Return of NAM

The Non-Aligned Movement summit in Havana comes out with a robust response to U.S. hegemony in a unipolar world.

JOHN CHERIAN in Havana

HAVANA was all spruced up for the 14th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit held from September 15 to 17. This was the second time this country of 12 million has hosted the prestigious summit. The last time it was held in Havana was in 1979, at the height of the Cold War. The decolonisation process had gained momentum, with countries such as Angola and Mozambique attaining freedom. Fidel Castro had controversially described the Soviet Union as a "natural ally" of NAM in a speech at the United Nations.

The world has changed dramatically since then. However, Fidel Castro is still there, resolute as ever in his ideological commitments and world-view. There was intense speculation that he would preside over the opening of the summit. However, on medical advice, he chose not to put in an appearance, preferring to monitor the proceedings from his room in the headquarters of the Communist Party of Cuba: he is recuperating after a surgical operation. In a statement released before the summit, he said that "the most critical moment" was over. He, however, cautioned that the time "for my complete recovery, like it or not, will be a lengthy one".

In the run-up to the summit, Washington tried its best to provoke the Cuban government. An appeal court in the United States confirmed the harsh sentence given to the "Cuban Five" - the five Cubans had tipped off the Cuban authorities on a terrorist plot against Cuba and were sentenced to life imprisonment in American jails on the charge of spying against the federal government. Then, to add insult to injury, another American court freed the notorious terrorist Lois Possada Carilles from prison. Among the many acts of terrorism Possada Carilles has committed since the early 1960s, the most heinous one was the bombing of a Cuban passenger jet over the Bahamas in 1976, which killed all the passengers on board.

Cuba's anger against the U.S., however, did not negatively impact on the proceeding of NAM. The organisation operates on the basis of consensus and has to take on board diverse opinions. Besides, there was the realisation that for NAM to stay relevant it had to be revitalised. Many in the West and in leading NAM member-states have been questioning the relevance of NAM after the end of the Cold War. The summit in Havana has come out with a robust response.

The 92-page NAM Political Declaration is a broad response to the unipolar hegemony of the U.S. It called for the defence of multilateralism and the principles of the U.N. Charter. This, it said, would be the basis for revitalising the movement. The Declaration signalled the determination of NAM members, who constitute two-thirds of the United Nations membership, to "remain united, firm and to shoulder a greater level of activism".

Raul Castro, the acting President of Cuba, in his opening speech said that the need of the hour was for member-countries to unite in order to defend the principles for which NAM was founded. These principles, he said, were "enshrined in international law and in the Charter of the United Nations". He pointed out that in recent years many member-countries had been victims of "inadmissible acts of aggression, basically motivated by an insatiable hunger for strategic resources, which in turn have taken a toll on international peace and security".

Raul Castro was critical of the application of the "doctrine of preventive wars, the pretext for which, inter alia, is the fight against terrorism, the promotion of democracy or the existence of rogue states". He said that under the current circumstances, the important thing for NAM was to fight for the defence of international law under the "Bandung Principles" enunciated in 1955. He said that non-alignment also involved the struggle to change the current world economic order, which was "based on exploitation and plundering". He emphasised the need to close the gap between a small group of countries and the vast periphery comprising 80 per cent of the world's population. "In this globalised and transnationalised world economy, controlled by huge corporations, free trade is a mere illusion," he said.

NAM will now start playing a hands-on role as an agency to coordinate, promote and defend peace and international security based on international law. Cuba proposes to enhance coordination by constantly liaising with governments that have chaired NAM in the past. These countries, if they act unitedly, are capable of defending peace and international security. Those countries that held the presidency include India, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia and South Africa. The other important goal emphasised in the Declaration is the promotion of sustainable development for the people of the developing world.

The Havana Declaration broadly condemned terrorism. It, however, differentiated terrorism from movements for self-determination and struggles against foreign occupation. The Declaration stated that democracy was a universal concept but no country had the right to define it for the rest of the world. It clearly asserted the right of each country to determine its own form of government.

The Declaration called for the urgent restructuring of the U.N. system, including an expansion of the Security Council and a provision to allow Security Council vetoes to be overruled by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who was in Havana to attend the summit, supported the call for reforms. The U.S. was invited to attend the summit, but it refused even to acknowledge the invitation. One reason for this was the presence of a representative from Puerto Rico at the summit. The representative called for the decolonisation of his country. Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the U.S.

