Non-Alignment in an Age of Alignments

Home , Lusaka Declaration, Power politics, Singham

NON-ALIGNMENT IN AN AGE OF ALIGNMENTS

A.W. SINGHAM & SHIRLEY HONE Non-alignment in an Age of Alignments

A. W. Singham and Shirley Hune by: Non-alignment in an age of alignments was first published in 1986

In the UK 9BU Zed Books Ltd. 57 Caledonian Road, London Nl

In the USA Lawrence Hill & Co. 520 Riverside Avenue, Westport, Connecticut 06880

In Zimbabwe The College Press (Pvt) Ltd . P.O. Box 3041, Harare

GA.W. Singhant and Shirley Hune 1986.

Cover designed by Jacque Solomons.

A!1 rights reserved.

Printed in Zimbabwe by LITHO SERVICES (PVT) LTD . P.O. Box 3625 Harare

ISBN 0 86925 700 5 Foreword

This is a valuable book on an important and topical subject. Archibald W Singham and Shirley Hune have a profound understanding of the subject having attended all the major meetings of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) since 1975 . They are activists in the Pan-African, Pan-Asian and Pan- American social movements which inspired the foundation of NAM in 1961 and its steady growth and expansion since . The research work for the book is detailed, the analysis meticulous, showing a firm grasp of the central issues and objectives of NAM. Besides their grasp of the central issues of non-alignment, the authors are, most importantly, persons committed to the liberation of Third World peoples, and the social transformation ofthe existing order in the international political and economic systems. Their voices are at once authoritative and authentic; the concerns of NAM are also their personally felt concerns. The Third World needs committed scholars ofthis kind who write out oftrue conviction and not those who act as the mouthpiece and transmission belt of the views and values of Western Europe and North America. The book has been published at the right time as NAM is holding its eighth summit in Harare as well as celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of its founding; the birth of NAM in Belgrade in 1961 took place at the height of the struggle against colonialism with new independent states appearing on the world scene every year. The yoke of colonialism was broken in Africa and Asia and at the same time super-power rivalry and imperialism were making themselves felt in all the corners of the world. These elements together with the threat-of nuclear war posed problems for the movement. NAM has gone through many crises and faced many difficulties . As member states have tried to protect their sovereignty and independence, they have faced military threats of invasion from hostile reactionary and imperialist countries. Equally, inter-territorial disputes and wars between member states have threatened to destroy the movement . Efforts aimed at collective self-reliance in development among Third World countries have been thwarted by the machinations of imperialist powers. The movement's call for new world orders in the areas of economy, trade and information has fallen on deafears from and even invited punitive measures. But NAM has survived and grown strength to strength. situation . However, the movement now faces a very dangerous international power in the Right-wing reactionary social forces have captured positions of to assault USA, the UK and West Germany, and they are using that power of the the progressive movement everywhere. This assault is a manifestation imperialism in contradictions and conflict between non-alignment itself and led by which the former has scored some successes. The imperialist countries, under President Ronald Reagan, are on the offensive in a sustained the USA the to halt and even reverse the gains made by Third World peoples in effort so 25 years in the social, cultural, political and economic fields. In fact, last callous- thoroughly has the movement exposed the fallacies, irrationality and that ness of the current international order, the cornerstone of imperialism, force to these imperialist countries are panicking ; they are now resorting to silence the voice of reason represented by NAM.

American Aggression and Offensives changes in in- Since 1961, NAM has been a major catalyst in bringing about has been suc- ternational relationships. The multilateral diplomacy ofNAM and codified the cessful, especially at the UN, where it has co-ordinated ofthe countries of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Carribean region, approach its Latin America on burning questions of mutual interest. Because of and and principled stand on such questions, the movement is becoming more effective and respected internationally. Due to this success, the imperial- more with ist countries have now mounted an assault on the UN system, starting information UNESCO mainly because of its stand on the new international from and communication order, and the ILO. The USA and UK withdrawal alleged UNESCO is part ofa general attack on the UN system because ofthe terms, that growing influence of NAM countries in the UN itself. In real and their withdrawal is part of a general policy adopted by the twd countries policies allies intended to coerce Third World countries into supporting their at all international fora. The open American aggression on the small island of Grenada in 1982 signalled the end of the era of quiet diplomacy and showed the extent to which to the big powers were prepared to go to force the weak and the small nations of toe their particular line. The American government has pursued this line equip- action to great lengths by setting aside millions ofdollars and military against ment to support bandit and dissident organisations that are fighting sup- the legally constituted governments ofAngola and Nicaragua. That open organ- port as well as aggression is a serious threat to all the governments and security. isations within NAM; it also constitutes a danger to world peace and The authors demonstrate that internal and regional conflicts can quickly become global issues, involving super-powers. They show in their analysis of the conflicts between the Tamils and the government of Sri Lanka, how that conflict is drawing in, and on opposite sides, the big countries ofAsia and the super-powers. Even at the economic level, the position of NAM is under severe attack and strain from the Reaganites and Thatcherites . The Third World countries are facing economic problems of falling growth, high inflation, budget deficits, foreign exchange shortages and heavy foreign debts all of which have been brought about largely by external factors beyond their control. The current world economic order reinforced by the conservative fiscal policies of President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher is the root cause of many of these problems; it gives developing countries no chance to move out of the vicious circle of under-development. There is thus a need to adopt a new approach to the management ofthe world economy for the benefit of all countries. Third World leaders have made numerous calls to this effect but they have been unheeded.

Economic Crises and Stagnation

The North-South dialogue intended to narrow the gap between the rich and poor countries and share the world's resources more equitably has virtually come to a halt . Western countries have refused to abandon their "orthodox" or conservative economic policies which protect their interests at the expense of the developing countries. They still pursue restrictive trade policies and impose high interest rates which are detrimental to Third World countries. Because ofthe West's intransigence, the establishment ofthe new international economic order which had such a promising start at the Algiers Summit, Algeria, in 1973 is now further and further away. Instead the old order of dependency is being reinforced by the crippling debts ofThird World countries; Reaganites and Thatcherites would like to sustain this dependency in order to weaken if not destroy the political independence of the Third World countries and force them to toe their line. Even the Heavens are making the poorest of the poor poorer, with the severe drought in most of Africa. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund make an already bad situation worse by imposing conditions of borrowing that are so harsh that the debts of the poor countries just get bigger and bigger. The standard solutions ofdevaluation, dismissing excess staff, removing subsidies, and reducing government spending, are simply a debt trap; they fuel political and social unrest in the Third World countries. Programmes of economic recov- ery formulated by the West fail to redress the economic situation of Third World countries. The only economic or financial initiatives of NAM that have made an impact on the international situation, are those in which they their own action and resources. Following the solidarity demonstra- relied on efforts of the Group of 77 nations, the authors describe the successful ted by as the OPEC to control and raise the prices of oil products in 1973, as well be dupli- to promote South-South co-operation. The two initiatives can efforts . The several times over and expanded to include other commodities cated May 1986, to special session of the General Assembly ofthe UN which met in the need for the African economic crisis, served only to re-inforce discuss pricing . greater South-South co-operation and common action on commodity

Southern Africa and World War Southern eighth summit in Harare has brought the focus of NAM to The and inter- Africa and the major strategic, military, economic and social issues the growing in the region. The Lusaka summit in 1970 alerted NAM to ests ofapartheid. tensions in Southern Africa and especially the evils ofthe system against imperial- The authors show clearly the early commitment of NAM of membership of ism, colonialism, and racism. Indeed one of the conditions movements for national NAM was and still is "consistently supporting the doctrine. The Harare independence", as well as opposition to racism as a state for practical action summit has re-emphasised this commitment and called Southern Africa are a against the evil system ofapartheid. The issues raised in threat to international peace and security. grave Persons The rulers of racist South Africa were reported by the Eminent in 1986, Group (EPG) sent to South Africa by the Commonwealth ofNations the hands of be uncompromising in their determination to keep power in to actions against the ruling white minority by sheer brutal force and genocidal while the the black majority. In order to underline their militarist intentions, the neighbouring EPG was in South Africa, they launched military attacks on of Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. All indications are that this type states and terrorism will continue until the apartheid regime is defeated of state tacit eliminated. The state terrorism of the South African regime has the Needless approval and/or encouragement of the USA and UK governments . every tenet to say the state terrorism of the apartheid regime is a violation of of international law; if it continues, it will lead to a world war. matched by the The intransigence of the apartheid regime is more than regain their inde- determination ofthe masses of South Africa and Namibia to sovereignty, and nationality; they are no longer afraid to die for the pendence, Africans know to be just. Although over two thousand black South cause they continues been killed in the last year alone, their resistance to apartheid have despite in- unabated. Their organisation against apartheid is intensifying, the Boers. They are creasing difficulties . They no longer want to be ruled by and NAM. Their calling out for support from the Frontline States, the OAU, promised land. The voices are loud and clear like someone who has seen the authors tell us that for NAM, the attainment ofpolitical independence in the former colonies or neo-colonies is fundamental . The litmus test for the Harare summit in the annals of the history of NAM will be the concrete steps taken to resolve the problems of South Africa, and to attain the political independence of the struggling people in Namibia and South Africa. No one can have any illusions about the magnitude of that assignment in world history. It is indeed a major threshold in man's quest for freedom. Over the next three years, NAM will need ideological direction and a great sense of urgency and militancy in order to fulfil the daunting tasks ahead; it should have that in the dynamic leadership of Zimbabwe's Robert G. Mugabe . The authors recount the lasting contributions of the founding fathers-Josip Tito, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gammal Abdul Nasser, Kwame Nkurumah, and Soukarno-and the additions ofthe various summits to the body of principles and practices of NAM . Given the history of Zimbabwe, and the situation in our region described above, Zimbabwe's contribution could be in extending the frontiers of liberation. The task ahead is to make Namibia and South Africa "liberated zones" in our region. NAM has the commitment, the resources, and now the breadth of diplomatic experience, to provide the much needed initiative and policy thrust towards achieving this goal. Finally, we are grateful to Singham and Hune for writing an almost defini- tive study on NAM. This book can be read by both scholar and layman; it is written in simple readable language, and shorn of difficult concepts and scen- arios. Its appearance, on the very eve ofthe eighth summit held in Harare in September 1986, is both timely, and a fresh literary reaffirmation of the strength of the movement. The authors have traced the history of NAM from its early origin when hesitant steps were made by its founders amid wild criticism from especially the imperialist countries to today, when the movement can truly be said to have acquired a lasting and significant force in the conduct of international relations. Backed by comprehensive documentary and archival evidence, the authors have provided us not only with the most authentic presentation of the movement's history, but they have also given us deep insights into its dynamics and strength. They have made an analysis from the only perspective from which it could have been made, i.e. the perspective of committed scholarship . And hence what emerges from the pages of this book is not a dry Olympian "objective" analysis, devoid of passion and feeling, but an insider's evaluation of NAM's contribution, in the last thirty,years of a turbulent world, towards the struggles of the peoples of the Third World to gain respectability in the councils of international diplomatic arenas, and liberation from the domination of the big powers. There is no question that NAM will prove to be resilient. Another chapter will soon open in the annals of the movement following its Harare summit when its strength and principles will be put to test on the question ofthe liberation of Namibia and South Africa, without them becoming pawns in the super-power politics of hegemonism.

N M SHAMUYARIRA Minister of Information, Posts and Telecommunications Harare, 1986 Contents

Dedication Acknowledgements Introduction 1 PART I: OVERVIEW 11 1. Principles of Non-alignment 13 Peace 15 Independence: Self-determination and Racial Equality 19 Economic Equality: the Demand for a New International Economic Order 22 Cultural Equality: the Search for a New World Information and Communications Order 25 Universalism and Multilateralism: the Non-aligned Movement and its Support for the United Nations 27 2. Structure and Organization 33 Criteria for Membership 39 Code of Conduct 42 US Code of Conduct for Non-aligned Countries 47 Role of the Chair 51 3. Antecedents and Origins of the Non-aligned Movement 57 The Bandung Conference: A Prelude 65 Preparatory Meeting for the Conference of Uncommitted Countries 71 PART II: THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL HISTORY: THE POLITICS OF COLLECTIVE RESISTANCE 77 4. The First, Second and Third Summits: the Formative Years 79 The Summit Conference as a Unit of Analysis 79 First Summit Conference of Non-aligned Countries, Belgrade, 1-6 September 1961 81 From Belgrade to Cairo 86 Second Summit Conference of Non-aligned Countries, Cairo, 5-10 October 1964 89 From Cairo to Lusaka 94 Third Summit Conference of Non-aligned Countries, Lusaka, 8-10 September 1970 101 From Lusaka to Algiers 109 5. Fourth Summit Conference of Non-aligned Countries: Consolidation and Activism 119 From Algiers to Colombo 132 Fifth Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Non-aligned Countries, Lima, 25-30 August 1975 138 6. Fifth Summit Conference ofNon-aligned Countries: The Beginnings of Institutionalization and Destabilization 148 Political Concerns 152 Economic Concerns 158 Resolutions and Reservations 161 The Co-ordinating Bureau 162 Internal Strains 163 7. From Colombo to Havana: Destabilization in Practice 167 The New Delhi Bureau Meeting, 7-11 April 1977 172 The Havana Bureau Meeting, 15-20 May 1978 173 The Belgrade Foreign Ministers Meeting, 26-30 July 1978 178 Maputo Extraordinary Bureau Meeting, 26 January-2 February 1979 193 The Colombo Bureau Meeting, 4-9 June 1979 194 8. Sixth Summit Conference of Non-aligned Countries: Confrontation and Resolution 210 9. From Havana to New Delhi: Problems of Transition 233 Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-aligned Countries, New Delhi, 9-13 February 1981 235 Havana Bureau Meeting, 31 May-5 June 1982 237 Managua Extraordinary Bureau Meeting, 10-14 January 1983 246 PART III: THE POLITICS OF LIBERATION 253 10. Introduction 255 11. The Non-aligned Movement and the Question of Palestine 261 Conclusions 277 12. The Non-aligned Movement and the Question of Namibia 281 Conclusions 298 PART V: CONCLUSIONS 303 13. Seventh Summit Conference of Non-aligned Countries: The New Beginnings 305 The Challenge from `Like-minded Countries' 310 Afghanistan 315 Egypt's Membership 316 The Search for Peace and Independence through Linking Disarmament and Development 317 India's Role as Chair 330 The Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-aligned Countries, Luanda, Angola, 4-8 September 1985 336 14. The Price of Non-alignment 341 Hegemony as an Explanatory Variable in International Relations 341 I. Nuclear Hegemony 345 II. Political Hegemony 346 III. Economic Hegemony 347 IV. Cultural Hegemony 348 The Internationalization of the Garrison State 354 War Zones in the Non-aligned World 355 Intervention 357 Non-alignment: Retrospects and Prospects Within a Global Context 364 Appendix I: Non-alignment: Theories and Explanations 379 Appendix II: Membership ofthe Non-aligned Movement as of the Seventh Summit 403 Bibliography 405 Index 416 Dedication

This study is dedicated with gratitude to the people of the non- aligned countries, especially for giving the movement leaders who have struggled against domination and for liberation . It is especially dedicated to the people of Grenada who gave the movement Maurice Bishop and paid the highest price for non- alignment . Acknowledgements

This has been a very difficult book to write. The research for this study was begun by A.W. Singham in 1975 and took ten years to complete. To begin with we had very little financial support to undertake the research. The United Nations Institute for Training and Research under the directorship of Dr Davidson Nicol provided a small seed grant of$4,500 for the study in 1976. It was also writtenwhile both ofus had full-time teaching positions . In addition, given the hostility to and/or ignorance of our subject matter, most of our applications for financial assistance were rejected. We thus had to resort to one of the major strategies devised by non-aligned countries for their own development, namely, that ofcollective self-reliance. Shirley Hune agreed to postpone her own work on migration and joined Singham on the project in 1979. What we lacked in financial resources, we more than gained in human resources through the intellectual and technical assistance given to us by the non-aligned world. We want to thank the host governments ofnon-aligned meetings for their enormous assistance, especially in arranging for interviews withheads ofstates and senior officials . These include the senior members of the governments of India, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Nicaragua. We also thank the liberation movements and their representatives at the United Nations for providing us with various documents and analyses along with opportunities for interviews during our fieldwork . This research gave us an opportunity to meet with some ofthe finest minds from the Third World. The struggle for independence and liberation produces unusual personalities with great theoretical sophistieation and many ofthem have assumed responsibilities for representing their countries abroad. The ambassadors at the United Nations and a number of delegates literally became our tutors throughout this period. Recognizing our plight, various government officials and academicians from non-aligned countries provided us with invaluable assistance and the generosity of their time. They gave us advice on how to obtain inexpensive tickets to attend the major non-aligned meetings. Many an ambassador provided technical assistance as they offered us lifts in their limousines either to or from non-aligned meetings and the Non-alignment in an Age of Alignments

their thus enabling us to interview them during that process. Probably hotel, cocktail parties, important contribution was to invite us to their most immediate access luncheons and dinners where we had an opportunity to have ifthey had the time and to many ofthe principal participants. We know that far better book on the the opportunity they would have produced a . subject from the addition, we thank many of our former students, especially In respective Caribbean and Africa, who now hold high positions in their quickly provided countries. They often took pity on their former teachers and conduct this documents and other necessary pieces of information to research. other are also grateful to a number of institutions, scholars and We meetings in non-aligned countries who organized seminars and individuals study. Their we made initial presentations on different aspects ofthe where . We would intellectual and collegial support helped to sharpen our analysis University of especially like to thank, in Latin America and the Caribbean: the under the Havana in Cuba; The Institute for Public Administration (FESP) Committee for the directorship of Dr Theotonio Dos Santos in Brazil; the Argentina; El Independence of Namibia and the Eradication ofApartheid in the University Colegio and the Autonomous University ofMexico in Mexico; Suriname. In Asia, ofthe West Indies in Mona, Jamaica; and the University of University in New we would like to thank: in India, the Jawaharlal Nehru Development in Delhi, and the Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial in Sri Lanka, the Chandigarh, especially its director, Rashpal Malhotra; and Africa, we thank Social Science Association during the Colombo Summit. In and officials in the the Institute for International Affairs in Lagos, Nigeria, Algeria for arranging for us to meet with specialists on non- government of of Europe, we thank Dr Ranko Petkovic and the Institute alignment. In an Politics and Economics in Yugoslavia for giving us International in to meet leading intellectuals throughout the non-aligned world opportunity are famous Petrovaradin seminars. Finally, in the United States we their now Richard grateful to the institute for World Order, Inc., especially Professor . Falk, who assisted us with superpower notions of non-alignment of the Non- many occasions we attended and covered the meetings On an invaluable aligned Movement as scholars/journalists. This proved to be work on non- experience especially since most ofthe creative and important non-aligned world. alignment has been undertaken by journalists from the some of the skills of We are grateful to the journalists who introduced us to personalities in world their trade, particularly how to interview leading politics and how to write succinctly. produce quick findings Our journalistic role often meant that we had to particularly grateful in either immediately before or after a meeting. We are Acknowledgements

India to Mainstream and its editor Nikhil Chakravartty and to T. N. Kaul and P. N. Haksar, chief editor, ofMan & Development who insisted that we stop using American social science jargon and write simply and clearly for the non- aligned world. In Sri Lanka, we thank Mervyn De Silva and S. P. Amarasingam, editors of the Lanka Guardian and Tribune respectively . In the United States, The Nation magazine and its editor Victor Navasky, and PACIFICA radio with Samori Marksman constantly supported our endeavours. Members of the United Nations staff were also supportive. They not only provided many documents which were difficult to obtain, but most importantly gave us an opportunity to participate in the policy process by inviting us from time to time to become consultants . Dr Lucille Mair, the former Secretary-General for the UN International Conference on the Question of Palestine, appointed Singham as her adviser on non-aligned matters which resulted in his attending the Seventh Summit as an observer/ delegate. The Council for Namibia also provided opportunities for us to participate in the difficult issues relating to the southern African struggles and the role of the Non-Aligned Movement there. While we received little financial backing for this study in the United States, the moral, political and intellectual support of various liberation support groups and the peace movement far outweighed any we could have received from foundations. These social movements in the United States constantly demanded from us written statements, talks and endless meetings which helped us to refine many ofour ideas. Their love and generosity were indispensable to our completing this study. There is one group, however, that we would like to thank specifically. For Singham, since 1952, when he first participated in their summer intern programme and, more recently, since Hune's opportunity to observe the United Nations through the work ofthe Quaker United Nations Office, the Society of Friends has been a constant source of inspiration. We would like to express our thanks to two unusual publishers in the Western world: Zed Books Ltd and Lawrence Hill & Co., and especially our editors, Robert Molteno and Larry Hill respectively . Their commitment to the struggle of oppressed people reveals once again that the principles of non- alignment are not dependent on race, class, or national origins. Their capacity to make available to the peoples of the Third World the works of scholars from both the non-aligned and First worlds establishes them among the pioneers who are attempting to create the new international information order. Then there was our dear friend and the grand lady of Caribbean studies, Vera Rubin, who could never understand how one could give up writing about the Caribbean and yet who grudgingly accepted non-alignment as a Non-alignment in an Age ofAlignments legitimate area ofstudy, provided the Caribbean people were involved in it. Finally, there is our dearest and loving friend Felipe Rivera who kept reminding us that it was time to take a break.

A. W. Singham and S. Hune Introduction

The Non-aligned Movement is a coalition of small and middle-sized states, mostly former colonies and developing countries, from the Third World. It was formed in 1961 with 25 states and has grown to more than 100 members . Non-aligned countries have developed a flexible organizational structure and meet from time to time in their different regions of the world to coalesce around specific issues and to promote their objectives. For a quarter of a century, the Non-aligned Movement has functioned as a social movement in the international system, aiming to change existing global structures and create a more just, equal and peaceful world order. It is, in essence, an anti- imperialist peace movement. The Non-aligned Movement presents major theoretical and methodological problems for contemporary students of international relations . The field of international relations has been dominated by social scientists whose primary concern has been to study relations between nation states or international organizations . This has led to an emphasis on comparative foreign policies and multilateral politics. More recently, scholars have devoted greater attention to examining the relationship between a nation's domestic policy and its foreign policy. The interest ofpolitical scientists in power analysis led to an emphasis on the role of major powers in world politics. The impact of the Cold War contributed to studies on the dominant role ofthe US and USSR in the global system and relationships between the superpowers. In addition, there was a growing methodological interest in quantitative research which led a number of scholars to concentrate on measuring power relations and on assessing the influence of one particular state upon another, while those who studied the activities ofinternational organizations, including the United Nations, tended to merely describe their specific functions in great detail. The major impetus in the study ofinternational relations has come from the West. It is only natural, therefore, to fmd its scholars primarily concerned with the international political system as a reflection ofthe national interests of their own individual states. This emphasis on measuring international political interactions, especially war, has also had an unfortunate effect on the study of international relations both in Western intellectual circles and Non-alignment in an Age of Alignments throughout the Third World. International relations became an arid and abstract science with increasingly little relationship to the real world of international politics. Some scholars who have become disenchanted with the study of international organizations, model construction and quantitative studies have turned their attention to `world order' and `futures' studies. Yet these conventional approaches in international politics do not encompass or take seriously a transnational organization such as the Non-aligned Movement. Students of international economics have not escaped the problems experienced by students of international politics. International economists in the West have tended to concentrate on trade relations, notably the complexities of the world market system. Methodologically, they too developed very sophisticated models of the world trade system which had less and less to do with the world of economic reality. Recently, the field ofinternational relations has developed a new interest in political economy. This has come from students of international political relations and international economic relations who were disenchanted with traditional concerns and who were influenced by the works of scholars from the Third World. These scholars, especially in Latin America, Africa and Asia, were inspired by the demand for a New International Economic Order from non-aligned countries and have turned their attention to questions of exploitation, unequal exchange and imperialism. These studies are at the seminal stage and are proving to be exceptionally useful for an understanding of the contemporary global economic and political reality. Students of conventional international political and economic relations have generally had considerable difficulty in understanding the emergence of the Non-aligned Movement in world politics. In studying non-alignment, one is forced to examine a phenomenon that is global in character and does not fit into traditional units ofanalysis utilized by students ofinternational relations. Furthermore, the Non-aligned Movement is not another regional `Third World' organization, as some have attempted to characterize it, but is a transnational universal organization. There are those who have tended to view the organization as another `bloc' in world politics. However, this Movement has self-consciously identified itself as being anti-bloc and seeks to extricate the world from domination by a variety of power blocs. The Non-aligned Movement is an unusual phenomenon in world politics. It is a coalition of states whose governments agree on common principles for changing the existing unjust and unequal world order. It calls itself a Movement and it is located in the international realm where non-aligned countries take on some of the characteristics of a social movement as defined in the field ofsociology. That is, they have goals, membership requirements, a minimal organizational structure and a degree of continuity. They are also Introduction

action-oriented, towards effecting change in opposition to the established social order, and, in turn, are influenced by social changes in the larger society, in this case the international system. Moreover, the Movement is dynamic and modifies its principles and objectives, structure and organization, as well as its interests and activities according to its own needs and international events. However, while its behaviour would lead one to characterize it as a social movement, it also possesses elements that do not fulfil some ofthe vital characteristics ofa social movement; namely, in being a state-centred movement. Non-aligned countries have well-established institutional forms within their own societies and it is only in their international relations that they function as a movement. In short, such a movement cannot be understood within the confines ofthe traditional approaches in international politics, international economics, international organizations or sociology. It is necessary to consider all these variables together within a historical context. We have chosen to study the Non-aligned Movement within the context ofthe global system. This study then views the Non-aligned Movement as an integral part of contemporary international history and examines its role within that history. Unfortunately, the field ofinternational history has been grossly neglected by historians and social scientists who have tended to concentrate on national histories. Sociologists who have studied social stratification have also neglected to integrate this area with the field of international relations. Indeed, very little work has been done, for example, on the impact of the international system on the political and social stratification between states and within states. Since the Non-aligned Movement functions as an international social movement, it is necessary to analyse the specific activities of the Movement from the perspective of international social and political stratification. The phenomenon ofinternational stratification is closely linkedwith recent developments in the study of international political economy. The internationalization of capital and labour have had severe consequences for the economic development of Third World countries as well as for the internal class structures of nations within the Non-aligned Movement. It is apparent that while the Non-aligned Movement has concentrated its efforts on changing social relations between states, it has neglected social/economic relations within states. The purpose of this study is to examine and describe the evolution and activities of the Non-aligned Movement within the context of international history. The study is global in perspective and interdisciplinary in approach. It emphasizes the Non-aligned Movement as an agent of social change in the international community from 1961 to 1985. Non-aligned countries are viewed as major actors, that is, the subjects of history and not merely its Non-alignment in an Age ofAlignments objects. Hence, they do not merely react to events and trends, but are active initiators of events and trends. To fully understand it and its limitations, one must first recognize that the Movement is not an autonomous actor on the world's stage. It is influenced by international events and major social, economic and political trends imposed upon its members by the major powers. Furthermore, even within the Movement, there are differences ofemphasis. While members are in general agreement on the basic principles of non- alignment and therefore hold universal and international viewpoints, one must also recognize that individual states still ultimately emphasize their own national interests. The period from the First Summit Conference of heads of state or government of non-aligned countries held in Belgrade in 1961 to the Fourth Summit in Algiers in 1973 were the early years in which the Movement was taking form and establishing itself as a coalition . It is discussed here in briefas this history has been previously studied by other scholars and standard works are available . We do re-examine this period, however, in the context ofrecent international history. After 1973, the Movement enters a period ofhigh international activity and becomes a major influence in world politics by challenging existing approaches to international political and economic strategies. In the process of effecting social change globally, non-aligned countries individually and collectively attracted opponents and dissenters, primarily from outside but also from within its own organization, which sought to limit the effectiveness of the Movement. Yet there is no comprehensive study of the Movement's activities in its second decade. This is also the period in which the authors conducted intensive primary research in the field. From 1976 until 1983, one or both of the authors attended the major meetings ofthe Non-aligned Movement in various parts of theworld and were participant observers at its gatherings. The Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Summits held respectively in Colombo in 1976, in Havana in 1979, and in New Delhi in 1983 are discussed here in some detail. The analysis ofthe political processes is based on empirical research undertaken by the authors at these and other meetings ofthe Movement and on extensive interviews with representatives from non-aligned countries at the United Nations. The study tries to provide a history of the Movement by integrating the documentary sources of the Movement with field research at its meetings, using interviews and participant observation. Methodologically, we drew on four disciplines in the social sciences. We also chose the summit conferences of non-aligned countries as major events in the dynamics of the Movement and treated each conference location as a primary unit of analysis. Shirley Hune as a social historian examined the primary documents of the Movement. These included the speeches made by non-aligned leaders at their Introduction gatherings. Declarations and communiques of the Movement adopted at their major meetings, and various other non-aligned and government publications . While cynics may dismiss the speeches of the heads of state or foreign ministers at the summits as irrelevant and designed for home audiences, it is our view that a careful reading ofthe speeches does reveal the basic themes that concern non-aligned countries and does provide a composite picture of the world view ofthe Movement at a given time. The speeches also disclose fundamental ideological differences, especially as they affect the foreign policy of a given country. Furthermore, speeches enable nations to speak out on global questions over which they know they have no control. Again cynics will respond by indicating that this is yet another example ofthe impotence ofnon-aligned countries in world politics, but this is precisely what they want to change. That is, non-aligned states seek a role in international policy-making. The summit is also an occasion when a given head ofstate can use a speech to float a trial balloon. On Middle East questions at the Seventh Summit, for example, a careful examination reveals various shifts and changes by governments from that region. Finally, in examining the speeches as a whole one can develop a historical sense of the changes that have occuired between summits. The various versions of the Declarations at a non-aligned meeting are compared and contrasted to detect shifts in emphases. The final Declarations are also compared with those of previous meetings to reveal trends, innovations or reversals . Other governmental and non-aligned documents, such as proposals and committee reports, also provide valuable information. This documentary analysis is then re-examined within the context of the political, economic and social issues and events that were taking place in the world system at that time. In addition, we collected the local national newspapers and analysed the treatment given to a non-aligned meeting by those in the host country and compared them with Western press coverage. Singham supplemented the historical and documentary analysis by utilizing the interview methods of the social sciences. He held extended interviews with participants who wrote the documents and with those who disagreed with some sections and sought amendments during the meetings. This meant tracing the countries which expressed their objections to certain drafts and interviewing their representatives for an assessment as to whether they had either succeeded or failed in introducingthe amendments. Singham depended, heavily on the anthropological technique offield notes rather than the formal questionnaires employed by political scientists and sociologists. He then prepared copious notes at the end ofthe day after conducting interviews and making observations of the various proceedings. At each of the non-aligned meetings we attended, we also identified the Non-alignment in an Age ofAlignments major issues and made a list of the countries most closely involved and the participants who needed to be interviewed. Many ofthese interviews were held while the participants were either moving into or out of the conference site. Singham also covered specific meetings that were open to the public and prepared a long description ofthe political processes within these meetings. At the conclusion of a meeting, Singham would then conduct interviews with delegates of the host country and identify the central persons who could give their evaluation of the meeting. This summary would then be supplemented by selecting certain countries which played an active role at the conference, but these interviews were generally conducted later at the United Nations. Fortunately, most of the officials who attend the non-aligned meetings are also their countries' representatives at the United Nations. In addition, Singham and Hune attended press briefings and press conferences by non- aligned leaders and shared in the reactions of the journalists from the aligned and non-aligned worlds. Throughout our field research, we also-benefited from the insights of sociological theory on social movements and social change. As many a field researcher knows, the greatest difficulty emerges when one has to distinguish between the particular interpretation of a respondent and the concrete empirical situation. Representatives and officials are also capable, on occasion, of either exaggerating their own role or, more dangerously, `disinforming' the interviewer . Thus fieldwork in international politics is riddled with enormous methodological, empirical and ethical difficulties, especially at the field site. It was clear to us that many traditional social science techniques, especially survey research techniques, were seriously limited methods for eliciting information about the intricacies of international political behaviour . Therefore, we relied on the techniques ofparticipant observation associatedwith anthropologists. Our participant observation over a ten-year period ofattending non-aligned meetings in all regions ofthe world and in meetings with delegates at the United Nations gave us access to rich material and revealed certain patterns of political behaviour, in spite of its obvious limitations . In addition, Singham attended the Seventh Summit in New Delhi as an observer/delegate in conjunction with serving as an adviser on non-aligned matters to the Secretary-General for the UN International Conference on the Question of Palestine. This gave him a rare opportunity to observe at first hand the internal political processes of a summit conference. The integration of these methodological approaches of the various social sciences, i.e. history, political science, sociology and anthropology, proved useful, but exceptionally difficult to achieve, especially without adequate support in the fieldwork . If one were to undertake such a venture again, it would be best done by a team ofspecialists from the non-aligned world with an agreed conceptual framework and methodological techniques. Introduction

