Ali Akbar
Abdolrashidi

---

THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT

From formation in the

Cold War to modernization

 

 By:

Ali Akbar ABDOLRASHIDI

 

 

Department of Peace Studies

 

University of Bradford

 

1992

 

 

Contents

 

                                                    Page   

 

PREFACE ..................................................1

 

Introduction .............................................7

 

Chapter 1. The Emergence of the Non-Aligned Movement.....13

 

1.1. The Origins......................................14

1.2. The Name of the Movement ....................... 33

1.3. The Aims and the Policies ...................... 36

1.4. The Schools of Thought  ........................ 51

1.5. The Institutionalization of the NAM ............ 61

1.6. Non-Alignment and Super Powers ................. 72

1.7. Hostility Against Western Powers ............... 84

1.8. The NAM and the UN..............................104

 

 

 

Chapter 2 . Cold War , a Source of Tension .............113

 

2.1. Cold War , a Third World Version ...............117

2.2. Concept of the Third World .................... 133

2.3. Threats Against the Non-Aligned Movement ...... 139

2.4. Real Threat , Military Intervention ........... 149

2.5. "Third World War" ............................. 162

2.6. Increasing Cost of Military Intervention ...... 165

 

 

 

Chapter 3 . Cold War Becomes Regional ................. 168

 

3.1. Nixon Doctrine Vis-a-Vis the NAM .............. 169

3.2. Brezhnev Doctrine ............................. 177

3.3. Regional Conflicts............................. 180

3.4. Regional Organizations......................... 186

3.5. Blocs In the Non-Aligned Movement ............. 193

3.6. Foreign Military Bases In Non-Aligned Countries.199

3.7. Rapid Deployment Forces , Carter Doctrine.......209

3.8. The Arms Race In the Non-Aligned Movement.......216

3.9. Outlook ....................................... 225

 

 

 

Chapter 4 . Economic Alignment ........................ 227

 

4.1. The Economic  Factor in  Polito-Military

Interventions ................................. 234

4.2. Present International Economic Order........... 242

4.3. External Debts ................................ 245

4.4. Roots of the Crisis ........................... 249

4.5. Solutions for the Economic Crisis ............. 269

4.6. The New International Economic Order .......... 276

4.7. OPEC, a Failed Experience ..................... 280

4.8. The Group of 77 ............................... 292

4.9. Outlook ....................................... 297

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5 . Detente and the NAM ....................... 299

 

5.1. Strong Economies and Superior Technologies......308

5.2. Ninth Summit, Modernization Plan ...............315

5.3.1. Cold War Ends ............................... 328

5.3.2. Eastern Europe Revolution & the Third World...330

5.4.1. Immediate Polito-Military Effects on the NAM..334

5.4.2. Panama Episode ...............................336

5.4.3. Kuwait Episode ...............................340

5.4.4. Regional Security Arrangement ................349

5.5.1. Yugoslavia Episode............................351

5.5.2. Immediate Economic Effects on the NAM ........354

5.5.3. Cuba's Economic Situation in 1990 ............357

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6.  Future Outlook ............................ 359

 

 

6.1. Achievements of the NAM ....................... 362

6.2. Failures of the NAM ........................... 364

6.3. Political Future of the NAM ................... 379

6.4. Economic Future of the NAM .................... 384

 

 

Main Text Body

 

The Non-Aligned Movement

From formation in the Cold War to Modernization

By

 

Ali Akbar Abdolrashidi

  

Keywords:

 

NON-ALIGNMENT; NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES; GROUP 77; BANDUNG; AFRO-ASIAN CONFERENCE;  THIRD WORLD; REGIONAL CONFLICTS; NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER;

 

The  NAM was officially formed in 1961, when  the  first gathering  of the heads of state and movernment of  25  Third World  countries  was held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.  The  NAM came  into existence with the main purpose of preserving  the independence and freedom of its members. From  the early stages of the emergence of the  idea  of Non-Alignment,  the  countries  which  participated  in   the foundation  of the NAM had different reasons for joining  it. (Non-attachment  to the super powers has always been  one  of the main ideas of the NAM.) One of the principle aims of  the NAM  has  always been to avoid the complete division  of  the world  into military and political alliances and  spheres  of influence of the great powers. However,  as  a  result  of  the  present  international economic  system,  most  of the  Non-Aligned  Countries  have become not only dependent on the big powers but also economic allies of one or the other of the  big powers. During the process of detente, the NAM felt a need for a new  policy towards the super powers and mainly for a  change in  its hostility against the West. This change was  referred to  in  `The Modernization Plan' forwarded to the  ninth  NAM summit in Belgrade. The  end  of  the Cold War, the  disintegration  of  the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union and finally the emergence of the  New World Order have  different effects on the course  of Non-Alignment.

 

 

PREFACE

 

          When the Non-Aligned Movement came into existence  in  1961  the  Western countries took it as a `new bloc'  of  the newly independent states. However, during the first decade of  its life, all its  activities, gatherings and statements  were closely observed in the Western societies. During this  period  the  Non-Aligned  Movement became a topic  for  many  Western researchers and resulted in a good number of books under this title.

          Although in the 1960s it had been imagined that the  NAM was  a real threat against the Western interests, during  the second  decade of its life, the Non-Aligned  Movement  proved not  to  be  such a threat .  Repeated  assurances  from  the leaders  of the Non-Aligned Countries satisfied  the  Western circles that this movement would not become a parallel `bloc' to the Soviet bloc. This satisfaction reduced the  importance of  the  Non-Aligned  Movement  in  the  opinion  of  Western political  observers  and  reduced the number  of  books  and articles  about the Non-Aligned Movement in this part of  the world.

          Finally  during  the  third decade  of  the  Non-Aligned Movement's  life  the  observance of the  movement  has  been limited   to  a  few  current-affairs  articles  in   Western newspapers  and  a  few  scattered  commentaries  and  longer articles  on  the occasion of the Non-Aligned  summits  which were held every three years.

          The Western public were so little enthusiastic about the Non-Aligned  Movement  that the few Western experts  in  this field had to travel to Non-Aligned Countries to present their papers  in seminars  and  conferences  on  the   Non-Aligned

     Movement  held in these countries. This is why in the  second half  of  the 1980s very few genuine articles  can  be  found expressing the Western viewpoint of the Non-Aligned Movement.

          By contrast, the Soviet Union and its allies have always considered the Non-Aligned Movement a potential parallel bloc to  the Socialist bloc with anti-Western possibilities to  be taken  advantage  of  by  the Soviet  Union  in  its  hostile policies  towards  the Western countries generally,  and  the

     United States of America particularly. Therefore, the  Soviet Union has always taken the Non-Aligned Movement seriously and has allocated more attention to this movement. As a result of

     this  keen  attention many books, commentaries  and  research papers   have been written about the Non-Aligned Movement  in the Socialist world.

          Since the Socialist countries always looked at the  Non-Aligned  Movement  from their Socialist  viewpoint,  most  of these  written  materials  are  not  a  reliable  source   of research.

          In  September 1989, in the midst of the crucial  changes in  Eastern Europe, some of the Non-Aligned  Countries  asked for `modernization' of the Non-Aligned aims and policies.  It was  a continuation of the discussions on the reforms in  the Movement  which had started in the 1970s. According to  these countries  the  changes  in the structure  of  the  socialist systems and in the form of relationship between the two super powers necessitated a new approach to Non-Alignment.

          At  this juncture, when such `modernization' may or  may not  occur, a general review of the past experience  of  Non-Alignment may reveal the meaning of the `modernization' idea.

          Does  `modernization' mean the end of the idea  of  Non-Alignment  which came into existence in 1961, at the peak  of the  Cold  War? Does it mean that  the  Non-Aligned  Movement could achieve what it was formed for, or  does it mean  that it needs a change of strategy and policy in order to be  able to  carry  on  the  unfulfilled  task?  If  this  change   is

     necessary,  is  it not overdue? Is Non-Alignment  an  aborted idea,  or is it still an evolving one? Such questions may  be answered  if the history of Non-Alignment is  evaluated  from several angles.

