The Bandung Conference, imbued with the spirit of anti-colonialism, rejected the division of the world into two opposing camps generated by the Cold War. From 1955 until the end of the 60s, the economy outside Europe did not develop as dynamically.
The struggle to destroy traditional empires became a priority because it set realistic goals; she was doomed to success. The propaganda of neutralism was not so impressive; it assumed non-participation in existing blocs and the search for one’s own special place in the system of confrontation cold war, and this meant interaction with the reality that young independent states could not change and, in best case scenario, they hoped to escape from it. Therefore, the term “neutralism” lost its relevance and was
960 Part 4. Bipolar system: detente...
replaced by another, less binding term "non-alignment". This semantic subtlety more accurately conveyed the contradictory reality. Neutrality limited the number of participants new coalition, and the term “non-alignment” allowed even members of opposing blocs to interpret their position more flexibly.
After Bandung, a significant part of the work was carried out thanks to representatives of non-Afro-Asian states, the circle of interested countries was constantly expanding. The leading role was played by famous politicians Nasser, Nehru and Marshal Tito (who after for long years hesitation finally found a place where Yugoslavia could play important role in international life). At the end of December 1957 - beginning of January 1958, a new conference was held in Cairo, in which 44 delegations participated. The tone of the conference contained echoes of the Suez crisis of 1956. The Egyptian representative Sadat, who chaired the meetings, very categorically defined the purpose of the conference: “The neutralism that we profess means that we must be outside the international blocs and make efforts to bring them closer together.” The first steps towards the independence of black Africa meant that the course had been chosen correctly. The Prime Minister of Ghana became the voice of independent African countries and in December 1958 convened the first conference of these African states in Accra, and then also a conference with the participation of all the peoples of Africa. In such cases, active neutralism turned into an instrument of anti-colonialism. As Nkrumah said, the African Peoples' Conference was to prepare "a general assault on imperialism and colonialism."
The next active period occurred in 1960-1961. At this time, a series of conferences of solidarity with the peoples of Asia and Africa took place and, most importantly, in December 1960, the General Assembly of the United Nations, thanks to an agreement between Nasser, Tito and Sukarno, who took over the baton from the aging Nehru, approved a document condemning colonialism. Both the General Assembly and subsequent preparatory conference in Cairo in June 1961 laid the foundations for the Belgrade Conference (September 1-6, 1961), which officially announced the creation of a movement of “non-aligned” countries. But in Belgrade, the concept of “non-alignment” was still interpreted quite harshly: it meant countries that did not take part in multilateral military alliances and that did not have close military ties with the great powers. This explains why the conference in Yugoslavia was not officially
Chapter 10. Coexistence-rivalry and decolonization 961
neither People's China, nor Japan, nor Pakistan, nor Türkiye are set. The arrival of a Cuban delegate expanded the circle of participants to Latin America, but the rules for admission to the “club” were so strict that they were immediately criticized.
Since 1961, the question has been raised about the correct interpretation of the concept of “non-alignment”, so as not to turn a broad coalition into a closed group of countries that would not have sufficient influence. Already during the Belgrade Conference, for the first time, this issue was approached from a different perspective: interpreting the movement only as a tool to counter the Cold War (it was at this time that the first signs of détente between the superpowers emerged) meant a rejection of the political expediency inherent in a more flexible approach. With this approach, the definition could be interpreted as a departure from the line of broad and direct support for multilateral alliances, even if the participants in the “non-aligned” movement were members of them. Thus, the “non-alignment” movement could expand, and its influence in international life could increase, primarily in such large international organizations as the UN. And another possibility - the formation of an organization dedicated to specific problems - was not taken into account at all.
The Belgrade Conference did not eliminate the main contradictions and did not develop a system of regular consultations, which would help strengthen the political course of the coalition. Under the current conditions, more won broad interpretation movement concepts: countries not directly and actively participating in multilateral agreements were declared “non-aligned” and could participate in “non-aligned” movement conferences, convened at various intervals in subsequent years. Thus, the movement managed to gain leading positions in the United Nations, i.e. the coalition was able to eliminate American dominance in the UN and resist Soviet attempts to establish its hegemony. In the 60s, it ended up in the hands of a small but strongest group of participants in the “non-aligned” movement - Arab countries, which had a decisive influence on the adoption of resolutions by the General Assembly. At the same time, a broad interpretation of the concept of participation in the non-aligned movement revealed the fragile and contradictory political nature of this movement.