One very important area in which the field of international studies has not developed any sophisticated mechanism is the analysis ofthe drafting process of conference documents . We observed that the drafting process at non- aligned meetings serves as an exercise in political bargaining. To the outsider, it may appear as simple quibbling over words, but there are times when fundamental debates occur over the direction of the Movement or over certain issues. At the Seventh Summit, for example, the Economic Declaration resulted in a sophisticated debate about the alternative strategies for dealing with the growing debt crisis. African delegates found the Latin American interventions invaluable for developing their own strategies to deal with international financial organizations, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) . The drafting session of the Political Declaration of the Seventh Summit revealed how complicated and delicate were the negotiations over the changes. Indeed, the entire drafting process is a highly complicated and difficult enterprise. First, there is the question ofwhich country introduces the amendments. If a given country wants to introduce a change, it may either introduce it itself, or choose a country that has a high reputation to present it in the hopes that this will ensure success. Sometimes the real debates take place at regional meetings and a careful plan is worked out at that level. The personality of the participant, especially the head of delegation, also has an important influence on whether a given amendment will be accepted. Certain ambassadors and ministers with high reputations, even from very small countries, are likely to be successful in implementing changes. The reverse also holds true; that is, an individual with a bad reputation cannot implement changes however good the recommendations. It was our original intention to include a whole chapter on conference politics which would discuss in some detail the drafting process, but we decided to eliminate it as it would detract from the major thrust ofthe study. It is surprising, however, that after all these years of multilateral diplomacy and international conferences there are so few studies on the political processes within conferences. The field ofinternational organizational theory needs to undertake studies similar to those executed by students of large-scale organizations in national political systems. While the diplomatic world is to a large extent trained and produced by the dominant cultural traditions, i.e. those of Europe and the United States, it is necessary for any cross-cultural and transnational study of this kind to pay attention to the importance of cultural aspects in influencing behaviour, especially in a grouping like that of the Non-aligned Movement. There is a great danger, as we have found in our own study, in lumping countries together as either ILusophone', or `Francophone' or `Anglophone' . During the last 25 years, a number of these countries have developed their own Non-alignment in an Age ofAlignments and particular cultural and philosophical orientation towards world politics language they can no longer be so narrowly or simply defined in terms ofthe of their former colonial master. overview of The study is divided into four major parts. Part I provides an and the Non-aligned Movement with chapters on its principles, organization from structure, and prehistory. Part II covers the history of the Movement is both an internal 1961 to 1985, from summit meeting to summit meeting. It on history of the Movement and an examination of its role and impact national international history. Part III contains two empirical case studies on world liberation. It describes in detail how two of the most difficult issues in are politics today - the question ofPalestine and the question ofNamibia - have viewed by the Movement and, in turn, how non-aligned countries arena, supported these issues and transformed them in the international discussion of specifically at the UnitedNations. In Part IV, we conclude with a at its the international situation as viewed by the Non-aligned Movement analysis most recent summit, the Seventh Summit in New Delhi, and with an of the of the consequences of a policy of non-alignment for members I, Non- Movement. Readers will find a review of literature in Appendix of the alignment : Theories and Explanations . Appendix II comprises a list 1983 . member countries of the Movement as of the Seventh Summit in world This study, we hope, will encourage other scholars in the non-aligned best, an to explore some of the fundamental issues we have raised. It is, at overview ofthe Movement's history, although we have tried to show some of in this its complexities. The most important aspect that remains neglected politics of study is the link between the domestic politics and international non-aligned countries. We have not addressed the problem ofhow some non- `reactionary aligned countries have been `revolutionary abroad', while being this is an area at home' . Iffuture studies ofthe Movement are to be conducted, nor 'non- that deserves careful attention. Scholarship is neither neutral a stand and aligned' and scholars, like their political counterparts, must take determine which side they are on and why. Throughout the study, it will be given issue obvious thatwe have stated normative and policy preferences on a that the or set of issues. By stating our own normative preferences we hope the final readerwill be able to assess how these normative values have affected empirical outcome. activities of It has been our intention to analyse and describe the history and reality of non- this international social movement within the context of the aligned countries. We have relied heavily upon the eyes, voices and writings of the Movement. This study attempts to explain how the Non-aligned critics Movement sees itselfin world history and not how others, especially its no and opponents, would like the Movement to be and to behave. There will, Eighth doubt, be those who will announce the demise ofthe Movement at its Introduction

Summit in Zimbabwe. But the Non-aligned Movement has proved through its own internal organization and history to have survived previous dire predictions . It remains one of the most important anti-imperialist peace movements in world politics today. The fmal editing ofthe manuscript was done in Antigua in the Caribbean. It was one of the early stops of Columbus whose trips eventually led to the colonization of the Third World. Ironically, Antigua was one of the last colonies to gain independence (1981) and has begun the long process of reconstructing the world that Columbus and his successors destroyed . In so doing, it has had to deal with all the issues raised by the Non-aligned Movement to protect its independence. Economically, independence brought a massive indebtedness to the IMF and the world's transnational banks, as well as dependence on the transnational tourist corporations which replaced the old European sugar companies. Politically, independence resulted in the signing of a treaty with a superpower to house extensive electronic military installations, thus bringing the Cold War to its doorsteps. Culturally, it resulted in the housing ofrelay stations for two ofthe Western world's most powerful communications networks, the Voice of America and the BBC; facilitating the cultural penetration and domination of Latin America and Africa. The question remains as to how an island nation of 364 square kilometres and 77,000 people can resist these powerful forces. It has gingerly begun its course in world politics by becoming a member and strong supporter of the United Nations and an observer of the Non-aligned Movement, thus participating in the only two organizations that can protect its sovereignty and authenticity.

Dickenson Bay Antigua, West Indies January 1986

Part I Overview

1. Principles of Non-alignment'

The study ofinternational relations has primarily been a study ofrelationships between nation states and, more specifically, the foreign policies of modern nations. Since World War II, there have been increased efforts to examine international relations within a global perspective and these efforts have resulted in a number of studies on regional and international organizations . Very few studies, however, have attempted to examine transnational groupings, especially those seeking to transform world politics and economics. The Non-aligned Movement is the most significant international movement to emerge in contemporary history. This Movement has been ignored by the dominant intellectual tradition in the world today, namely, the Western tradition, for both political and intellectual reasons . Hence, if the Non-aligned Movement is to assume its rightful place as a genuine and important international social movement then it is imperative that the scholarly tradition within the non-aligned countries undertake the task of developing not only a body of empirical studies, but also a series of general theoretical propositions that explain the character of the Movement. The 20th century has been marked by two major revolutions that have transformed the old international order. The first was in 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia and created a socialist system. The second revolution was the decolonization process in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean that occurred after World War II. While the 1917 revolution resulted in the emergence of a single major power, the Afro-Asian anti-colonial revolution brought into existence a myriad ofstates, most ofwhich were small or middle- sized, underdeveloped and politically weak. Their peoples were fragmented internally. They also had the twin tasks ofcreating new political structures and dissolving traditional feudal institutions. As fragile societies, they have been trying to escape from underdevelopment for the past 30 years. It is these nations whose governments have joined together as the Non-aligned Movement. The Non-aligned Movement originated under the leadership of Nehru of India, Tito of Yugoslavia, Soekarno of Indonesia, Nkrumah of Ghana, and Nasser of Egypt. Their remarkable achievement has been the creation of a

13 Overview

coalition of states from Asia, Africa, Europe, the Arab world, and Latin America and the Caribbean which has grown from its original 25 to over 100 members. A major characteristic ofthe Movement has been that the founders, who have been the practitioners of non-alignment, are also its foremost theoreticians. Nehru was the best example of this phenomenon. A careful examination of his writings reveals that he articulated the philosophical premisses of non-alignment as early as 1927 in his report to the All India Congress. Nehru was primarily concerned with the right of self-determination and the capacity of newly independent states to retain their sovereignty, especially under conditions ofbig-power politics and war. Tito was interested in peace and sought a reduction oftensions between the US and the USSR in order to avoid the possibility of a nuclear confrontation . Nasser raised questions about foreign intervention and external influences in the Middle East. He was also concerned about the future of dispossessed Palestinians . Soekarno was a staunch anti-colonialist and radical nationalist. He was concerned that newly independent states be able to choose their own social, economic and political relations, including the right to form links with communist states such as China. Nkrumah was concerned about racism and the decolonization of the African continent and sought an end to the white racist regimes in southern Africa. Since the founding years, Ben Bella and Boumedienne of Algeria and Castro of Cuba have also made significant contributions. They have influenced the Movement through their emphases on national liberation and the need for economic independence. In 1961, the leaders of 25 non-aligned countries sharing a number of common concerns met together to create an independent path in world politics that would not result in their becoming pawns in the struggles between the major powers. They recognized that any international coalition had to be highly flexible. Therefore, they resisted creating formal structures of a hierarchical nature. They also chose consensus as a method of decision- making for their organization. This has enabled countries with different ideological persuasions to join the Movement. Their common concerns became the fundamental principles upon which non-aligned countries base their decisions and activities. They are a commitment to : 0 peace and disarmament, especially the reduction of tensions between the major powers; " independence, including the right of self-determination of all colonial peoples and the right of equality between all races; economic equality, with an emphasis on restructuring the existing international economic order, particularly with respect to the growing and persistent inequality between rich and poor nations ; " cultural equality, with an emphasis on restructuring the world information

14 Principles of Non-alignment

and communications order, and opposing cultural imperialism and the Western monopoly of information systems; and 0 universalism and multilateralism through strong support for the United Nations system - whose principles are also non-aligned principles - as the most appropriate body to deal with all global issues. Consequently, the Movement has resisted efforts within its own organization to create alternative structures at the expense of the UN. These principles of non-alignment have been generallyunderstood within the Movement throughout its history and no attempt was made to formally enunciate them until the Sixth Summit in Havana in 1979. No understanding of the Non-aligned Movement is complete without an appreciation of its ideological premisses or principles. We therefore begin with a brief explanation of each of the fundamental principles. These premisses are perceived by the Movement as universal and the basis of its search for a new world order.

Peace One of the first principles of non-alignment is peace and disarmament . Historically, the Movement has sought to reduce tensions between the major powers. From its inception, the Movement has been opposed to the development of military blocs and to the attempts by the major powers to compartmentalize the world into spheres of influence. After World War II and the onset of the Nuclear Age and the Cold War, the Movement feared that the creation ofmilitary pactswould result in the division ofthe world into opposing camps, denying other nations, especially new states, the opportunity to make independent policy decisions about world problems. Consequently, the Movement adopted non-involvement in military pacts as one ofits criteria for membership. In essence, non-aligned countries are attempting to create certain basic rules of conduct for nation states within the international system. The existing practice ofinternational relations where a few major powers dominate, they argue, does not reflect the present reality in which new small and middle-sized states have joined the world community in growing numbers with relatively little power in determining world politics. In other words, the increased number of nation states since World War II, and concomitantly the emergence oftwo superpowers with the military capacity to destroy the entire global community, necessitates the `democratization of international relations', particularly so that nations which do not have nuclear weapons can participate meaningfully in global politics. At the same time, the Movement persistently seeks nuclear disarmament and an end to the arms race.

15 Overview

At its summit meetings, the Movement attempts in its three-year periodic surveys ofthe international situation to identify crisis areas that could escalate into a conflict between the major powers, and hence result in a nuclear war and global annihilation. Non-aligned countries have examined disarmament and peace theoretically and have distinguished between various types of confrontation within the global community: (1) the confrontation between the major nuclear powers; (2) wars of self-determination and independence; (3) internal civil wars resulting from political secessionist movements; and (4) armed conflicts between non-aligned member states that could lead to a confrontation between the major powers. They have arrived at these distinctions over the years.in response to each conflict on an individual basis. However, little theoretical work has been undertaken to distinguish between these various types ofwars in world politics, and particularly how individual states arrive at their decision to either support or oppose a particular war. With regard to the confrontation between the major powers, non-aligned countries have tended to rely on the United Nations to develop both strategic and practical ways to avoid conflicts. They have always insisted that the United Nations serve as the organizational body for a resolution of conflict between the major powers and were largely responsible for initiating the call for the Special Sessions on Disarmament to draw attention to the arms race. Non-aligned countries have made a specific link between the struggle for independence and national liberation and the right of self-determination and racial equality. Their discussions frequently centre on the right of a people to resist colonialism in all its forms. The Movement, however, distinguishes between different types ofarmed confrontation. It makes aspecific distinction betweenjust and unjust wars. It has consistently argued that wars of national liberation and wars of independence are justifiable, and therefore should be sanctioned and supported . Furthermore, non-aligned countries argue that war was often the only method by which national populations could resist continued colonial domination. This emphasis on the right to take up arms to resist colonialism clearly differentiates the Movement from the commonly held view of pacifism or neutralism in world politics. From its inception, the Movement has been neither pacifist nor neutral. Instead it suggests certain normative and ethical criteria by which individuals and nations can indicate their support for certain just wars and their opposition to certain unjust wars. The Movement has thus defended wars of independence and national liberation movements globally, notably the struggles in Algeria, Vietnam, the former Portuguese colonies in Africa, and Southern Africa. It has also consistently supported the rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to a homeland, and of the peoples of southern Africa to oppose the

16 Principles of Non-alignment apartheid minority governments in the region, with armed struggle if necessary. In the current conflicts in CentralAmerica and the Caribbean, non- aligned countries recognize that neo-colonialism results in a new type of national liberation movement. The contemporary war for national liberation in this region is a struggle not against a colonizing power, but against a domestic ruling class which has tied itself to a neighbouring power and thus lost the economic, cultural and political sovereignty of the country. This is why non-aligned countries have supported revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua and Grenada. The selection ofjust wars and the identification offactions to support is not achieved without considerable debate and often some division within the Movement. In the case of southern Africa, a majority of nations have no difficulty in identifying themselves with the broad mass of the Black population. In other situations, such as the third type of conflict, civil wars involving secessionist movements, the considerations are more complicated, and these are issues that even the United Nations tends to avoid. As these conflicts necessitate identifying the specific faction or group it wishes to support, the Non-aligned Movement has found these decisions more difficult. Nation states are also sensitive to the charge of intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Moreover, one of the major concerns of the Movement has been to maintain the national integrity of the majority of its member nations, including the capacity of existing nation states to resist secessionist and divisive movements. However, non-aligned countries recognize that internal conflicts such as these cannot be ignored because they can be easily transformed into larger conflicts and involve other states. They will therefore have discussions on them but withhold taking a position until there is consensus . A fourth type ofwar, conflictbetween member nations, which often occurs in the form of border disputes, is the most pressing issue within the Movement today. We have seen at least four major manifestations of these conflicts recently, namely, tensions between Somalia and Ethiopia, between Vietnam and Kampuchea, between Uganda and Tanzania, and between Iraq and Iran. The latter dispute was serious enough to cause the Seventh Summit to be moved from Baghdad to New Delhi and to be postponed for several months. Recognizing that conflicts between non-aligned states constitute a threat to peace, a specific effort was made at the Colombo Bureau meeting in 1979 to devise a mechanism that non-aligned countries could use to resolve border conflicts and other concerns prior to their becoming a major issue ofglobal attention. Continuing efforts and formulas were devised at the Havana Summit in 1979 and the New Delhi Summit in 1983. These include bilateral consultations and the `good offices' of the chair ofthe Movement. However, no special institutional forms have been developed to address this critical issue between non-aligned countries .

17 Overview

The major difficulty about supporting wars of national liberation and independence or internal wars or border disputes is the danger that such conflicts could quickly be converted into a war between the major powers. The Non-aligned Movement recognizes that the division between the major powers in international politics has often resulted in their seeking to exploit their differences with the possible consequence of a global confrontation between the major powers. Furthermore, many non-aligned countries have discovered that indigenous divisions within a state, e.g. the existence of various nationalities, have been systematically exploited to divide nations and destroy their national integrity. The painful lessons of the creation of North and South Korea. and the attempt to divide Vietnam remain issues of major concern. Thus throughout its deliberations, the Movement has cautioned against the view that all wars are just. They have seen how some wars could easily result in the formation of military alliances linking smaller nations with larger nations in violation of one of the principles of non-alignment . Hence, the Non-aligned Movement has sought to reassert the principle that the national integrity of states, especially their boundaries, should be maintained because border and boundary problems could be used for the destruction of the state and the Balkanization of continents. It is clear from the above that the whole question of war and peace, particularly the linking of different types of wars with one another, has not received the theoretical attention ofmost social scientists andthe international community. The major concern of social scientists has been over issues of disarmament and peace research. If there is going to be a proper assessment and reduction of tensions between nations, it is imperative that the different types of war be examined in conjunction with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the emergence of an armaments culture. Non-aligned countries have noted that existing tensions in the global system have resulted in the evolution of a world weapons culture in which the purchase, production and promotion of arms as a panacea for local, national and international problems have taken on a momentum of their own. Furthermore, the simple-minded division of the world into two `armament camps' needs to be re-examined as new centres of power emerge. The potential of China and the growing economic power of West Germany, Japan, Brazil, Israel and South Africa and their participation as partners in the arms trade should be studied. The expansion of the armaments industry and the evolution of a weapons culture not only threaten world peace and contribute to the possibility ofwar, but divert large proportions ofnational budgets towards the purchase ofarms that countries do not need. While the arms race has wreaked havoc on the First and Second Worlds by contributing to spiralling inflation and unemployment in advanced market economies and to the deceleration of the

18 Principles of Non-alignment ability to provide consumer goods in centrally planned economies, the impact on developing countries has been catastrophic. The increasing dependence of developing countries on the global armaments economy and the spending of hard-earned income on weapons threaten to condemn Third World countries to permanent poverty. Non-aligned countries, therefore, have begun to argue that if the issue of disarmament is to be properly addressed it has to be considered within the context of a world development strategy. In summary, peace with disarmament remains a basic principle of non- alignment. In its efforts to further this principle, the Non-aligned Movement has broadened our understanding of wars, expanded the context of the disarmament debate, and is attempting through its activities to contribute to the theoretical development ofinternational relations and the achievement of peace. However, in spite oftheir massive efforts, non-aligned countries have been unsuccessful in a number of peace-related issues, especially in their attempts to link disarmament with development and to establish zones of peace in various regions of the world. Furthermore, the arms race is accelerating rather than declining, with the Third World becoming major purchasers and, in some cases, producers of small arms. The Movement has striven to ensure that small, middle-sized, developing and non-nuclear countries have an active part to play in the disarmament process. In this manner, it has told the world that disarmament is a global matter and not simply an area for agreement between the major powers.

Independence : Self-determination and Racial Equality A second basic principle ofnon-alignment is the right ofself-determination of all colonial peoples and the right of equality between all races. Struggles against colonialism and for racial equality predate the formation of the Non- aligned Movement and contributed to its creation and growth. At Bandung in 1955 a number of Asian nations were linked with a few African nations . By 1961, at the First Non-aligned Summit, Afro-Asian nations were linked with the nations of Latin America and Europe. In the 1960s and 1970s, newly independent states, especially in Africa and the Caribbean, joined the Movement, further expanding its membership. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, we see the greater involvement of Latin American countries, notably those of Central America, where local populations struggle not against colonialism but neo-colonialism . In its Declarations and activities, the Movement has persistently supported struggles against colonialism, imperialism and racism in all their forms and in every part of the globe. The political independence of colonies is fundamental to non-alignment. The existence of a global social movement like the Non-aligned Movement greatly helped many former colonies to become independent. The Movement

1 9 Overview

provides a forum for colonial territories to present their case internationally. Prior to Algeria, Vietnam, Angola and Zimbabwe acquiring their independence, for example, it recognized their national liberation movements, accepted their provisional governments as members, and welcomed their leaders as heads of state. The Movement, therefore, has provided legitimacy to new states as they enter world politics. It has set a precedent in international relations by treating liberation movements as official representatives of their people prior to independence. The Movement also recognizes the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as full members. It has gone on record as supporting the right of Puerto Rico to become independent . These are some illustrations of how non-aligned principles of self-determination and racial equality have contributed to the decolonization process. It is not surprising then to find newly independent states joining the Movement as a first step in establishing foreign relations. Non-aligned principles have led its members to support two major struggles for self-determination and racial equality in contemporary history. The Movement has given legitimacy to the efforts to liberate the African continent. Much ofthe African continent, fromAlgeria in the north to Angola and Mozambique in the south, achieved independence largely through the armed struggle ofthe population bolstered by international support. The most blatant violation of the principles of self-determination and racial equality in Africa today is in southern Africa where the Republic of South Africa refuses to give up its colony in Namibia, invades nearby states to put down liberation armies, is actively involved in the physical destruction of non-aligned members, the front-line states, and continues to oppress its majorityBlack and Coloured populations in violation of the United Nations Charter. Thus non- aligned countries have sought the independence ofNamibia, the protection of the front-line states, and an end to the apartheid regime in South Africa. The apartheid system is understandably almost universally condemned. The non-aligned support for the majority population in the Republic of South Africa is, therefore, clear. Their support for the Palestinian people is less so in the global community. The Non-aligned Movement has insisted that there is a correlation between the experiences of the Black African population of southern- Africa and the disenfranchisement of the people ofPalestine. They draw parallels between the situations in Palestine and South Africa where two settler states have adopted policies that have resulted in the, domination, exploitation and segregation of the indigenous populations. In their declarations and activities at the United Nations, non-aligned countries have attempted to bring the rights of the indigenous people of Palestine and of southern Africa to the attention of the global community. Since 1975 when non-aligned countries argued that Zionism is a form of racism and racial

20 Principles of Non-alignment discrimination, they have faced the wrath of much of the Western world. Since that time some non-aligned countries have lessened their emphasis on the issue ofZionism as a form ofracism. Moreover, it should be noted that in spite oftheir stated hostility towards Israel, many non-aligned states prefer the two-state thesis. In fact, many non-aligned governments had recognized the state of Israel prior to the escalation of conflict in the region and have reinstated diplomatic ties. In addition, some states, including Egypt, have established ties. The Movement has, none the less, consistently argued that there can be no peace in the Middle East without the recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people. Hence, while many states are not opposed to the existence of Israel, they prefer a two-state solution. In their view, there can be no settlement in the Middle East without this recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to a homeland. As non-aligned countries have pointed out, the struggle for self-determination and racial equality is linked to the arms race and world peace. While the Movement has made major strides in these two areas, however, Namibian independence is continuously postponed and the Palestinians are still homeless. Movements for national independence and the emergence of new states from the old colonial world have redefined international relations in the post- World War II era. The existence ofthe Non-aligned Movement as a coalition that provides a vehicle for small and middle-sized states to participate in global affairs has further helped to democratize international relations. On the other hand, it has been argued that 'mini-states', because ofthe size oftheir territory and population and other matters, such as political, economic and cultural viability, do not deserve the right to be treated as modern nation states with equal rights in the family of nations. The political left also has suggested that the growing power of transnational corporations and the militarization of a number ofthese small states by the major powers have turned them into client states and destroyed their capacity to be independent, autonomous units in the world system. This problem of economic autonomy has not escaped the Movement. While non-aligned countries welcomed the decolonization process, they recognized that political independence was not accompanied by economic independence. Instead, colonialism gave way to neo-colonialism and independence to dependence. Economic blockades and border wars which can dismember nations have also exacerbated economic dependence. Many states are particularly sensitive to the ability ofthe world economic system to bring their governments to a standstill by manipulating the prices of the commodities they produce. Hence, non-aligned countries have focused their attention on the problem of maintaining political independence under conditions of economic crisis. The watershed was the 1973 Algiers Summit

21 Overview where the Non-aligned Movement turned to economic matters and demanded the establishment of a New International Economic Order.

Economic Equality the Demand for a New International Economic Order Another of the fundamental issues raised by non-aligned countries is that of economic equality. They have argued that the colonization of the world by Europe produced at least three types of inequalities : between the colonizer and the colonized; between races; and between the rich and the poor. Hence, the Non-alignedMovement has pointed out that one ofthe major problems of the 20th century is to rectify these inequalities . In the 1960s, the Movement stressed the achievement ofpolitical and racial equality. But by the 1970s, it was becoming apparent to non-aligned countries that in order to have political and racial equality a nation also had to have some semblance of economic equality. Though major differences exist among non-aligned countries on the economic options before them, they collectively agree that the fundamental problem in the world economy today is domination by the global market economy. They argue that the existing international economic order was a creation of colonialism and imperialism and has resulted in a maldistribution of global resources, especially wealth. The economies of non-aligned nations stem largely from their colonial experiences. Colonialism disrupted the traditional economies ofAfrica, Asia and the Americas. Capitalism took these lands and transformed their peoples and cultures into one vast plantation. For non-aligned countries, the expansion of capitalism world-wide produced a series of market economies dependent upon the metropolitan centre. The majority of the people were diverted from producing food for their own survival into producing commodities to satisfy the tastes ofan external society. Hence, the average Nigerian, Sri Lankan and Jamaican were uprooted from traditional agriculture and turned into wage labourers. The social process of creating an international plantation society and, concomitantly, the creation of individual commodity states resulted in the alienation of three-quarters of the world from itself. It also produced a social class system that divided one ,native' from another `native' and created a major psychological dilemma for the majority of these populations. Colonialism also had a traumatic effect on the cultures ofthese societies. In the Americas, traditional peoples were annihilated . In Africa and Asia, traditional social structures were destroyed in some instances and, in others, were made subservient to the new dominant culture of the colonial power. For the majority of non-aligned countries, capitalism was not a superior advanced social system thatbrought about modernization and change . In other

22 Principles of Non-alignment

words, capitalism was not a modernizing and liberating movement, as it had been in Europe where it destroyed the shackles offeudalism and created a new market economy. In the colonies, capitalism produced a new relationship of dominance and subservience between landlord and peasant and between colonizer and colonized. Most importantly, capitalism brought poverty, unemployment, overpopulation and malnutrition. For most non-aligned countries, capitalism was a destructive and repressive experience and produced a semi-feudal and semi-capitalist hybrid society. For them, capitalism under conditions of colonialism and imperialism underdevelops rather than develops. This opposition to the capitalist market system also stems from a number of theoretical assumptions. Even the most conservative non-aligned countries recognize that as ex-colonial dependencies they are unable to compete in the advanced capitalist economy. They argue that there is an unequal exchange between themselves and other capitalist economies. Those countries which follow the economic doctrine ofKeynes (socialists and social democrats) also complain that the present economic order discriminates by condemning certain nations to being permanent producer nations, making it impossible for them to become industrial nations. Finally, there are a number of Marxist- Leninist states within the Movement who argue that the world capitalist system has created neo-colonies ; therefore, the only solution is to restructure the global economy. This analysis and conclusion were supported by the emerging literature on dependence, theoretical work on underdevelopment in the Caribbean and Latin America by Latin American economists. Their studies revealed how in spite of long political independence, Latin American countries were structurally integrated and made dependent upon the world capitalist system. African and Asian countries were alerted to the exploitative role of multinational corporations, and exposed to the fact that many economic policies being advocated for them, such as `industrialization by invitation', had already been undertaken in Latin America and proved to be failures. Hence for a variety of reasons, non-aligned countries have come to the conclusion that the global capitalist system discriminates primarily against the poorer countries oftheworld. At the 1973 Algiers Summit, they stated that the existing international economic order contributed to the underdevelopment of developing nations. They also argued that political independence and social equality could not be guaranteed unless there was greater economic equality in the world. It was at Algiers that the Non-aligned Movement called for structural changes in the global economy and the establishment of a New International Economic Order, the basic demands of which can be summarized as follows: l. The establishment of producer associations by producer nations following

23 Overview

the pattern set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); 2. Creation of new commodity agreements to assure just prices; 3. Indexation; 4. Sovereignty over natural resources; 5. Transfer of technology; private 6. Greater control over the two major types of international organizations - the transnational corporations and transnational banks. New One of the most significant features about the demand for the International Economic Order is that it is not a revolutionary doctrine. It would be incorrect to conclude that as a result of its critique of the existing capitalist economic system, the majority of non-aligned countries are committed to an alternative economic system. While the struggle for political independence has often taken an anti-capitalist as well as an anti-colonial . form, hostility to capitalism should never be equated with beliefin socialism the Several non-aligned countries have established socialist economies, but inequalities, majority remain within the capitalist system, while opposed to its major especially its foreign domination and international character. The problem is that their own economies are structurally linked to the existing . world capitalist system and this contributes to their economic inequality Therefore, in their call for a New International Economic Order, non-aligned . countries seek ways and means by which they can survive in such a system Hence their demands are essentially reformist in nature. They call for negotiations between the so-called `haves' (North) and the so- called `have-nots' (South) to work towards greater global economic equality. However, the Movement has been singularly unsuccessful in obtaining significant concessions or changes from the developed nations. It has also become apparent to the Movement that Western nations have attempted to divide the non-aligned politically and to destroy the economic unity that was achieved in such ad hoc groupings as the Group of 77 and OPEC during the latter part of the 1970s. The impasse of North-South talks has now led many non-aligned countries to re-examine the possibility of achieving a New is International Economic Order through North-South dialogues. Thus there a great deal of disenchantment with both the slow progress towards satisfaction of the South's demands and with global negotiations. For those nations who have relied on the international monetary system for assistance in economic development there are other salient lessons. Such institutions as the International Monetary Fund have proved to be political as well as economic institutions. In the last few years, using such strategies as fiscal manipulation, these institutions have propped up authoritarian regimes while severely crippling progressive ones. This policy has contributed to the

Principles of Non-alignment

removal of some progressive regimes and their replacement by more conservative regimes. The political demise of Michael Manley in Jamaica could be repeated elsewhere. In other words, fiscal destabilization can be as successful as direct military intervention in interferingwith the internal affairs of developing countries, thus making political independence a sham. Non-aligned countries will have to devise new strategies in which long- term objectives are separated from short-term needs. Economic declarations, while useful in enabling the non-aligned countries to understand better the reasons for their underdevelopment, are not enough. For some, this has fostered the consideration of alternatives such as expanding horizontal or South-South linkages and developing a strategy of collective self-reliance to achieve greater economic equality. In spite ofthe limited success to date ofthe New International Economic Order, the call for a change in the existing international economic order has placed on the world's stage a major debate on the redistribution of global wealth and resources.