          The  Non-Aligned  Movement  was  originally  formed   to preserve  the independence of the Third World countries.  To preserve this independence, according to the basic principles

     of  Non-Alignment,  the Third World countries  had  to  avoid joining  the  military blocs and to discourage  other  newly independent  countries  to remain or to become    members  of such military blocs. The Non-Aligned Movement believed  that the  military  independence  from  the  great  powers   could guarantee  the  total and overall independence of  the  Third World countries.

          But at the end of three decades of the NAM's  existence, with more than 100 members and a large portion of the world's population,  some  of  the  Non-Aligned  Countries  are  less independent  than they were at the beginning of  their  post-colonial independence.

          Although  some  of the Third World countries  refrained from joining military blocs, there are many other Third World countries,  most of them Non-Aligned, who are  hosting  great  powers' military bases and  supporting the military  policies of great powers not only against each other, but also against Third World countries, many of them Non-Aligned.

In  1990, many Third World countries, most of them  Non-Aligned,  were  heavily  dependent on  the  economic  aid  and support from the Western powers. Without these supports, many such  countries  could  not  survive.  Many  people  in  such countries   are   starving  because  of   the   indebtedness, unemployment,  poverty,  agricultural  under-production   and bankruptcy. Economic aid has given a powerful leverage to the rich  countries  to undermine the political  independence  of such Third World countries.

          During  the  era of Non-Alignment,  more  wars  occurred among  the Third World nations than ever before; in the  same period, many Third World people died because of wars,  hunger and disease. About 20 million people died in Third World wars since 1945, compared to 60 million in World War II. Most of the Non-Aligned Countries have taken part in the arms  race,  many of them are producing  the  internationally forbidden chemical and biological weapons and dozens of  them have either tested, produced or have the potential of  making the nuclear weapon. In 1990 many Non-Aligned Countries were military  aligned to each other, if not to great powers.  New military powers have emerged out of Non-Aligned Countries who could  form  new  regional military blocs  .  Although  great powers  are  not necessarily members of  these  new  military blocs,  these  blocs can play the same role as  a  source  of tensions  and  can threaten the independence  of  many  Third World countries.

          Because  of the new detente governing  the  relationship between  the  great powers, many Non-Aligned  Countries  will loose  the strategic importance they used to exercise  during the  Cold  War. Therefore, the great powers  will  find  less motives to continue their economic aid and political  support  for  such countries, by means of which the great powers  used to keep these Third World countries away from rival powers. It is possible that many Non-Aligned Countries will suffer more, as a result of this new era.

          Seemingly   the  Non-Aligned  Movement  has  failed   to mobilize the potentials of its members, and to make a  united forum  to  guarantee  the  economic  as  well  as   political independence to avoid such destiny. It may hardly be possible for  such a movement to fulfil this duty in future. The  Non-Aligned  Countries are less united and more hostile  to  each other  than before so that they can not find a common  ground to create unity among them.

 

 THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT

 

Introduction

 

          The Non-Aligned Movement officially came into  existence in  1961.  But its real birth date goes back  deep  into  the early  years  of  the twentieth century .The  roots  of  Non-Alignment  lie in the great social and international  changes which  took  place  during  the first  decades  of  the  20th 

     century  and, particularly , during the course of  and  after the   Second World War. In the several decades of  its  life, the  movement  has passed through a difficult  and  dangerous road. The Non-Aligned Movement took its basic aspiration from several anti-colonialist movements in Asia and Africa  during the  decolonization  era.  But  its identity  is  that  of  a twentieth   century  movement  of  the  Third  World   newly-independent countries.

          The  Non-Aligned Movement evolved from another  movement which  was  firstly an Asian anti-colonial movement.  It  was later  joined by African independent `strugglers' who,  hands in  hands, formed an `Afro-Asian' union. Later on, the  unity benefited from the deep ideological differences between a few European countries, i.e., Yugoslavia (Malta, Cyprus) and  the USSR.  When Latin American countries joined the  movement  it became  obvious  that the movement was a  Third  World  bloc.