When the restrictive nature of neutralism was overcome, and contradictions between Afro-Asian countries even began to develop into war (the Sino-Indian conflict in 1962), a
962 Part 4. Bipolar system: detente...
new situation. The countries of the “third world” (not all countries that participated in the “non-aligned” movement, but only those that faced the problem of economic development) did have common interests, which gave them weight in international life, but in politically they were divided by such deep contradictions that the term “non-alignment” lost its meaning. During official meetings, for example, at the UN General Assembly, when the general principles of the world legal order were discussed, or at conferences of the movement itself, the term, despite the abundance of rhetoric, regained its former appeal.
In fact, international relations became so complex that most of the non-aligned countries that had to fight for neutralism were closely linked, economically or militarily-politically, to one of the blocs in which the superpowers played a leading role. The beginning of the process of détente seemed to provide grounds for the development of the “non-aligned” movement, but in reality it deprived it of its very essence, since its main participants took up the task of unraveling the knots of the Cold War. In political terms, the historical outcome of the “non-alignment” movement was not so significant; rather, the impression of untapped opportunities is created. At the end of the 1970s, the non-aligned movement had more than 80 active members, and more than 100 broadly if the active members include “observers” or “invitees” to participate in individual conferences. IN general outline, the movement had the numerical strength to wield influence in the world, but practically could do very little.
Countries that gained political independence faced the question of economic development, industrialization, growth in productivity and agricultural production, improvement trade relations with developed industrial countries, especially in connection with the export of raw materials, the main source of wealth developing countries. The results were disappointing when taking into account demographic growth, which resulted in an overall increase in gross national product(GNP) resulted in a decrease in per capita income. From 1950 to 1967, per capita income in developing countries taken together grew at an average annual rate of 2.8% (with very sharp differences between countries); over the same years, the exports of 22 developing countries taken as a representative sample increased annually by 4%, and exports
Chapter 10. Coexistence-rivalry and decolonization 963
port five most developed countries world (United States, Great Britain, Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy) during the same period grew by an average of 9% per year. The oil crisis caused by the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 changed this ratio only partially and only temporarily, because oil-producing countries became a special category of developing countries.
The reasons for this situation should be sought in the nature of exports from developing countries: in the prices of raw materials, which were set more by the market than by producers, in the differences between the demand for consumer goods imported into developed countries and the demand for durable goods imported into developing countries. In the mid-1970s, prices for raw materials (with the exception of oil) continued to fall, and industrial goods grow. The relationship between export earnings and import costs became increasingly unfavorable for developing countries.
Another aspect of the problem is related to the unprofessional management of the economy in countries that have recently gained independence. The emerging bureaucracy and bloated armed forces required exorbitant expenses; the desire to produce goods at the lowest cost, but of low quality, and therefore not in demand either in the domestic or international markets; the policies of protectionism and autarky led to increased costs - all these were elements of one component that aggravated further backwardness.
The problem of capital also played an important role. To invest in the country's economy, capital accumulation is necessary, which during the colonial period occurred exclusively in the interests of the metropolis, and new states were forced to start accumulation from a low level or seek help from the world financial market where they reign iron rules and tight control. Finance could also come in the form of international assistance, but the policy of cooperation at that time took only timid steps, and its scale did not correspond to the economic needs of more than a hundred countries.
There was nothing left to do but patiently follow the path already traversed by countries that began their ascent to modernization in the 18th century, or hope that significant resources would be directed to third world countries for political reasons, or wait until international capital deems it profitable for itself. invest in developing countries.
964 Part 4. Bipolar system: detente...
However, this implied a radical change in the original economic conditions V individual countries, and, above all, overcoming the ideological prejudices of some figures who saw in international capital, and more often in transnational corporations, the true opponents of development, the perpetrators of exploitation and backwardness, production based on low labor costs and small capital investments: in short, they saw them as the embodiment "neocolonialism". But not a single young state could either agree with the need to maintain these bonds, or abandon its own national goals in order to allow itself to be carried away by sweet talk about development that implied integration into the system of international capitalism. Before this happened, it was necessary to go through a series of failures and wait important changes in an international situation.