Cultural Equality: the Search for a New World Information and Communications Order Non-aligned countries have also addressed the issue of cultural imperialism and made cultural equality another principle of the Movement. Originally, they were primarily concerned about the cultural pillage undertaken by Western countries for over 300 years, a policy that denied people their historical past and, in conjunction with the colonialist experience, contributed to a negative image oftheir role in world history. Hence, a number ofAfrican and Asian countries have sought to regain cultural artefacts arbitrarily removed from their location and placed in museums in the metropoles of London, Paris, Madrid and New York. Recently, non-aligned countries have turned to another form of cultural domination, the ability of the new communications systems, which are predominantly Western owned and controlled, to penetrate any nation state and subvert traditional values. The world market economy creates a culture of consumerism. The consequences have been detrimental to developing countries. For example, through advertising, the milk industry in the West altered the child-rearing and feeding habits ofa large number of non-aligned countries within a short period of time. In other words, the technology of communications today can directly and radically transform not only the cultural values of a given society, but the daily lives of the majority of its people, however remote they are from metropolitan centres. Herbert Schiller, the noted American communication theorist, also warns t1 : one must not separate the technology ofcommunications from the content c communication . He notes the expansive and dangerous nature of the

25 Overview communications industry by quoting a former director of the United States Information Agency: Long Our strategy cannot be based on the current communications system. before a direct broadcast satellite becomes feasible, however, there will be global electronic networks - some of which are already in operation - which will pose realistic questions about information flow and cultural identity . . . The international extension of electronic mail transmission, data packet networks and information bank retrieval systems, in the future years will have considerably more effect on national cultures than any direct broadcast system.2 It is also the West's strategy to make massive information technology readily available to developing countries. We have observed that many non-aligned countries have quickly absorbed the electronics media as the latest mode of communications. It was believed that the introduction oftelevision would act as an educational tool and at long last nationally integrate the mass of the people and give them direct access to a global culture. At the insistence ofMrs Gandhi, India has been one ofthe few states to implement such a policy with some success, using satellite communications . However, smaller governmental television associations soon found that they were incapable ofcompeting with the massive, well-organized and well-packaged programmes coming from the West. Having acquired the technology, developing countries now find themselves limited to importing certain types of programmes, largely cheap semi-commercial ones produced in the Western world, which can be shown only by a particular instrument. Thus a new kind of dependence is created, technological dependence. Furthermore, media productions imported from abroad, such as television series and films, do not perform the task ofnational integration and creation of a cultural identity that may be desired in developing countries. Instead, they quickly create a sector within the population whose values, goals, objectives and tastes are focused externally. Thus through the communications industry, even after decades of independence, developing countries can still be culturally and economically dominated and manipulated by their former colonial masters. Finally, one must bear in mind the political consequences of the importation ofthis type oftechnology. It is possible through the effective use ofthe media to destabilize a government. A US Congress Committee report, Winning the Cold War and Ideological Operations and Foreign Policy, for example states: Certain foreign policy objectives can be pursued by dealing directly with the people offoreign countries rather than with their governments . Through the use ofmodern instruments and techniques ofcommunications, it is possible to

26 Principles of Non-alignment

reach large and influential segments ofthe national population to inform them, to influence their attitudes, and at times perhaps even motivate them to a particular course of action. These groups in turn are capable of exercising noticeable, even decisive, pressure on their govemments.3 This ability of the communications industry to transform and determine domestic politics threatens the political sovereignty and independence of nation states. As the Indian specialist on mass communications, D. R. Mankekar has noted, cultural domination is a kind ofneo-colonialism which is even more difficult to shake off, because it is a cultural infiltration of the minds and souls of people. Even as in the nineteenth century the flag followed trade, in the present era trade and economic domination follow media domination.4 In response to these concerns, non-aligned countries have recently called for a new world information and communications order. As part of an effort to decolonize the news, the Movement has formed a non-aligned news pool and has begun to link radio communications. As with the New International Economic Order, non-aligned states have begun to develop a strategy of increasing horizontal linkages between their regions instead of relying on the old vertical linkages with the metropolitan capitals for information. This is a step towards achieving some form of cultural self-determination . However, much more needs to be done in the sphere of communications, including a radical re-examination oftraditional policies such as the role and place of the media in society and the relationship between the communications industry and the world market system.

Universalism and Multilateralism : the Non-aligned Movement and its Support for the United Nations One ofthe paramount principles ofthe Non-alignedMovement is support for the United Nations as a universal and multilateral institution . The Movement supports the United Nations because it shares similar universal principles with non-alignment . For non-aligned countries, the UN is the most important global institution in existence. It offers the real future for humanity and remains the major international organization for resolving conflicts and addressing global issues. It is to the United Nations that non-aligned countries bring their final declarations for implementation . It is within the UN that they conduct most of their politics, both bilateral and multilateral. The United Nations structure also offers an opportunity for the Movement to meet regularly as a group outside their own gatherings and to inform one another about the state and nature of the Movement as well as non-aligned issues. It is within this international body that the Co-ordinating Bureau of

27 Overview non-aligned countries at the ambassadorial level conducts a great deal of the day-to-day activities of the Movement. Non-aligned countries use the UN system to express their reactions to a number ofglobal issues, especially issues that come up between their summit meetings. The New York meetings can act as a clearing house where issues are debated before being presented to the foreign ministers and heads ofstate. Here, too, they often issue statements that become part of the documents of the General Assembly and the Security Council which the UN then makes available to the global community. A careful examination of UN activities reveals that the non-aligned countries play a very active role in the introduction ofnew resolutions and the passage of all resolutions. It would be incorrect to assume that non-aligned countries act as a unified bloc in the UN system. The. Movement is not a political party; rather, members act as a coalition within the United Nations supporting issues on which they agree, particularly those conforming to the principles of non-alignment . For example, non-aligned countries were primarily responsible for calling the two Special Sessions on Disarmament at the United Nations. Within the UN, the non-aligned have also pushed for the rights ofindigenous peoples and an end to colonialism and racism in all their forms. It is within the United Nations system that they have attempted to implement the New International Economic Order and the new world information and communications order. The non-aligned countries have changed both the composition of the United Nations and its role in the world. When the UN was formed after World War II it was a predominantly Euro-American White man's club representing the interests of the victors of that war. The entry of newly independent small and middle-sized states, most of whom were former colonies, has transformed the UN. Western nations which for years had had firm control over the functional organization of the UN system are now resentful that new groupings and interests have entered into the global system. They had assumed that their interests were the `international' interests ofthe global community. However, when the non-aligned entered into the international system as a cohesive unit, they argued that these interests were limited and did not reflect the entire global community. In their activities at the UN, non-aligned states are attempting to make it serve the needs ofall the countries of the world, especially the dispossessed, and not just the major powers. As with the other basic principles ofnon-alignment, limitations continue to exist. Non--aligned countries have been unable to satisfy fully many of their concerns at the United Nations. Within the UN structure itself, the General Assembly more closely reflects the changes in international politics. The Security Council, however, remains a bastion of the old international power system.

28 Principles of Non-alignment

The Security Council was created by the victors of World War II to preserve the status quo in international relations . It has been seen as a predominantly Western private club where the Soviet Union was barely tolerated. In addition to the five permanent members, the Charter allowed for six elected members, enabling the Council to consist of eleven members representing 51 nations. The elected members of the Security Council also tended to come from the West and the pro-West states of Latin America. (Indeed Brazil was elected five times to the Security Council.) The greatAfro- Asian revolution and the Non-aligned Movement challenged the authenticity of this elitist club . In 1963, after much debate, the Security Council was enlarged to 15 (five permanent members and ten elected) to more accurately reflect both the increased membership of the UN, which had grown from 51 to 154, and the particular interests of Africa, Asia and a changing Latin America. The Security Council has become an exceptionally important body to the vast majority of non-aligned countries. Since World War II, all the major conflicts have occurred in the Third World, namely, South-East Asia, West Asia, the Middle East, Southern Africa and now Central America. Therefore, representation in the Security Council is a matter of survival for the non- aligned countries. The role of the Security Council and especially the power of the veto are major concerns of the Movement. Non-aligned countries are a numerical majority in the Security Council, but this majority is made impotent by the veto power of the permanent members. The mere expansion of the Security Council will not solve the problem. The time may have arrived when the Non-aligned Movement deserves a seat as a sixth permanent member of the Security Council. It is unlikely that any of the existing permanent members will give up their privileged status even though the right to membership of some is highly questionable, for example Great Britain, which is not as great any more. Japan has also asked to be a permanent member on the grounds that it is an economic superpower. Clearly some immediate steps to reform the UN system are required to make it more accurately reflect the contemporary world. In spite of its present deficiencies, the United Nations system offers the entire international community the opportunity to experiment with a number of methods to resolve social, economic and political issues. An arena for political disagreements and rhetorical debates is essential to the survival of humankind, especially since many disputes in the world system have no simple answers. For example, on the question of development strategy, the UN system has provided occasions whereby diverse and divergent experiments can be not only debated but also implemented. Non-aligned countries have actively resisted tactics to `depoliticize' the UN

29 Overview system and render it ineffective. Largely due to their efforts, the level of debate at the United Nations has improved. In the early days, the UN was dominated by the dull voices oflegalists, and occasionally livened up by the shrill voices ofthe cold war warriors. Today, the UN has become a forum for lively debates on the real issues that face humankind, namely, poverty, peace and equality. Non-aligned countries must take considerable credit for strengthening and improving the level of discussions at the UN. No doubt, some regret the passing of the early days when the international organization was nothing more than an exclusive country club, closed to the dispossessed of the world. For non-aligned countries, however, the United Nations entered a new era when the majority of the populations of the world joined the international community as equal partners in global decision-making. Non-aligned countries also established a precedent in international politics by treating liberation movements as official spokespersons for their people prior to independence. Thus the leaders of the Angolan MPLA, the Algerian NLF and others were treated as heads of state, and their movements became full-fledged members ofthe Non-aligned Movement prior to their becoming independent. Indeed, this precedent ultimately resulted in the United Nations accepting these new states as legitimate members of the international community. In the final analysis, the Non-aligned Movement has been responsible for the increased democratization ofinternational relations . In all these ways, however, the United Nations remains an essential institution for non-aligned countries and the Movement has always sought to strengthen its capacity for multilateral diplomacy. In summary, non-aligned countries have defined the central problem since World War II as the emergence ofa political, economic and social system that had br lt into it a pattern of inequality not only between nations, but, concomitantly, between all peoples of the world. The present malaise is a result of institutionalized global political, economic and social inequality. Inequality, they argue, is the root cause of international tensions. And these tensions, they further argue, often result in violence and war. This structured inequality is manifested in many ways. The Non-aligned Movement throughout its existence has made recommendations to resolve these inequalities . These manifestations and solutions are summarized in Chart 1 . To accomplish its noble objectives, however, the Movement mustwork in a world that is dominated by international anarchy. The conditions of international anarchy present a constant problem since at any time the activities of the major powers can affect internal differences within the Movement. In many ways, the work and interests ofthe Movement reflect the moods and changes of the global system. The First Summit in Belgrade in 1961, for example, was primarily concerned with peace and disarmament, especially reducing East-West tensions. In the late 1960s, the Movement was

Principles ofNon-alignment

Chart I: Global Inequality

Manifestations Non-Aligned Solutions 1. Political Colonialism Democratization of inequality Military alliances (bloc international relations politics) Support for national Neo-colonialism. liberation (including Major power dominance armed struggle) Peace and disarmament Reduction of East-West tensions 2. Economic Price system (markets) New International Economic inequality Monetary system (debts) Order Monopoly of the Collective self-reliance transnational corporations and transnational banks 3. Technological Dominance of industrial Transfer of technology inequality technology (including Application of appropriate warfare) technologies Dominance of research and development of industrial nations Monopoly of scientific information and training 4. Cultural Domination and control of New world information and inequality the world's information communications order system and all forms of communication technologies 5. Social inequality Racial, gender, cultural Restructuring the world's stratification cultural and educational systems of exchange Campaigns against racial, sexual and cultural discrimination 6. Military Stratification of states by Reduction of arms race inequality military capacity Resolution of disputes through multilateral diplomacy Transfer of military expenditures to development objectives 7. Global All of the above Multilateral diplomacy under structural the auspices of the UN inequality 31 Non-alignment in an Age of Alignments primarily concerned with the support it had to provide to national liberation movements in Asia and Africa. In the 1970s, the global economic crisis led it to pursue a strategy which resulted in the creation ofand support for the Committee of 77. And now, in the 1980s, it concentrates on the link between disarmament and development. In addition, the Movement has had to face the problem ofdealing with its internal contradictions, i.e. conflicts between member nations, and the possibility ofthese internal contradictions becoming embroiled in the East-West conflict and creating an international situation with the potential ofnuclear war. Furthermore, while we have noted above that non-aligned countries share a commitment to aset ofbasic principles, it should not be forgotten that the Move- ment is a complex grouping ofstates representing different histories, languages, religions and cultures and a variety of political, social and economic systems . This has contributed to a number oftendencies or ideological differences within the Movement that can influence the direction and outcome of a non-aligned meeting as well as its position on any particular issue. The tendencies that have emerged as the Movement developed can be described as follows: (a) social- democratic state capitalist; (b) radical nationalist; (c) neo-colonial dependent capitalist; and (d) Marxist-Leninist . Over the years, certain countries have become identified with particular tendencies and have been known to take positions on an issue based on their ideologicalview. However, a change in government may result in a non-aligned-country altering its particular tendency. How non-aligned countries achieve unity within this diversity requires an understanding of the political and social processes within the Non-aligned Movement. In the following chapter, we examine the structure and organization ofthe Move- ment. In spite ofthese tendencies and changing emphases, the Movement continues to reflect one single concern - to engage in policies that reduce structural inequality in the global system. Primarilybecause it is attemptingto restructure the global system, the Movement recognizes that it has opponents and that these opponents have always been consciously ready to destabilize and dismantle it. One ofthe Non-aligned Movement's greatest achievements has been its capacity to survive and remain a vital and viable force in world politics.

Notes 1. Chapter 1 is a revision and expansion of our article `Principles of Non- Alignment', published in NonAlignment: Perspectives and Prospects ed U.S. Bajpai (New Delhi: Lancers Publishers, 1983; New York: Humanities Press, 1983). 2. Herbert Schiller, Communication and CulturalDomination (White Plains, NY: Inter- national Arts & Sciences, 1976), pp. 46-7. 3. Cited in D. R Mankekar, media and the 'Third World (New Delhi: Indian Institute of Mass Communications, 1979), p. 18. 4. ibid. 32 2. Structure and Organization

One ofthe most remarkable achievements ofthe Non-aligned Movement has been its capacity to transform itself from a small protest movement into a major international social movement in world politics. In Part II ofthis study, we shall examine in some detail how this transformation took place in the context of changing world events. In this chapter, we want to describe the internal processeswithin the Movement, its organizational structure, and how it devises new structures to meet different needs. One ofthe prevailing myths within the Movement, and also perpetuatedby many of its students, is that it has avoided institutionalization. A historical survey of the Movement, as we shall see in the following chapters, clearly reveals that it has developed a huge administrative apparatus to implement many ofits policies. The mere fact that it lacks a formal constitution with a secretariat should not lead one to conclude that it has resisted institutionalization. Non-aligned countries have developed structures as they needed them and conveniently avoided referring to them when their purposes came to an end. The British government provides the closest analogy to this process in nation-state politics. While Britain has no constitution specifically defining the powers delegated to various governmental agencies, it has indeed developed an elaborate structure which has enabled the government to function for centuries. The founders of the Non-aligned Movement and their successors recognized that it would probably be destroyedifthey created such formal structures as a constitution and internal secretariat. A multicultural transnational organization made up of states with differing ideologies and purposes could never create a rational administrative structure to implement its policies that all could accept. As a social movement, it is called on to respond to specific issues and concerns. It is also called upon to forget concerns and needs when they are no longer relevant. Consequently, the Movement has created a unique form of administrative style. Non-aligned administration is non-hierarchical, rotational and inclusive, providing all member states regardless ofsize and importance with an opportunity to participate in global decision-making and world politics. Non-aligned countries meet from time to time in their various regions to

33 Overview discuss shared concerns, formulate policy, and plan common action. The high point is the summit conference where the heads of state or government of non-aligned countries gather together to analyse the current international situation and issue a declaration . The summit is also the occasion when the Movement formally rotates its chairship, generally every three years. The chair is the head of state of the host country of the summit and holds office between the summits. The chair is- also delegated certain responsibilities for promoting the principles and activities of the Movement. To date, seven summits have been held: I Belgrade, 1961; II Cairo, 1964; III Lusaka, 1970; IV Algiers, 1973; V Colombo, 1976; VI Havana, 1979; and VII New Delhi, 1983. By creating the practice ofa rotating chair, non-aligned countries place the onus ofan administrative structure on the country assuming the chair. At each summit, the Movement selects the venue for the next summit. This enables the new nominee to create a transition team immediately. This team then acts as understudy to the outgoing chair. Thus the Movement has developed a fairly coherent and rational pattern oftransition. This process, as we shall see, was seriously disrupted when Iraq was unable to host the Seventh Summit and India stepped in. Here again, the Non-aligned Movement developed new mechanisms of consultation to meet a particular crisis. Every member state of the Movement has a desk to deal with non-aligned matters. It could be argued that these various desks comprise a mammoth bureaucracy to implement non-aligned policy. In addition, if a country becomes active in certain functional areas, such as fisheries or science and technology, individual officials within the relevant ministries of the member countries become involved in the Movement and develop an expertise on non-aligned processes and practices . When a country assumes the chair ofthe Movement, it creates or designates an entire section of the foreign ministry to deal specifically with non-aligned issues. A small country like Sri Lanka not only transformed its foreign ministry but involved large segments of its national bureaucracy in non-aligned questions. Secondly, since non-aligned countries meet regularly at the UN and conduct much of their work there, the chair's ambassador at the United Nations essentially functions as the minister o£non-aligned affairs. The work of the non-aligned often consumes the activities of the Permanent Mission. The massive growth of institutional structures within the organization to deal with a wide variety of concerns is becoming an enormous problem for the Movement. In some instances, this development has become an impediment to speedy decision-making. Therefore, many countries which have chaired the Movement have complained bitterly that the work at the United Nations for the non-aligned has consumed the entire energy of their mission, leaving little time for the conduct of the nation's foreign policy.

34 Structure and Organization

These non-aligned structures, on the other hand, are exceptionally important for small countries and enable them to develop an expertise in multilateral diplomacy. Prior to the 1960s, the UN was totally dominated by the major powers. Whennon-aligned countries entered the UN, mosthad had little experience with multilateralism; indeed, it could be argued that the Movement was the training ground for diplomatic practice at the United Nations. Hence for small countries, multilateralism is the only mechanism available to them. It is essential for their survival in the international system and to maintain their sovereignty. One danger of this process, however, has been a tendency within the Movement to replicate the functions and activities of the UN in some areas. The Movement has also given small nations an opportunity to empower themselves collectively and to challenge the hegemony of the dominant powers. While some members wanted the Movement to have greater cohesion and integration, they quickly realized that to develop a strong, hierarchically structured system would result in some countries in the Movement dominating weaker members. One significant achievement ofthe Movement is that its system ofrotating chairships enables small countries to acquire big-power status in world politics. For this reason, non-aligned countries have consciously attempted to develop structures that will guarantee the democratization of international relations not only in the global system, but most importantly within the Movement itself. Chart 2 suggests the complexity ofthe Movement's organizational structure and the wide range of activities undertaken by it. The ideological consequences ofinstitutional arrangements ofthis type are obvious. Small states in particular, but even the larger, newer countries have benefited greatly from the non-aligned experience. The Movement has created a generation of officials, including ministers and heads of state, who have developed an enormous expertise in international politics within a short period of time. This expertise was essential for non-aligned countries to be able to function in a global system based on economic, military and political power. Some have argued that the Non-aligned Movement was a giant experiment for the political socialization of new nations into the global system. Others, however, view the Movement as an ad hoc grouping ofnations with no place in the international system, especially in international law. Ranko Petkovic, the distinguished Yugoslav analyst, is the only scholar who has tried to locate the Non-aligned Movement within the framework of international law and organization. There are reasons why Western scholars have dismissed the Movement's role in the international legal system. They consider most non- aligned countries to be not only small and powerless, but also outside the cultural traditions of the Western orbit. On the other hand, the

35 Structure of the Non-aligned Movement

r I FOREIGN MINISTERS CO-ORDINATING CO-ORDINATING BUREAU MEETING BUREAU OF THE Ambassadorial Level (Mid-term) NON-ALIGNED Chair-venue chosen at Ministerial Level Summit Meeting

SENIOR OFFICIALS NON-ALIGNED REGIONAL MEETING GROUP MEETINGS

FUNCTIONAL BODIES (Appointed at Summit) Expert Groups Co-ordinating activities (see following chart) with UN and its agencies

Functional Bodies/Expert Groups 1. Raw Materials 8. Fisheries . Republic of Korea, Guinea, India, Iraq, Afgnanistan, Algeria, Cameroon, Cuba, Angola, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic Jamaica, Liberia, Mozambique, Nicaragua and Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Mauritania, Nicaragua, of Korea, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malta, Yugoslavia. Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Senegal Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Saudi 16 . Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes and Zaire. Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Algeria, Argentina, Central African Republic, 2. Trade, Transport and Industry Yugoslavia. Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Afghanistan, Argentina, Cuba, Guyana, 9. Health Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Indonesia, Iraq, Malta, Mozambique and Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Cuba, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan. Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tunisia and Yugoslavia. Mozambique and Yugoslavia. 3. Monetary and Financial Co-operation 17. Telecommunications Cuba, Egypt, Guinea, India, Iraq, Madagascar, 10. Employment and Human Resources Development Argentina, Burundi, Cameroon, Central Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sri Argentina, Bangladesh, Cuba, Iraq, Panama, Sri African Republic, Democratic People's Lanka and Yugoslavia. Lanka and Tunisia. Republic of Korea, India, Mozambique, Yugoslavia and Zaire. , 4. Insurance 11. Tourism Cuba. Cameroon, Cuba, Cyprus, Jamaica, Morocco, 18. International Co-operation for Development the Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt, India, Nigeria, Panama and Saudi Arabia. 5. Scientific and Technological Development Tunisia and Algeria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic 12. 7lransnational Corporations and Foreign Private 19 . Housing People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Investment Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Somalia, Yugoslavia and Zaire. Algeria, Cuba, Nicaragua and Nigeria . India, Mauritania, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia and Zaire. 6. Technical Co-operation and Consultancy Services 13. Sports Argentina, Democratic People's Republic of Algeria, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of 20 . Education and Culture Korea, India, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Panama. Korea, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Madagascar . Algeria, Angola, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Research and Information Systems People's Republic of Korea, Guyana, India, 7. Food and Agriculture 14. Nicaragua, Panama, Vietnam and Democratic India, Mozambique, Peru, Sri Lanka, Tunisia Mozambique, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Yugoslavia. People's -Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Yugoslavia. Weights and Measures, and Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Morocco, 15. Role of Women in Development 21 . Standardization, Quality Control Mozambique, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Central Tanzania and Yugoslavia. Republic, Cuba, Democratic People's Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, African India, Iraq, Nicaragua and Yugoslavia. Overview

Movement has attempted to bring a new cultural dimension into the practice of international relations . The current Islamic Revolution, especially its efforts to define relationships between states, runs counter to existing Western norms. Similarly, non-Western cultural mores have been developed in Africa where relationships between the nation and the tribes have had to be redefined . However, non-aligned countries fully recognize that they themselves have been the product ofWestern legal norms and that many of their internal laws were devised by European colonial powers. The Movement presents a particular challenge to international law because it has begun to question the very assumptions of Western-dominated standards. Petkovic points out that the classical state-to-state agreements devised by Western colonial powers have had to be modified by the emergence ofthe UN system itself. The UN system, after all, was designed by the victors ofWorld War II to preserve and protect the existing status quo at a time when the emergence ofa plethora of small states from Africa, Asia and the Americas was not envisaged. Petkovic is quite correctly sceptical about the notions of alignment and realignment contained within the UN system. He argues, for example: Therefore, when discussing the relationship between alignment and international law, concrete sources from which mutual obligations between signatory countries derive their legal foundation should carefully be distinguished from the absolute lack of international legal grounds in the political and legal order of the United Nations for such modes of alignment among states.l With reference to non-aligned relations to international law, Petkovic goes on to argue that once non-aligned countries became independent they sought to dissociate themselves from old colonial relationships internally and from military relationships designed by the colonial powers for their national interest externally. Thus most non-aligned countries from the ex-colonial world were looking for a new type of alignment. At their various summit conferences, non-aligned leaders issue declarations analysing the current international situation. This is primarily a political demonstration of authenticity and independence. This act of separating themselves from the existing power relationships and calling for a new system ofinternational relations has seriously threatened the existing status quo. This should not, however, lead one to conclude that the Movement is a new alliance system. It seeks to restructure existing relationships, not to substitute one alliance system with another. If one reads the non-aligned declarations carefully, they concern themselves not only with big-power relations, but also with intra-non-aligned conflict. Their primary interest is to reduce tensions and this can include selecting third parties to resolve conflicts. This process of

38 Structure and Organization directly intervening between states gives the Movement a new legal status in the area ofinfra-state relations. Again Petkovic succinctly calls for a new legal status for the Movement by suggesting the following: By its active presence on the international scene non-alignment has acquired the dimensions of a new doctrine ofinternational relations, a doctrine which aims at an all-inclusive transformation o£ the present international order carried out on peaceful, democratic, and progressive grounds. . . . It is, therefore, as much a doctrine ofinternational relations as o£international legal order. It has evolved from the political action of states, entailing a wide range of legal repercussions . That it rests upon international law is beyond question.2 Thus Ranko Petkovic concludes that the multilateral acts of non-aligned countries, namely, the declarations and resolutions adopted at their various meetings and accepted by the heads ofstate or their assigned representatives, assume new meaning in international politics. They are not merely words, but binding acts making the Non-aligned Movement a new force in world politics.

Criteria for Membership A number of critics of non-alignment have raised the question of the legitimacy and viability of a movement that literally has a policy of `open admissions' . The Indian analyst, M.S. Rajan, in a number of his writings, has severely criticized the criteria used by the Non-aligned Movement for admissions. He argues quite forcefully that the criteria defined by the founding fathers in 1961 are totally inadequate to meet contemporary needs. The criteria adopted at that time were simple and straightforward. 1. The country should have adopted an independent policy based on the coexistence of states with different political and social systems and on non- alignment, or should be showing a trend in favour of such a policy. 2. The country concerned should be consistently supporting the movements for national independence. 3. The country should not be a member of a multilateral military alliance, concluded in the context of Great Power conflicts. 4. If a country has a bilateral military agreement with a Great Power, or is a member ofa regional defense pact, the agreement or pact shouldnot be one deliberately concluded in the context of Great Power conflicts. 5. If it has conceded military bases to a Foreign Power, the concession should not have been made in the context of Great Power conflicts.3 Rajan takes to task both the analysts of non-alignment and its practitioners, and suggests that they are irresponsible in not making admission requirements stricter.

39 Overview

The suggestion for re-consideration and possible revision of criteria of eligibility for membership provokes (promptly and almost mechanically) opposition from both the academic (and intellectual) and the diplomatic (and political) circles. This paradoxical solidarity of the experts of non-alignment has puzzled the present writer. Perhaps, both the groups are in favour ofthe status quo, only because there is ostensible solidarity on this issue by members of the NAM and they see little or no possibility of the suggestion being implemented . If this is true, it is unfortunate, because the NAM is not, I believe, really united on the issue, except in the sense that many of the dissenters merely acquiesce in the consensus on this issue. In the past, at least two of them did urge the re-consideration ofthe criteria, but their suggestions were ignored.4 Rajan's major concern is that the Movement appears to be a pot-pourri of states who cannot speak with any moral authority because they do not fulfil even the minimum requirements of commitment to the principles of non- alignment. He is very critical of the process by which states are admitted as members as well as that by which others are invited as observers and guests. He then raises doubts about the very validity of a movement with such an admissions policy. If any movement does not have a quintessential distinctiveness from the others, what rationale could there be for its establishment or its functioning or even for its very existence? How could it be called a movement at all? Ifit has no unique raison dtitre, how couldit survive at all- at least for long? One can fudge its distinctiveness for a while, but then, the movement would have to pay a prices While Rajan makes an extremely persuasive case forthe re-examination ofthe criteria for membership, the basic problem with his argument lies in his very perception of the Movement itself. As we have explained, the Non-aligned Movement is a unique international social grouping of nation states. To survive and function as a coalition of countries with different histories and systems but common concerns, it is prevented from either developing a rigid internal structure or, more importantly, introducing a rigid requirement for entry. A social movement tends to develop membership categories that emphasize its inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. If it had adopted rigid criteria at ari early stage, or for that matter at any stage, it is likely that the Movement would have become faction-ridden. Hence it would have been characterized as another bloc within the global bloc system. It was precisely the flexibility of entry that enabled the Movement to attract into its fold such diverse figures in world politics as Nehru, Soekarno, Tito, Nkrumah and Nasser. The dramatic increase innon-aligned countries is not to be treated lightly. It

40 Structure and Organization is precisely because the Movement has grown from a small group of 25 to a Movement of 101 (at the Seventh Summit) that its image in world politics has changed and the major powers have taken notice. In addition, some have argued that quantitative changes in the Movement have contributed to qualitative changes in it. While the major powers scoffat the existence ofsuch a movement, they certainly take it seriously when it comes to mobilizing non- aligned countries to support their particular policies. The Movement has become so important that, for example, both major powers make sure that they send the appropriate greetings and felicitations to every summit. Furthermore, one superpower, the United States, has taken to monitoring non-aligned proceedings with great care and periodically informs the members about its displeasure over certain actions. As a social movement, the Non-aligned Movement enables countries either to participate actively or become benign members. Ifa group ofcountries or a country wishes to further its foreign-policy objectives in a particular direction, it may choose the Movement as an avenue to mobilize opinion in support for them. If, on the other hand, a member disagrees with the major thrust of the Movement's present policies, it could always stay away or not actively participate in the process. In addition, the Movement allows for changes in policy as a consequence of changes of government. Following a government change in a country, the new administration may either support the Movement or decrease its participation. For example, the government of Jamaica under Edward Seaga decided to downplay non-alignment and become openly pro-Western in contrast to his predecessor Michael Manley who adopted a high profile within the Movement and will very likely return to such a policy if he heads the country again. Non-alignment today is crucial for Africa and the liberation movements there in their struggle against a most formidable enemy, the Republic ofSouth Africa. In that struggle, Africans are determined to use the Movement to build a global coalition even though they do not have consensus and commonality between adversaries within Africa itself. Similarly for the Arabs, the Movement is essential in their struggle against Israel and for the rights ofthe Palestinian people. It is for this reason that the Movement has been able to contain even warring adversaries, like Iran and Iraq, or ideological adversaries, like Syria and Saudi Arabia. The situation in Central America, especially its impending war, and the recent political changes in South America, with civilian governments replacing military regimes, notably in Argentina, Brazil and Peru, have led this continent to take an entirely new view ofthe role and importance ofnon-alignment. Latin American countries, especially the larger ones, are anxious to dissociate themselves from being proxy states ofthe United States and regard non-alignment as a new method of expressing their independence in foreign policy.

