The Non-Alignment Movement In The Post-Cold War Era: Any Relevance Today?

We face neither East nor West; We face forward
– Kwame Nkrumah

THIS quote from one of Africa’s truly pan-Africanists could have been the dictum of the Non-Alignment Movement. But this was said in a different context and besides, Nkrumah was not the initiator of the concept of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM). But it could have nevertheless been an apt motto at the time. There are conflicting dates as to the precise on origin of the movement let alone the concept itself.Some accounts say that the NAM was conceived by three political giants of their time or what is called the ‘NAM Trio’ – Jawaharlal Nehru of India, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Marshal Tito of the then Yugoslavia – at the Belgrade Conference in 1961.Yet others want to take its embryonic stage to a meeting in 1955 of several Asian and African countries in Bandung, Indonesia. The meeting discussed colonialism and the influence of the West and attended by countries, many of whom had gained independence from former colonial powers.However, it took another six years for the first NAM meeting of heads of state in 1961 that was convened in Belgrade, largely through the initiative of Tito, that the movement took its present shape and form.The founding fathers of the non-aligned movement were Sukarno of Indonesia, Nehru of India, Tito of Yugoslavia, Nasser of Egypt and Nkrumah of Ghana. Their actions were known as ‘The Initiative of Five’. The non-alignment movement or the simple notion of ‘neutrality’ was adopted at the height of the Cold War.The Cold War, between the USSR and Eastern Europe on the one hand and the USA and Western Europe on the other, led to the split of the world into two camps. However, during the 1960s a ‘third camp’, the non-aligned movement, emerged. The movement was largely made up of countries that had gained independence from the European empires and the aim was to act as a stabilising force between the two superpowers as well as giving its members a more powerful voice through unity and mutual support, especially on international platforms.The non-aligned movement thus came into existence with a whole basket of noble ideals. In the early days following the initial euphoria, expectations would have been high with the promise of a new beginning. But even during the early stages of its formation, the NAM was not as effective as its proponents thought it would be. For a start, the movement was both economically and militarily weak and could thus not effectively play the ‘referee’ role between the two super-powers. Secondly, the NAM did not even adhere to some of its proclaimed principles such as the promotion of mutual interests, co-operation and peaceful co-existence, refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country and settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means and mutual non-aggression.With all these noble principles in place, some members were involved in serious conflicts with other members (e.g., India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq and the multiple countries which were involved in the DRC war). Thus the NAM was not ‘history’s biggest peace movement’ as its proponents claimed it to be.The fact of the matter is that many of the Non-Aligned Movement’s members were actually quite closely aligned with one or another of the super powers. Truth be told, this confrontation had nothing to do with geographical positioning but it was based on ideological outlook – between the capitalist world and the socialist camp. With the spectacular collapse of Soviet-style socialism that confrontation evaporated to a great extent.Thus, mention NAM and what comes to mind is an entity that has outlived its purpose. Some people would argue that NAM died with the ‘end of ideology’ but, of course, not history as can be observed, for example, during voting at the UN Security Council with China and Russia tending to oppose the three Western powers.The question that has been posed is: what relevance for NAM in a post-Cold War world especially with the collapse of the Soviet Union 1991? Under such circumstances, the very rationale of NAM’s existence was called into question. But many member states, including India, argued against disbanding the movement. They argued that the world had become even more economically hierarchical and unjust and so NAM had to broaden its base and fight injustices. The irony, for example, in the case of India which is arguing for the retention of NAM, is that it has now signed nuclear agreements with the USA.With the next summit to be held in Iran this year, the question is whether the movement can still keep on redefining and reinventing itself especially in view of the fact that many African countries are turning East, especially towards China.. It is no longer the ‘referee’ it used to be. So what is the next role for the movement because the game of ideological politics is no longer being played?

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.

The Namibian uses AI tools to assist with improved quality, accuracy and efficiency, while maintaining editorial oversight and journalistic integrity.