehru and compel it to uphold the tenets of NAM and act accordingly.

(Concluded)