     Although  some of the Third World countries, such  as  China, were  soon  refused  to join the  movement,  the  Non-Aligned Movement has been widely called a Third World alliance. The  founders  of the Non-Aligned  Movement  were  among those  countries  who intended to break with  their colonial past and as newly-freed countries tended to chose a political course  that would ensure real independence from  the  former colonial and even new imperialist powers.

          The  NAM's life can be divided into several  phases.  So far,  researchers  in the field of  Non-Alignment  have  used ideological, historical and structural categories, but in the present author's  view these phases are as follows:

       1-Formation period ,

       2-Consolidation period,

       3-Institutionalization period ,

       4- Disintegration period, and

       5- Modernization period.

          The  first phase is mainly the `Formation period'  which extends from the beginning of the twentieth century until the early  1960s. This period followed the first and the   Second  World   War and characterised the movement as being mainly  a non-military movement against any sort of military alignment.

          The  second phase extends from 1960 to the early  1970s, a  period  called  `The consolidation  period'.  During  this period,  which coincided with the Cold War era, the  movement could  express its existence on the international  stage  and attract  the attention of tens of the former  colonies.  Such

     newly-liberated  and  independent  countries   soon  found  a tribune  to join , as a way to distance themselves  from  the former dominating colonial powers.

         The  third  phase is  the  `Institutionalization  period' during which the movement formed its structure and set up its organs. This period starts with the fifth summit of the  Non-Aligned  Countries   in   Colombo  in   1976.   During   the institutionalization  period  of  the  Non-Aligned  Movement,  imperialism  was trying to regenerate itself , from a  mainly military power , into a new shape of political , economic and technological dominant power.

          The Non-Aligned Movement ignored this transformation and remained loyal to its military non-alignment policy,  instead of  preparing  itself  for developing  into  other  forms  of political , economic and  technological non-alignment. During this  period  the  big powers could take  advantage  of  this  "vacuum"  and  could find footholds inside the  movement  and infiltrate  their  political  ,  economic  and  technological allies   into  the  movement  (as  the  next  chapters   will illustrate).  The new members started an  ideological  battle inside the movement to define Non-Alignment as they wished it  to be, and as could please the big power they were allied to.

          The fourth phase witnessed the `Disintegration period' . During  this time the ideological differences of the  members became  so severe that the movement started  to  disintegrate into , at least , two opposing, pro-West and pro-East, blocs.

          The  revolutionary developments in Eastern Europe  since 1989  are  bringing a new period into the life  of  the  Non-Aligned   Movement.   This   period   can   be   called   the `Modernization  period'. This is not the first time that  the tension  in  the  relations  of East  and  West  changes  and develops into relaxation of relations.

          In the 1970s the process of Detente created an  optimism that  the  international tension would ease  and  the Third World  countries would benefit from the friendship  and  non-hostilities  of  the big powers. The failure in  the  Detente process  was  not something not to be repeated.  Even  today, when East-West relations are developing into a  post-Cold-War era, nobody can be sure that such new peaceful coexistence is permanent.  In fact, soon after the developments  in  Eastern Europe  in 1990 (as will be illustrated in chapter  6),  both the  USSR and the USA managed to continue  their  suppression activities  against Third World countries. They  both  showed that  the peaceful coexistence of the two super  powers  does not  necessarily mean any easing of the tension  between  the Third  World countries and the super powers.  Therefore,  the end  of the Cold War did not end the intentions of the  super powers vis-a-vis the Third World countries.

          It  is obvious that the rivalries of the  super  powers, regarding  their spheres of influence in the Third World  are more  harmful  to the third world countries , than  to  other parts  of the world. It will also be less dangerous  for  the interests  of  either  super power if the  super  powers  co-ordinate their activities against the Third World  countries. In case the super powers' bilateral relations continue to  be hostile,  as it was during the forty years of the  Cold  War, the  Third  World countries can play one of them against  the other one , or can secure one's support while confronting the other  super power. Moreover each super power can  neutralize the  other one's efforts to secure benefits out of the  Third World.  But if they move to a more peaceful coexistence,  as they  are  doing in the 1990s , they  can  co-ordinate  their policies  and  efforts  against the  Third   World  countries without crossing each other.

