NAM: Divide and stand

Fifty-five years old and representing 55 percent of the world population, the 118-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), is often like a circus lion that occasionally roars but calms down when the tamer cracks the whip or throws some meat into the cage.

Meeting in a country regarded as one of the few remaining fortresses of anti-imperialism and that too just four days after the world commemorated 9/11 - a de facto international day against terrorism - NAM is faced with the challenge of charting a new course to effectively counter the ill effects of US unilateralism, globalization and defend the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of member states which are threatened by both terrorists and terrorist hunters. Optimism is high in some quarters where the NAM spirit is not dead that the Cuban summit won't be a mere roar of a circus lion, because for the first time in the post-Cold War era, a handful of countries including Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran and Belarus, are getting together to check the misuse of power by the sole superpower. These countries are now playing the role of what the pioneers of NAM - India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia and Yugoslavia-played in the late 1950s, early 1960s, upto the 1970s, steering and veering away from the US and USSR super-powers, till the bipolar world collapsed and the US emerged victorious. These nations do not hide their desire to make NAM a powerful check against any single economic and military power-in this instance the United States, and more precisely the George W. Bush Administration.

These countries have reawakened the spirit of the Third World. They are making an effort for the circus lion to realise its power and ability vis-à-vis the lion tamer of the global circus. But a large number of NAM nations, including Sri Lanka, do not appear to openly back the vision of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a revival of the NAM. The crack is visible on the lines of one's opposition to, or relations with, the United States. Already countries like India, one of NAM's pioneers, but cosing up to the US, and one of the frontline states in Bush's war on terror, have determined to stop a toughly-worded final declaration of the summit. Indian officials say they would steer the movement from any extreme political positions to one that focuses more on economic and trade issues, and other problems like terrorism, AIDS, climate change, etc.

Since the NAM philosophy is "friendship with all and enmity towards none", there is no harm in having friendly relations with the United States. But whither Third World solidarity?

It would seem that Third World solidarity was abandoned a long time ago in the interest of individual states. Many Third World initiatives of yesterday, from UNCTAD to GATT have been overtaken by WTO, more arm-twisting measures based on a comply-and-complain approach. Indeed, recently, India, Brazil and South Africa ganged up to give new leadership to the Third World, backed on the sidelines by China, but this initiative also did not last the pace. As the curtain fell on the 14th NAM summit yesterday and even before the ink on the toughly-worded Havana declaration dried, the Third World attention has turned to the United Nations General Assembly sessions which begin on Tuesday. It remains to be seen how much of the NAM spirit and independence that went in to make the toughly-worded final declaration, would surface when they address a different audience and hobnob with the rich and the powerful - for instance, George W. Bush whom they assailed in Havana and the likes-and hold bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the General Assembly annual sessions.

Even Sri Lanka, one of the co-hosts of the 1955 Bandung Afro-Asian summit, a precursor to NAM, regards its President's attendance at a round-table meeting with Mr. Bush a major event. Like moral values vanishes from the back door as poverty enters from the front door, NAM principles - idealistic to a great extent-disappears when issues of realpolitik stare at developing countries. In Sri Lanka's case, close cooperation with the sole superpower is crucial not only because trade with the US is growing but also because the US support was essential to defeat Sri Lanka's war on terror.

This realism was reflected on Thursday in our Foreign Minister's speech, which was a shift from the days of Sirima Bandaranaike who stood up to the West and even called it the "rapacious west" at one of the NAM summits of yesteryear. We now say that NAM must not be seen as a forum for anti-first world rhetoric and even see the positive side of globalization, which the likes of Chavez and Castro lambaste as a capitalist ruse to gobble up the resources of the Third World. Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera told the NAM foreign minister's meeting that "NAM must not be seen, as our detractors would, as a mere forum for anti-first world rhetoric and we should have the courage of conviction to face up to extremism in all its manifestations while upholding the increasingly rare principles of moderation and impartiality." So, clearly, Sri Lanka has gone to the citadel of anti-US imperialism, and asked for NAM to be a 'bastion of moderation". The NAM principle of a middle path is one thing but moderation means totally another - probably a compromise of NAM principles. It seems times have changed.