P Kharel

Given the emerging tectonic change in global power equation, issues pertaining to the fate of existing regional groupings are only to be expected. Developments might require new thrusts or restructuring altogether. If ignored, redundancy and stagnation could be the result. This write-up focuses on the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), formally launched in 1961, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) that debuted in December 1985. All SAARC member nations are NAM members.
Today, even the most fervent champions of these two groupings might not deny the two organisations’ sluggish stations. This calls for a thorough review of why the pace has been so slow or, in the case of NAM, standstill. Reorientation of the organisations in deference to the emerging new world order might be in due order. During the Cold War decades, NAM since the early 1960s was identified as a relevant development.
With the collapse of communist Soviet Union and disintegration of East European communist regimes 30 years later, interests in it diminished especially among the capitals that previously vainly tried projecting themselves as the movement’s skippers. So much so that scholars and political analysts even in these member countries now completely ignore what once hailed as a great source of balancing and alerting the two power blocks led by the United States and the Soviet Union. Even a passing reference is an extremely rare event, be it in public debates, scholarly articles or media coverage.

Impetus needed
Big powers might define neutrality as an international sin while pro-active neutrality might be viewed as a crime against global values expected to be readily accepted by the economically and militarily weak nations. NAM’s spirit stands for proactive neutrality, though its implementation fumbled and faltered when the so-called “leaders” among member states stood to. Some of them signed military pacts with big powers to serve their own narrow and agendas not conforming to NAM objectives.
The Soviet Union sent its troops into Czechoslovakia to intervene in the 1968 Prague Spring, not all NAM members protested; some stood mute and others hemmed and hawed as fence sitters. A founding member like Nepal opposed the superpower military intervention in landlocked Czechoslovakia. In 1971, India signed what was basically a defence treaty with the Soviets months before it plunged into the action of a new independent state of Bangladesh from what was until then the eastern wing of NAM member Pakistan. India went on to host NAM summit in New Delhi after carrying the baton handed over by communist Cuba’s Fidel Castro in Havana.
At the behest of the United States, a few dozen nations refused to recognise in a manner outgoing President Donald Trump denies Joe Biden won the November election, Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, 57, hosted the 2016 NAM summit in Caracas and handed over the baton to his Azerbaijan counterpart three years later. With no less than 120 member states, NAM accounts for two-thirds of United Nations strength and represents 55 per cent of the world population. It is the largest grouping of nations, next only to the United Nations’.
The US, EU and a number of other states issued sanctions against Maduro and more than 100 Venezuelan leaders and government officials. Juan Guaido claimed the 2018 election was rigged and declared himself the president. Washington recognized Guaido; so did many European capitals. The West’s herd-like stand notwithstanding, Guaido in November went on exile. Washington accused Maduro and members of his close circle of running a criminal enterprise linked with drug traffickers and terrorist groups. Maduro, who has the support of Russia and China, accuses the US “empire” of looking for any excuse to take control of the world’s largest oil reserves, in a manner similar to the 1989 invasion of Panama and ouster of Gen. Manuel Noriega who was charged with drug trafficking.
The U.S. is among 60 countries that no longer consider Maduro a head of state even if he does hold de facto power. They instead recognise Guaidó, the head of congress, as Venezuela’s rightful leader following the socialist’s re-election in a 2018 race marred by allegations of fraud and an opposition boycott. With support on the streets for Guaidó fading, the Trump administration raised the ante last fall, withdrawing support for a Norway-sponsored mediation effort and extending sanctions so that even foreign companies faced retaliation for extending Maduro a lifeline.
Of note is that all eight member states of SAARC – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka -- are NAM members. The thirty-five years this fortnight on December 8, 1985, the world’s most populous regional grouping, representing every fifty of humankind, was formally floated for cooperation and collective good. Much of the lofty goals are yet to materialise for the 1.75 billion people to feel the difference in substance.

Ensure regularity
The running Indo-Pakistani feud creates a cold war that derails the prospects of consensus on any meaningful achievement any time soon. During the inaugural Dhaka summit, Rajiv Gandhi, a year into office as India’s prime minister after he took over in the wake of his mother Indira’s assassination, proposed that SAARC summit be made an annual event. King Birendra explained the rationale behind the two-yearly gathering; if subsequent experience demanded greater frequency, the event could be advanced to an annual feature. Gandhi agreed.
As 2020 the curtains are all set to be rung down, the Indo-Pakistani tensions over territorial and security issues turns to be the single-most cause for the regular disruption in the hosting of SAARC summits on time. Pakistan should have hosted it in 2016 but India was not prepared for it. Some analysts suggest that New Delhi’s “preference” to the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation might cast a shadow on SAARC’s effective functioning.
NAM and SAARC members should not be bogged down in constant squabbles. No nation should be seen as holding as hostage the organisation that swears by collective good. Failure on this score stirs a rising tide of resentment. Aggressive efforts at countering it would be to spur the situation on sectarian lines and narrow considerations. Necessities create alternatives. Vacuums are sought to be filled. Way out would be searched, but not necessarily with the best of outcomes or the desired intentions. Stretching issues might be tolerable, even acceptable. Overstretching the same can invite other avenues and create consequences for the hawkish. History and critical assessments suggest so.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)