          In such case , the super powers' military  interventions in  the  Third  World  countries  will  be  easier  and  more successful  (as  it  was in Panama  in 1990).  The  usage  of economic, propaganda and technological leverages against  the Third World countries  will be more effective as well .

          The question which remains to be answered is whether the bi-polar  system  of the super power rivalries of  the  1950s later is changing into another form of bi-polar system, a new multi-polar or a mono-polar system.

          If  the  present bi-polar system remains ,  it  must  be discovered  who will lead the two blocs: Whether the  present East-West  bilateral relations will continue to dominate  the international  relations or other powers replace  either  the Soviet Union or the United States of America. Undoubtedly the Western  Alliance  is changing from inside  with  new  powers emerging  and  former powers fading. A united  Germany  or  a stronger Japan can very easily change the combination and the shares  of power in the Western Alliance. The future  of  the American military presence in Europe is also to be considered in relation to the future of the Western Alliance.

          On  the other hand there is mounting evidence  that  the (former)  Eastern  bloc  is  disintegrating  from  a   united military  power  into   bankrupt scattered  members  who  are becoming   dependent  on  the  economic   and   technological assistance of the Western countries. So it must be seen which  two  countries  or blocs will occupy the  position  of  super powers  in  the  future  bi-polar  system  of   international relations.

         In case the future international relations would be based upon a mono-polar system , the West led by the United  States of  America would determine the future of such  a  system  of international  relations . The ideal system is a  multi-polar or  a multilateral system in which the Third World  countries can  have a right to say and a vote to cast in  deciding  the form  of such relations. It is very unlikely that  the  Third World  countries  are  given such equal  stance  as  the  big powers, let alone as that of the super powers .

          The  most  likely development  is that the  Third  World countries become more cornered in an international system  in which  the  strong  economies and the  holders  of  the  most advanced  technologies can decide about the world in  future.

     There  is no doubt that the Third  World countries,  tens  of which are the greatest debtors in history , and some of  them the least developed ones , can not be in a position to decide about  the  future nature of international  relations.  Their affairs will continue to be decided in the foreseeable future by the super powers.

 

CHAPTER 1 . THE EMERGENCE OF THE NAM

 

Summary

In  this chapter the Non-Aligned  Movement will be historically reviewed. In  this  review the  series of political developments  prior to the formation of the NAM in Asia and Africa including  the  Bandung Conference will be followed. Also, the causes of the  establishment  of the  NAM  and  the  Movement's  aims,  policies, schools of thought and different phases of  its life will be approached.

Important  countries and personalities  who influenced  the idea of Non-Alignment and  their

contribution to this idea will be studied. Also the kind of relations between the  NAM and  the  super powers through  the  last  three decades  will  be observed. The  question of the reasons  for the  NAM's  hostilities towards the West will be analysed. Different  theories of the NAM  in  Western

                 and  other writings will also be discussed. The United  Nations Organization and its  links  and relations with the NAM is another element in the process of the NAM's life. Also the geographical

distribution  of  the NAM's membership  will  be among the subjects discussed.

 

1. 1.   THE ORIGINS

 

          The  Non-Aligned Movement was officially formed in 1961 when the first gathering of the heads of state and government of 25 Third World  countries  was held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. This  gathering  was preceded by a series of developments, contacts, meetings and efforts in and by  the former  colonies and the newly-independent movements in the Third World. Undoubtedly the origin  of  the  Non-Aligned Movement   must be searched in these developments. But  where is the beginning ? To this question different members of  the Non-Aligned  Movement  have different answer. These  answers determine the tendencies of the movement and define the meaning of Non-Alignment.

          Today, there are several schools of Non-Alignment thought, from the radical extremists to the  moderates  and even  the  right extremists. Each of the advocates  of  these schools of thought point to a different beginning in the long series of developments in the aftermath of the decolonization era.

          Certainly,  Non-Alignment can be defined as an  idea  of independence from any sort of attachments to the former  and the  new colonialists .In this regard the ideas of unity  and political independence can be traced back to the 1920s , when an  anti-colonialist  Pan-African Movement  emerged  and  the Indian   National   Congress  Party   was   considering   the possibility   of  setting  up  a  federation  of   Indo-Asian states.