41 Overview

Other regions which include a number of countries who have attended non-aligned meetings as observers or guests are re-examining non-alignment. Europe is undergoing dramatic changes. The transitions in southern Europe, especially in Greece, Spain and Portugal, have resulted in their increased interest in the activities of the non-aligned. Even in Western Europe, the peace movement has led the Scandinavian countries to take another look at the role their countries will play in the Non-aligned Movement. In the socialist world, China has self-consciously described itself as a Third World country with a great deal in common with non-aligned countries. In Eastern Europe, beginning with Romania, a number of countries have similarly expressed an interest in the work of the Movement. It is precisely because of this internationalization and universalization of non-aligned values among such diverse countries and regions that the Movement has to retain its flexible policies on membership, guests and observers. Hence, contrary to Rajan's suggestion, it is not in the Movement's best interests to alter its membership criteria or internal processes. Again, Ranko Petkovic stated this non-aligned dilemma most perceptively and offers a brilliant defence ofthe Movement's existing membership system. He pointed out that a country may be `striving to apply the principles and aims of non-alignment, while, objectively, it is still bound to particular bloc strictures (which it is not in a position to get away from, for the time being, alone and of its own free will)'. By encouraging the former and ignoring the latter, Petkovic argues, the Movement has avoided becoming an exclusive group-6 in many ways, by adopting a flexible approach to the question of membership the Movement has tried to implement its policy of democratization of international relations internally. As a social movement, it has transcended being a mere Third World movement, or an Afro-Asian movement, and has sought to involve not only the ex-colonial areas but also countries ofEurope and Latin America. It is precisely for this reason that the Movement has become a permanent force in world politics.

Code of Conduct One of the strengths of the Non-aligned Movement has been its ability to develop rules of procedure to enable it to survive and adapt to new global situations. The Movement has always resisted institutionalization; thus its rules of procedure are based more on convention and precedent than on a rigidly defined constitution. From its inception in 1961, the Movement rejected decision-making by voting or by use of the simple majority rule as such methods could alienate any dissenting minority on a particular issue and cause it to leave the organization. Hence, the impact of the Non-aligned

42 Stnuture and Organization

Movement in world politics would be weakened. Instead, the Movement adopted consensus as a method of decision-making for both theoretical and practical reasons. At the foreign ministers meeting in Belgrade in 1978, a special working group was created by the Bureau to examine the method of decision-making. There were no recommendations to change consensus, only suggestions of mechanisms to improve unity.

Consensus The Non-aligned Movement utilized consensus without formally attempting to define it until its Kabul meeting in 1973. It was argued then that the term `consensus' had `an indefinable quality' and was hard to express in words, although most members agreed that they knew instinctively what it meant. Consensus presupposed, understood and respected differing points of view, including those in mutual disagreement. It also implied mutual accommodation on the basis that agreements could emerge by a sincere process ofadjustment among member nations in the true spirit of non-alignment . Basically, consensus simply meant `a convergence of views'. At the United Nations, the non-aligned working group on consensus met nearly 40 times to explore the question. Consensus has significant historical andcontemporary meaning for the delegates. It is not new to the non-aligned world ofAfrica, Asia, the Americas and the Arab countries. Some argued that consensus has been the traditional form of decision-making in all these societies. Consensus is an exceptibnally complex method of decision-making that is difficult to define, primarily because the whole action is a process in itself. Each decision has itsownprocess. Hence it is difficult to develop general rules to guide the process. To arrive at a consensus, there has to be ample opportunity for discussion and for give and take among the various participants. In international politics, however, there is often insufficient time for prolonged discussion. A high premium is placed on the speed ofdecision- making; the consensus method by definition requires delay, since it is only through delay that a majority consensus can be reached For example, no quick decision could be reached on such controversial issues as the representation of Kampuchea or Egypt's status (as we will discuss in full in later chapters). Many delegates were not, as yet, fully persuaded about the position ofa particular advocate and, therefore, a consensus could not be reached. It is indeed remarkable that the Movement has achieved consensus on so many difficult problems in world politics over the years. Consensus has been achieved, in part, by a shared commitment to certain basic principles and also by the use of many levels of discussion before a decision is reached. The process worked out by the non-aligned countries is to begin with a working

43 group of officials, then to move the subject on to the level of ambassadors, then to the level ofministers, and finally to the heads of state. This is also the procedure adopted by the host country when it prepares the final declaration. At every level, a consensus formula is sought. These many levels ofdiscussion provide opportunities for groups with different viewpoints to arrive at an accommodation. Furthermore, it is possible for antagonists to come to understand and respect one another's point ofview and mutually agree to a final decision that may not be acceptable to all parties, but is to most. The Movement, therefore, maintains `its unity in diversity'. And, if some states still have serious misgivings about certain phrases, items or sections of a declaration or resolution, they are able to register their reservations. Non-aligned countries, therefore, have displayed considerable skill and judgement in utilizing the method of consensus for unity rather than disunity. In such a process ofdecision-making, the role of the chair becomes pivotal. The chair's skill lies precisely in recognizing the moment when a consensus becomes possible, and moving the body quickly to a decision. A chair must also be able to recognize an impasse that, ifprolonged, could promote hostility between members and weaken the Movement. A chair must also, therefore, make recommendations to maintain the coalition. This process, however, requires a basic mutual understanding amongst all participants and, especially, a willingness to accept the decision of the chair. Two events contributed to a major debate within the Movement about the role and character of consensus and the internal structure of the Movement. The first was the growth of the membership, specifically the increase in the number of left-wing countries. The second, which served as a catalyst, was Cuba's chairship of the Movement beginning in 1979. There was great fear, especially among conservative non-aligned countries, that Cuba would radicalize the Movement and use illegitimate methods to propagate its own foreign policy. In the chapters to follow, we examine this debate which had its origins in Colombo and was taken to the floor at the New Delhi Summit by Singapore . In spite of the ideological basis for the debate and the efforts by outside forces to manipulate it, the net result at the Havana Summit was a very thoughtful and meaningful discussion as to how the Movement had to be managed. The major actors in this process included Iraq, Yugoslavia, India, Egypt, Indonesia and Singapore . The ensuing debate resulted in a number of countries re-examining the Kabul definition of consensus. In their re- examination, some countries argued that the Kabul formula was too vague and had to be changed. Some countries suggested that more specific instructions should be given to the chair on how and when a consensus is reached. A number of delegates were concerned that the chair might arbitrarily Structure and Organization determine that a consensus was reached when in fact there was no convergence ofviews. Others pointed out that rigid rules ofprocedure would destroy the flexibility ofthe chair in the search for a consensus. Members were most concerned about situations where discussion was stalemated, causing tensions within the Movement. At the Sixth Summit, it recommended the following guidelines to assist the chair `when the extent of disagreement indicates the absence of consensus': (a) Open confrontations between opposing views threatening to disrupt the Movement should be avoided, but discussion of issues may be necessary in order to overcome these differences. (b) The Chairman and/or the Bureau of the Conference or Meeting concerned, and the Chairman of the Movement and/or other interested delegations should render assistance whenever such assistance would help resolve differences; (c) Prior informal consultations and negotiations among members should be held on all issues; (d) Ad hoc open-ended working groups could be set up to assist in the promotion of consensus; (e) Where there are a number ofmembers who by virtue oftheir geographical location have a special interest in a particular issue, consultations among these members, open to other delegations, could take place in the effort to find a consensus; (fl The results ofthe consultations as indicated in (d) and (e) above, should be submitted together with any recommendations to the Plenary ofthe meeting or Conference concerned for discussion and approval; (g) The presence of strong opposing views is an indication that the matter under discussion is highly sensitive and hence a special effort should be made to try to accommodate all views to achieve the broadest consent of the Conference/Meeting; (h) When all the above methods as well as any other efforts at promoting consensus have been exhausted without success, and any further deferment of the decision on a controversial issue is not possible due to the closing ofthe Conference, and the delegation/group of delegations continues to express reservations on any decision, it is recommended that the following method be utilized to reflect the reservations : in the body ofthe text ofthe communique/ declaration, an asterisk would be placed at the head ofany paragraph/section on which reservations have been expressed, with the corresponding footnotes indicating the delegation expressing the reservation. The full text of the reservation will be reproduced in an annexe. Ifthe delegation should so desire it, a reservation may also be made without it being entered in the records.? different The Movement, therefore, makes every effort to accommodate can to find viewpoints and allows for dissent while doing everything that it agreement on issues.

Reservations a member Another aspect of consensus is the recognition of the right of itself. This country to express its disagreement with the majority consensus which can be disagreement is normally expressed in the form ofa reservation orally or in writing to the chair as soon as possible after a non-aligned given phrase . A reservation is usually placed on a specific item or particular meeting is in a declaration or resolution. This method of decision-making adopted wish important in the context ofinternational politics inthat certain states may national express their reservation on a specific issue in terms of their own to example, the interest while continuing to support the general framework. For issue of Movement supports decolonization in principle, but on the specific position the Malvinas Islands, a few states have reservations on the consensus of supporting Argentine sovereignty over the islands. debate when The presentation of reservations also resulted in considerable dissent. some members wanted a more rigid criterion for registering on issues in Countries like Singapore have always preferred a straight vote the present dispute. After considerable debate, the majority view was that reservations are method of indicating reservations should be retained. That is, are generally a reflection of internal democracy and are permitted, but the effectiveness discouraged as a practice because they would tend to weaken Movement's actions. of the debated. the years the role ofthe Co-ordinating Bureau has also been Over over the we shall see in the chapters to follow, the Bureau has evolved As intermediary years, especially as membership has increased. It serves as an summit organization to carry out the activities of the Movement between members were meetings. Again, during Cuba's chairship, some conservative committee or a fearful that the Bureau would be transformed into a central however, political party, and dictate the direction ofthe Movement. Others, and the held the view that the whole discussion over the role of consensus who were Bureau was a by-product of US interests within the Movement countries to US disturbed by the intense opposition of most non-aligned Central America. activities, especially in southern Africa, the Middle East and another way They argued that the debate over procedural matters was simply . to tone down the Movement's criticism of US policy globally dramatically when it The debate about the role of the Bureau changed . to use it as became obvious that neither Cuba nor President Castro intended of consultation an executive committee. Moreover, the whole process a process to be required by the Movement would make it impossible for such

46 Structure and Organization

implemented. After several years of experience with the Bureau, the non- aligned countries decided at the Sixth Summitto outline recommendations for improving its functioning. The Movement then adopted the following general guidelines on participation and decision-making in Bureau meetings: (a) No distinction should be made between members ofthe Bureau and non- members on the following: - Taking the floor at meetings. - Fixing of dates and venues of meetings. - Participation in Committees, open-ended Working Groups and Drafting Groups, it being understood that the process of drafting is not part of the decision-making processes; - Submission of proposals. (b) All full members ofthe Movement could participate on an equal footing at Bureau meetingsin the consideration and decision ofquestions in which, inthe opinion of the Bureau, there is no doubt they are directly and specifically involved. (c) Records should continue to be maintained of all formal meetings of the Coordinating Bureau as well as Plenary Meetings and these records should be duly approved at subsequent meetings to ensure a proper reflection of proceedings . (d) All decisions adopted by the Bureau at the level of Permanent Representatives in New York should be tabled at the request of any full member as soon as possible thereafter at a Plenary Meetng8 a At its most recent summit, therefore, as with consensus and the right of reservation, the Non-aligned Movement viewed any changes in the Bureau in accordance with its philosophy of non-hierarchical, rotational and inclusive leadership and decision-making. Most importantly, the Movement has always sought to hold meetings, including summit meetings, in different parts ofthe world, to ensure thatno one country, region or perspective predominates and; most importantly, to encourage the full participation of all its members regardless of size or importance.

US Code of Conduct for Non-Aligned Countries Largely because ofsome positions taken by the Non-aligned Movement at the United Nations, especially on questions relating to the Middle East, southern Africa and the New International Economic Order, the Movement has been criticized by a number of Western powers, notably the United States, Israel and South Africa. In a recent empirical study ofthe political behaviour ofnon- aligned countries at the UN, RichardJackson gives some reasons as to why the US has serious misgivings about the internal processes of the Movement. Jackson served as political adviser to the US mission to the United Nations and

47 Overview since his findings have been published by the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations and endorsedby career officials as well as Republican and Democrat ambassadors to the UN, his observations bear some consideration. Jackson finds the internal procedures of the Movement, for the most part, `non-binding and unenforceable' . He particularly disagrees with the non- aligned choice of consensus for decision-making and states: Acceptance of a consensus, however, is less binding and allows members to compromise in the interests of NAM unity without being accountable, through a recorded vote, either to domestic constituencies or to third parties. Effortsbythe United States and others to hold individualmembers responsible for collective NAM positions thus have usually been unsuccessful. In fact, refuge in consensus often allows militarily or economically weak members to resist pressures from outside states. On the negative side, non-binding positions, sometimes repudiated at the United Nations, as in the aftermath of Havana, detract from the seriousness with which the movement is regarded by outsiders and many of its own members.9 Hence, Jackson views consensus as a weakness, a near liability. In contrast, non-aligned countries consider it an asset and essential for encouraging participation and promoting agreement. On the matter ofreservations,Jackson shares the concern already expressed by the Movement itself that the `sharp increase of members entering reservations is an indication of the complex issues facing the movement today'. However, he is especially critical of how reservations allow members `to smooth relations with non-member states by claiming to disassociate from specific positions'.1° In contrast, non-aligned countries consider that this is included in the right of a member to exercise its sovereignty. Jackson also has comments on the membership and organization of the Movement. The Non-aligned Movement has been proud to find that its principles have continued to attract new members. Jackson argues that the increase in membership has `undercut the movement's sense of purpose and claimed moral authority' and `shattered the club-like structure set up by Tito, Nasser, and Nehru' .11 On the Bureau, he suggests that a radical grouping within the Movement will attempt to use the Bureau to undermine the more moderate interests and criticize the policies ofWestern countries and their allies.12 He also finds non- aligned summit conferences `frenetic': members meet `non-stop', even in the corridors, and stay up into the small hours ofthe morning in drafting sessions. Moreover, members are apt to discuss bilateral and regional matters as well as non-aligned concerns.13 While Jackson describes with some accuracy the high excitement and arduous work accompanying a summit conference, he misunderstands the summit itself. The summit conference is part of a process and not an event

48 Structure and Organization separate from other non-aligned activities. It is the culmination of years of discussion and continuous analysis of the international situation at several levels ofrepresentation, and symbolizes the acceptance ofvarious non-aligned positions at the highest level, the heads of state. As Jackson has pointed out, the summit is a significant venue for non-aligned leaders to conduct bilateral and regional discussions; the Movement encourages this means ofpromoting collective self-reliance in the economic sphere and of securing peace and security in situations where there are intra-non-aligned disputes. Moreover, most non-aligned delegates point out that staying up all night or into the early hours of the morning to complete the final draft is part of non-aligned tradition . Finally, in contrast to non-aligned members who recognize that they have differences, but emphasize their points ofagreement,Jackson finds more disunity than unity in non-aligned declarations and dismisses their value.la We have noted Jackson's observations in some detail because they have important policy implications for the Movement. His study expresses in very precise terms how the United States is undertaking to define and judge the behaviour of nation states in an effort to develop a new code of conduct for non-aligned countries, both within the UN and in all multilateral organizations . However, while he is quite critical about the internal organizational character ofthe Movement, Jackson does grasp the theoretical and philosophical basis for non-aligned demands and demonstrates them fairly. None the less, Jackson's findings and conclusions about the nature of decision-making within the Movement tend to support the new policy adopted by the Reagan administration towards multilateral diplomacy in general and the role of non-aligned countries in particular. The Reagan administration has made it clear that the voting practices of countries at the United Nations will be taken seriously and that US aid policy will be guided by their pattern. Jackson's study also includes the famous letter of6 October, 1981 sent by AmbassadorJeane Kirkpatrick to 64 Permanent Representatives of non-aligned countries to the United Nations addressing the political behaviour of non-aligned countries at their meetings and especially the discrepancy between their non-aligned behaviour and their behaviour at the

So as not to be charged with favouritism or policy preference, Ambassador Kirkpatrick, a former professor of political science, has introduced empirical and statistically verifiable tests; their results are to be published annually in the form of a report card. This use of social science methodology at the United Nations to evaluate `the degree ofsupport given to U.S. foreign policy' is a fundamental innovation in the world of diplomacy and has enormous consequences for all states, including Western allies, whose adherence to US positions was also questioned, although the technique is primarily aimed at

49 Overview non-aligned countries. 16 This new scientific approach ofevaluation scores and its implications for multilateral diplomacy will be examined in greater detail in the concluding chapter.

The Significance for Multilateralism This new policy towards multilateral diplomacy has already resulted in efforts to dismantle some key United Nations agencies, notably UNESCO, and plans to dismantle other organizations, such as UNCTAD, where non-aligned and Third World countries have a decisive majority. This new process of evaluating the political behaviour of countries in multinational bodies has serious implications for the Non-aligned Movement. Indeed, the future ofthe Movement will be seriously affected ifthis policy is implemented in various spheres. For small non-aligned countries in particular, the end of multilateral diplomacy would mean the end oftheir sovereignty and capacity to function as independent states in the world system. The underlying problem that faces the Movement today is its capacity to develop effective mechanisms to respond to these assaults on multilateral diplomacy. While non-aligned countries recognize the importance ofbilateral diplomacy in a world where the nation-state system is the dominant form of organization, they also realize that bilateralism weakens their own national position, particularly when they are small or middle-sized, non-nuclear, developing states. Unfortunately for them, every political and economic crisis has by definition multilateral components. In the contemporary world even the simplest case of an internal sectional dispute can have multilateral implications . For example, the secessionist movement for self-determination by the Tamil population in Sri Lanka immediately has multilateral components. Sri Lankan Tamils had to depend on India, especially the state of Tamil Nadu in South India, for support. This immediately placed the central government ofIndia in New Delhi in an embarrassing position in relation to the central government in Sri Lanka. In order to offset the influence of India, the Colombo government sought to involve Pakistan, China and the US to gain a bargaining advantage with the Tamil liberation movement. In the past year, the Colombo government has gone one step further and involved the intelligence services of Israel in order to protect its national interests. This, in turn, has led a number of oil-producing Arab countries, which had enjoyed very cordial relations with- Sri Lanka, to review their policies. To complicate the matter further, the Tamil militants include among their supporters radical forces which have supported liberation movements in the Middle East, Southern Africa, Central America and the Caribbean. It is not enough that this particular dispute has involved all the nations in the region, including several non-aligned countries. There is a fear that the Indian Ocean

50 Structure and Organization will no longer be a zone of peace, but an area of major-power rivalry. The prospects of US military bases in Singapore and Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, concerns not only India, but all southern Asia. Ironically, it was Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister, Mr Hameed, who took the lead and produced an original paper on the settlement of border disputes between non-aligned countries in the late 1970s. Unfortunately, it viewed the problem too narrowly. The new phenomenon in world politics is that every internal conflict, whether it is a border dispute or not, is immediately transformed into a regional and global conflict. The Non-aligned Movement has yet to develop the appropriate mechanisms to resolve these conflicts multilaterally. The dangers of allowing only regional actors to resolve bilateral conflicts has its limitations and the fact that the Movement has a number of transnational actors gives it an advantage that most regional and international organizations do not have. It is in this context that the Movement has supported the United Nations system because it is the only respected international body for multilateral diplomacy. Historically, therefore, it has sought to strengthen, and not weaken, the functioning of the UN in world politics. In the sphere of economic negotiations, the case for non-aligned multilateral diplomacy is even greater. Small 'one-commodity' states have little chance ofeffectively negotiating with large multinational enterprises. As we shall see in the area of economic diplomacy, non-aligned countries have developed an elaborate machinery for collective action. The OPEC strategy that was devised to deal witk the oil companies was a significant achievement . Non-aligned countries are also developing new mechanisms within the Committee of 77 to increase their bargaining power. One of the dangers, however, is that the non-aligned may simply duplicate existing UN agencies. In the light ofthe dismantling ofthe UN system, however, it may be necessary for non-aligned countries to develop their own organizational forms to protect their national interests. The evolution of multilateral economic diplomacy by the non-aligned has annoyed both the transnational corporations and the nation states in which they are located. For the Western countries diplomatic negotiations of this type are reminiscent of the problems they faced with their own trade unions in the early phases of industrialization. However, this kind of collective bargaining is the only option available for small nations in a global economy dominated by transnational financial and industrial organizations.

Role of the Chair The Non-aligned Movement has been in existence for a quarter of a century and this gives us an opportunity to evaluate the organizational contributions of

51 Overview the respective chairs. Detailed activities ofindividual countries and their role as chair will be examined in the sections to follow. It is sufficient to say here that the host country generally sets the tone and manner by which the Movement conducts its business during the term. The Yugoslavs under Tito held the First Summit and established two important traditions that guaranteed the survival of the Movement. First, Yugoslavia insisted on periodic meetings. These periodic meetings did have some difficulty in getting off the ground in the formative years, especially since many participants were committed to the idea ofan Afro-Asian solidarity movement within the framework of Bandung. A second major contribution was Yugoslavia's ability to publish and distribute the documents of the Movement shortly after meetings. The prestigious Review ofInternational Affairs devoted its entire centre section to a pull-out ofthe Declarations ofthe Non-aligned Movement and excerpts from the speeches of non-aligned leaders. The journal was also published in English, Spanish and French and thus reached all the countries of the non- aligned world; if not the mass of their populations, certainly the foreign services. Tito and the Yugoslavs understood the fundamental requirement of a multicultural international social movement, namely, that without an effective indigenous communications system the Movement was certain to collapse. Some cynics would like to relegate the Yugoslav's position on non- alignment to being concerned solely with their own survival, especially with regard to relations with the Soviet Union, but this overlooks Tito's commitment to a new universal social movement. Itwas Tito who revealed to the Afro-Asian world the existence ofa non-colonial Europe which would be sympathetic to their aspirations. By bringing Europe into the grouping, Yugoslavia helped to create an international movement. Nasser, who hosted the Second Summit in Cairo, has been much maligned for his role in the Non-aligned Movement, particularly by those who wanted him to follow an Afro-Asian direction. Nasser was firmly committed to the idea of a PanArab nation, but knew that the future lay in the path of modernization and collective resistance. His contribution to the Movement was to alert Africa and Asia to the plight of a dispossessed people, the Palestinians, and its consequences . The Palestine question, as we shall see in Chapter 11, was more than a mere dispute between the Arabs and the Israelis. Itwas the question ofhow to deal with the emerging phenomenon ofa settler state. Unfortunately, while he was chair, Nasser was involved in a humiliating war with Israel which dashed all his dreams ofa Pan-Arab collective resistance movement. It was also during his tenure that he saw two major non-aligned leaders, Nkrumah and Soekarno, overthrown in their own countries. Nasser

52 Structure and Organization did not even have the privilege of handing over the mantle of leadership to President Kaunda since he died one week before the Lusaka Summit. While he was unable to function as an effective leader ofthe Movement, his other major contribution lay in his capacity to mobilize many of the semi-feudal states in the region and involve them in a global social system. His heroic efforts to reserve the right to control the Suez Canal made a number ofthese countries confident that they could indeed be the masters of their own destiny. The Lusaka Summit was called primarily to alert the Movement to the dangers of the apartheid system and the necessity of supporting liberation movements in southern Africa in their efforts to overthrow the apartheid system as well as the last remnants of European imperialism. It provided an opportunity for the emergence of a genuine African coalition within the Movement that would then deal collectively with Portuguese colonialism, Rhodesia and South Africa. As we shall see in Chapter 12 on the Namibian question, the entry of these liberation movements made a qualitative difference to non-alignment. These liberation struggles were involved in armed resistance to gain their independence; this was fundamentally different from the experience of most ex-colonial non-aligned countries. The Lusaka Summit also demonstrated to the entire Movement the necessity of legitimizing national liberation movements prior to their achieving state power. President Kaunda also developed a new style ofleadership within the Movement, combining quiet diplomacy with decisive military action to bring an end to Portuguese and British control over the states in southern Africa. Furthermore, he set in motion a long-term protracted struggle to overthrow the apartheid system. The Algerian Summit provided the first occasion for a former national liberation movement, given legitimacy by the Non-aligned Movement at its foundingmeeting in Belgrade, to act as chair. Algeria provided the Movement with a clear ideological direction and a sense ofurgency and militancy. It had no difficult in breaking all the rules of the existing European-dominated diplomatic game. Its most imaginative initiative was to mobilize commodity- producing countries and develop a new strategy for collective resistance in the economic sphere. The significance of the OPEC strategy was that it showed quite decisively how nations which have been historically the producers of raw materials for the West can indeed determine the price mechanism by acting collectively. President Boumedienne emerged as a forceful leader of the Movement after the summit and along with his Foreign Minister, Bouteflika, established a new tradition of militant activism and collective mobilization within it. Sri Lanka faced a major internal crisis during its tenure as chair. Shortly after hosting the Fifth Summit, Mrs Bandaranaike went down in electoral

53 Overview defeat and a new government that was less enthusiastic about non-alignment took power. Shortly after assuming office, President Jayewardene told the New York Times that there were only two non-aligned countries in the world and they were the USA and the USSR. While the ruling party had little use for non-alignment, its energetic Foreign Minister, Mr Hameed, proved to be one of the more effective foreign ministers to emerge during this period. It was largely due to his efforts that there was an orderly transfer ofleadership from Sri Lanka to Havana. The Foreign Minister also played an active part in resolving conflict, particularly between non-aligned countries such as Kampuchea and Vietnam, and made intra-non-aligned disputes an issue that the Movement should address. Sri Lanka also earned the reputation during its tenure as chair of being exceptionally fair-minded and efficient in the production of documents and papers at the UN and of keeping members informed. The Cuban tenure was marked by a great deal of controversy much of which was instigated by Western governments and the press. The tenure was also marked by the overwhelming presence ofPresident Fidel Castro. Cuba, as we have noted, was the first Latin American/Caribbean country to chair the Movement and the style it introduced was very Caribbean and Latin American as well as Marxist-Leninist . As a Caribbean country, Cuba stressed the importance of small island states and the question of security within the region. Secondly, as a Latin American country it introduced the whole theory of economic dependence and the necessity for non-aligned countries to be economically independent . Finally, as a Marxist-Leninist country, Cuba established the tradition that ideological pluralism will be tolerated within the Movement. Cuba's most important contribution was to devise a new method ofchanging the venue outside the framework ofthe summit that included the use of the `good offices' of the chair. Fidel Castro's ability to keep Iran and Iraq within the Movement and establish an orderly transfer ofpower to India was probably Cuba's greatest achievement . The success and failure ofthe chair are largely dependent on the abilities of the foreign minister and foreign service of the host country. It is they who have the responsibilities of implementing the goals and objectives of non- alignment. The Movement has been fortunate in having produced a number of distinguished foreign ministers who were able to carry out their tasks effectively. However, the day-today activities ofthe Non-aligned Movement fall on the shoulders of the foreign service officers, and especially the ambassador at the UN. It was not until after the Third Summit that the concept ofthe chair with responsibilities between summits was initiated. Hence, the Belgrade Summit was effectively managed by Leo Mates who was both a participant and historian of the Movement's early years. Nasser dominated the Second

54 Structure and Organization

Summit. President Kaunda's own quiet diplomacy was effectively supplemented and executed by Paul Lusaka. Foreign Minister Bouteflika brought not only his intellectual capacities, but provided a distinctive militant style of leadership during Algeria's tenure. Prior to Foreign Minister Hameed, Sri Lanka had the services ofH. Shirley Amerasinghe who played a decisive role in the formulation ofhis country's non-aligned foreign policy and was greatly responsible for the effective leadership that Sri Lanka provided at the Sixth Summit. Finally, Ricardo Alarcon from Cuba established a new tradition within UN circles of engaging in revolutionary diplomacy. India, however, was unable to establish its imprint on the Movement due to the tragic death of Mrs Gandhi. The new Prune Minister hadjust begun his career not only as the leader of India, but also as chair and was faced with domestic crises before being able to establish himself as an international leader ofthe Movement. It should be noted that India has one ofthe largest and most experienced foreign services of all non-aligned countries and this will, no doubt, affect the style and contributions of India's leadership. The capacity of the Movement to survive is greatly determined by the leadership and managerial capacity of the country that hosts the summit. There are at least three necessary and basic ingredients . The first is that the host country must enjoy domestic political stability. The second is that the host country must have moral legitimacy in the global community with the capacity to deal effectivelywith the membership at large. Inorder to remain as leader, it has to delicately balance its own foreign policy objectives with those ofthe Movement as a whole. Finally, it must have an efficient and technically competent foreign service. This last element is much more important than is commonly assumed. Decision-making through consensus is a highlycomplex form ofdiplomatic negotiation . The foreign service has to be skilled in this process which is generally not part ofdiplomatic training. More often, foreign service officials are trained in metropolitan centres where they are not exposed to the theories or practices of non-alignment. In many instances, the foreign service still reflects the orientations and ideological predispositions ofthe metropolitan or colonial masters. Given the overwhelming domination of the Western information system, non-aligned officials over a period of time have also come to rely more on these very sources for delicate decision-making and information than on indigenous non-aligned sources. It is thus difficult for these officials to absorb a nationalist perspective, much less develop a non- aligned perspective . The meetings of the non-aligned countries, whether at the level ofambassadors at the UN, or at the level ofministers in the Bureau, or at other levels, then become an important opportunity for participating delegations to develop a non-aligned perspective . These meetings, therefore, represent a massive training centre for this new kind of diplomacy. It is for

55 Overview these reasons that the meetings of the non-aligned are not merely for the purchase of duty-free goods, but for consolidating and creating a new social movement in world politics. In summary, the structure and organization ofthe Non-aligned Movement is a dynamic process thatexemplifies the principles ofthe Movement as well as serving to promote and fulfil the ideological goals ofnon-alignment. In Part II, we shall examine the historical development of this unique international social movement.

