Opinion - Editorials   

Equivocation at NAM

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh articulated a sound enough reaffirmation of the continued relevance of the Non-Aligned Movement in his statement at the XIV summit held in Havana on September 15-16. What he failed to do, however, was project a strong, comprehensive, and inspiring perspective on international affairs from the standpoint of the developing world. As Dr. Singh observed, the global community "confronts the danger of being split along an artificially created cultural and religious divide." From its inception, NAM has espoused peaceful co-existence and striven to overcome ideological and racial divisions. Representing a plethora of religious and ethnic groups, it is certainly well placed to send out the message that it is possible to work for a "confluence of civilisations." However, Dr. Singh missed a real truth-telling opportunity by not calling attention to the pernicious doctrine of "pre-emption," which is a big threat to international peace and stability. Nobody expected him to adopt the strong language of Cuba's Acting President Raul Castro or the Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. But NAM is surely the forum for India to reiterate a principled and clear opposition to any form of neo-imperialism. Dr. Singh was right to remind NAM that "it cannot afford to equivocate on the subject of terrorism." In turn, the movement is entitled to ask India's Prime Minister not to equivocate on the subject of opposition to unilateralism and hegemonism in international affairs, resort to war, violations of national sovereignty (as in Iraq), and the threat of unjust sanctions (faced by Iran). In the absence of such a stance, Dr. Singh's opening assertion that non-alignment is tantamount to independence in thinking can have little meaning.

There were some positives. The erudite Dr. Singh is clearly one of the first leaders in the developing world to recognise that the issues of environmental protection and energy security are profoundly linked. He also has some interesting ideas on how to respond to the challenge of promoting "a balanced and equitable management of the interdependence of nations." In proposing that NAM set up a "suitable high level group for West Asia" that would undertake a sustained mission to promote understanding and peace-building, the Prime Minister seemed to signal a new Indian willingness to engage seriously with a region in which it has multiple stakes. Unfortunately, Dr. Singh felt the need to pull his punches. He did appeal to the international community to "address more fully its responsibility to resolve" the West Asian crisis and "bring to an end once and for all" the sufferings of the Palestinian people; and he referred to the "tragic and pointless war in Lebanon." However, he had nothing to say on who was responsible for the crisis and the prolonged suffering, and who was the aggressor in Lebanon. What the Prime Minister needs to realise is that on such critical international issues, Indian foreign policy weakens its stock and influence by its now well-known preference for a seat on the fence.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A potential breakthrough
Equivocation at NAM
The LTTE after the fall of Sampur
A responsibility we all share
Some questions on values, priorities
Could this crop save the planet?
Clinton plots comeback
Africa cashes in on new `silk' routes with Asia
Pope's remarks
Needed, tolerance
Inbuilt instability
NAM summit
On drinking

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu