September's UN General Assembly, where recognition of a Palestinian state looks set to be considered, is an opportunity for non-aligned states to take on the big powers, writes Ayman El-Amir* After relapsing into oblivion for more than two decades, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is reactivating. At least these are the vibes that came out of the recent meeting of the foreign ministers of NAM in Bali, Indonesia. The challenge the movement faces now is how to craft a new mission after the expiration of the old one. In today's volatile world, the 118-member movement not only needs a new agenda but also a new pathway to accomplish it. The world scene has changed so much since the movement first drafted its agenda, to serve as a buffer zone between the two superpowers, the US and the former Soviet Union. By its collective power it sought to discourage newly independent countries from joining military alliances and thus deny the two Cold War protagonists military springboards across the world. It also wanted to complete the process of decolonisation proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1960, one year before NAM convened its first conference in Belgrade, the former Yugoslavia, in 1961. Although the emerging coalition did not subtract from the post-World War II military alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, it relatively succeeded in denying them additional partners from among the newly independent countries. A strict requirement to qualify for membership of NAM at the time was not being a member of a military alliance and to be free of foreign military bases. However, as the movement sought to expand its power-base it had to relax some of its cardinal rules. Some members, like Cuba, had a Soviet military base on the justification of defending itself against the threat of US invasion. Many developing member states of the movement were co-opted by the former Soviet Union because it was perceived as the champion of anti-colonial, national liberation struggle. A fewer number remained informal US allies. The two superpowers managed to circumvent the principles of NAM by developing their tacitly recognised spheres of influence, beyond their formal military or political alliances. Today, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf Arab states are members of the movement in good standing, despite the fact that they host huge US military bases. These could presumably present a threat to Iran, another NAM member. During its three-decade long civil war with renegade warlord Jonas Savimbi, Angola was a non-aligned country with Cuban military forces fighting on its territory until 1990. In effect, some members of NAM, under certain circumstances, could have it both ways. By lowering its bottom line common denominator, NAM not only increased its membership but also broadened its agenda. With its 20-member observer countries it joined hands with most of the ever-growing Group of 77 and China, a loosely knit, 134-member group of developing countries that coordinate their interests and voting patterns at the UN. Economic development, South-South cooperation, rejection of big power hegemony, the fight against poverty, protecting the environment and the management of population growth, protection against natural and environmental disasters and the promotion of human rights became part of a more comprehensive agenda. This has developed into an honoured, vote-collecting mechanism at the UN. It goes like this: if you want to pass a resolution condemning Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian/Arab territories at the UN General Assembly, you first go to your regional group, say the Arab group, for informal consultations to secure the group's endorsement. Then you approach another, usually sympathetic group, like the group of Latin America and the Caribbean countries to get their support. If you do, the next big step is to have the draft endorsed by the group of non-aligned countries for support and sponsorship that reflects as wide a geographical distribution as possible. It is reasonably possible to get the support of some European countries if the draft resolution is innocuous enough, which is what usually General Assembly resolutions are. The final step is to have the wider Group of 77 and China sponsor the draft and have it tabled for voting. Then an overwhelming vote of approval is assured. With the preponderance of Western and veto wielding powers in the Security Council, the non-aligned have a weaker role. It is because the voting bloc is absent, the veto power can foil any resolution and the issues of international peace and security, which the Council is charged with, carry executive powers and are more difficult to rally support for. However, it does not mean that a few non-aligned countries in the Council cannot act forcefully to block a draft resolution if the consequences are unconscionable. This is what happened in the case of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. For three weeks in February-March 2003 the two big powers lobbied hard and twisted arms to have the Council approve a draft resolution authorising the use of military force against Iraq. Despite the dramatic video presentation by then secretary of state Colin Powell of what he insisted were mobile labs in Iraq that could be used to manufacture bacteriological weapons, the Council's members, particularly the non-aligned in Africa and Latin America, were not persuaded. The Bush-Blair collusion failed to rally the two-third majority, or nine members of the Council, to approve the draft. The invasion was carried out anyway, but countries such as Cameroon, Guinea, Angola, Syria, China and Chile were instrumental in blocking the draft despite brutal US pressure. The group of non-aligned countries needs to re-establish its status and weight at the UN. It has to restore its credibility by committing itself to the ideals of democracy and fundamental human rights, not just the power of the majority. It cannot individually or collectively protect rogue regimes such as those in Libya or Syria under the banner of non-alignment. It cannot defend human rights abuses in Myanmar or the Congo because they carry the non-aligned label. They have to purge and tighten their loose standards. Then they have to reaffirm the powers of the General Assembly and other UN organs that have gradually and wilfully been weakened by the big powers. One test to re-establish its credibility is for NAM to adopt the issue of Palestinian statehood that will most likely come before the UN General Assembly in the fall. Recognising that, in order to gratify Israel, the US will try to block admission to UN membership of a State of Palestine in the Security Council despite General Assembly presumed approval, the group of non-aligned countries and China should focus on garnering an overwhelming majority in favour of admission. Should this fail the group should invoke the Uniting for Peace Resolution under which the General Assembly could assume the powers of a hamstrung Security Council, as it did during the tripartite war against Egypt in 1956. Although the issue of membership is not particularly a matter of international peace and security, which is the main concern of the Security Council, Israel's continued denial of Palestinian rights since its creation in 1948 has made the Middle East a volatile region that has exploded into major conflagrations on several occasions in the past six decades. So it is a matter of a threat to international peace and security. The group should also seek ways and means to enforce punitive action against Israel for its innumerable violations of UN resolutions and international law. By so doing, the NAM could start to regain its influence, stand for a just world order, and help the UN wrench back some of the prerogatives it has lost to big power manipulation. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington DC.
