With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resultant end to the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) lost much of its earlier relevance. But with many of its members still nostalgic about the days when they could claim having global influence, the Movement has continued to sputter on.
Its importance now lies primarily in the platform that it provides the Summit’s hosts to enhance their domestic credibility and international image. And, of course, these gatherings provide a great opportunity for world leaders to engage in quiet diplomacy, away from the glare and publicity of bilateral visits. The just-concluded Non-Aligned Summit in Tehran was no exception, coming at an opportune moment for Iran, given the mounting diplomatic pressures on it, not only with regards to its nuclear programme, but its human rights policies as well. This explains Iran’s massive effort to ensure a successful Summit, both to weaken US-led efforts to isolate it and to reassure its own populace that government policies were bearing fruit.
The US and its European allies, on the other hand, have never been enamoured of the NAM and even less of the Islamic Republic, which accounted for their effort to minimise the Summit’s importance and to urge the invitees to stay away. On this score, both sides can claim a degree of success, as Iran is using its assumption of the Movement’s chairmanship and the Summit declaration to claim having broken out of isolation. It is, however, debatable whether Tehran was able to achieve all its objectives. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, contrary to his usual reticence, used his meeting with the Iran’s supreme leader to publicly question the country’s domestic policies. In the process, he may have pleased the US, which had tried to dissuade him from travelling to Tehran, but it is doubtful whether he was able to enhance his personal standing or the credibility of the organisation he heads. The Egyptian president, currently engaged in a difficult tightrope walk on critical domestic and foreign policy challenges, chose to use the Summit to come down hard on the Syrian regime, signalling his displeasure with Tehran’s blanket support to the Assad regime, while reinforcing his credentials to promote a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian crisis, which led some observers to detect hints of future cooperation between Cairo and Tehran on this issue.
The Pakistani delegation, headed by President Asif Ali Zardari, had to walk a fine line between wishing to demonstrate some solidarity with the hosts while steering away from any initiative that could negatively impact the country’s strategic ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Pakistan did, however, decide to join countries that warned against foreign interference and military intervention in the Syrian civil war. This surprised some Arab delegations but was understandable, given Pakistan’s own concerns about foreign interference in its domestic affairs. The Bhutto family’s emotional ties to the Assad regime may also have been a factor in it, though Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar was right to warn that “prolonged instability in Syria would have serious consequences for the region, the Muslim Ummah and for the entire world. It is time to find commonly agreed solutions to stop the blood bath in Syria”. Earlier, Pakistan had abstained from voting on an anti-Syrian resolution in the UN Security Council.
The Summit also provided an opportune moment for another ‘cordial’ meeting between President Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in which they reaffirmed their common desire to keep the normalisation process on track. PM Singh, however, refused to give any indication as to when he would undertake an official visit to Pakistan, thus confirming continued reservations with Pakistan’s antiterror efforts.
The Summit was a welcome reprieve for Iran, boosting its morale, but it is doubtful if Israel and its sympathisers are going to be dissuaded from pursuing their objectives because of the Summit’s declaration.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 5th, 2012.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@khuzdar Khan: First of all I only contradicted the author's statement that UN GS publicly questioned the country’s domestic policies. He did no such thing. What he said was what I quoted above. Most of commentators second my statement. The word YOU use is:vomit. My stomach is working fine thank you. When people hit below belts that normally means they turn to swords due to lack of arguments. Now you compare Israel with South Africa. How wrong you are. I know South Africa well; I visit the country every year to avoid European winters. So I say this: This comparison is absolutely wrong. As I said in my first post, I do not defend Israel's policy towards Palestinians. Here is another statistics that is of interest. Before the Mullahs took over Iran, there were over hundred thousand Jews living in Iran. Since Mullahs have taken over, that number has dwindled to less that 10000. They cannot hold any government jobs and are constantly watched by the regime. Some have been accused of supporting Israel. In Israel there are over 2 million Palestinians living there and none, I repeat none have left the country or forced to do so. They are represented in Parliament and hold senior jobs also. I agree, things could improve further for them. By the way I am from Pakistan and cannot be accused of being Zionist.
