Some challenges before NAM

Lynn Ockersz

BALANCE: If one were to resort to the jargon of the political scientist, the 14th Nonaligned Movement Summit which opens in Havana, Cuba today, would present to the world, "a balance of political forces" which is most thought-provoking and interesting.

To begin with, the summit is chaired by Cuba - traditionally an arch foe of the US and a surviving staunch defender of the socialist path to development, as opposed to the almost universally fancied market-led growth, closely associated with the capitalist development model.

Communism per se is almost extinct, save in Cuba and North Korea, but the case for socialism has been bolstered by the strong re-emergence of socialist administrations in a number of Latin American countries in the recent past. Chief among these are Venezuela and Bolivia, with a number of other states in the region fitting the label "left of centre."

However, the vast majority of the rest of the 113-strong NAM could be said to consist of states which are committed to "market liberalization" and the open economy. They are very much part of the process of economic globalization - a process which is widely seen as irrevocable.

The stage is therefore set in Havana for an interesting clash of economic and political creeds and a possible, very absorbing reconciliation among them, when it comes to licking into shape a final summit declaration which will project the NAM vision for the next three years. The possibility of such a reconciliation is great with even sections in Cuba now advocating a selective adoption of the economic liberalization model.

If the formulation that "economics drive politics" holds water, then the "socialist camp" at the summit is certain to back a final declaration that advocates an accommodation between capitalist and socialist-led growth. For, the chances are that no regime could survive amid economic stagnation and backwardness.

The truth of this proposition was grasped ably long ago by Communist China who have liberalized their economy considerably to avoid economic growth stultification and internal social unrest. Accordingly, the dominant thinking among power and political elites is that the opportunities thrown-up by economic liberalization worldwide should be pragmatically exploited for material advancement.

NAM has no better example in this regard than India, a founding father of NAM. At the time of the founding of NAM in the late Fifties, India, under the guidance of Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, was largely committed to the socialist model.

This inclined India more towards the socialist camp at the time of the Cold War. However, today, India under Premier Manmohan Singh is a regional economic giant and a predominant economic power on the world stage, following the liberal economic strategy pursued by it over the past 10 years or more.

The resurgence of the "left alternative" in Latin America and its considerable presence in NAM, coupled with the charismatic chairmanship provided by Cuba's President Fidel Castro, should remind NAM and the Third World that the fancied capitalist road to development is not without its many pitfalls. It needs to be remembered that it is growing poverty in some countries, despite capitalist-led growth, which has prompted the publics of these countries to vote "left", particularly in Central and South America.

Ideally, these issues need to be deliberated in NAM fora and the need for a new development paradigm broached, which would take into account the need for economic growth along with the even distribution among publics of the fruits of economic development.

In other words, growth plus equity. This is the economic paradigm which is now seen as the ideal and is certainly the recipe for national progress. It provides for material growth alongside distributive justice and should satisfy the advocates of economic liberalization as well as the champions of distributive justice.

On political issues, the US-led military incursions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the recent Israeli blitzkrieg of Southern Lebanon are certain to be heatedly discussed at the summit. On such questions, the challenge for NAM managers would be to maintain a fine balance in their declarations, between defending the sovereign rights of states - such as the upholding of the inviolability of their territorial boundaries - and the complete denunciation of terror, in whatever form.

In the current international situation, a great deal of debate is focusing on political terror and NAM is likely to be compelled to unreservedly condemn the use of terror, for whatever reason.

However, if NAM is to adopt a holistic view on this question, it would also need to emphasize the need for political solutions to intra-state conflicts and strongly champion the empowerment of publics and peoples.