These circumstances explain the difficulties of establishing economically and politically correct relations between industrialized countries and developing countries. Relations were complicated by long-standing mistrust of Western countries, painful memories of the colonial period, and the unwillingness of developed countries to resolve economic problems, designed for the long term and requiring the development of multilateral projects. These problems were considered to be alien to, or remote from, the basic needs of the Western economy. Industrialized countries were confident that they had sufficient economic and political power and can dictate the terms of international trade. Therefore, until 1973 (although there were examples in the recent past), they pursued protectionist policies, especially with regard to the agricultural products of developing countries, their main export, thanks to which they could occupy their niche in the international goods market, since there was no market for their industrial products; Its production was just beginning then.
The Third World countries found the United Nations the most appropriate place to propose reform of the world market, although the problem was framed in general terms and in terms typical of the recent struggle for independence. Already in December 1960, the General Assembly declared that the coming decade should be a “decade of development”, which is a condition for peace and stability in the world. In 1962, a UN resolution put forward the formula “Trade not aid,” which meant
Chapter 10. Coexistence-rivalry and decolonization 965
replacement of the humanitarian approach with methods more consistent with the nature of economic problems.
The United Nations in 1964 (March 23 - June 15) in Geneva held a conference on trade and development (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), well known as UNCTAD, during which the most important economic and political aspects of the problem were considered for the first time development. The conference discussed proposals for reform of the international economic system, according to which it was necessary for developing countries to open their doors to exports and integrate into the booming economy. But it was even more necessary that industrialized countries guarantee favorable prices for raw materials and agricultural products exported from developing countries; paid subsidies to countries that were not ready for trade exchanges; went to reduce duties on tropical and subtropical products; carried out a reorganization of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) that would facilitate trade with developing countries.
Rivalry between Soviet Union and the United States made the Third World countries better understand various aspects of the international situation. The Soviet bloc countries, also recently liberated from colonial rule, did not participate in the dialogue initiated by UNCTAD. As part of the conference, which brought together representatives of 123 states, the so-called “Group of 77” was formed, within which participants in the “non-aligned” movement sought to achieve unity of positions in the field of economics, having failed to achieve it in political sphere. The weight of developing countries in the United Nations was so significant that it allowed for the institutionalization of relations between industrialized and developing countries. UNCTAD was transformed into a permanent consultative body that developed the framework for negotiations.
Then a tough dialogue began, long and difficult. The aggressive policy of the “Group of 77” (in particular, at the meeting in Algeria in 1967) led to the opposite results. Industrialized countries were not interested in making concessions that might be in vain or would benefit political opponents. A truly important success was achieved only once, during the second UNCTAD conference, held in New Delhi in 1968, when developed countries pledged to contribute 1% of their GNP annually to developing countries.
Part 4. Bipolar system: detente...
developing countries as assistance to their economic development. It should be noted that the countries of the Soviet bloc were able to transfer less than one fifth of total amount, which provided for such a negligible percentage.
Rising oil prices, which spiked during the first oil shock in 1973, led to a change general situation. The following year, developed countries accepted a proposal put forward by the dominance of moderate countries in the Group of 77, according to which it was necessary to begin discussions on the foundations of a new international economic order. This issue was the focus General Assembly UN in December 1974, when the Charter was discussed economic rights and responsibilities of states." Since then, a more constructive dialogue has been resumed, albeit with considerable difficulties.
Since 1964, the European Economic Community began to pursue development assistance policies. 18 ex French colonies concluded a convention in Yaounde (Cameroon), thanks to which a development fund was created, but, above all, the convention reflected the intention of the EEC countries to solve the problems of developing countries with greater responsibility. The Yaoundé Convention was first amended in 1974, following Britain's accession to the EEC, and was replaced by the Lomé Convention in 1975. With its signing, the Community policy already covered 46 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (hence the abbreviation ACP). Since then, relations between the EEC and ACP countries have been regulated through amendments to the Lomé Convention, which has contributed to the stabilization of trade and more rational organization assistance, these measures had a significant impact on the entire system international relations.
Over time, the nature of the relationship between industrialized and developing countries has changed. Developing countries were solving the main problem of their economic life With different results. It became impossible to consider them a homogeneous group that required the same approach. Even the countries of the Third World were no longer a homogeneous entity. Some developing countries, thanks to rising oil prices, which made it possible to invest, broke out of the shackles of backwardness and even had to solve the problem of excess financial liquidity. A number of countries, especially in Asia, thanks to close ties with transnational concerns and low labor costs, entered the group of newly industrialized countries - Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and partly Indonesia.