Notes 1. RankoPetkovic, `Non-alignment and International Law', Review ofInternational Affairs, 575 (20 March 1974), p. 24. 2. ibid., p. 25. 3. M. S. Rajan, `The Non-Aligned Movement and the Criteria ofMembership', The Non-Aligned World, 1 :2 (AprilJune 1983), p. 234. 4. Ibid., p. 225. 5. Ibid., p. 228. 6. Ranko Petkovic, `Evolution of the Criteria of Non-alignment', Review of International Affairs (20 June 1977), pp. 11-12 and 37-40. 7. Two Decades of Non-Alignment: Document of the Gatherings of the Non-aligned 1961-1982 (New Delhi: Government of India, 1983), p. 474. 8. Ibid., p. 473. 9. Richard L. Jackson, Tlte NonAligned, the UN, and the Superpowers (New York: Praeger, 1983), p. 39. 10. Ibid., pp. 40-1. 11. ibid., p. 44. 12. Ibid., pp. 51-2. 13. Ibid., pp. 37-8. 14. Ibid., p. 37. 15. Ibid., pp. 299-301. 16. Robert W. Kasten, Jr, `Our Alleged U.N. Friends', New York Times, 17 June 1985. See also US Dept. of State, Report to Congress on Voting Practices in the United Nations, 20 May 1985. 3. Antecedents and Origins of the Non-aligned Movement

The Non-aligned Movement dates its founding to the holding of its fast conference of heads of state or government of non-aligned countries in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in September 1961. The Belgrade meeting gave formal birth to this international social movement of newly independent Third World nations; but historically the conference was also the outgrowth of earlier efforts in the Third World to work collectively for specific goals at the regional level. To understand fully the shared aspirations of the countries which came together as the Non-aligned Movement, it is important to remember and to note briefly here their common historical experience as former colonies. Thus this international social movement is rooted in the national liberation movements waged by the three continents ofAsia, Africa and Latin America against Western colonial and new-colonial domination. The first region ofsuccessful anti-colonial struggle was the Americas. The US War ofIndependence igainst Great Britain in 1776 was an inspiration to colonized people everywhere. As many Americans such as historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr, have been quick to acclaim, the right ofrevolution has been one of the nation's `gifts to civilization'.1 This concept, however, has been clearly challenged by other American scholars who have written extensively of the country's decision to become an imperial power, a decision that was evident as early as the 1840s.2 Accordingly, these former English colonies which became the United States of America chose to compete with Europe and adopt a policy of imperialist expansionism - a policy in contradiction with its own founding principles and ethos. The first arena of influence and domination was to be the entire Western hemisphere, especially Central America and the Caribbean. Thus Walter LiFeber has noted that after 1850, with rare exceptions, revolutionary leaders no longer cited the American Revolution as an example to the world.3 The Caribbean has and continues to be another centre in the Americas of struggle against colonialism and neo-colonialism. As early as 1791 African slaves successfully revolted in the French colony of San Domingo and twelve years later created the independent state ofHaiti. The Haitian Revolution set in motion a revolutionary tradition in the islands. As the distinguished

57 Overview

Caribbean historian C. L. R. James has pointed out, there is a link between Toussaint's revolution in the 18th century and Castro's revolution in the 20th century.4 To this, one must now add Bishop's aborted revolution in Grenada. The anti-colonial struggle in the Caribbean has had an impact far beyond its own region. In the 20th century, Caribbean intellectuals and activists have played a major role in linking peoples ofAfrican descent in the Americas with those in Africa through their contribution to negritude and the Pan-African movement, both of which, in turn, influenced independence struggles in Africa.5 Closer to home, the Haitian Revolution had a direct and immediate impact on Latin America. Again, C. L. R. James succinctly notes: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the Haitian slaves brought into the world more than the abolition of slavery. When Latin Americans saw that small and insignificant Haiti could win and keep independence they began to think that they ought to be able to do the same. Petion, the ruler ofHaiti, nursed back to health the sick and defeated Bolivar, gave him money, arms and a printing press to help in the campaign which ended in the freedom of the Five States.b Under the leadership of Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin, nearly all of Latin America won its freedom from Europe in a series ofrevolutions during the first three decades of the 19th century. Shortly afterwards Bolivar was quick to warn the region of the imperialist designs of its neighbour to the north, the United States. Fgr Latin America, political independence did not result in economic autonomy. During the colonial period, unlike North America, Latin America's mineral wealth and agricultural resources were critical to the economic development ofEurope. This historical importance of Latin America's wealth to the economic growth of Europe left its economy deeply integrated with its former colonial masters and, more recently, with the United States. The consequence has been economic underdevelopment.? Thus Latin America (both Central and South America) became the first neo- colonial region and its scholars have contributed significant studies explkining this form of dependency to the newly independent nations of the `Old World'. Furthermore, from Bolivar through Jose Marti to the present-day Sandinistas, Pan-Americanism persists as a cultural and political movement of resistance to US hegemony in the region, contributing to the failure of the US-imposed Organization of American States. Prior to World War I, there were many attempts by peoples ofthe Third World to oppose Western expansionism globally. There were resistance movements in Asia, such as the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58 and the Chinese Boxer Rebellion of 1900. In 1898, the peoples of Cuba and the Philippines began their heroic efforts to liberate themselves as they took up arms first

58 Antecedents and Origins against Spain and then against the United States. In Africa, from the religious movements in the Sudan to the Zulu Rebellion in Natal in 1906, resistance to the British, French, Germans and other Europeans took many forms. There were also revolutionary movements in Russia in 1905, the Ottoman Empire in 1908, Mexico in 1910, and China in 1911 . But for the most part, these efforts to stop the encroachment of the West ended in failure.$ The one exception was Japan. Relatively isolated by geography and self- isolation and less important to the West than other Asian countries, Japan had remained outside Western control. This breathing space coupled with its own internal dynamics enabledJapan to modernize politically, militarily and economically in a very short time. It shocked the world with its military victory overTsarist Russia in 1905, but was soon to follow the West in a policy of imperialist expansionism. The experience in the rest of Asia and the Third World was different . Burdened by long periods of colonialism and semi-colonialism, their struggle with the West was for independence, self-government and self-determination. Prior to World War I, however, Third World peoples remained relatively isolated from one another and lacked the capacity for collective support and models ofalternative social and political development. In spite oftheir limited contact, they were developing similar objectives of freedom and equality in political, economic and social terms. But at this time, the counter- revolutionary forces were stronger and more united as Western powers assisted one another in defeating Third World resistance to imperialism.9 World War I altered the international system. In its aftermath the stage was being set for the dismantling ofthe European colonial system, a phenomenon that would be accomplished quickly but not until after World War II. World War I was fought in the name of ideals, but in reality it was a competition between European powers over empire. Though badly battered at home, Europe managed to emerge from the war still securely in control of its colonies. Its pre-eminence, however, was seriously shaken. The United States had become a major world power. Barriers within and between continents began to break down as Asian and African intellectuals interacted in metropoles such as London and Paris where they studied, visited and worked. The encounters experienced by Mix Houphouet-Boigny, Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah from Africa, Ho Chi Minh, Jawaharlal Nehru and Krishna Menon from Asia, Aime Cesaire, Jose Marti and W. E. B. DuBois from the Americas, and other notable figures were important for the development of Pan-African, Pan-American and Pan-Asian movements and for what was later to become the Non-aligned Movement. In the meantime, the hundreds of thousands ofcolonials who had been brought into the war on the side oftheir various colonial masters had learned that the call for self-determination was not meant to be applied to them. This realization, the war experience and the

59 Overview international contacts changed many Asians and Africans who returned home as nationalists. Most importantly, the Russian Revolution of 1917 decisively altered the course of world history. Its achievements in transforming a feudal and agrarian society into an industrial and military power in a short period oftime irrevocably changed international politics and left a formidable impression on the Third World. It is here that the Cold War really begins. For Third World nations and especially nationalist movements, 1917 presented an alternative model of development to capitalism, not only in the economic and social sphere, but also in the political sphere. Lenin's Imperialism provided both a theoretical explanation for colonialism and economic underdevelopment and a blueprint for national liberation to which many Third World leaders would turn.l0 Hence in this early period even the most conservative nationalist leaders were reluctant to view the Soviet Union as an alternative imperial power. It is only in recent times, specifically since the Cold War, that a re- examination of the role of the Soviet Union has taken place. In assessing the impact of the ideological challenge of Marxism-Leninism on the West and capitalism today, Geoffrey Barraclough finds, none the less, that it has had an impact far beyond its origins in the Soviet Union. He states: The fact that 'Marxism-Leninism' was closely identified, for thirty or forty years after 1917, with the Soviet Union was a consequence of historical circumstances which were ofimmense importance at the time, but which no longer prevail. Lenin himselfpointed out that, once the proletarian revolution had achieved a measure 6f success, Russia would `cease to be the model country', and there are many indications that, as it evolves and is adapted to other circumstances in other parts of the world, Marxism is beginning to modify or cast offthe specifically Russian features it acquired between 1928 and 1953. To say this is not, ofcourse, to make the mistake ofunderestimating the part played by the Soviet Union in recent history. But the significance of Marxism transcends its importance as the ideology ofthe Soviet state . . . Ifwe are to measure its impact we must see it not simply as a Soviet Russian ideology, but - as Lenin saw it - as a universal force with auniversal mission . It has already shaped twentieth-century society on lines different from anything known in the past; and its force is not yet spent.II In the period between the World Wars I and II nationalist struggles in the Third World intensified and regional linkages were developed. In a number ofArab countries, political activities such as conferences, declarations, strikes and other acts ofcivil disobedience were organized along with military action against continued British and French domination to draw attention to the demands of Arab peoples for self-determination and self-government. The future of Palestine in particular brought the Arab world together, and by the end ofthe 1930s Arab solidarity and co-operation had become a fundamental

60 Antecedents and Origins principle of the many organizations and political parties in the region. The formation of the Arab League in 1945 was a culmination of this Pan-Arab movement.12 Pan-Africanism, a movement concerned with racial pride and the liberation ofthe African continent from colonialism, began as early as 1900 in London. The first Pan-African Congress met in Paris in 1919 and through a series of meetings in the next decades peoples ofAfrican descent from the Americas, Europe and Africa shared their common concerns. The turning-point was the fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester in 1945. Attending were many African trade unionists, politicians, farmers and students, some ofwhom were to become future leaders of independent African states, notably Kwame Nkrumah andJomo Kenyatta. The discussionswerewide ranging and the tone militant. The Congress opposed racial discrimination including the colour bar in Britain and apartheid in South Africa. It strongly condemned the continued exploitation and colonization ofAfrica and supported the demands ofpeoples for self-government and independence, not only in Black Africa, but in all of Africa and the Caribbean. In its declaration to colonial powers, the Congress indicated the strong desire ofAfrican peoples to live in peace, yet indicated that force might be necessary, as a last resort, ifthe Westernworld did not give up its rule by force. Under Nkrumah's leadership a West African National Secretariatwas also formed at this gathering, foreshadowing the establishment of future Pan-African organizations . Finally, in solidarity with Asian peoples the Fifth Pan-African Congress sent best wishes and greetings to India, Indonesia and the Viet-minh led by Ho Chi Minh in their current struggles for freedom.13 In Asia, nationalist stirrings everywhere were leading to monumental struggles of resistance and revolution. Events in China, India, Indo-China (Vietnam), Korea and Indonesia were to play major roles in the dismantling of Western control and influence in the region. This continent would be the fast region of newly independent states after World War ii and would take the lead in building regional and international linkages.14 While the Non-aligned Movement may have taken its inspiration from Pan-Asianism, Pan-Africanism, Pan-Americanism and Pan-Arabism, it is qualitatively different from all these pan-movements. Louis Snyder in a seminal work quite correctly defines pan-movements as 'political-cultural movements seeking to enhance and promote the solidarity of peoples bound together by common or kindred language, cultural similarities, the same historical traditions, and/or geographical proximity . They postulate the nation writ large in the world's community of nations'.1S As we have indicated earlier, the Non-aligned Movement is a transnational grouping that encompasses the quality ofa social movement within the framework of state structures. It is for these reasons that the Bandung formula of linking Africa

61 and Asia within the framework of a pan-movement did not succeed. The search for an alternative view led to the concept of non-alignment which possesses a universality. Social movements are influenced by historical events and by leadership. The literature on.non-alignment and the non-aligned countries themselves are in general agreement that theformation ofthis international social movement was heavily dependent on the leadership of Nehru of India, Tito of Yugoslavia, Nasser ofEgypt, Nkrumah ofGhana, and Soekarno ofIndonesia, as well as on the historical experience of their respective countries and regions. Each brought a dimension that contributed to the whole organization and direction ofthe Movement. Nehru had the ability to view issueswithin an international perspective . Tito insisted on maintaining contact and holding regular meetings. Nasser's political skills brought different groups together and he was especially able in committees where he methodically achieved consensus. Nkrumah had the vision of a free Africa. Soekarno provided an indomitable spiritedness to their activism. Each was an advocate for an issue that became part ofthe integrated set ofprinciples known as non-alignment. Nehru emphasized peace and political independence. Tito was for peace and equidistance between the major powers. Nkrumah, Soekarno and Nasser were anti-colonial, anti-neo-colonial and also anti-racist. Other leaders and historical events were to have their influence in later stages ofthe Movement, but without a doubt, these individuals and their concerns dominated the founding and first years of the Non-aligned Movement. But Nehru stands above them 211.16 It is largely throughJawaharlal Nehru's internationalism and vision that the global character and activist nature of what was to become the Non-aligned Movement were actually envisaged. Under the direction ofMahatma Gandhi, India had become an exponent of Asian nationalism and a leading opponent of Western colonialism . Under Nehru and through the Congress Party, India began to develop co-operative relations with other Asian countries and to express concern for nationalist struggles in neighbouring regions. As early as 1927 in Brussels at the International Congress against Imperialism, Nehru had met nationalist and revolutionary leaders from Asia, Africa, North and South America, and Europe, such as Ho Chi Minh who became President of North Vietnam, Mohammed Hatta, a future Vice-President of Indonesia, and Leopold Senghor, a future President of Senegal. The Brussels meeting contributed to Nehru's interest in socialism. It also led him to recognize the importance of establishing contacts with other Third World representatives and to reach the conclusion that the struggle for freedom and against imperialism required ;joint deliberation, and where possible, joint action'. 17 Colonialism and racismwere further discredited by fascism and World War II. Their mammoth destruction world-wide ending in the use of atomic

62 Antecedents and Origins weapons on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki transformed the international system. After 1945, the United States was militarily and economically the leading Western power. Europe was severely crippled. The whole concept of empire was in question. This time millions ofThird World peoples had been directly affected by the war. They served under various colonial flags in different parts of the world. They saw their homelands overrun, often in ruins, and their families separated or destroyed . This experience strengthened the resistance movements and the demand for self- government and self-determination in the Third World.18 The post-World War II erawas a period ofchanging international relations and changing power relations. A number of socialist countries were established in Eastern Europe. Anti-colonial struggles in the Third World matured, with many led by a new generation of nationalist leaders often trained and educated in the West. Beginning with the Asian continent, successful independence movements contributed to the rapid dismantling of European colonial empires. In addition, social revolutionary struggles were underway in the Third World, especially in the Far East in China, Indo-China and Korea. The Chinese Revolution of1949 with the success ofMao Tse-tung and the People's Liberation Army was another watershed in world history. It was the first revolution in the Third World to seek self-consciously a break with the world capitalist system and to establish an alliance with the Soviet Union to develop an alternative socialist model for the world's peasant economies.19 At the same time as these new small and medium-sized developing states emerged and entered the international political system, the global power structure was being transformed. The predominance ofWestern Europe in world affairs was replaced with a bi-polar world dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, new political strains were created globally when the US adopted a policy ofcontaining communism throughout the worldjust as the USSRwas consolidating itselfand advocating support for national liberation. This Cold War, as it came to be called, brought a growth of military pacts, an increase in armaments, the gradual polarization of the world into blocs and, with the onset of the Nuclear Age, the possible annihilation of the human race. Thus these new states faced the challenge of political, economic and social development with the handicap of an exploitative colonial past and the severe constraints of international power politics. As one ofthe first countries to gain independence afterWorldWar II, India had taken the lead in defending their sovereignty by calling for co-operation among similar peoples and countries, promoting solidarity with otherregions, and developing a foreign policy for newly independent countries to enable them to function autonomously in the international community. In 1947 on

63 Overview the eve ofIndia's independence, Nehru arranged a meeting ofAsian countries at the non-governmental level in New Delhi to discuss their common struggles against colonialism and racialism. Representatives from 32 countries attended this First Asian Relations Conference to seek collective ways to achieve independence, support national liberation, and promote co- operation . The conference advanced the concept of an Asian federation but, most importantly, signalled the emergence of an independent Asia determined to have a role in international politics. Two years later all of Asia and the Muslim world were alarmed by the intensified and violent Dutch aggression in Indonesia . Nehru called a second Asian conference in New Delhi, this time on a governmental level, in support ofliberation movements and in opposition to continued colonial interference and domination. Among the matters discussed was the formation ofa regional defence system for Asian countries. The result was the withdrawal of the Dutch and the independence of Indonesia.Z0 The Korean War was also a blunt reminder of the consequences of continued East-West tensions and a major test for the United Nations. Fearful ofthe war expanding, India and a number ofother Asian and Arab countries in the region attempted first to mediate and then to obtain a cease-fire. As members of the Security Council at the time of the Korean conflict, India, Yugoslavia and Egypt met regularly, laying the ground for continued consultations outside the international organization. The need for peace and the recognition of their vulnerability was apparent to Asian states, especially after the news that President Truman ofthe United States considered using an atomic bomb in Korea. Asian leaders sought ways to protect their sovereignty and to develop their nations. Drawing on their own philosophical traditions, Nehru and Soekarno suggested the concept of Five Principles upon which Asian countries should base their relations. Nehru's principles were to predominate and by 1955 Panch Sheel, as they came to be called, had been accepted by a number of Asian leaders. Panch Sheel included mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence - principles later to become part of non-alignment . In April 1954, on the initiative of Sir John Kotelawala, the Prime Minister of Ceylon, an Asian Powers Conference was held in Colombo. The prime ministers of India; Burma, Indonesia, Pakistan and Ceylon met to discuss shared regional concerns, such as colonialism, racialism, nuclear testing, communism and economic co-operation. In his opening address, Nehru stated that the main problem in the world was the continuing problem ofthe Cold War between two blocs ofbig powerful countries. He also pointed out that most ofthe countries represented at the conference had attempted to follow a

64 Antecedents and Origins policy of non-alignment with these great power blocs and to live their lives according to their own notions without dictation or compulsion from abroad. This was probably the first public occasion where the term non-alignment was used." A major consideration at Colombo was the expanded imperialist intervention in Indo-China as the US increased its financial support to the French to assist them in crushing the independence movement there. At that very moment the battle ofDien Bien Phu was in progress. A few days after the conference, the French were defeated by the Vietnamese and surrendered only to find themselves embroiled in another anti-colonial war later that year as the Algerians began their war of national liberation. Indonesia made a historic recommendation at the Colombo Powers Conference that a joint meeting ofindependent Asian and African states be called. This was accepted. At Bogor in December 1954, arrangements were made to hold that meeting in Bandung, Indonesia, in April 1955.22 But before the Bandung meeting, Nehru initiated a series of exchanges. Between mid-December 1954 and the end ofJanuary 1955, Tito stayed for three weeks in India and five days in Burma. He also conferred briefly with Nasser on his return home from Asia. It was Tito's first visit to these two Asian states and his first meeting with Nasser. Yugoslavia was thus brought into contact not only with Asia, but theArab and African worlds.23 These meetings provided the initial contacts for the leaders who would so directly influence the concept ofnon-alignment in its early years. In the meantime, there was the Bandung Conference.

The Bandung Conference: A Prelude The Bandung meeting of18-24 April 1955 in Indonesia was an Asian-African conference - a turning-point in modern world history. Initiated by five Asian prime ministers, the meeting brought together leaders of 29 states, mostly former colonies, from the two continents ofAfrica and Asia, including many Arab states, to discuss common concerns and to developjoint policies in international relations .24 The conference attracted world-wide attention. Messages of goodwill were sent by the Soviet Union and the presidiums of five Soviet Central Asian Republics. The US government, on the other hand, coldly received the news of the meeting and secretly attempted to control its outcome.25 The conference was led by Nehru, the acknowledged senior statesman, along with Soekarno and Nasser. In an intense week of speeches and committee meetings, Third World leaders shared their similar problems of resisting the pressures of the major powers, maintaining their independence, and opposing colonialism and neo-colonialism, specifically Western domination.

65 Overview

They also sought to benefit from one another's experiences in economic and social development and world affairs.26 The conference issued a final communique on economic and cultural co-operation, human rights and self- determination following the United Nations Charter, problems ofdependent peoples and colonialism, and ways to promote world peace and co-operation. The conference proposed a new world order based on the following principles: 1 . Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 2. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations. 3. Recognition ofthe equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small. 4. Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country. 5. Respect for the right ofeach nation to defend itselfsingly or collectively, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. 6. (a) Abstention from the use ofarrangements ofcollectivedefense to serve the particular interests of any of the big powers. (b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries. 7. Refraining from acts orthreats ofaggression or the use offorce against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country. 8. Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means ofthe parties' own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. 9. Promotion of mutual interests and co-operation. 10. Respect for justice and international obligations.27

These principles, which incorporated the concepts of Panch Sheel, represented a major revision in existing international relations. They set forth a new foreign policy for Afro-Asian states and served as the basis for the principles of non-alignment. At the Bandung Conference, Third World countries also asserted their right to defme representation and membership at international gatherings. Government representatives from both North and South Vietnam were invited and attended. The conference was also used, particularly by Nehru, to begin to break China's isolation by the West. In Chou En-lai's presence at the Afro-Asian meeting, Nehru was preparing the nations ofthe world to accept the reality of the existence of the People's Republic of China. In Nehru's view, a country's particular ideology should not affect its membership in the international community and therefore China should participate as an equal member.28 The right of states to choose their own political, economic and social system was later to be adopted by non-aligned countries as one oftheir principles.

66 Antecedents and Origins

The conference instilled participants withwhat hasbeen called `the spirit of Bandung' - the recognition of the similarity of purpose and unity ofaction amongst oppressed peoples to address their common problems and to take an active role in changing the existing world order. The final recommendation was that another conference be held. The next conference was not held until September 1961 in Belgrade, the first meeting ofheads ofstate or government ofnon-aligned countries. There has been some debate as to whether or not Bandung was a prelude to the Belgrade meeting. Some analysts have argued that the two meetings were different. Invitations to the Belgrade meeting were based on a country's adherence to certain universal principles, particularly a foreign policy ofnon- alignment. Participant countries at the Bandung Conference, on the other hand, were primarily interested in ending colonialism. Moreover, they were chosen on the basis ofregional considerations and represented a wide range of political views from pro-West to communist. It is argued, therefore, that the two groupings were clearly different, the one being Afro-Asian, the other non-aligned. During the early years ofthe Movement until 1964-65, some attention was given to this distinction because a number ofleaders, Soekarno in particular, sought to hold a secondAfro-Asian meeting and failed.29 The debate over the origins of the Movement is dependent on the ideological emphasis of the participant. The Yugoslavs have tended to emphasize the anti-bloc thesis, especially at times when there were efforts in the Movement to view the Soviet Union as a'natural ally' . In these cases, primarily in the latterpartofthe 1970s, they tended to emphasize the Belgrade Summit as the originating meeting of the Movement and this can be seen through the articles of the Yugoslav journal, Review ofInternational Affairs. However, they do not deny the anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist thrust of the Movement as it was originally displayed at Bandung.3° Non-aligned countries, however, view the Bandung Conference as an integral part of non-aligned history and as part of the process in the development of the Movement. It is also our view that the Bandung Conference was a precursor to the first non-aligned summit. Any differences between Bandung and Belgrade are differences in emphasis because of the historical epoch and the international situation rather than differences in principle or substance. Bandung informed the world that the newly independent states of Asia and Africa, though small or medium-sized and developing, were determined not to allow the major powers to decide the future of humankind. Moreover, these new states intended to participate collectively in international political and economic affairs to create a more peaceful andjust world. It was thus in Bandung that the concept ofthe Non- aligned Movement was conceived. For it was in Bandung that independent

67 Overview

Third World countries formally consolidated their co-operation and agreed to work collectively to promote a number of universal principles which they adopted as part oftheir foreign policies in order to play a positive and active role in international affairs. During the period between Bandung and the First Summit o£non-aligned countries, Third World nations were preoccupied with other matters. Asian states were busy consolidating their independence and developing their economies. With the majority of its territory still under colonial rule, the African continent struggled for its freedom. The result was a sizeable increase in the number of sovereign states with the decolonization of British West Africa, French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa. Twenty-two African countries attended the Second Conference of Independent African States at Addis Ababa in 1960, an increase from the eight present at the first conference at Accra in 1958. These meetings were important for two reasons. First, they linked the Arab and Black African worlds. Secondly, while there would be differences between states and regions over specific issues, African countrieswere in agreement over a number ofcommon concerns and adopted resolutions based on the Bandung Declaration and the UN Charter. These included the end to colonial rule in Africa, opposition to colonial suppression of independence movements, support for liberation struggles such as the ongoing war in Algeria, co-operation with one another, and world peace and security with an end to nuclear armaments . In addition, Nasser achieved international recognition, especially in the Third World, for his successes against Britain, France and Isfael over Suez during the 1950s and for his ability to thwart the expansion ofUS interests in the region. He had emerged as the spokesperson and defender ofArab interests, particularly on the question of Palestine. Finally, the Cuban Revolution over neo-colonialism in 1959 inspired other guerrilla movements in Latin America, but was viewed by the United States as a threat to its influence in the hemisphere. There were also some losses in the Third World. Progressive nationalist governments such as those led by Mossadeq in Iran and Arbenz in Guatemala were toppled in 1953 and 1954 respectively. In the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, revolutionary movements struggled for their survival, but were soon severely crushed31 Asian andAfrican leaders were also concerned about the impact o£the Cold War on their sovereignty. They recognized that the creation and expansion of military pacts not only pressured them to take sides, but threatened to draw -them into the East-West conflict. As tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union persisted, a number of these new states sought to maintain their autonomy and to assert their independence through a policy which was to become known as non-alignment. As yet this new policy was not known by a single name. Various countries used a number ofterms and emphases such as

68 Antecedents and Origins

,neutrality', `dynamic neutrality', `unaligned', `uncommitted', `disengaged', `progressive neutralism' and `positive neutralism' .32 The meaning, however, was similar. These were assertions ofindependence and nationalism from the Third World as a result of the unequal international political system ofwhich they were now a part and in which they were expected to survive and participate. Problems of economic development, military pacts and autonomy also affected the smaller less developed countries of Europe. Bandung and non- alignment caught the attention ofTito ofYugoslavia. Because ofits marginal political and economic position in Europe and its desire to coexist peacefully between East and West, Yugoslavia was especially interested in the efforts of Asian and African states to maintain their independence and pursue a policy of non-alignment. During the 1950s and early 1960s, Tito made several trips to Asia, Africa and Latin America to make Yugoslavia known and to explain his country's position on world affairs. In an early attempt to involve Yugoslavia in Third World organizations, Tito reciprocated the previous invitations and invited Nehru, acknowledged leader of the Third World, and Nasser, emergent figure in the Arab and African world, to meet on the island ofBrioni for talks inJuly 1956. For the next decade, these three leaders met frequently, almost annually, and after Nehru's death in 1964, Nasser and Tito continued to confer. In addition, many Third World heads of state, including leading members of future non-aligned countries, visited Yugoslavia.33 Tito's personal diplomacy was to pay off and was a crucial factor in laying the groundwork for the first meeting ofnon-aligned leaders at the United Nations in 1960 and for the holding of the first non-aligned summit in Belgrade the following year. The year 1960 was critical in world politics. The Paris Summit of the big powers called specifically to reduce Cold War tensions had failed. Difficulties over the two Germanies only served to heighten the East-West conflict. In addition, tensions had now emerged between the Soviet Union and China and between the United States and Cuba, compounding international political problems. In the Third World, there was a major crisis in the Congo where one month after independence, civil war had broken out, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba's leadership was being challenged, and secessionist movements supported by Western governments and corporations were threatening to fragment the country. US political and economic interests became involved because oftheir determined opposition to Lumumba whom they considered to be a political radical. This inevitably brought the Soviet Union to the aid of Lumumba, providing yet another occasion for the possibility of a national crisis developing into an East-West conflict. The Congo thus quickly became an international issue and a major chapter in UN history.34

69 Overview

The Caribbean was another potential international crisis point. Tensions were high after the Cuban Revolution of1959 as the United States, in its effort to prevent Cuba from serving as a model of social transformation in the region, began a policy ofeconomic boycott and political destabilization ofthe island. Elsewhere, the Algerians were well on their way to winning their war of national liberation. The Vietnam War had expanded. The North Vietnamese now turned their attention to the South where the US was directly involved with arms, money and advisers in the effort to contain communism . Nuclear testing continued unabated. This global crisis provoked a sense of urgency on the part ofnon-aligned countries and they turned to the United Nations for a solution. Sixteen new African states joined the international organization that year. The result was the largest gathering ever at the 15th meeting ofthe UN General Assembly with nearly 4,000 delegates, almost 50 foreign ministers and many heads ofstate including such noted Third World leaders as Nehru (India), Nkrumah (Ghana), Tito (Yugoslavia), Nasser (Egypt), Soekarno (Indonesia), Sekou Toure (Guinea) and Castro (Cuba) .35 In a major initiative, leaders offive non-aligned countries, Nasser, Nehru, Nkrumah, Soekarno and Tito, met in the Yugoslav mission in New York City and collectively prepared ajoint draft resolution calling for an early meeting between President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev to decrease tensions between the US and USSR. Soekarno presented their resolution to the UN General Assembly on 1 October 1960 in a speech that appealed for respect for the nationalism offormer colonies and their right not to be drawn into East- West politics. In addition, he argued that the major powers did not have the moral right, either individually or collectively, to determine the future ofthe world. US hostility to the non-aligned effort and an Australian amendment that only weakened the proposal led the five non-aligned leaders to withdraw their resolution. As Nehru stated, the amended version had rendered the original intent of their resolution, which was to bring about negotiations between the US and USSR, essentially `meaningless'. A more successful effort later in the session was the resolution in support of decolonization presented by Ceylon in the name of 26 African and Asian countries, including the above five non-aligned nations . It charged that colonialism in all its forms was an obstacle to peace. The resolution opposed the attempts to use inadequate preparation, whether political, social or educational, to delay the granting of independence. This call for an end to colonialism was clearly adopted with 89 votes in favour, none against, and nine abstentions all from Western governments with one exception. Third World countries were making an impact on the United Nations, but as yet were unable to influence the major powers on the question ofreducing global tensions The failure ofthis peace effort at the United Nations and the US invasion of

70 Antecedents and Origins

Cuba in the Bay ofPigs incident in April 1961 brought new initiatives from the founding members of the Non-aligned Movement. Soekarno raised the issue of a second Bandung Conference of Afro-Asian states, but failed to garner sufficient support. On 16April 1961, Nasser and Tito metin Cairo and sent ajoint letter to the heads of21 Third World countries who shared similar viewpoints. The letter suggested that they confer prior to the coming General Assembly meeting so that newly independent countries might effectively participate during the session to achieve peace and stability. In May, Yugoslavia and Egypt, joined by Indonesia and with the tacit approval of India, sent out invitations for a preparatory meeting to plan a Conference of the Uncommitted Countries .31

Preparatory Meeting for the Conference of Uncommitted Countries The preparatory meeting was held in Cairo, from 5 to 12 June 1961, with representatives from 20 countries attending. The gathering was different from the Bandung Conference for which invitations had been issued largely on the basis of regional considerations. This time invitations were based on a country's commitment to a set of shared principles, its policy of non- alignment. The result was an international grouping of mostly Afro-Asian states along with Yugoslavia from Europe and Cuba from Latin America.3a The purpose of the meeting was to prepare a draft agenda for the proposed gathering and to decide upon the venue and participants. In the process, those present dropped the term `uncommitted' and adopted in common the term `non-aligned'. This preparatory meeting was important for two reasons. It established certain precedents on representation at future meetings and defined the criteria for membership in the Non-aligned Movement.