@Tariq Mehmood: Actually I appreciate Pres. Zardari for taking the initiative. However, Dr. Manmohan Singh is already under fire from numerous quarters and a visit to Pakistan despite zero progress on justice for the Mumbai attacks is unlikely. Pls understand the domestic compulsions involved.
I wonder why there is a mention of Pakistan requesting visit of Indian PM in every print articel and he refusing it many times. I think its against the diplomatic norms to keep pursuing such things if he is not interested let be.
I am hesitant to accept the idea of NAM being used by the host only to seek benefits locally and internationally. I would have loved author though more light on India-Iran's growing trade relations expressed in NAM too at a time when the US, Europe and Arab Kings are trying to pull Iran down?
I do know where the author got this information, when he says: "UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, contrary to his usual reticence, used his meeting with the Iran’s supreme leader to publicly question the country’s domestic policies". No such thing happened. What he criticized was Iran's policy of openly calling for the destruction of Israel. Israel has exited since 1948 and those living there are people born there and their destruction implies killing millions of people. We might disagree with Israel's policy towards Palestinians but the language used is shameful. No wonder many in the west consider Muslims as narrow minded hypocrites. Mullahs also deny holocaust. This is another theory which does not need explanation. I live in Germany. I have seen places where Jews lived and how they were transported to camps, from where they never cam e back. Iran is our neighbor, but we should not support it just because it is a muslim state. The world treats all religions equally. That is why millions of Muslims flock to western shores and with the intent of never returning. Our policy should be based on pragmatic principles and not religious alliances.
@Bala: Question is not does NAM has value or not or why NATO exists. Think the better question for India to ask is why and how is NAM relevant for us now and/or in the future. India's objectives/priorities i believe is preserving and deepening our democratic way of life, economic growth, and security (internal, external, food, energy, etc etc). NAM i understand is neither a trade block nor military block, nor some political block with stands for anything except saying we are not this and not that. Not sure how NAM helps us in achieving any of our objectives. Don't see why it makes sense for India to be there, her energy and time is better spent elsewhere.
@Gary: Just google the wiki you will know! I am surprised. If you trying to be sarcastic or if it was meant to be some kind of a sick joke then may I add that it was in extremely poor taste. The sun had set on some empires a long time ago my friend and we can see some economies in deep, double etc etc recession. So take a chill pill and relax. It takes guts to tell the world that we are going to buy a certain country's oil with gold and not with US dollars. So your home work for today is -find out who the two countries involved were?
If NAM did not have value, 120 countries would not have joined it. US and West would not have noticed and cried about it. NAM gave voice to those developing countries which otherwise are marginalized in the UN. So why is NATO still there? As long as Military Blocs like NATO exists, there is relevance for NAM. NAM's message is that super-powers and rich countries may have enough money to play with war, developing countries do not have such luxury , so please leave us alone.
@Gary
NAM stands for the simple idea that you do not need to divide people to rule over them. It is an inherently non-western idea, hence the inferences of irrelevance.
When was NAM ever relevant? What has it ever stood for?
What would we not do to ignore a threat from another nuclear State. Both to the east and west, Pakistan will be sandwiched between nuclear states. At a time when its interests - logically speaking, would be aligned with other Sunni Arab states, Pakistanis are happy to see Iran get its nukes. This is of no strategic concern to Pakistani leaders. Why? Because a Muslim nation - Iran, will stand up to the evil Amreekis and Yehudis. This is what passes of as "strategic" and non-aligned in the land of the pure. Yet when the Iranian and Pakistani interests collide in Afghanistan and the Middle East, it will run crying to Uncle Sam - the one it hates.
I think Iran can be pleased with the summit; Ban-ki-Moon may have rapped the regime on the knuckles, but his absence would have been a far greater insult; and as much as NAM and thus its ornamental chairmanship have faded into irrelevance, the fact that key members chose to be represented by their Head of Govt/ Head of State is a subtle yet important signal that there is still backbone somewhere. With 120 members that have almost nothing in common, NAM is much more quantity than quality today, but it is also a useful venue to discuss trade opportunities and possible warming of diplomatic relations away from the glare of the spotlight, both of which I believe India has managed rather well.
If the meeting was such a "welcome reprieve" then why was Iranian news censored to eliminate all references to the rebuke by the UN Secretary or the dispute with the Egyptian President?