The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was created in 1955 at the height of the Cold War as a declaration of independence by states, largely postcolonial ones, that they were not going to exchange their new-found freedom for an American or Soviet hegemony. They were determined not to be puppets in the Western or communist bloc, even though the movement always managed to include some that were overtly so; Cuba, for example.
Today, just as NATO has problems redefining its role in a world where the old enemy has vanished and the Warsaw Pact is just a faded memory, there are hard questions facing the NAM. To a large extent, we are all nonaligned now — even the US which can no longer rely on former allies to join in its fights; certainly not Russia which finds itself today as much a nonaligned power as any of the old stalwarts — India, Egypt or Indonesia. In such a changed world, some wonder whether the movement has any point at all. It is a valid question, although the same one was asked last week of the G8 summit. What is the point?
There is a valid answer, at least as far as summits are concerned, whether they are NAM, G8, G20, Commonwealth or UN. As meeting points for world leaders, they enable them to sit and talk together and occasionally break down barriers and long-distance megaphone national rivalries.
That has certainly been the case with the summit that has just ended in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh. It will be remembered not because the leaders of over 50 states met and discussed the global economy or how they could make their voices more effective; these are ongoing quests and these may not be resolved for years to come. Rather it is because it enabled two of the participants — rival nuclear powers — to do an Obama and hit the reset button on their fraught relations.
The meetings between India’s and Pakistan’s foreign ministers and then between their prime ministers with their vow to work together to fight terrorism alone justify the summit. The mutual suspicion and antagonism following the Mumbai attacks has been set aside; a fresh chapter has been opened in their relations with both pledging to cooperate in tracking down the culprits and to prevent any future attacks.
It is an extremely encouraging development, all the more so because both have managed to rise above the perennial problem of Kashmir, agreeing that it should not be allowed to sabotage relations between them. That has been the problem in the past, with India blaming not merely Pakistan-based militants for terrorist atrocities but effectively Pakistan for allowing them to exist.
But a new chapter carries its own dangers. The aim of the Mumbai attacks was to poison relations between the two countries and it very nearly succeeded. Those responsible will not be pleased at the new rapprochement. They want war between India and Pakistan. They will do everything to sow dissension. New atrocities will be planned. That can be guaranteed.
The intelligence authorities in both countries will need to redouble their efforts to thwart them. Not just Pakistan and India. Those in other countries where the terrorists could gather and plot need to be on alert as well.
