NAM: a historic opportunity

AS the heads of state and government belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement meet in Kuala Lumpur today for the organization’s thirteenth summit, the world stands on the brink of what could well be a cataclysm. The US seems bent on launching a unilateral war against Iraq even though the UN weapons inspection process is continuing relatively smoothly and no evidence has come to light of Baghdad’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. Most nations fear that the war will extract a terrible toll and could destabilize the entire region. There is a growing consensus among nations for a peaceful settlement of the crisis, with France and Germany insisting on more time for the weapons inspectors to complete their task. Meanwhile, millions of people across the world have taken to the streets to protest against American war plans against Iraq. Despite this growing and worldwide opposition, the anti-Iraq rhetoric from Washington is becoming more and more strident. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is the latest in a long line of hawkish voices declaring that the US is ready to go to war come what may. Given this inexorable drift towards war, what can a group of developing countries joined together in the Non-Aligned Movement do to strengthen the voices calling for peace?

The Iraq crisis, where the world’s sole superpower seems determined to act unilaterally in attacking a sovereign nation even without UN sanction, gives NAM the perfect opportunity to reappraise its role in a unipolar world. Malaysia, whose prime minister Mahathir Mohammad is one of the most vocal critics of a US-led attack on Iraq, will be chairing NAM during this critical period in its history. The challenge facing the NAM summit is to find a new role for itself in a rapidly changing unipolar world. In the ‘50s and ‘60s, the organization not only had an array of illustrious figures in its ranks but also had a balancing role to play in a world dominated by the rivalry between two ideological antagonists — the US and the Soviet Union.

Formed in 1955, NAM was meant to provide an alternative forum for the developing countries during the cold war period. NAM championed a number of key causes in its heyday. It supported the anti-colonial struggle in Africa and elsewhere and took a lead in opposing the build-up of arms at the height of the cold war. It had leaders like Yugoslavia’s President Tito, Indonesia’s Sukarno, India’s Nehru, Egypt’s Nasser, Cambodia’s Sihanouk and many others in its ranks giving it profound respectability and moral strength and prestige. The collapse of the Soviet Union plunged the forum into a deep identity crisis from which it has not yet fully recovered. NAM’s 116 members must now strive hard to chart a new course for the organization and find a raison d’etre for its existence. In a meeting of NAM ministers prior to the summit, the Malaysian deputy prime minister tried to find that new ground. He called for Baghdad to fully comply with UN resolution but also condemned any possible unilateral action against Iraq. He pointed out the dangers inherent in a world dominated by a single superpower and stated that a point had been reached when the rest of the world was clearly opposed to a military conflict. According to him, NAM must unite in order to become the legitimate voice of this majority.

Apart from Iraq, there are a number of other flashpoints across the world, some involving member states, which also need to be addressed. Palestine is just one, and perhaps the most urgent, of the issues crying out for justice. Palestinian President Yasser Arafat will not be able to attend the summit because he is unsure if Israel will allow him to return. That in itself is a telling comment on the helplessness of the Palestinian people in the face of the brutal repression by the Israelis. On Iraq, the tough stand against US unilateralism by France, Germany, Russia, China and others has been heartening and could provide NAM with an opportunity for building a new space for itself. The growing rift between the US and a number of key global players provides a tantalizing glimpse of the shape of a future opposition to the bitter realities of a unipolar world.

Apart from politics, NAM must also look closely at issues related to globalization. The cards in this process seem heavily stacked in favour of the more affluent countries of the West and threaten to further polarize the world between the rich and the poor. Representing the muted voice of the developing world, NAM must forcefully demand a fairer new deal for the developing world in the context of globalization. The Kuala Lumpur summit provides NAM a perfect opportunity to revitalize itself and resume its role as a strong force for peace, justice, progress and sanity in a unipolar world.

Vajpayee’s Ayodhya U-turn

THE Indian prime minister’s statement at an election rally in Himachal Pradesh on Thursday seemed to lay bare his inner convictions. Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee said that his government supported the construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid once stood. The statement comes at a time when the Indian Supreme Court has deferred its judgment on the controversial issue till March 6. The secular opposition is right in accusing Mr Vajpayee of trying to influence the court’s decision by making the statement at a time when the Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists have stormed Delhi to hear the judgment. The Babri Masjid dispute came to a head in December 1992, with the siege, desecration and demolition of the 16th century mosque by Hindu extremists. The outrageous act resulted in the worst communal riots in India since partition, leaving over 2,000 dead in its wake. Elements within Mr Vajpayee’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have since made no bones about their support for the agenda pursued by Hindu extremist outfits such as the VHP, RSS and the Bajrang Dal, which seek to construct a Ram temple at the disputed site. So far, they have been restrained by the Supreme Court under an interim stay order.

It seems that the BJP is now bent on repeating Narendra Modi’s infamous ‘Gujarat experiment that won the party huge political gains in the recent state elections. Himachal Pradesh goes to polls next week, and can prove to be a litmus test for the BJP’s new strategy. If successful, it could be repeated in more Indian states up for election in the months to come. That the sinister scheme comes with a price tag of a couple of thousand, mainly Muslim, lives, seems to be of little concern to the BJP hardliners who have taken to stoking the fires of communal hatred with aim of securing electoral victories. Mr Vajpayee’s was long believed to be the voice of moderation and sanity within the BJP fold, but in recent months he has come in a different light, possibly with nudges from hardliners such as L.K. Advani and Narendra Modi. The latest statement by the poet prime minister — who in 1992 declared December 6, the day the Babri Masjid was pulled down, ‘a sad day in Indian history’ — is clearly a sign that the hawks are winning the day within the BJP. This should be cause enough for the disparate and divided secular forces to come together under a common banner if India is to retain a semblance of its secular, democratic credentials.