Kampala is hosting the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement today, at a delicate time amidst global geopolitical transformations, particularly in Africa, where there is a growing anti-France sentiment, and in Europe with the threat of the war in Ukraine expanding. In Asia, the U.S.-China cold war persists, and the Middle East remains internally divided while Palestine continues to experience escalating Israeli crimes.
Amid this complex geopolitical map, Al Jazeera Net addresses questions concerning the role, influence, and presence of the Non-Aligned Movement, from its conceptual inception and establishment to its current role.
What is the Non-Aligned Movement?
In the context of liberation movements—Arab, African, Asian, and Latin American—that prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s, the idea of a politically non-aligned bloc emerged. This bloc was not aligned with the international poles of conflict of the time, culminating in an organization that unites 120 member countries, most of which are developing nations, under the Non-Aligned Movement.
What was the international context that led to the concept?
Post-World War II saw the reshaping of the international power map between the Eastern Bloc led by the Soviet Union and the Western Bloc led by the United States. The rising competition, which evolved into a cross-continental tension, coupled with the pursuit by each camp to court developing nations that either strategically controlled seas and straits or were rich in resources, propelled the notion of political neutrality based on respecting the independent decision-making and sovereignty of those nations.
How did events contribute to the philosophy of the Non-Aligned Movement?
Before it took a definitive form and concept, the Asian-African Conference took place in Bandung, Indonesia, in April 1955. Initiated by India, Indonesia, Myanmar (Burma at that time), Sri Lanka (Ceylon then), and Pakistan, the principles from the conference formed the foundational philosophy for the Movement.
The conference adopted a political declaration representing the attendees’ vision for international and bilateral relations, known as “The Ten Principles of Bandung.” These included affirming political, social, and economic rights of peoples, non-aggression, respect for state sovereignty, and non-interference in internal affairs of states.
Furthermore, Bandung’s objectives reflected the concerns of newly independent states about being drawn into the international bipolar conflicts. The proposal for a coalition of developing countries emerged, emphasizing distancing from Europe and America.
When was the first conference and who participated?
The first conference of the Non-Aligned Movement was held in 1961 with the participation of Arab, African, Asian, and European countries, plus three South American countries as observers.
Twenty-nine countries attended, led by figures such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Ahmed Sukarno, and Gamal Abdel Nasser. Arab participation included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, and Libya, along with regional and Asian nations like Iran, Turkey, China, Afghanistan, and Japan.
The first Bandung conference dates back to 1955 (Getty)
How did Washington view the Non-Aligned Movement?
The United States viewed the Non-Aligned Movement with caution. Washington feared that newly independent states, especially in Asia and Africa, might adopt leftist ideologies, reinforced by the revolutionary rhetoric prevalent in those nations at the time, along with the activity of Communist parties that represented the vanguard of Soviet influence in those continents.
Trapped between supporting the end of colonialism, in line with the founding principles of the United States, and relying on European colonial powers as allies against the Eastern communist bloc, U.S. leaders since the Bandung Conference worried that anti-colonial states might also become antagonistic towards the United States and the West, as indicated in U.S. State Department documents.
What are the opportunities and challenges facing the Movement today?
Today’s Non-Aligned Movement summit in Uganda coincides with the aggressive war on Gaza, with a specialized committee for the Palestinian matter formed within the Movement.
The summit takes place in a continent that has become an arena for international conflict, and at a moment in history when the battling over subterranean riches peaks, with climate change comprising one of its greatest challenges.
Will the summit rise to the level of the Palestinian people’s suffering and the victims who fall on a daily basis?
Where has the Movement failed during its journey?
Although the Movement was youthful, differences began to emerge among its members with the proposal of becoming an influential bloc through unifying voting patterns and directions in the United Nations. This was the highest ceiling for the Movement in the reckoning since its establishment.
Over time, the concept of non-alignment itself became symbolic in certain stances, particularly as most Movement members entered into ancillary alliances with major nations on economic and developmental levels, which, even if not politically titled, would confuse united positions in light of individual member’s interest calculations.
Disagreements and consideration of interests have weakened the Movement’s stances and effectiveness, leaving it incapable of dealing with major challenges. From the Palestinian issue, crises in Africa, Arab conflicts, the civil war in Lebanon, and the inability to prevent war between founding members Iraq and Iran, the Movement has also been indecisive in the face of crises such as the Kuwait invasion, the Gulf War, to the occupation of Iraq. Despite maintaining its conferences and leader presidencies, the Movement hasn’t surpassed the limit of declarations and appeals that have found no echoes with either the member states or international organizations.
The United States Institute of Peace noted that the Non-Aligned Movement hasn’t been a noteworthy player on the political blocs stage since the early 1990s, showcasing its “vocal opposition” during the Iraq war as being unable to make decisions on humanitarian aid cooperation or even development cooperation among members.