The Declaration also condemned Israel's attacks on Lebanon and supported a peaceful resolution of the U.S.-Iran nuclear dispute.

"The Security Council must reform - for the sake of the developing world, and for the sake of the United Nations itself. The perception of a narrow power base risks leading to an erosion of the U.N.'s authority and legitimacy - even, some would argue, its neutrality and independence. I have in the past described it as a democracy deficit," Annan said, addressing NAM leaders.

There was a clarion call for comprehensive global nuclear disarmament in the Declaration. Many member-states wanted region-specific nuclear-free zones. This proposal was vetoed by India. Another important development was the call for the acceleration of South-South cooperation by almost all the leaders. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's idea of setting up a "Bank of the South" was received enthusiastically. "Deposit part of our national reserves and create a powerful bank to finance our development - and not in a way imposed by the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and the World Bank," he said. Chavez proposed that Fidel Castro preside over a new Commission that would be set up for the creation of the bank. Cuban officials told this correspondent that Fidel Castro was considering the proposal seriously.

Many of the leaders who attended the summit pointed out that the event was taking place at a critical juncture in history. Many of the speeches highlighted the fact that the national sovereignty of countries was being routinely trampled upon because of their refusal to subscribe to the dictates of the West. Raul Castro said in his speech that the U.S. spent more than $1 billion a year on weapons and soldiers. "To think that a social and economic order that has proved unsustainable can be maintained by force is simply an absurd idea," he said. "No one in the United Nations thinks that the U.S. is responsible for all the problems but many think it is for some," said Cuba's Foreign Minister Felipe Roque, reflecting the opinion of the majority.

In comparison, the Indian Prime Minister trod a cautious path. There was no direct criticism of Washington's "unilateralist" policies that have destabilised the world since September 2001. He quoted from one of Jawaharlal Nehru's speeches, in which he stated that "non-alignment is freedom of action which is a part of independence". Manmohan Singh said the cooperative worldview of NAM rejected notions like "clash of civilisations". He pointed out that the movement encompassed different religions, ideologies, ethnic groups and cultures. Manmohan Singh said NAM's message to the world should be that it is possible to work for a "confluence of civilisations". He also talked about the need for the democratisation of the U.N. system. "We must join hands with other like-minded countries to promote democratisation of the process of global governance, ushering in a new global polity based on the rule of law, reason and equity," he said.

Manmohan Singh said "the emerging fault lines" in international politics were the most visible in West Asia. He expressed the view that NAM was "uniquely placed" to play a constructive role in the restoration of peace and harmony in that region. He also called for a major NAM initiative on Africa. The initiative, he said, should focus on human resource and agricultural development. He also invoked Mahatma Gandhi by saying that NAM should be an embodiment of moderation, harmony and reason. With the Indian nuclear deal with the U.S. on the verge of being finalised, he was careful in choosing his words in an arena hostile to Washington.

Behind the scenes, India played its usual "moderating" role, helping to water down the tough rhetoric the majority would have preferred to use in the Declaration. Indian officials have been wary about the "activism" shown by NAM since Malaysia took over the chairmanship three years ago. They have felt that the focus has been on an "Islamic agenda" since 2003. A senior official said that irrespective of whether NAM was relevant or not, India could not afford to disassociate itself from the movement. Indian diplomacy, however, could not expunge the word "hegemony" from the final text.

There were minor diplomatic skirmishes before the final text was readied. The majority of the countries wanted the issue of decolonisation of Western Sahara to be highlighted. This move was stonewalled by the Moroccans with considerable help from friendly countries. The U.N. was supposed to hold a referendum in the territory at the end of the last decade. There was also some sparring between Bolivia and Singapore on the issue of legalising "coca". Indigenous Bolivians use "coca leaf" for many purposes. Possession of coca extracts or even leaves is punishable by death in Singapore and Malaysia. The issue was dropped in the interest of consensus. Afghanistan wanted a sentence stating that "no state shall help the Taliban" inserted into the Final Declaration. Pakistan objected to the wording and a compromise acceptable to both sides was eventually found.

India succeeded in seeing that the Declaration was "ideologically neutral". It also voiced its opposition to the proposal to formalise a NAM "troika", comprising the former, present and next Presidents. Given the strong opinion that was prevalent among the majority of NAM members, India had no option but to go along with the resolution supporting Palestine.