Representation At the beginning ofthe Cairo preparatory meeting proposals were presented to invite to this meeting and to the proposed conference: first, the provisional government of Algeria; and secondly, the government of the Congolese Republic (Stanleyville). The first was adopted and an invitation was immediately sent to the provisional government of Algeria. The Algerian representative was greeted with applause upon his arrival; he addressed the gathering, and participated in the proceedings. Given the unsettled political situation in the Congo (now Zaire), however, no agreement could be re.~hed at this time and the matter of Congolese representation was forwarded to. the forthcoming meeting for further discussion39 This invitation to the provisional government of Algeria prior to the complete fulfilment of the independence struggle established a precedent in

71 Overview international relations and became an integral part of non-alignment. Individually, non-aligned countries opposed colonialism and other forms of oppression. With this action, non-aligned countries collectively initiated a policy ofinternational support for national liberation movements. They began by recognizing the provisional governments of liberation movements as the legitimate representatives ofthe.people ofthe country and welcomed them as members of the Movement. By these activities, non-aligned countries demonstrated that they would exercise their right to determine the legitimate representatives of the people of a country or state at any given time. Moreover, in these first stages of forging a movement, they recognized the importance ofgroup solidarity. They decided that matters would be discussed until there was common agreement. Thus in the case of Congolese representation, there would be no decision until members had reached a consensus.

Criteria for Membership It was also at the Cairo preparatory meeting that non-aligned countries first discussed in detail the principal aims and objectives ofnon-alignment. These were adopted as criteria for membership (see Chapter 2) and invitations to the next conference were sent out accordingly.40 These criteria have remained to this date. The condition of non-membership in military alliances has drawn the greatest attention, especiallyby critics ofthe Movement who seek to discredit the non-aligned by arguing that some members may have violated this criterion . While non-membership in military alliances is fundamental to non- alignment, it is only a part of being non-aligned. Representatives at this meeting insisted that those countries invited to the first conference `should have accepted the well-understood notions of non-alignment' . In their discussions, they emphasized a number ofshared concerns in addition to an opposition to military pacts. In particular, non-alignment was anti-colonial. Being non-aligned meant supporting national independence movements. It was anti-bloc, any bloc, including the non-aligned as a third bloc. It represented the right to an independent foreign policy. Non-alignment meant the pursuit of world peace and the relaxation of all tensions. It also meant strengthening economic relations and attention to the development of underdeveloped countries. They defined non-alignment as a `positive expression', a `moral force', and a `constructive role' . Non-alignment meant accepting the principle ofcoexistence between states with different social and political systems. Non-alignment recognizes that there may be `differences in the consideration of individual problems', but with regard to the principal aims and objectives ofnon-alignment there is a'unanimity ofapproach' . Non- alignment permitted flexibility ofapproach and individual freedom of action

72 Antecedents and Origins

for states while promoting co-operation and collective action, especially at the United Nations and other world forums. Representatives also cautioned against issuing invitations to countries who were non-aligned in name only. Thus from the beginning non-aligned countries were clearly concerned about playing a positive and activist role towards achieving a more just and peaceful world.41 The discussion on criteria and the effort to define non-alignment revealed that there was a degree ofpolitical cohesion among the countries present . The representatives had also moved in the direction of forming a coalition for unity of action based on adherence to a common set of principles. The emphasis on supporting `movements for national independence' and the recognition given to the provisional government ofAlgeria clearly indicated that non-alignment would be pro-national liberation and actively so. The representatives adopted a draft agenda for the proposed conference and decided that Yugoslavia would be the host country. Yugoslavia was largely a compromise choice. Representatives did not want to have to choose between prominent Asian states, such as India and Indonesia . Egypt, an African venue, was the current host ofthe preparatory meeting and did not pursue the matter. Cuba, a small country resisting great-power intervention, was a symbol of resistance and requested that the meeting be held in Havana, `the centre of American imperialism'. However, while there was great interest in involving more of Latin America, Cuba and the region were still relatively unknown to much of Afro-Asia. Moreover, in an earlier instance in 1960, rather than having to choose betweem an Asian or African country as host, the five non- aligned leaders met in the Yugoslav mission to draft their joint resolution to the UN General Assembly. The choice ofYugoslavia was also due, in part, to Tito's personal diplomacy. His earlier initiatives to their leaders now paid off and Yugoslavia became the site of the First Summit of heads of state or government of non-aligned countries.42 Thus it came to be that `the idea conceived in Colombo in 1954, nurtured in Bandung in 1955, was born in Belgrade in 1961'.43

Notes 1. Cited by Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1983), p. 23. 2. See, for example, Walter LaFeber, The New Empire : An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860-1898 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1960); Milton Plesur,America's Outward Thrust :Approaches to ForeignAffairs, 1865-1890 (Dekalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1971); Richard Van Alstyne, The Rising American Empire (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1974); and the works of William Appleman Williams, especially The Roots of the Modern American Empire (New York,

73 Overview

1969), The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (2nd rev. edn, 1972) and The Contours of American History (New York: New Viewpoints, 1973). 3. LaFeber, 1983, op. cit., p. 23, see also pp. 13-31. 4. C. L. RJames, The BlackJacobins (London: Allison & Busby, 1980, rev. edn), p. 391. 5. Ibid., pp. 394-9. 6. Ibid., p. 411. 7. LaFeber, 1983, op. cit., p. 25; Stavrianos, Global Rift: The Third World Comes of Age (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1981), pp. 74-98, 177-95, 274-7. 8. Stavrianos, op. cit., Chapter 18. 9. Ibid., Chapter 17, pp. 424-7; Tran Van Dinh, 'Non-Alignment and Cultural Imperialism', The Black Scholar, 8:3 (December 1976), p. 39. 10. Stavrianos, op. cit., pp. 484-512; Tran Van Dinh, op. cit., p. 39. 11. Geoffrey Barraclough, An Introduction to Contemporary History (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964), p. 232. 12. G. H. Jansen, Afro-Asia and NonAlignment (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1960), pp. 22-7, 32-3; Leo Mates, Nonalignment : Theory and Current Policy (Belgrade, 1972), pp. 53-4. 13. George Padmore, Pan-Africanism or Communism (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1971), pp. 83-148; Colin Legum, Pan-Africanism: A Short Political Guide (New York: Praeger, 1965), pp. 15-37. Given that Padmore was an active participant in the Pan-African Congresses, we have chosen to follow his numbering of the various Congress meetings. 14. Stavrianos, op. cit., pp. 349-66. 15. Louis L. Snyder, Macro-Nationalism: A History of Pan-Movements (Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press, 1984), p. 5. 16. K. R. Narayanan, 'Neliru's Non-alignment: Origin and Early Phase', Mainstream, 18:46 (12 July 1980), pp. 9-12, 30. A good summary of the early role of these three leaders can be found in Peter Lyon, Neutralism (Leicester University Press, 1963), especially pp. 105-6, 120-51. One ofthe few to take exception to Nehru's role as a founder ofthe Movement is Alvin Rubinstein who also argues that Tito was the crucial architect of non-alignment. See his Yugoslavia and the Nonaligned World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), pp. 112-18. Yugoslav diplomat and author Leo Mates, who was a participant observer in the early stages of the Movement, however, acknowledges the pioneering role of Nehru and India in his classic work, Nonalignment: Theoryand Current Policy (Belgrade, 1972), pp. 57-92,175- 249. Mates served as the General Secretary ofthe Belgrade Conference in 1961 and was Yugoslavia's Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the time. 17. Shashi Bhushan, Non-Alignment: Legacy of Nehru (New Delhi, India: Progressive Peoples Sector Publications, 1976), pp. 17-20, 35; Michael Brecher, Nehru: A Political Biography (Boston: Beacon Press, 1962), pp. 53-4, 212-18, 224-5; Jansen, op. cit., p. 29, 115-18; Sadhan Mukherjee, 'New Perspectives of Non- Alignment', in Colombo Summit (New Delhi: People'sPublishing House, 1976), pp. 2-3; B_. N. Pandey, Nehru: A Biography (New York: Stein & Day, 1976), p. 117. 18. Stavrianos, op. cit., pp. 623-31. 19. Ibid.; see also pp. 589-622.

Antecedents and Origins

20. Brecher, op. cit., pp. 226-8; Jansen, op. cit., pp. 51-98. 21. Cited in Inaugural Address of Prime Minister J. R. Jayewardene, ministerial meeting ofthe Co-ordinating Bureau ofnon-aligned countries, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 6 June 1979, p. 2. 22. Bahgat Korany, Social Change, Charisma and International Behavior: Toward a Theory of Foreign Policy-making in the Third World (Geneva: A. W. Sijthoff-Leiden, Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, 1976), pp. 373-7; Bushan, op. cit., pp. 22-4; Jansen, op. cit., pp. 115-81 ; Pandey, op. cit., pp. 257, 277-8. 23. Korany, op. cit., pp. 174-6. 24. The following countries participated: Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, People's Republic ofChina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gold Coast, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan,Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, SaudiArabia, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Democratic Republic ofVietnam, State of Vietnam, and Yemen. 25. Jansen, op. cit., pp. 185-6, 192-3. 26. ibid., pp. 182-226. 27. OdetteJankowitsch and Karl P. Sauvant, The Third World Without Superpowers: The Collected Documents of the NonAligned Countries (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 1978), Vol I, pp. lxv-lxvi. 28. Pandey, op. cit., pp. 371-2, 375-6. 29. This is well summarized by Jansen in his chapter entitled 'Bandung versus Belgrade', op. cit., pp. 363-83. 30. This was pointed out earlier byJansen, ibid., p. 367. See the monthly Yugoslav journal Review ofInternational Affairs (Belgrade, Yugoslavia). In an exception to this contemporary Yugoslav interpretation, Leo Mates has referred to the Bandung Conference as 'the first mass manifestation ofa movementwhich was later to become the movement of non-aligned'countries' (see p. 227). 31. Legum, op. cit., pp. 39-59; Stavrianos, op. cit., pp. 646-7, 667-8; Fred Halliday, The Making ofthe Second ColdWar (London: Verso Editions and NLB, 1983), p. 83. 32. Jansen, op. cit., p. 282. 33. Korany, op. cit., p. 177; Mates, op. cit., pp. 175-217; Rubinstein, op. cit., Chapters 2 and 3. 34. Stavrianos, op. cit., pp. 671-4, 716-18; Henry F. Jackson, From the Congo to Soweto (New York: William Morrow, 1982), pp. 21-42. 35. Keesing's Contemporary Archives (1960), pp. 17870-8. 36. Ibid. (1961), pp. 17878, 17917-30; Lyon, op. cit., pp. 178-9. 37. Rubinstein, op. cit., pp. 104-5; Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., p. 33; Lyon, op. cit., p. 179. 38. Original participants were Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Mali, Morocco, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Republic, Yemen and Yugoslavia. The provisional government of Algeria joined the meeting after it started. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., pp. 33-4. , 39. Ibid., pp. 34-7. 40. Ibid., p. 38.

75 Overview

41 . ibid., pp. 36-8. 42. Jansen, op. cit., p. 286; Lyon, op. cit., pp. 181-3; Rubinstein, op. cit., pp. 106-7. 43. Jayewardene, Inaugural Speech, Colombo Bureau, 1979, p. 5. PART II:

The Non-aligned Movement in International History: the Politics of Collective Resistance

4. The First, Second and Third Summits : The Formative Years

The Non-aligned Movement came into being in an age when the world was already integrated in a manner unprecedented in human history: linked politically, economically, technologically, scientifically and increasingly even culturally. This global interdependency, as it is now commonly called, is the result of world-wide interaction on a scale unknown before. The structural integration of the peoples of the world requires new forms of analyses and interpretations from its scholars. One ofthese is the development ofa world history as integrated as the subject matter itself. Unfortunately this field has been grossly overlooked by students of international relations primarily because historians, like social scientists, have concentrated on national histories and neglected world history.' The first point ofdeparture then is to study the Non-aligned Movement as part ofa global system. For such a movement cannot be understood within the confines oftraditional inteknational politics (i.e. foreign policies ofindividual nation states and relations between states), or international economics (i.e. trade relations between states) or even within the study of international organizations (e.g. the voting behaviour of states in the United Nations). It is necessary to consider all these variables and, most importantly, to view the Movement within the context ofworld history. To explain the evolution of the Non-aligned Movement as an international grouping of states that functions as a social movement, we will examine its development through its major meetings from summit conference to summit conference within the context ofglobal events. Only then can we understand its collective efforts to promote its principles and resist the existing international system by creating a new world order.

The Summit Conference as a Unit of Analysis Any history ofthe Non-aligned Movement must include an examination ofits major meetings and their international context. Any study of non-alignment should examine not only the politics ofeach summit and the final declaration, but how events prior to the summit contribute to its specific outcome. The

The Non-aligned Movement in International History

different emphases taken up by non-aligned countries at any summit may vary depending on the immediate global issues that confront the Movement.2 It is also important to consider the host country of each summit for, to some extent, its internal political situation affects the outcome. Thus the politics of each summit is influenced by preceding international events, by the particular concerns of the host country and, in addition, by the degree and extent of support for the various tendencies among the major actors within the Movement who attend that gathering. . . As we noted in Chapter 1, non-aligned countries share a number of ideological premisses or principles. However, it should not be forgotten that the Movement is a complex grouping of states with different historical experiences, languages, religions and cultures and a variety ofpolitical, social and economic systems. How non-aligned countries achieve unity within this diversity requires an understanding ofthe political and social processes within the Movement. Such an understanding necessitates a framework for the study ofconference politics. We have thus focused on the summit conference as a unit of analysis .3 Non-aligned meetings provide opportunities for the Movement to promote its principles and organize as a coalition . Summit conferences allow members to meet on a regular basis at the highest level ofheads of state to discuss and analyse the present state of international politics. They also enable non- aligned leaders to develop a common strategy on a number ofissues which can be utilized later in international organizations where the major powers in the world system are present. At the conclusion of their summits, non-aligned countries issue a declaration which becomes a historic assessment of the international situation at thatspecific moment. The declaration is in essence an agreement on the current situation in world politics by the members of this international social movement. The political method adopted by the Movement to arrive at a decision is that ofconsensus and no decision is made until there is consensus. However, while the entire document is a consensus document, there maybe areas ofcontroversy in which compromises are made. In addition, the Movement enables individual states to indicate whether they agree or disagree with particular aspects of the declaration. In other words, adequate provision has been made for individual states to dissent from the majority consensus. As we pointed out in Chapter 2, the non-aligned have developed some intricate methods by which such objections and reservations can be made. But more importantly, a closer examination of the political, economic and social aspects of each declaration enables us to understand which issues the heads of state agree upon at any given time as being critical for the creation of an egalitarian global system. In analysing the evolution of the Non-aligned Movement through its summit meetings, we have emphasized the dynamic nature of the Movement

80 The First Three Summits : The Formative Years which reflects their responses to changes in the international situation and their own activism as they participate in changing the existing global structure. As the Movement matured, non-aligned countries continuously clarified and refined their basic principles and expanded their interpretation of these principles. Also in response to global conditions, they have given priority to specific principles at certain times. Another aspect of the Movement's dynamism is its capacity to change chairpersons while remaining constant to its principles and for non-aligned countries to change heads of state, sometimes with differing political outlooks, and still continue their membership in the Movement. In addition, new leaders and issues have arisen within the Movement as needs require.

First Summit Conference ofNon-aligned Countries, Belgrade, 1-6 September 1961 The official history of the Non-aligned Movement begins with the Belgrade Conference. It was a meeting ofheads ofstate or government of non-aligned countries attended by 25 participant states and 3 observer states, all from Latin America, observers from 19 liberation movements, all from Africa, representatives from 11 labour and socialist parties from Europe, Asia and Latin America, and a number of other organizations. The original members were Afghanistan, Algeria, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, the Congo (now Zaire, Cuba, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, Yemen and Yugoslavia' 4 This diverse grouping included monarchs, presidents, prime ministers and liberation movement leaders. At the First Summit, there were also two countries, Yugoslavia and Cuba, with an ideological commitment to a Marxist-Leninist world view. Thosewho attended the Belgrade Conference had much in common: a history of colonialism, neo-colonialism and racism, a condition of economic underdevelopment, a lack of influence in a world dominated by major powers, a fear that their sovereignty and independence were injeopardy, and a strong interest in non-alignment. The Belgrade Summit took place in a period of nuclear testing and increased East-West tensions over Berlin, Laos, Cuba and the Congo. Lumumbahad been murdered thatJanuary under circumstances so mysterious that years later the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was implicated as being responsible foi his assassination . Wars of national liberation continued, notably in Vietnam, Algeria and Angola. The international situation could not have been more disturbed. Yugoslavia, the host country, also had an effect on the outcome of the conference. Tito was adamant about maintaining Yugoslavia's independence

81 The Non-aligned Movement in International History and was anxious to promote a policy ofpeaceful coexistence or equidistance between the US and the USSR. Through its own invitations to a number of socialist parties and similar groupings, the Yugoslav government was also attempting to involve them in the non-aligned and to make Yugoslavia a centre for the social democratic non-communist world. This attempt, however, did not succeed.5 At the Belgrade Conference, non-aligned countries were most concerned about political independence, peace and coexistence . The tone ofthe conference was set at the first meeting with a minute of silence to all those who had given their lives so that others might be free and independent . During the week ofopen plenary sessions, each head ofstate or government addressed the conference. Representatives from the Congo arrived late. With the leadership question in the Congo settled, albeit only temporarily, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister spoke at the proceedings. The delegates also paid tribute to Patrice Lumumba, the late Congolese head ofstate. Another important outcome ofthe meeting was the further recognition given to the provisional government ofAlgeria . Although the government of France still refused to negotiate with the Algerian provisional government, non-aligned countries made their position clear and designated the provisional government of Algeria a full member of the Belgrade Summit. Inaddition, during the proceedings, Cambodia, Ghana and Yugoslavia formally recognized the provisional government as the legitimate government of Algerianb Non-aligned leaders were in agreement on a number of issues. In their speeches, they stressed the need to oppose colonialism and imperialism. They spoke out against war and deplored the creation of military blocs and the growth of armaments as contributing factors. They defmed non-alignment as positive co-ordinated action and not neutrality. They thus stressed the vital importance of participation by small and medium-sized newly independent states in world affairs. There were, however, differences in emphasis on the causes oftensions that could lead to war. For Tito, disarmament and peaceful coexistence were essential to ending the East-West conflict. He opened the conference with a discussion of non-bloc policy and expressed a desire to see the elimination of any blocs. Many leaders linked colonialism and neo-colonialism to war. As Soekarno summarized it, `in every case, the cause, the root of international tensions, is imperialism and colonialism and the forcible- division of nations' . African leaders, in particular, made the anti-colonial struggle a priority, but deplored the death and destruction resulting from awar ofnational liberation. Nkrumah spoke of colonialism as the fundamental cause of war because its unequal system generated hate and produced conflict between nations. He sought the liberation ofall Africa and the unity ofthe continent as a preventive

82 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

against war. Nasser, too, spoke of the need to struggle against racism and colonialism. In addition, he argued that neo-colonialism had to be opposed and drew attention to the creation ofclient states, such as Israel in his region, which was serving as a 'bridge-head ofneo-colonialism in Africa and a tool of its ambition' . Soekarno and D'Orticos of Cuba also warned of the dangers of neo-colonialism and the need to address problems of economic development. Nehru gave priority to peace and was especially concerned about war as a threat to a nation's independence and sovereignty. He argued that backward and underdeveloped countries had no future without an end to war. For only with peace could there be positive and constructive opportunities to build free societies. Non-aligned leaders tended to see the threat to peace as larger than the East-West struggle. For them, there could be no peace until there was peaceful coexistence, by which they meant not perpetuation ofthe status quo, but freedom for every nation to develop as it sees fit without being hampered by external pressures or interference . They declared the existing international system unequal and based on exploitation. As newly emergent nations, they intended to challenge the existing world order and establish a new one based on just and equal relations .? At the suggestion ofNasser on the second day ofthe conference, a drafting committee was formed to draw up a statement and resolutions on various issues. These were reviewed and accepted at the end ofthe proceedings as the Final Declaration of the conference. The Final Declaration of any non- aligned meeting is a conselisus document and represents a .synthesis of the debate. AtBelgrade, differences in emphasis reflectedregional concerns and a nation's stage of political and economic development rather than differences in substance. This was largely a result ofthe degree ofcolonialist exploitation experiencedby the various members and the fact that some countries hadbeen independent longer than others. All the fundamental principles of non- alignment were clearly evident in the Final Declaration of the Belgrade conference, but given the existing international situation in 1961, non-aligned countries stressed the importance ofpeace and the need for the democratization of international relations, that is, the increased participation of new states in global politics. From the First Summit, non-aligned countries have used their Final Declaration as a statement of their views on the existing international situation. In spite of the tense international relations prior to the Belgrade conference, non-aligned countries did not accept war as inevitable, not even the Cold War. In their Belgrade Declaration, they expressed confidence in humanity to establish a peaceful world. They did strongly oppose the existence ofmilitary blocs which `necessarily provoke periodical aggravations of international relations'. They sought peaceful coexistence to avoid the

83 The Non-aligned Movement in International History possibility ofnuclear disaster. In their view, peaceful coexistence was based on the right of people to self-determination, independence and the form of development of their own choice. The preamble thus declares that imperialism is on the wane. It is vehemently anti-colonial, linking these struggles with peace. It explains why: The Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries noting that there are crises that lead towards a world conflict in the transition from an old order based on domination to a new order based on co-operation between nations, founded on freedom, equality and socialjustice for the promotion of prosperity; considering that the dynamic processes and forms ofsocial change often result in or represent a conflict between the old established and the new emerging nationalist forces; considering that a lasting peace can be achieved only if this confrontation leads to a world where the domination of colonialism-imperialism and neo-colonialism in all their manifestations is radically eliminated; And recognizing the fact that acute emergencies threatening world peace now exist in this period ofconflict in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America and Big Power rivalry likely to result in world conflagration cannot be excluded; that to eradicate basically the source of conflict is to eradicate colonialism in all its manifestations and to accept and practice a policy of peaceful co-existence in the world.$ Non-aligned countries also noted that the present-day world was characterized by the existence ofdifferent social systems. They regarded the imposition by some nations oftheir social ®r political system on others as a direct threat to world peace; they supported `the right ofpeoples to self-determination ofthe forms and methods ofeconomic, social and cultural development' as the basis of all international relations . Altogether the Belgrade Declaration listed 27 separate items, 14 dealing with anti-colonialism, self-determination and non-interference, six related to disarmament, three to economic development, three to the United Nations and one to the German problem. It supported the UN Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and demanded an immediate stop to armed action and other forms of repression against liberation struggles . It called for the seating ofthe government ofthe People's Republic of China at the United Nations as the legitimate representative of that country. It reaffirmed that `all nations have the right of unity, self- determination, and independence by virtue ofwhich right they can determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development without intimidation or hindrance.' Consequently, it demanded respect for the right of Cuba to choose its own path of development. The Declaration also supportedthe ongoing struggles ofthe peoples ofAlgeria and Angola. It opposed the current foreign intervention in Tunisia and the Congo The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

(now Zaire). It condemned apartheid in South Africa and supported the full restoration ofall the rights oftheArab people ofPalestine in accordance with the UN Charter and resolutions. It sought a reduction ofEast-West tensions everywhere and called for the UN General Assembly to convene a special session on disarmament, an idea originally suggested by Tito. Non-aligned countries recommended that armaments expenditures be transferred to social and economic development. They also recommended that steps be taken to close the gap between the developed and less developed countries - a consequence of colonialism and imperialism. They called for the establishment of a United Nations capital development fund to aid developing countries. They called for all countries affected by the `economic blocs of industrial countries' to co-operate and consider meeting in an international conference to promote their mutual developmental concerns. Finally, the non-aligned expressed their support for the United Nations, but objected to this international organization being a mere reflection of the existing global power structure. They considered it essential that the Security Council be expanded to incorporate the new Third World membership within the UN and that the Secretariat too reflect the changes that the decolonization process had brought to the international community.9 On the final day of the Summit, delegates approved the Belgrade Declaration and a separate Statement on the Danger ofWar and Appeal for Peace. This separate statement was made at the suggestion ofNehru and was specifically directed at the US And USSR, proposing that they might, in an age ofnuclearweapons and the possibility oftotal global destruction, immediately suspend their preparations for war and begin negotiations for disarmament and peace. In addition, the conference decided to send identical messages to President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev indicating the concern of the non-aligned countries that continuing strained East-West relations contributed to a general deterioration of the global situation .1° In essence, non-aligned countries were asserting that big powers alone could not determine world events and that they had the right as members ofthe international community, though former colonies and developing societies, to participate in global politics. Moreover, as countries committed to certain principles of non- alignment, they intended to participate in international affairs for the purpose of creating a peaceful and more just world. The significance ofthe Belgrade Summit is that non-aligned countries: (a) adopted principles and criteria for membership; (b) gave concrete support to national liberation in the form of full membership to a provisional government; (c) formulated a global framework for their activities; (d) asserted their right as small and middle-sized states to participate in world politics - a concept they called the democratization of international

85 The Non-aligned Movement in International History and relations ; and (e) took direct action to bring about international peace security through their efforts to reduce East-West tensions.

From Belgrade to Cairo Cairo in A second summit meeting of non-aligned countries was held in number October 1964. In the years between Belgrade and Cairo there were -a reached a ofsignificant changes in the global system. The East-West conflict brought high point over the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 and nearly the world to a nuclear holocaust. Afterwards, tensions between the US and USSR began to diminish and the following year the two countries agreed on a Limited Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. There were also signs of a lessened emphasis on dividing the world into regional military pacts. For the United States there was no fundamental change in its doctrine of containing the expansion ofcommunism. During these years, however, the US government . modified its stance towards the non-aligned and other Third World countries by The Kennedy administration sought to gain the support ofthe ThirdWorld for identifying with their struggle for independence and their efforts the economic development. Technical assistance and economic aid, such as to Alliance for Progress programme in Latin America, were warmly offered developing countries, while at the same time military and intelligence favourable agencies functioned covertly to secure Third World governments China had to US interests. Elsewhere differences between the USSR and grown to the point where'they could not be resolved and were soon to affect their relations with the Third World. China's isolation in the world community continued and was not helped by the Sino-Indian border conflict of 1962. The non-aligned world celebrated victory in the Algerian War of Independence in 1962. In the Third World, more colonies in Africa and the Caribbean gained their independence largely through peaceful means. In other territories, such as South East Asia and Portuguese Africa, the independence struggle required arms to be taken up against colonialism and neo-colonialism. In these years, the world continued to see the expansion and intensification of liberation struggles in the Third World. The Congo (now Zaire) remained an international issue. Shortly after the Belgrade Summit, the United Nations lost its Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, in an air crash to during a mission . to resolve this continuing crisis which threatened exacerbate global tensions. Recent studies have confirmed the suspicion of non-aligned countries at that time that internal divisions in the Congo were being externally manipulated . The Congo problem also resulted in deep divisions between African countries and the crisis revealed an early attempt to destabilize the Non-aligned Movement.

86 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

On a more positive note, in July 1962, during the United Nations First Decade of Development, a number of non-aligned countries held a Special Conference in Cairo on the Problems of Economic Development. This meeting led indirectly to the creation ofthe Group of77. They discussed the growing disparity between developed and developing countries and how to promote economic development and co-operation within the framework of UN activities." Such a conference had been called for in the Belgrade Declaration. The following year, independent African states resolved some of their differences and formed a regional grouping, the Organization ofAfrican Unity (OAU), which promptly adopted a policy of non-alignment. In 1963, President Nasser and Prime Minister Bandaranaike of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) proposed another non-aligned conference which was supported by Nehru and Tito.12 Indonesia, in turn, had been calling for a second Afro-Asian meeting similar to the 1955 Bandung Conference, one in which China and Pakistan would be able to participate. Soekarno's efforts were opposed by those who saw a strictly Afro-Asian meeting, especially one under the influence ofChina, as a challenge to the newly formed Non-aligned Movement which was more international in representation and broader in its principles and objectives. The two meetings thus became entangled in the Sino-Soviet split. In the end, the Afro-Asian grouping failed to gain sufficient support and was forced to postpone its meeting indefinitely. Eventually much of its membership merged into the Non-aligned Movement.13

Colombo Preparatory Meeting, 23-28 March 1964 Yugoslavia, Egypt and Ceylon called a preparatory meeting in February 1964 to plan a second non-aligned summit conference. It was held at the ambassadorial level in Colombo between 23 and 28 March coinciding with the beginning of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva where the Group of 77 was formed. Prime Minister Bandaranaike noted in her opening address that a second conference was needed to reaffirm and strengthen the goals ofthe Movement and to respond to changes in the international situation, especially the improved relations between the US and USSR The meeting sought world peace and security and specifically noted the emergence of new nationalist forces in international affairs. A primary concern of the meeting was to expand the membership at the next summit. Delegates viewed as potential members the many newly independent African states as well as those countries that had adopted the general aims of non-alignment since 1961. Thus invitations were sent to the member states ofthe OAUand to those states which participated in the Arab Summit Conference ofJanuary 1964. The preparatory meeting divided its work among subcommittees for:

The Non-aligned Movement in International History

invitations and representation, the draft agenda, the draftjointcommunique, and even secretarial expenses. The most important for the history ofthe Movement was the subcommittee created to make recommendations on the representation ofnationalist movements in non-self-governing territories and new provisional governments. Consisting ofdelegates from Algeria, Ghana, India and Morocco, this subcommittee made the following recommendations : (a) All nationalist movements from Colonial territories which have not yet attained independence are welcome to present their views to the Conference and the host country will be requested to give them all facilities to do so. (b) Should any new provisional government be formed in Africa between now and the holding of the Conference, and be recognized by the Organization of African Unity, the Standing Committee should extend an invitation to that provisional government as a full member. (c) Should any new provisional government be formed in any colonial territory in continents other than the African continent, between now and the holding of the Conference, the Standing Committee should consider the matter and. after consulting and obtaining the approval ofall Member States, extend an invitation as observer or full member. la In accepting these recommendations unanimously, non-aligned countries took another step towards legitimizing and facilitating the involvement of national liberation movements and provisional governments in global politics. However, while the non-aligned were agreed that nationalist movements should participate in their meetings, there was as yet no consensus as to the form of the association. With regard to specific situations, the preparatory meeting agreed to invite Nyasaland (now Malawi), Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and British Guiana (now Guyana) as members ifthey obtained their independence before the conference. In addition, the provisional government of Angola was unanimously invited to participate as a full member of the conference. The preparatory meeting agreed that the Second Summit would be held in Cairo, in October 1964, and prepared a draft agenda. They also decided to hold a foreign ministers meeting prior to the conference ofheads of state or government at the same venue. Over the years, this has become institutionalized and is now standard practice within the Movement. Finally, in their communique, non-aligned countries explained that they were calling a second conference on an enlarged basis, with the object ofpromoting and consolidating the principles of the policy of non-alignment in order to safeguard peace and to assist the peoples ofthe world in the attainment of their aspirations for independence, s relaxation of international tension and progress.i

88 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

The international situation was vastly different on the eve of the Second Summit when the Movement was still coming into being. The East-West tensions that had dominated the Belgrade Conference were greatly reduced. Both the Soviet Union and the United States welcomed the Cairo Conference as a peace-making effort, but with different emphases. Pravda noted, with allusions to the Afro-Asian grouping, that this gathering would assist in the struggle against imperialism without dividing supporters `on a geographical or any other basis'. 16 PresidentJohnson in his message to the conference took the opportunity to woo the hearts and minds of the Third World. He noted the role the United States was taking to achieve disarmament and, with allusions to the Soviet Union, warned the non-aligned not to become confused by `other forms of imperialism'.17 More importantly, the number ofnewly independent states had increased, but the Sino-Soviet split, with its own set oftensions, was beginning to spill over into the ThirdWorld. The UnitedNations was showing greater attention to the problems of developing countries. International support for anti- colonial struggles was growing, but conflict situations in Vietnam, Cuba, the Congo and Cyprus, for example, still threatened to become arenas of international conflict that could result in global war. Finally, in May 1964, a few short months before the Cairo Summit, Nehru died. The Movement lost one of the founders of non-alignment and a major intellectual and political force in these still formative years of the organization.