          The  Yugoslavs trace the birth date of the Non-Aligned Movement  to  the beginning of the Cold War .  Obviously  the Yugoslavs used to justify their foreign policy  towards  the super powers in the context of their ideological issues with the Soviet Union during Stalin's time in the 1950s , and also in the light of the super powers' rivalries in central Europe and in the framework of the Cold War. 

          The   Indians,   on  the  other  hand,    credit   their independence movement to be the source of inspiration for the creation  of  the Non-Aligned Movement. They search  for  the roots of the Non-Aligned Movement in Asia or at least in both Asia  and Africa. Other Non-Aligned Countries have their  own version of how the Non-Aligned Movement  emerged. Africans credit  Ghana's  independence leaders whereas Arabs  do not intend  to forget the historical role the Egyptian  leaders played in the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement .

          According to the Yugoslavians, the victory of the revolution in China, revolutionary changes and   the establishment of "Popular rule" in a number of East  European countries, the collapse of the system of the Fascist rule brought fundamental changes in the entire structure  of international  relations. According to the Yugoslavs one of these  changes  brought a new form of unity among  the  Third World countries ,later called `NON-ALIGNMENT'.

          The  question  whether the Cold War has  been  the  main reason  for the movement to come into existence can  only  be answered in the context of the controversy of differences  of opinion  between these groups of members. The  importance  of finding  a  proper answer for this question  becomes  crucial when  the changes in international relations , such as  those in Eastern Europe in the 1990s are studied in relation to the Non-Aligned  Movement. If one accepts the  Yugoslavian  logic that  the Cold War forced the Third World countries to  unite into  the Non-Aligned Movement , then one could  very  easily believe that when the Cold War is over  (as it presumably  is in  the  early 1990s) , the legitimacy  of  the  Non-Aligned Movement fades away. But if the Indians are right to  believe that  the  Non-Aligned Movement has been founded  to  achieve other  goals rather than merely an end to the Cold War,  such other aims of Non-Alignment are to be secured even after  the official end of the Cold War.

          The first non-violent anti-colonial step in the  present century  goes  back to 1927. In February 1927 `The Congress Against Colonial Oppression and Imperialism'  was  held  in Brussels. Perhaps this is the first ever recorded  gathering of the representatives of the colonies who tried to start  an anti-colonial  campaign.  Taking part in this  congress  were representatives of Indonesia, India, China, Syria, Palestine,

     Egypt,  Korea,  Indochina,  Japan,  some  Central  and  South American countries (including Mexico). Delegates  represented 136 organizations from 37 colonised countries. The  attending African  and Asian leaders included Jawaharlal Nehru, Ho  Chi Minh  and Leopold Sedar Senghore. This was the first time  in history  that  freedom  fighters of Asia,  Africa  and  Latin America  had met to exchange views on the need to  fight  for liberation  of oppressed peoples and to embark, in  organized fashion,  on  an  open clash with  oppressors.  This  meeting enabled  all  participants to gain a deeper insight into  the problems  of  colonial peoples and their struggle  which  was gradually assuming universal proportions.

          Looking  into the list of the  countries,  organizations and leaders participating in  this gathering, one can  easily find how most countries of the same group continued to gather together in the next decades to form the core of the movement later  called `The Non-Aligned Movement'. Jawaharlal  Nehru, who represented the Indian National Congress at the  Brussels meeting, later recalled that:

        "It  was felt more and more that the struggle for  freedom was   a   common   one  against  the   thing   that   was imperialism".

          Although Nehru was present at the Brussels meeting,  the Indians  put  the  birth date of the  NAM  in  the  following year,1928, to find the first clues for the birth of the  Non-Aligned  ideas. According to the Indian researcher, Govind Narain Srivastava , during India's independence struggle  in 1928, it was the Indian National Congress that declared:

         India must promote its relations with other countries and nations  suffering from imperialism and wishing to  fight it. According  to  the same researcher,   the  first  Indian post-independence prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was one of  the  first  who showed the  direct  relationship  between national liberation and preservation of world peace.

Continues soon...