Second Summit Conference of Non-aligned Countries, Cairo, 5-10 October 1%4 The Second Summit ofheads of state or government ofnon-aligned countries in Cairo, in October 1964, marked the beginning ofa shift ofthe Movement's centre from Asia to Africa, one whichwas to become fully evident in the years to follow. Membership in the Movement had almost doubled from 25 in Belgrade to 47 in Cairo. Of the 22 new members, 20 were African states, a result of the ongoing independence movements on the continent. The new members were Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Dahomey (Benin), Mauritania, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Syria, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar (now Tanzania), and Zambia. 18 The number of observer states had also increased from three to ten, with the majority coming from Latin America and the Caribbean. In three years, the Movement had been strengthened by its increased membership and broader international representation. The conference was influenced by the new international situation and the fact that the meeting was being held in Africa and in an Arab state. A thaw in

89 The Non-aligned Movement in International History

the Cold War and the increase in national liberation struggles resulted in more attention being given to anti-colonialism than to the East-West conflict which had pervaded the Belgrade Conference, In addition, between 23 March and 15 June 1964 the first UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) met in Geneva: developed and less developed countries met to discuss conditions ofworld trade as a basis for promoting development. The Group of 77 was thus born and was composed mainly ofcountries from the Non-aligned Movement. This group was to be in many ways the economic arm of the Movement at international meetings. The rise ofNasser as a Third World leader and the choice of Egypt as the host country also reinforced this shift. Egypt's modern history was one of rebellion and armed resistance against foreign interference, and ofrevolution to end monarchical rule and feudalism . Egypt was a crossroads linking Asia, the Arab world and the African world. Egypt was a member of the United Nations Security Council and ofthe Disarmament Committee formedin 1961 by the UN General Assembly. Cairo was also an international meeting place, having been previously chosen as the venue ofa number ofThird World, non- aligned and African gatherings. Nasser was recognized as more than Egypt's head of state. Few had challenged the Western world as he had by nationalizing the Suez Canal. He had become an Arab nationalist and defender of the rights of the Palestinian people. He favoured socialism as a path of socio-economic development. He was clearly an activist who sought a larger role for his country in regional and world affairs as demonstrated by his efforts to mediate differences between various African groupings and to reduce tensions in such international crises as Korea, Cuba and the Sino-Indian conflict.19 Non-aligned foreign ministers met on 2 October prior to the summit and approved changes in the conference agenda. The Movement's shift in emphasis was signalled by the increased attention given to eliminating colonialism and neo-colonialism with the addition ofsuch items for discussion as `concerted action for .national liberation of dependent countries' and 'self- determination' .Z0 This shift in. emphasis also appeared in the speeches of the heads of state and led to a discussion of peaceful coexistence . There were, in fact, different interpretations ofpeaceful coexistence. This had been apparent at Belgrade, but was suppressed by the overwhelmingly tense East-West relations. Tito promoted peaceful coexistence, with an emphasis on anti-bloc or equidistance between the US and USSR as the predominant concern of non-alignment. Yugoslavia's own situation, particularly its fear of Soviet intervention in its internal affairs, informed Tito's concerted effort to have small states play an active role in opposing war and gradually eliminating blocs. But the majority ofnon-aligned leaders, with Soekamo, Nkrumah and Shastri (the new Prime Minister of India) being

90 The First Three Summits : The Formative Years among the most vocal, found the Yugoslav view far too narrow. As former colonies ofWestern powers, their experiences were vastly different from that of Yugoslavia. They concluded that peaceful coexistence could only come with the elimination ofcolonialism, imperialism, neo-colonialism, racism and other forms o£ Western domination and exploitation 21 This view prevailed. . However, there were also some compromises in the final declaration with the more militant stances of confrontation with the major powers removed in exchange for items condemning nuclear bases abroad and the economic blockade of Cuba.22 Thus decolonization, self-determination and racism were the major concerns at the Cairo Conference. Peace was still paramount, but its achievement was viewed within the framework ofanti-colonialism, anti-neo- colonialism and anti-imperialism and not within the framework of negotiations between the two major powers. The Cairo Declaration was staunchly anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist. Its concerns also reflected the appearance of the many newly independent African states and their desire to support peoples everywhere still struggling for independence, especially those within their own continent. In their analysis of the international situation, non-aligned countries welcomed the improvement in East-West relations since the Belgrade Conference, but warned that as long as powerful imperialist interests persisted in using force `to defend their interests and to maintain their privileges' world peace was endangered. The basic goals and objectives ofnon-alignment were elaborated in the eleven sections of the Final Declaration which was nearly double the length of the Belgrade Declaration. There were a number of important developments since the First Summit meeting. First, non-aligned countries made a link between war and persistent foreign domination in all its forms. This was stated in the section on `Concerted Action for the Liberation of the Countries Still Dependent: Elimination o£ Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism and Imperialism': The Heads ofState or Government o£the Non-Aligned Countries declare that lasting world peace cannot be realized so long as unjust conditions prevail and peoples under foreign domination continue to be deprived of their fundamental right to freedom, independence and self-determination . Imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism constitute a basic source of international tension and conflict because they endanger world peace and security . . . At present a particular cause o£ concern is the military or other assistance extended-to certain countries to enable them to perpetuate by force colonialist and neo-colonialist situations which are contrary to the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. Imperialism uses many devices to impose its will on independent nations. Economic pressure and domination, interference, racial discrimination,

91 The Non-aligned Movement in International History

subversion, intervention and the threat of force are neo-colonialist devices against which the newly independent nations have to defend themselves. The Conference condemns all colonialist, neo-colonialist and imperialist policies applied in various parts of the world.23

In their analysis, political independence and self-determination were conditions for peace. Non-aligned countries specifically called attention to international tensions caused by external interference in such countries as the Congo, Cyprus and Cuba, and in the Indo-China region where people were struggling for their own path to political and socio-economic: development. Since world peace was based on freedom, equality andjustice, peaceful coexistence in the view of the non-aligned required the abolition of imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism.

In Defence of Armed Struggle for National Liberation With this in mind, non-aligned countries concluded that `the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible', and expanded their support for national liberation movements. They first clarified their position on armed struggle and stated under which conditions force could be utilized. The non- aligned affirmed the right of peoples to self-determination and condemned any effort, especially the use offorce, to prevent peoples from choosing their own destiny. They confidently defended the use of force for national liberation and asserted that colonized peoples had the legitimate right to resort to arms when colonial powers continue to oppose their `natural aspirations'. They also recommended that members give political, moral and material assistance to liberation movements. At Cairo, non-aligned countries recognized nationalist movements as being the `authentic representatives' of colonial peoples and called various colonial powers to negotiate with the leadership of these movements. They particularly noted the imperialist efforts to maintain control in Angola, Mozambique and other Portuguese territories, the southern African states, the Middle East and Latin America. They called attention to the struggles of colonial peoples everywhere. Given the locale ofthe meeting, the Movement paid special attention to the struggles ofthe Arab people ofPalestine and the African peoples against colonialism and racism. The conference also supported the inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine to self- determination, including the restoration of their rights to their homeland. The conference placed great emphasis on opposing racial discrimination. The Declaration strongly condemned the policy of apartheid in South Africa as genocidal, racist and a threat to world peace, and called for sanctions against the Republic of South Africa. It also opposed the efforts to establish a racist minority regime in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

92 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

The Movement also expanded its peace concerns. They introduced the concept ofpeace zones forthe first time and applied it here to ocean areas. The Declaration also recommended the establishment ofdenuclearized zones and called again for the convening ofa world disarmament conference. It opposed military pacts because they heightened global tensions. It opposed the presence of foreign troops and military bases in the territories ofothers as a violation of sovereignty and a threat to political independence. The non- aligned recognized the potential danger of border disputes, especially between Third World countries, and called for peaceful settlements of boundary differences. It continued to support the United Nations as the international body to promote peace and justice. On economic matters, the non-aligned began to link development with peace. In their view, peace requires a sound economic base. Foreshadowing a major economic statement adopted by the Movement at its Fourth Summit in Algiers in 1973, the non-aligned stated that the `persistence ofpoverty poses a threat to world peace and prosperity.' Peoples and nations have the right to control their national wealth and resources for their own economic development. They concluded that `a new and just economic order' was needed to enable all nations to live without fear, want or despair . In their first expanded statement on culture, science and technology, the non-aligned explained why they supported cultural equality as a principle. Culture helps to widen the mind and enrich life; that all human cultures have their special values and can contribute to the general progress; that many cultures were suppressed and cultural relations interrupted under colonial domination; that international understanding and progress require a revival and rehabilitation of these cultures; a free expression of their identity and national character, and a deeper mutual appreciation of their values so as to enrich the common cultural heritage of man.24 The Declaration then called for cultural, scientific and educational co- operation at the international and regional level. At the Cairo Conference, non-aligned countries adopted for the first time the practice of`reservation' whereby after the Final Declaration was adopted, countries could indicate their dissent on specific items while supporting the consensus document as a whole. Generally, reservations reflect a country's immediate national interests on a particular matter rather than differences of substance and are submitted after discussion with the home government. Reservations, for the most part, are rare and few in number. They do provide opportunities for flexibility and thus permit members of the Movement to function both collectively and, when necessary, individually, without disrupting the coalition. Non-aligned countries had now held two summit meetings. In these

93 The Non-aligned Movement in International History

gatherings, they found others who shared similar convictions, goals and objectives. They had grown in membership, were learning to work with one another, and had taken some steps towards building an organization. Their declarations from summit to summit had grown more militant. They had also become more action orientated. A number of recommendations made in Cairo, especially with regard to national liberation struggles, were later adopted at the UN largely through the efforts of the non-aligned members . These included, for example, the suspending ofrelations with Portugal for its repression of national liberation in its African colonies and similarly with South Africa for its apartheid policy. Non-aligned countries were also able to secure: the holding of a constitutional conference on the question of Zimbabwe, then Southern Rhodesia, with the inclusion of all political groupings; another Geneva Conference on Indo-China to achieve peace; the seating of the People's Republic of China at the United Nations; the consideration of the situation in Puerto Rico; and many others.z5 The significance of the Cairo Summit is that non-aligned countries: (a) increased their membership with additional representation from the African continent, beginning the Africanization of the Movement; (b) expanded support for national liberation by defending the legitimate right ofa people to take up arms, if necessary, to obtain independence; (c) made the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including rights to their homeland, a centrepiece of the Movement's activities; (d) adopted measures to oppose racism and colonialism, especially in Africa; (e) broadened peace efforts by calling for the creation of peace zones; and (I) began to link economic development with peace. But the non-aligned were still a grouping and had yet to become the international social movement that would function as a coalition in the international community to change the existingworld order. Six years were to pass before a third non-aligned Summit Conference was held in Lusaka in 1970 . These six years were tobe difficult ones for non-aligned and otherThird World countries.

From Cairo to Lusaka Not long after the Cairo Summit, china exploded a nuclear weapon, expanding the nuclear club. The world was reminded again of the need for global peace and security to ensure the survival ofhumanity. In the latter part ofthe 1960s, tensions between the US and USSR, though improved, remained strained with the continuation of the US war in Vietnam and the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968 . However, it was not East-West relations but the Third World that was the focus ofinternational attention in the years between the Cairo and Lusaka Summits. More militant and radical

94 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

nationalist governments began to make their appearance, for example in Libya, with the overthrow of the monarchy and the emergence of Gadafy. Existing national liberation movements intensified their struggle and new ones made their appearance. There was activity in all regions from Indo- China in Asia, Palestine in the Middle East, Cyprus in Europe, several Latin American countries, and throughout. southern Africa and the Portuguese African colonies. Resistance against colonialism and neo-colonialism also shifted to armed struggle. The successes ofChina, Cuba, Algeria and Vietnam contributed to the large-scale adoption of people's war against imperialism using guerrilla forces and strategy. The heroes ofthe daywere Mao Tse-tung, Vo Ng-uyen Giap, Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara (and shortly thereafter Amilcar Cabral), whose writings were read as much for their military as their political ideas.26 The political activism and revolutionary struggle ofthe Third World had repercussions in the West. In Europe, the longstanding Irish and Basque nationalists found new supporters. Leftist groupings throughout Western Europe, especially in France and Italy, were actively mobilizing in the streets. In the Americas, independence movements in Quebec and Puerto Rico were galvanized. The `Third World within' the United States, Black Americans, Native Americans (American Indians), Asian Americans and Chicanos (Mexican Americans) organized in attempts to free themselves from exploitation, racism and other forms of oppression which they analysed as a condition of `internal colonialism' .27 The result ofthis upsurge imanti-imperialist and anti-colonialist activity was a massive assault on the Third World, especially non-aligned countries, as Western powers ledbythe United States sought to control the degree ofsocial and political change throughout the globe. As Fred Halliday has succinctly summarized, the effort to control the Third World was fourfold: `direct military intervention, increased support for right-wing regimes, destabilization of post-revolutionary states, economic pressures'.28 In these years, for example, the United States landed marines in the Dominican Republic in 1965 and intensified its efforts to defeat the Vietnamese with an air war in 1966. Likewise, Portugal became more repressive, stepping up its efforts to'retain its African colonies, while in the Middle East, the June -1967 war transformed relations in the region. In a surprise attack against Egypt, Syria andJordan, Israel occupied the Sinai, Gaza, WestJordan, Syrianborder areas and the city ofjerusalem, wideningthe conflict which has remainedunresolved to this day. Elsewhereleading non-aligned heads ofstate were toppled. Notably, Soekarno of Indonesia and Nkrumah ofGhana were both forcibly displaced in 1966 by military coups supported by the US CIA, weakening the radical and nationalist support within the Non-aligned Movement. The following year in Latin America, Che Guevara was

95 International History The Non-aligned Movement in Thus the Non- assassinated in Bolivia, also with the assistance of the CIA. in the world. The Movement was under attack in every region aligned stalwarts ofthe humiliation of Nasser and the elimination from power ofsuch to cripple the Soekarno and Nkrumah were early efforts Movement as activity. The coalition and certainly contributed to a period of subdued Nehru was clearly felt in this period. absence of had to these external pressures, many non-aligned countries In addition to with China matters. India, for example, had border conflicts deal with internal during this Other countries experienced a change o£leadership and Pakistan. Sirimavo leaders like Keita of Mali, U Nu of Burma, and period. Activist roles, were of Ceylon, all of whom could play important Bandaranaike combined office and replaced by conservative regimes. These removed from years. A explain why the Movement did not meet again for six forces help to reveals examination ofthe activities ofnon-aligned countries, however, closer address the issues of they were not inactive, but had chosen instead to that the United Nations. peace and disarmament and ofeconomic development at that they concentrated their It was within this international body energies. convening of a World The Cairo Declaration had called for the United Nations. Disarmament Conference under the auspices of the countries worked towards Immediately after the Second Summit, non-aligned UN Disarmament bringing this to fruition. Through its members on the before the General Committee, this proposal was considered and brought non-aligned countries, Assembly in 1965. With the overwhelming support of which would establish a the General Assembly adopted a resolution that year a world disarmament preparatory committee to take steps towards convening Session of the General conference not later than 1967. (The fast Special however, until 23 May to 1 Assembly on Disarmament was not actually held, keep the question of July 1-978.) None the less, the Movement attempted to disarmament before the international community. US intervention in All of Indo-China - the US war in Vietnam, concern to non-aligned Cambodia, and the civil war in Laos - was ofmajor began a series of air countries. As the US and South Vietnam governments participated in talks raids on North Vietnam in 1965, non-aligned countries an end to hostilities. and were part of a 17-nation declaration appealing for communique to stop Shastri ofIndia andTito ofYugoslavia also issued ajoint period, non-aligned the bombing of North Vietnam. Throughout this called for the parties to countries continued to seek a peaceful solution and and confer29 meet non-aligned and Economic development was the primary concern of most in South East World countries. At the regional level, a number ofstates Third (ASEAN) in 1967 to Asia formed the Associationof South-East Asia Nations The First Three Summits: The Formative Years further economic co-operation. On a global level, developing countries formed a caucus, the Group of 77, at the Geneva Conference ofthe United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD I), to promote their objectives, which they found differed widely from those ofthe developed countries. The Geneva Conference was a non-aligned concept having been suggested by Tito at the Belgrade Summit, adopted by the Movement, and promoted by it in the UN General Assembly until its acceptance. With the numerical strength ofthe developing countries, but over the objections ofthe Western industrial countries, UNCTAD became a permanent unit within the United Nations and symbolized the hopes ofdeveloping countries for greater economic justice. This was only the beginning of the North-South political debates. In October 1967, a ministerial meeting ofthe Group of77 called to prepare for UNCTAD II was held in Algiers, capital ofAlgeria, a non-alignedcountry and inspiration to Third World liberation struggles. The governments ofboth Ben Bella and Boumedienne were staunchly nationalistic, not only on the issue of political independence, but also on that of national control over economic resources. Algeria now shifted its militancy from political independence to economic independence. In his opening address, Boumedienne placed the problem of developing countries within the context of North-South and not East-West relations. The easing of East-West tensions had not improved the conditions of developing nations, he noted. The primary confrontation in the world today, he argued, is `between imperialism and the Third World'. As the Third World had been pillaged and exploited in the past to make the developed world wealthy, so today the United States as the predominant imperial power was waging a war in Vietnam to crush the efforts ofpeoples to liberate themselves. The entire meeting was guided by his analysis of the problem of economic underdevelopment as a political question. Algeria's activism and militancy were also harbingers of events to come in future non-aligned meetings. Hereafter, developing countries recognized the political context ofeconomic dependence and underdevelopment. Thus any solution to global economic inequity required the politicalwill ofdeveloped countries to alter the existing structure of North-South relations . Third World countries ended the meeting with a strong sense of group solidarity and a Charter listing a set of proposals as a first step towards reforming the international economic system. They moved to the UNCTAD II meeting with a great sense of hope. They were sadly disappointed. After two months of meetings in New Delhi, from February to March 1968, the developed world conceded little. Having expended much energy working within the UN system with limited results, non-aligned members of the 30 Group of 77 turned back to the Movement

97 The Non-aligned Movement in International History

Given Yugoslavia's past history with the USSR, Tito was especially concerned about the recent Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. At his urgings, special government representatives of non-aligned countries attended a consultative meeting in Belgrade in July 1969. Until this time, the Movement in its search for peace and political independence had expressed its opposition to imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism . Discussions reaffirmed this and condemnations of US activities in Vietnam were vehement, while less was made of the Soviet Union's role in Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovakia incident, however, was the beginning of a dilemma for non-aligned countries. The communique of the meeting remained consistent with non-aligned principles, but incorporated the concerns of Tito who was able to gain support for his equidistance thesis. Thus the communique states that the trends in the world were being determined by the `confrontation' between peoples struggling for their independence in all forms and `the forces of imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism and all other forms of foreign domination'. Furthermore, these forces were often resorting to `power politics and pressure' in the `internal affairs of independent states' thereby jeopardizing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent states.31 At this meeting, the non-aligned also decided to take a more active approach internationally and within the United Nations. They considered ways and means by which they could meet more regularly and considered holding another conference ofheads ofstate or government. That September, in New York during the General Assembly, non-aligned foreign ministersmet and accepted the offer ofthe government ofTanzania to host a preparatory meeting to plan another summit conference32

Dar-es-Salaam Preparatory Meeting, 13-17 April 1970 Economic development and support for national liberation were the key issues of the Dar-es-Salaam meeting. In his opening message, President Nyerere took up the problem of socio-economic development set forth by Boumedienne at Algiers and called for economic linkages between developing countries. He specifically opposed any practice of giving economic aid to non-aligned countries with conditions so binding as to be unacceptable. To meet the growing importance of economic concerns, the meeting divided itself into two working committees, a political committee and an economic and technical committee. The result was a document on economic development and co-operation which recognized the efforts ofthe UN Second Decade of Development and UNCTAD, but deplored the slow progress. Non-aligned countries were highly critical of the failure of the developed countries 'to implement measures of structural adjustments at any early date' and asserted that there was a `notable lack of political will'33

98 The First Three Summits : The Formative Years

The major political issues were intervention, specifically in the Middle East and Vietnam, and decolonization and racism on the African continent. The non-aligned reaffirmed their support for the rights of the Arab people of Palestine to their homeland and of the people of Vietnam to choose their destiny without external interference . The meeting considered Israeli occupation of Arab lands and the escalation of military activities against civilians as major 9bstacles to peace andjustice in the region. It called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of foreign forces from Vietnam as a prerequisite to a peaceful solution. It called for an end to Portuguese colonialism in Africa, the apartheid regime in South Africa, and the illegal racist minority regime in Zimbabwe.34 Two questions on participation - the representation of the Cambodian government and the admission to membership ofthe provisional revolutionary government of South Vietnam - generated a great deal ofdebate, but could not be resolved and were postponed. Requests from both Prince Sihanouk and General Lon Nol to represent Cambodia divided the conference. The representatives decided that given the complexity ofthe Cambodian situation a subcommittee of five members, Tanzania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Ceylon and Guinea, should be formed to investigate the matter, meet with both delegations and report back. On the question ofSouth Vietnam's representation, about30 countries, half of them non-aligned, had given de jure recognition to the provisional revolutionary government ofSouth Vietnam, but there was still disagreement over accepting it as a full member ofthe non-aligned. Those in favour, led by Algeria, pointed out the precedent of admitting the PRG ofAlgeria and the Revolutionary Government of Angola in Exile at previous summit conferences. They noted that the PRG ofSouth Vietnam was in control ofthe territory and since it supported non-alignment, the Movement would be enhancing peace efforts in the region by admitting it. Furthermore, membership in the non-aligned need not be interpreted, by those who opposed its admission, as a recognition ofthe government. Those who spoke against the membership of the PRG, however, viewed South Vietnam as part ofa divided country; therefore, they held, the PRG did not trulyrepresent the country. There was, therefore, no analogy with previous PRGs. A third grouping of non-aligned countries sought a compromise and recommended that the PRG be granted observer status during the preparatory meeting and that the matter be forwarded to the heads of state for a decision. This was adopted. Non-aligned countries also reaffirmed their criteria for membership and settled the question ofPakistan's admission . Pakistan had never itselfformally applied for admission, although its membership had been proposed at the Belgrade consultative meeting andwas being recommendedat this meetingby

99 The Non-aligned Movement in International History

Jordan. Pakistan had participated in the Cairo economic meeting ofJuly 1962 and nadicated an interest in non-aligned principles and activities. However, it remained a member of military alliances, and this was not permitted by the Movement. Non-aligned countries did recognize that military alliances and bases were not always of their choosing and were often forced upon Third World countries. The Movement, therefore, merely required that a country indicate its desire to relinquish these imposed attachments, There were many in support ofPakistan, including Yugoslavia, a founding member, who hoped that this could encourage other countries in situations similar to Pakistan's to disengage from their military alliances andjoin the Movement. Others, led by India, were in opposition, arguing that Pakistan was not making any effort to detach itself from military alliances. They argued that admitting Pakistan would water down the principles ofthe Movement and devalue the grouping in the eyes ofthe major powers. The question was declared irrelevant at this time, however, as Pakistan had not officially applied for membership. The meeting decided to maintain the criteria for membership established in 1961 and to consider only those who made application 35 This debate, none the less, served to clarify their thinking on the principles and goals of non- alignment. The preparatory meeting did make a decision on the nature ofparticipation of liberation movements. Until a further ruling by the heads of state, liberation movements would be invited to address non-aligned conferences and be permitted to remain in the conference hall for the entire meeting during which they made their statement. African liberation movements recognized by the OAU and Asian liberation movements recognized by Asian organizations and states would be heard. The following liberation movements made presentations at the Dar-es-Salaam meeting: the National Liberation Movement ofComoro (MOLINACO), the Zimbabwe African Nation Union (ZANU), the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAP", the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).36 These preparations for the Third Summit revealed that the Movement remained a vital factor' in world politics. They also clearly indicated that priorities had shifted and that the nationalist and radical tendencies within the Movement were prominent and influential, but not in control. Changes in the international situation have often produced new leaders within the Movement to meet the different needs ofnon-aligned countries as they arise. The loss of founding leaders like Nehru and Nasser through death (Nasser died in September 1970 on the eve ofthe Lusaka Summit), and Soekarno, Nkrumah and others through political destabilization, was significant, but not crippling. Tito continued to play an important administrative role in ensuring that meetings be called. His emphasis on East-West relations and peaceful

100 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years coexistence was at that time less important to most non-aligned countries than economic development. For African countries, which now made up a sizeable part of the Movement, the problems of national liberation and racism on the continent were paramount. Thus in the next era, African leaders were to dominate. This had already been apparent with the role taken earlier by Nasser at the Cairo Summit and now was again with the activism of Boumedienne of Algeria and Nyerere of Tanzania. The preparatory meeting thus agreed to have a Third Summit Conference ofnon-aligned countries priorto the 25th session ofthe United Nations and to hold it in Africa. A Standing Committee of 16 members to co-ordinate arrangements for the Summit was also formed with representation from all regions (nine Africans, five Asians, one from Latin America and one from Europe; these included four from the Arab World. In recognition of the importance ofBlack Africa to the Movement and to help consolidate African unity, Algeria withdrew its invitation to host the Summit Conference in favour of Zambia. The heads ofstate or government ofnon-aligned countries would next meet in Lusaka.37

Third Summit Conference of Non-aligned Countries, Lusaka, 8-10 September 1970 The international situation at the time of the Third Summit was one of beginning detente between the US and USSR. The threat of nuclear war had lessened slightly and the two major powers had commenced strategic arms, limitation talks in 1969. The crisis points were in the Third World, especially the Middle East, South EastAsia and Southern Africa, where the possibility of regional conflict expanding into international conflict remained real. In 1969, President Nixon had announced the `Vietnamization' ofthe war whereby US troops were being withdrawn to be replaced by South Vietnamese soldiers. The US government now adopted a policy ofdelegating to a number ofselect Third World countries the responsibility for military containment of revolutionary change in the Third World.38 In the economic sphere, the resurgence of Western Europe and the appearance of Japan as major economic powers presented a challenge to the United States. Moreover, the industrialized Western world was shaken in 1968 and forced to begin recognizingits dependence on Third World resources when a number ofArab states increased the price of oil after the Arab-Israeli Six Day War. In the Third World, many radical and nationalist movements were crushed or destabilized, but a new revolutionary government was established in South Yemen in 1967. The decolonization process was progressing, but with fierce and continued opposition to the self-determination of African peoples in southern Africa and the Portuguese colonies. Holding the non-aligned The Non-aligned Movement in International History

Summit in southern Africa helped to focus attention on the problems of racism, military expansionism and imperialist oppression in the region. After many years of political independence, the major concern of Third World countries was economic development. The United Nations, celebrating its 25th anniversary in 1970, was being transformed by. the increased number of Third World countries. The Security Council, for example, was forced to broaden its non-permanent membership from six to ten and to reflect regional distribution. At the insistence ofthe Third World, especially non-aligned countries, the United Nations had also taken up many issues relating to developing countries. Thus the Non-aligned Movement, particularly through the General Assembly, was beginning to democratize international relations. Following the practice first introduced at the Cairo Conference, the Lusaka Conference was preceded by a meeting of the foreign ministers of non- aligned countries. For two days, 6 and 7 September, the foreign ministers took care ofprocedural problems, such as the organization ofwork, the election of officers, the agenda items and membership questions, so that the heads ofstate 39 or government would deal only with substantive issues. Cambodian representation and membership ofthe provisional revolutionary government of South Vietnam were discussed again. These issues revealed that splits were emerging within the Movement. Lacking information about conditions in Cambodia and instructions from their governments, the subcommittee formed at the Dar-es-Salaam preparatory meeting had been unable to submit a report on Cambodia's representation . The matter came before the foreign ministers. Cambodia, under the leadership of Prince Sihanouk, was an original member ofthe Movement. The country was now in the midst of a civil war, a victim of external intervention. Three major positions were taken in the debate. Most of the support went to the government ofPrince Sihanouk. His defenders argued that Sihanouk was the true representative ofthe Cambodian people, that he controlled two-thirds of the territory, and that his was a policy ofpeace, neutrality and non-alignment . The Somalian representative warned his African colleagues that what had happened to Cambodia could also occur in southern Africa. As the representative from South Yemen summed up the defence, the Cambodian people were refusing to accept the authority of the new Government and had engaged in armed struggle to liberate their country from the imperialist invaders. One of the basic principles of non-alignment was opposition to imperialism, and the non-aligned states should stand by that principle.40 Thus the conference's support for Sihanouk would mean the refusal ofnon- aligned countries to be passive in the face of imperialist aggression.

102 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

Supporters ofthe Lon Nol government were fewer, but argued that his was the recognized government in the capital of Phnom Penh, that the United Nations had accepted the credentials of the new government, and that this government also proclaimed adherence to the principles of non-alignment . For the Malaysian representative and others like him who opposed in principle the participation of governments in exile. the defacto government was rightfully the dejure government and entitled to occupy Cambodia's seat at non-aligned meetings. A third grouping argued that Cambodia's seat should remain vacant temporarily. A number of reasons were presented . Some suggested that the conference should not intervene in the internal affairs ofa member.state and that the decision ofwhich government should represent Cambodia ought to be left to its own people to settle. Others argued, on the other hand, for the non-aligned to take `positive action' to help the Cambodian people to free themselves from imperialism. No consensus could be reached on the Cambodian question. Of the 40 speakers in the debate, 21 supported Prince Sihanouk, seven supported General Lon Nol, and twelve favoured leaving the seat vacant. These divisions were manifestations of the different ideological tendencies that were emerging within the Movement. Marxist-Leninist and radical nationalist countries, including Yugoslavia, Yemen, Tanzania, Algeria, Mali, Cuba and Iraq, for example, were among the supporters of Sihanouk. Conservatives, largely neo-colonial dependent capitalist states, such as Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and Malaysia, supported Lon Nol. A wide range ofcountries, such as Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Indonesia, Morocco, Kenya, Egypt, India, Ghana and Afghanistan, mostly liberalsocial democracies, tended to advocate leaving the seat vacant as a compromise or temporary solution. Given the lack of consensus, this position prevailed. Thus while left-leaning non-aligned countries had the largest number of supporters on this issue, the right could still limit their ability to act. Still the left could be satisfied that they had achieved their major objective by preventing the seating of the Lon Nol government, the candidate ofimperialist forces. Both rival delegations from Cambodia attended the conference, but the seat was left empty.41 The question of the participation of the provisional revolutionary government ofSouth Vietnam also resulted in a compromise decision. India proposed that the PRG be granted observer status at the Summit Conference, as it had been at the preparatory meeting in Dar-es-Salaam . Though left and radical nationalist members ofthe Movement would have preferred the PRG to participate as a full member, they recognized that there was general support for the observer status. Only four countries, Liberia, Swaziland, the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo (Zaire) and Lesotho, disapproved, again on the principle that such an action might imply general recognition of

103 The Non-aligned Movement in International History provisional governments or governments in exile. Fearful of complications in the future, they submitted reservations. However, the Indian proposal was adopted by consensus with little debate as Both decisions were clear indications that while the Movement was in general agreement on a number of fundamental principles, specific issues could bring to the foreground the different ideological tendencies within it. The question of Cambodia's (later Kampuchea's) representaion would come up several times. As the Movement evolved these tendencies became identified with a core group of countries, with each tendency gaining new supporters as the non-aligned grew in membership. These tendencies would now be exploited by opponents ofthe non-aligned countries in an attempt to destroy the effectiveness of the Movement. Fifty-three member countries, ten observer countries; and two guest countries, Austria and Finland, attended the Third Conference of Heads of State or Government in Lusaka. Representatives from the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity were also present as observers. New members were Botswana, Congo Kinshasa (separate from Congo Brazzaville, already a member), Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, Jamaica, Lesotho, Malaysia, Rwanda, South Yemen, Singapore, Swaziland, and Trinidad and Tobago. National liberation movements such as the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, FRELIMO (Mozambique Liberation Front), Pan-African Congress (PAC), and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), attended as guests and addressed the gathering. This was an important part ofthe functioning of the Movement as their presentations provided up-to-date information on the status of the various liberation struggles, including their advances and their difficulties, enabling the non-aligned to formulate action on their behalfat the United Nations. In addition, these meetings provided opportunities for the liberation struggles to share their experiences with one another and to gain advice and support from non-aligned members.43 The Non-aligned Movement lost another of its major advocates with the death ofPresident Nasser ofEgyptjust prior to the Third Summit. This left Tito, the only surviving founding leader, to assume much ofthe responsibility for maintaining contacts among the member states. The Lusaka Conference was primarily a reaffirmation of non-alignment and a call for its members to rededicate themselves to the fundamental goals and objectives ofthe Movement. Membership and interest in the Movement continued to grow. The need for the Movement was apparent given the continuing global problems ofwar, the arms race, racism, and political, social and economic inequality. These were the major concerns during the discussions. The primary objectives of peace, decolonization, non-interference and support for the UN were reiterated. More attention was given to

104 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years economic development, reflecting the disillusionment of the non-aligned countries with the lack of progress during the first UN Decade of Development and their hopes for a better second decade. They thus recognized the need for more action and set long-term goals and elaborate programmes to create a new world order. The Final Declaration consisted oftwo separate declarations, one political, the other economic, and a number of resolutions. Not having met for a number ofyears at the level of heads ofstate, non-aligned countries took the opportunity in their Political Declaration, `Peace, Independence, Develop- ment, Co-operation and Democratization of International Relations', to explain why they came into being: The policy of non-alignment has emerged from the determination of independent countries to safeguard their national independence and the legitimate rights of their peoples. The growth of non-alignment into a broad international movement cutting across racial, regional and other barriers, is an integral part ofsignificant changes in the structure of the entire international community . It is the result of the world anti-colonial revolution and the emergence ofa large number ofnewly liberated countries which, opting for an independent political orientation and development, have refused to accept the replacement ofcenturies-old forms ofsubordination by new ones. At the root of these changes lies the ever more clearly expressed aspiration of member- nations for freedom, independence and equality, and their determination to resist all forms ofoppression and exploitation. This hasbeen the substance and meaning ofour strivings and actions; this is a confirmationofthe validity ofthe Belgrade and Cairo Declarations . At a time when the polarisation of the international community on a bloc basis was believed to be a permanent feature ofinternational relations, and the threat ofa nuclear conflict between the big powers an ever-present spectre hovering over mankind, the non- aligned countries opened up new prospects for the contemporary world and paved the way for relaxation of international relations44 Non-aligned countries asserted that the need was not to redefine non- alignment, but to strengthen their support for its basicprinciples and aims. For the first time, the Movement stated these in some detail. The principles important to the non-aligned were given as follows : the right of the peoples who are not yet free to freedom, self-determination and independence; respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States; the right ofall States to equality and active participation in international affairs; the right of all sovereign nations to determine, in full freedom, the paths oftheir internal political, economic, social andculturaldevelopment; the right ofall peoples to the benefit ofeconomic development and the fiuits of the scientific and technological revolution; refraining from the threat or use of force, and the principle of peaceful settlement of.disputes.45

105 The Non-aligned Movement in International History

In addition, the aims of the Movement were to include: the pursuit ofworld peace and peaceful co-existence by strengthening the role of non-aligned countries within the United Nations so that it will be a more effective instrument against all forms ofaggressive action and the threat or use of force against the freedom, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity ofany country; the fightagainst colonialism and racialism which are a negation ofhuman equality anddignity; the settlement ofdisputes by peaceful means; the ending of the arms race followed by universal disarmament; opposition to great power military alliances and pacts; opposition to the establishment of foreign military bases and foreign troops on the soil ofother nations in the context of great power conflicts and colonial and racist suppression ; the universality of, and the strengthening ofthe efficacy of the United Nations; and the struggle for economic independence and mutual co- operation on a basis of equality and mutual benefit.46 The Political Declaration strongly reiterated the opposition of non-aligned countries to intervention in the internal affairs ofstates, especially the wars being waged inthe Middle East and Indo-China, the continued oppression of African peoples in southern Africa, and the arms race. The forces ofracism, apartheid, colonialism and imperialism were to be opposed because they threatened world peace. They called for the democratization ofinternational relations, co-operation between developing countries, and a closing ofthe gap between the developed and less developed worlds. In their declaration on 'Non-alignment and Economic Progress', non-aligned countries concluded for the first time that a `structural weakness in the present world economic order' was responsible for poverty and economic dependence. Past colonialism and its present form, neo-colonialism, endangered the political and economic independence ofdeveloping countries and contributed to global inequality. They pledged themselves to a `spirit ofself-reliance', national socio- economic progress, and mutual co-operation. A Programme of Action was introduced in the areas of planning, trade, production, and scientific and technological exchange, to be accomplished through joint relations between developing countries and within the activities of the United Nations. The Declaration appealed to the UN to recognize the developmental process as a global problem requiring 'international action', if both developing and developed countries were to benefit, and for this body to use its machinery to rapidly transform the world economic system. The non-aligned thus placed the problem of development in a global framework and called for increased horizontal linkages among themselves and for international co-operation through the UN. Theywere determinedto strengthen the UNsystem to support the restructuring o£ the global economic system and called for another ministerial meeting to prepare for UNCTAD III scheduled for April 1972.47

106 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

At Lusaka, the non-aligned also began a practice of adopting resolutions on concerns they deemed critical and in needofsupport. Given their analysis ofthe current international situation and the immediate concerns ofthe host country and region, imperialist intervention globally and the decolonization ofsouthern Africa were the key issues ofthe Third Summit. There were separate resolutions opposing foreign intervention, occupation and wars in Indo-China, the Middle East, Cyprus, Zimbabwe, Namibia and the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau. These resolutions supported the various anti- colonial and anti-imperialist struggles and the'rights ofpeoples to choose their own future. The non-aligned called for, respect for the territoriality and sovereignty ofall states, no matter how small. They condemned the activities of foreign financial interests in the Portuguese colonies and Namibia for exploiting the natural and human resources there and for obstructing the progress of independence. In addition, there were separate resolutions in support of decolonization and in opposition to apartheid and racial discrimination. The non-aligned condemned by name those countries, especially NATO states, for directly or indirectly strengthening colonial and racist regimes and for their collaboration, political, economic and military, with the government of South Africa, enabling it to maintain its apartheid policy. In their resolution on disarmament, non-aligned countries continued to seek a world disarmament conference and welcomed the United Nations designation ofthe 1970s as the `Disarmament Decade' . Recognizing the danger that nuclear weapons presented to humanity, they also set up a number of priorities with emphasis on the nuclear field, such as calling for a halt in the production of nuclear weapons, a test ban and the reduction and destruction of stockpiles of nuclear weapons, as well as the prohibition ofthe development, production and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons. Non-aligned countries also issued a separate statement in support of the United Nations. They continued to view the UN as the most important vehicle for promoting peace and security, and co-operative relations between states. Two new proposals were made: the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace and peacefuluses ofthe seabed. However, the non-aligned were critical ofthe many UN member states who did not participate in the international organization to find solutions to the existing global problems and strongly urged the UN to be more effective in a number of areas, especially disarmament and economic and social development Finally, the heads of state turned their attention to the functioning of the Movement itself. President Kenneth Kaunda expressed this concern in his opening statement: A call for action is not enough unless there exists an adequate machinery to carry it out. Perhaps this is the one factor to which not much attention was givenin the past . . . Itis for this reason that we genuinely needthe machinery formaintaining

107 The Non-aligned Movement in International History

contact among us to ensure continuity in the development ofthe non-aligned movement and the implementation of our decisions 49 While resisting the establishment of a formal and alternative structure that could detract from the workings ofthe United Nations, non-aligned countries realized the importance of developing mechanisms to facilitate and consolidate the activities of the Movement. There was no agreement on the character of the organizational machinery other than flexibility, especially since the Movement lacked financial resources. They then adopted a resolution `On the Strengthening ofthe Role ofthe Non-aligned Countries' . The resolution was deliberately open. it entrusted the chairman `with the function of taking all necessary steps to maintain contacts among member States, ensure continuity, and carry into effect the decisions, resolutions and directives ofthe Conference ofNon-Aligned Countries'. The resolution also requested representatives of non-aligned countries to work in co-operation within the UN and its agencies to achieve the goals and objectives of the conference.so After a lapse of six years, non-aligned countries were determined to build up their organization. With the death of Nehru and now Nasser and the advanced age ofTito who was in his late seventies, the Movement recognized the need to develop new leadership. At the same time, the growing numbers had made it more difficult for members to maintain contact, while the global situation necessitated that they confer regularly to share common concerns and plan joint activities. Thus the non-aligned countries decided to continue the Standing Committee established at Lusaka and designated as chairman with specific responsibilities till the next Summit the head of state ofthe host country, President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia. The Lusaka Summit revealed that non-aligned countries were a tenacious grouping and had: (a) remained committed to their principles in spite ofa long delay between summits; (b) initiated a concept and programme of mutual economic co-operation among themselves, later to be known as collective self-reliance; (c) expanded and supported the role ofthe UnitedNations in the areas ofdisarmament and economic development; (d) made the decolonization of southern Africa a priority in conjunction with opposing imperialist intervention globally; and (e) established the beginnings of an organizational machinery within the Movement to co-ordinate their activities. After Lusaka, the heads ofstate would meet again in Algiers three years later, in 1973. With the confirmation of their basic principles and the beginnings of an organizational structure, the formative years of the Movement were coming to an end.

108 The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

From Lusaka to Algiers Two overriding factors dominated the international situation in the early 1970s. First, there was a final split between the USSR and China. Differences between the two states erupted after their 1969 border incident and especially as China came to portray the USSR as an `imperialist' or 'social-imperialist' power. This shift in China's attitude towards the Soviet Union reflected internal changes of policy which also helped to pave the way for its new relations with the United States. Secondly, and more importantly, there was the dramatic change in US foreign policy, primarily towards the communist world, and to a lesser extent towards the Third World. During the Nixon years with Henry Kissinger as the president's key adviser, the United States pursued a policy ofdetente, the first significant relaxation ofa confrontationist strategy to containthe expansion ofcommunism globally since World War II. The world thus experienced a thaw in the Cold War, although in hindsight it was only a brief respite in East-West tensions. In 1972 with Nixon's historic visit to Beijing, the United States opened relations with the People's Republic ofChina and further widened the Sino- Soviet split. In playing the `China card' Nixon hoped to use China to offset the Soviet Union and to gain China's influence in the Third World, especially in resolving the situation in Indo-China. That same year the US and USSR signed the SALT-I agreement. In the spirit ofdetente, Nixon visited Brezhnev in Moscow and the following year, Brezhnev came to the United States. As part of the Nixon Doctrine and largely because of the US failure to control events in Indo-China and the strong domestic opposition to the war in Vietnam, the US government continued its policy oftransferring the military responsibility ofmanaging security problems to specific countries in different parts of the world. Commencing with the Vietnamization policy, the US began to withdraw from direct and overt military intervention. Instead it entrusted to select governments in various regions, such as Iran, Indonesia and Brazil, the task ofprotecting US interests globally and gave them the military means to fulfil that task.sl There were a number ofchanges in the Third World. In Latin America, the election of Salvador Allende in Chile and the efforts of his Popular Unity government to adopt a socialist model ofdevelopment attracted world-wide attention. Panama sought to regain sovereignty ofthe Canal Zone and Peru's citizens secured a greater measure of political control and social progress. Social-democratic governments came to power in 1972 in Ghana andJamaica. In Africa, the armed struggle for independence in the territories and colonies of southern Africa and Portuguese Africa continued . In the Middle East, a number ofArab countries sought the return of their territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 war. In Indo-China, the United States continued its

109 The Non-aligned Movement in International,History bombing ofCambodia while propping up the Lon Nol government. The war in Vietnam, however, was finally drawing to a close. The determination ofthe Vietnamese people and their decades of sacrifice along with the international support given to their struggle, finally led the United States to conclude the Paris Accords in January 1973. The US government finally began making preparations to withdraw its forces at the end of the year. In the economic arena, developing countries used the second meeting ofthe Group of 77 at Lima in autumn 1971 and the third meeting of UNCTAD at Santiago in spring 1972 to seek greater participation in reforming world trade and the international monetary system. Both meetings defended in principle the right ofdeveloping countries to be involved in economic decision-making at the global level. The Non-aligned Movement, in contrast to the previous period, was extremely active and initiated a series of meetings to follow up the Lusaka Declaration and to prepare for the Algiers Summit. They held regular conferences at a number ofrepresentative levels. The Movement also insisted on meeting in different regions ofthe world to enable its members to become more familiar with each other's situation. The decision taken at Lusaka to create a chair to co-ordinate the activities of the non-aligned countries greatly enhanced the development of a diverse grouping into an international social movement. As host country of the last summit, Zambia assumed the chairship of the Movement and under Paul Lusaka's able leadership as his country's representative at the United Nations, the Movement met twice in New York at UN headquarters, five times in South America, twice in Asia, and twice in Africa, in the three years between the summits. Almost immediately after the Lusaka Conference, non-aligned foreign ministers went to the United Nations to prepare for the General Assembly. During several days of consultations in the latter half of September, the ministers considered the problems of peace and international security and ways to promote the Lusaka Declaration at the General Assembly session. With the support of non-aligned countries, the 26th session of the General Assembly passed a resolution on the declaration ofthe Indian Ocean as a zone ofpeace, adopted a declaration on international security, and finally seated the People's Republic ofChina as a member ofthe United Nations, recognizing it as the legitimate representative of the people of China. Non-aligned countries next held a series of preparatory meetings to plan the third conference of non-aligned foreign ministers. At Georgetown, Guyana, the first non-aligned meeting on the South American continent, from 17 to 19 February 1972, and at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 23 to 26 May 1972, much of the discussion was on economic matters. They welcomed the relaxation ofEast-West tensions, but noted that although the bi-polar power The First Three Summits: The Formative Years structure had become increasingly multi-polar with the expansion and consolidation ofthe European Economic Community and the prominence of Japan, the major powers still determined global decision-making, notably at the United Nations, where they were able through the Security Council veto to oppose the will ofthe majority in the General Assembly. Furthermore, as the Prime Minister ofMalaysia stated in his opening speech at Kuala Lumpur, the international political power structure might be becoming multi-polar, but it was still economically bi-polar - divided between the rich and developed and the poor and underdeveloped. Non-aligned countries also submitted topic papers for consideration by the members which served as a means of generating discussion and of keeping each other informed of developments in their region ofthe world. For example, at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, Malaysia prepared papers on South East Asia as a zone ofpeace and on the law ofthe sea, while Yugoslavia made suggestions on the purpose and function of the ministerial meeting, and Egypt described the most recent events in the Middle East, particularly Israel's aggressive and expansionist policies.52 On 25 July 1972, the Co-ordinating Committee of non-aligned countries met in New Yorkwhere Algeria submitted its request to serve as the venue for the Fourth, Summit. According to the practice of the non-aligned, this and other matters were circulated among the members and forwarded to Georgetown where the foreign ministers meeting was scheduled.53 Two more meetings were held in Georgetown before the foreign ministers conference. A committee ofeconomic experts from the non-aligned countries met on 30July and 1 August. The experts recommended a series ofproposals to implement the Lusaka Economic Declaration. Occurring a few months after the UNCTAD III meeting in Santiago, the non-aligned experts explained their action: In advancing new initiatives among the non-aligned countries the steps proposed are in no way intended to conflict with but to strengthen the overall perspectives and policies ofthe `Group 77' as outlined inthe Charter ofAlgiers and the Lima Declaration towards the implementation ofthe United Nations' International Development Strategy. Rather, they are intended to form the basis not only for generating andcontinuing the pressuresby all the developing countries for the solution ofoutstanding economic issues with the developed countries but also for encouraging greater self-reliance and cooperation among the developing countries . Accordingly, the wider purpose of the recommendations andActionProgramme which follow is to seek to ensure the adherence of all the countries in the `Group 77' to the programmes and strategies suggested for the non-aligned countries.5a Or, as one expert argued, the Third World could not depend on the The Non-aligned Movement in International History economists from the developed world to `provide a new system as it would be inevitable that they would tend to devise a system of world trade and international finance which would best serve the interests of their own countries' . He thus called upon the non-aligned to rely on their own initiative and ingenuity to devise a system that would best serve their needs.55 The experts concluded that greater pressure on the developed countries was needed if there was to be a restructuring of the global economic system and that more self-reliance should be encouraged along with regional and interregional economic co-operation. They made a number of proposals on financing, trade, investments, technology and other areaswith an emphasis on South-South linkages. In addition, they recognized the uneven development within the Third World and called for greater attention to the `least developed' countries56 A few days later, the week before the foreign ministers conference, the preparatory committee gathered in Georgetown to conclude its final arrangements. 57

Third Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Non-aligned Countries, Georgetown, 8-12 August 1972 The Georgetown meeting of ministers of foreign affairs of non-aligned countries was important for the attention paid to economic matters . But the Declaration was political in orientation and included a detailed Action Programme for Economic Co-operation . Georgetown is historically important for the organization of the Movement in that it demonstrated the need for members to meet at the level of foreign ministers in the period between the summits to assess the international situation. Hereafter foreign ministers meetings would be field on a regular basis. The attendance at Georgetown was overwhelming. Fifty-nine states were present including the provisional revolutionary government of the Republic of South Vietnam as a full member, although final approval was not given until the forthcoming Summit and there were still a few reservations. Prince Sihanouk was also recognized as the legitimate and exclusive representative of the people of Cambodia. With these decisions, non-aligned countries continued their support for national liberation and further extended their political and moral solidarity with the struggles of the people ofIndo-China for self-determination without external interference and for the right to choose their own form of development. The meeting divided into political and economics committees. Each reviewed a number ofworking papers submitted by the various countries and prepared its own report. The economics committee was most concerned with the right ofnations to control their own natural resources and with the role of transnational corporations. In their preamble, they placed the economic The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

problems of the non-aligned within a political context and linked development with peace and security: The Ministers ofForeign Affairs . . . declare that imperialism continues to be the major obstacle in the way ofdeveloping countries, and ofthe Non-Aligned Countries in particular, attaining standards ofliving consistent with the most elementary norms of human dignity. Imperialism not only opposes the proposals made by the countries ofthe Third World but assumes a belligerent attitude thereto, and systematically attempts to undermine its social, economic and political structures in order to maintain economic colonialism, dependence, and neo-colonialism. This state of affairs, apart from violating sovereignty and independence, takes on the characteristics ofan aggression against the economies ofthe peoples who do not submit to its rules and dictates, going so far as to foster poverty and even wars in large areas of the world . . . The Non-Aligned Countries believe it is fundamentally important to stress that the full exercise oftheir sovereignty over natural resources is essential for economic independence, which is closely linked to political independence, and that the latter is consolidated by strengthening the former. The sovereign right of each State to dispose of its natural wealth and resources, including nationalization, is inherent in the principles of self-determination of the peoples and of non-intervention. Any threat and any measure or external pressure constitutes an act of aggression and, consequently, a threat to 'international peace and security.58 In addition, they denounced the practices and activities of transnational corporations which violated the sovereignty of developing countries and interfered with the self-determination ofpeoples. In theirAction Programme for Economic Co-operation among Non-Aligned Countries, the ministers emphasized self-reliance and economic co-operation among themselves. Task groups around specific economic issues were also formed of countries on a regional basis.59 The political committee in its review of the international situation welcomed the adoption of the Declaration on international Security by the UN General Assembly and prepared its own Statement on International Security and Disarmament. In it the non-aligned emphasized the need to end military alliances, to reduce the arms race, including progress towards nuclear disarmament, and called again for a world disarmament conference. In their view, the growing economic disparity between the developed and developing countries represented a threat to world peace and security and recommended that the savings from a policy of disarmament should be turned over to development programmes.bo The Georgetown Declaration noted the increased interdependency in international relations as exemplified by the new multi-polar system at the same time that aspirations for independence, self-reliance and control over The Non-aligned Movement in International History their natural resources were being strongly articulated by developing countries. The foreign ministers welcomed detente but were concerned that the big powers continued to dominate and that the United Nations was not being utilized to address global issues. The non-aligned also noted the progress ofnational liberation movements and opposed the efforts of colonial regimes with the support of the Western powers to brutally repress them. The conference called for the reform of the international monetary and trade systems and adopted a number ofresolutions in support ofdecolonization and national liberation. In addition, further steps were taken for the institutionalization of the Movement. The conference passed a resolution recommending that non- aligned countries meet at the ministerial level at the United Nations during the General Assembly and that the Movement consider creating a standing committee based on regional distribution and rotation to specifically prepare for the annual September ministerial meeting. Small working groups of four members with the various regions represented were also given specific responsibilities in the economic areas of trade, industry and transportation, financial co-operation among developing countries, and international co- operation .6l These repeated gatherings contributed to the cohesiveness of the non- aligned countries as abody at the 27th meeting ofthe United Nations General Assembly. Here they actively promoted their concerns and were unanimous on a number ofissues, for example their support ofthe people ofVietnam and Zambia and the struggles of the Arab peoples.62 The preparatory committee next met in Kabul, Afghanistan, in May and in Algiers in late August 1973 to finalize arrangements for the Fourth Summit Conference. Interest in the Movement persisted as more countries submitted requests for participation. In order to promote co-operation and to broaden support for the principles ofnon-alignment, non-aligned countries insisted on retaining the original criteria for membership, but were sympathetic to some flexibility in considering these requests. The purpose ofthese meetings was to prepare the draft agenda. There were discussions on the format, namely, whether the agenda should be short and specific or elaborate and detailed. There was consensus on the latter to ensure that issues be fully discussed. Furthermore, the preparatory committee decided on a political approach to the issues with an emphasis on action.

Use of Consensus For the first time, the non-aligned discussed at length their use ofconsensus in decision-making at the Kabul meeting. The guidelines for adopting such a process were explained in detail in the chair's statement as follows : The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

The non-aligned movement today encompasses countries from different regions o£ the world with widely differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and political and economic systems. Amidst this diversity of non-aligned countries, however, there exists a fundamental unity of purpose; indeed, this unity in diversity is the essence of the strength and vitality ofthe movement. The success of the movement, therefore, lies in emphasizing points that unite us. At the same time, we recognize the right ofeach country to think and act independently as an essential and fundamental ingredient of non-alignment. Over the dozen years since the first non-aligned conference was held, practices and procedures have evolved with a view to synthesizing and harmonising the views ofvarious countries on important issues, and decisions have, as a rule, been arrived at by `consensus'. This . term has a certain indefinable quality; it is hard to express in words, although we all know instinctively what it means. It pre-supposes understanding and respect for differing points of view including those in disagreement and implies mutual accommodation on the basis of which agreement can emerge by a sincere process of adjustment amongst members with different opinions in the true spirit of non-alignment. In other ,words, it simply means a convergence of views. After broad consultations amongst members ofthe Preparatory Committee, I am glad to report that there is a universal feeling that decisions must continue to be taken by consensus, and that old and established procedures which have now become traditional for the conduct of our meetings must continue to be followed. There is a conviction that we should continue as before with consultations at all levels to arrive at solutions to contentious issues; that there should be reciprocal give and take with a view to accommodating all shades of opinions; that member countries should try to be as flexible as possible with a view to accommodating the views of each other; that there should be a true democratic spirit in the non-aligned group wherein each country should act in the spirit of one who belongs to a family.63 Hereafter, the phrase `unity in diversity' was to be frequently repeated and is often viewed as the motto of the Movement. Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) offered to host the Fifth Summit and this was accepted64 In view of the overwhelming economic concerns facing non-aligned countries, a committee of experts conferred again in late August 1973, this time in Santiago, Chile. The topic was private foreign investment. At this gathering, non-aligned experts were critical of the worsening economic position of developing countries. They emphasized the need of non-aligned countries to become involved in political matters because issues such as the exploitation of natural resources by colonial powers in southern Africa and similar activities by Israel in the occupied Arab territories dearly indicated that politics and economics were intertwined. They were also critical ofthe role of multitrational/transnational corporations in developing countries and The Non-aligned Movement in International History

recommended measures to control their operations and activities, including the establishment of a centre for information on transnational corporations.65 These various meetings held in South America revealed the increased role of Latin America in the Non-aligned Movement. In particular, the Movement's perspective ofeconomic developmentwas decidedly influenced by dependency theory which originated in Latin America. Thus the foreign ministers at their meeting in Georgetown advocated an activist role in international economic affairs. Furthermore, they concluded that a more radical approach to economic developmentwas needed ifthe gap between the developed and developing countries was to be closed It is here that we find the beginnings of a search for a new international economic order. We also find the increased role oftechnocrats from the Caribbean and Latin America along with the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) doctrine in the formulation of an alternative strategy for economic survival and development. These frequent gatherings between the Third and Fourth Summits enabled representatives to come to an agreement on a number of issues prior to the meeting of non-aligned heads of state and international gatherings. Also by holding their meetings in the various regions, they became more familiar with each other's situations and recognized how much they shared, economically and politically. In working together over the years, members had become committed to the same basic principles and no longer saw the need for new principles or for reiterating already adopted programmes. They now turned their attention to concrete action. The formation of the preparatory committee and the standing committee at the United Nations also contributed to the organizational structure ofthe Movement. Thus the increased activity and the committees facilitated the development of the coalition into an international social movement. The non-aligned countries came to the Algiers Summit as a cohesive group with shared principles, the beginnings of an institutional structure, and a commitment to action.

Notes 1. See Geoffrey Barraclough, An Introduction to Contemporary History (Harmonds- worth: Penguin, 1964), pp. 9-42. For an excellent example ofan integrated history study, see L. S. Stavrianos, Global Rift: The Third World Comes ofAge (New York: William Morrow, 1981). 2. A. W. Singham, `Non-Alignment - From Summit to Summit', Man and Development, 1:3 (October 1979), pp. 16-17. 3. Standard works on the early years ofthe Movement include: C. V. Crabb,Jr, The Elephant and the Grass: A Study ofNonalignment (New York, 1965); G. H. Jansen, Afro-Asia and Nonalignment (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1960); Peter Lyon, The First Three Summits: The Formative Years

Neutralism (Leicester University Press, 1963); Leo Mates, Nonalignment. Theory and Current Policy (Belgrade: The Institute ofInternational Politics and Economics, 1972); and Alvin Rubinstein, Yugoslavia and the Nonaligned World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970). 4. Odette Jankowitsch and Karl P. Sauvant, The Third World Without Superpowers: The Collected Documents of the Non-Aligned Countries (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 1978), I, pp. 11-32. 5. Jansen, op. cit., p. 295. 6. The Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, Belgrade, 1-6 September 1961 (Yugoslavia, 1961), pp. 13-14. 7. Ibid. 8. Two Decades of Non-Alignment. Documents of the Gatherings of the Non-Aligned Countries 1961-1982 (New Delhi, India: Ministry of External Affairs, 1983), p. 5. 9. Ibid., pp. 5-9. 10. Two Decades of Non-Alignment, pp. 9-10. 11 . Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., pp. 72-7. 12. Jansen, op. cit., pp. 363-83. 13. Keesing's Contemporary Archives (1964), p. 20431. 14. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., p. 67. 15. Ibid., p. 70. 16. Cited by Jansen, op. cit., p. 371. 17. Cited by Maricela Mateo, 'U.S. Foreign Policy and the Non-Aligned Countries', Tricontinental, 65 (1979), p. 24. 18. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., pp. xxxiii-xxxiv. 19. Bahgat Korany, Social Change, Charisma and International Behaviour. Toward a Theory of Foreign Policy-making in the Third World (Geneva: A. W. Sitjhof Leiden, Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, 1976), pp. 309-10. 20. Keesing's Contemporary Archives (1964), p. 20431. 21. Jansen, op. cit., pp. 385-7; Rubinstein, op. cit., pp. 301-2, 314-16. 22. Keesing's Contemporary Archives (1964), p. 20433. 23. Two Decades of Non-Alignment, p. 18. 24. Ibid., pp. 17-27. 25. RikhiJaipal, Non-Alignment: Origins, Growth andPotentialfor World Peace (New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1983), p. 85. 26. Gerard Chaliand, Revolution in the Third World (London: Penguin Books, 1978). 27. Donald C. Hodges and Robert Elias Abu Shanab (eds), NLF: NationalLiberation Fronts, 1960/1970 (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1972). 28. Fred Halliday, The Makingofthe Second Cold War (London: Verso Editions and NLB, 1983), p. 82. 29. Keesing's Contemporary Archives (1965), pp. 20769-70, 20937. 30. Robert A. Mortimer, The Third World Coalition in International Politics (New York: Praeger, 1980), pp. 24-9. 31 . Jaipal, op. cit., p. 90; Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., p. 158. 32. Ibid., pp. 157-61; Ranko Petkovic, `Points ofOrientation for Dar-Es-Salaam', Review of International Affairs, 20:422 (December 1969), pp. 8-10. The Non-aligned Movement in International History

33. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., pp. 162-3, 177-9. 34. Ibid., pp. 171-2. 35. Ibid., p. 168; Jaipal, op. cit., pp. 90-1. 36. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., pp. 164-8. 37. Ibid., p. 169. 38. Halliday, op. cit., pp. 102, 206-7. 39. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., pp. 132-56. 40. Ibid., p. 147. 41 . Ibid., pp. 145-51. 42. Ibid., p. 154. 43. Jaipal, op. cit., pp. 94-5. 44. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., p. 81 . 45. Ibid., p. 82. 46. Ibid., p. 83. 47. Ibid., pp. 85-90. 48. Ibid., pp. 91-110. 49. Ibid., p. 106. 50. Ibid. 51 . Halliday, op. cit., pp. 161-3, 203-9. 52. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., pp. 655-65, 668-70. 53. Ibid., pp. 518-20. 54. Ibid., p. 703. 55. Ibid., p. 723. 56. Ibid., pp. 700-27. 57. Ibid., pp. 690-9. 58. Ibid., p. 447. 59. Ibid., pp. 446-58, 475-91. 60. Ibid., pp. 459-61, 492-8. 61 . Ibid., pp. 432-74. 62. J. Zivic, `Kabul and Algiers', Review of International Affairs, 24: 556 (5 June 1973), p. 4. 63. Jankowitsch and Sauvant, op. cit., pp. 529-30. 64. Ibid., pp. 522-32; 533-653. 65. Ibid., pp. 729-39.