37 Asian, 53 African, 26 American, 3 Oceanic.
17 countries have observer status: Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, El Salvador, Serbia, Montenegro (the status was not re-registered after the division of the state), Tajikistan, Uruguay, Croatia. The same status is given to 5 international and 2 national liberation organizations: UN, African Union, League of Arab States, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OSNAA, Kanak Socialist People's Liberation Front (New Caledonia), New Movement for the Independence of Puerto Rico.
Decision making problem
Despite the fact that the main idea of the Non-Aligned Movement is refusal to participate in military blocs, members of the Movement regularly face the need to develop a common position on certain conflicts. In most cases, there is no unity in the Movement's approaches to conflicts.
For example, at the Cairo Conference of 1964, the stumbling block was the desire to attend the pro-Belgian politician from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Moise Tshombe. Some countries (Nigeria, Liberia, Senegal and Togo) were in favor of admitting Tshombe, while others (such as Yugoslavia) were against it. A majority vote denied Tshombe admission to the conference. Although Tshombe flew to Cairo, he was unable to take part in the conference.
The events of the last decade in world geopolitics have caused different attitudes and approaches to the same problems on the part of the countries participating in the Movement, which was not observed in the recent past. There are both countries that support some kind of revolutionary changes and political processes in the Middle East, and opponents. All this - division and different approaches - is reflected in the work of the summits of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Thus, in 2012, at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, an Egyptian-Syrian scandal erupted, caused by a speech by Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, during which the Syrian delegation left the meeting room. The Egyptian leader described the Syrian government as "repressive" and called for a peaceful establishment democratic regime in this country, and an Iranian diplomat offered his country as a peacekeeper.
Member countries
Observers
- Armenia Armenia
- Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Brazil Brazil
- Kazakhstan Kazakhstan
- Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan
- PRC PRC
- Costa Rica Costa Rica
- Mexico Mexico
- Paraguay Paraguay
- Salvador Salvador
- Serbia Serbia
- Tajikistan Tajikistan
- Uruguay Uruguay
- Croatia Croatia
- Montenegro Montenegro
Former members
Conferences
Conferences of the Non-Aligned Movement on top level(“summits”):
- Belgrade, Yugoslavia, September 1–6, 1961
- Cairo, UAR, October 5-10, 1964
- Lusaka, Zambia, 8-10 September 1970
- Algiers, Algeria, September 5-9, 1973
- Colombo, Sri Lanka, 16-19 August 1976
- Havana, Cuba, September 3-9, 1979
- New Delhi, India, March 7-12, 1983
- Harare, Zimbabwe, 1–6 September 1986
- Belgrade, Yugoslavia, September 4-7, 1989
- Jakarta, Indonesia, September 1-7, 1992
- Cartagena, Colombia October 18-20, 1995
- Durban, South Africa 2-3 September 1998
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-25 February 2003
- Havana, Cuba, September 11-16, 2006
- Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, July 15-16, 2009
- Tehran, Iran, August 26-31, 2012
- Porlamar, Venezuela, September 13-18, 2016
The host country of the next conference, represented by the head of state or government, becomes the chairman of the Movement for the next three years.
The 7th conference was supposed to be held in 1982 in Baghdad, but was postponed and moved to New Delhi due to the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War in September 1980. The 16th conference was scheduled to take place in Ramallah, but was canceled due to Israeli refusal to issue visas to representatives of several countries.
Write a review about the article "Non-Aligned Movement"
Notes
Links
| ||||||||||||||
The NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT is an international organization that unites countries that have declared non-participation in military-political blocs and groupings as the basis of their foreign policy.
At the beginning of the development of DN as a new one in the system of inter-national people's relations in the world of Ban -Dung conference of 1955. At the Ka-ir meeting of representatives of 20 countries of Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America (June 1961), he was co-chair co-van a number of prin-tsi-pov on-li-ti-ki not-with-coe-di-ne-niya: not-for-vi-si-maya external po-li-ti-ka, under- holdings of national-wide movements, non-participation in multi-sided military alliances included in the lo-vi-yah pro-ti-in-the-standing of great powers. Among the os-no-va-te-leys of the DN there were such you-giving-as-you-si-ti-ki as J. Ne-ru, G.A. Na-ser, I. Ti-to, Su-kar-no, K. Nkru-ma. How the organization of the DN was uch-re-zh-de-but at the Bel-grad conference (Yugo-slavia, September 1961; 25th states). In the meeting at the conference, the de-la-ra-tion of the ba-zo-new principles of DN: non-acceptance of dik-ta-ta , ge-ge-mo-niz-ma and ex-pan-si in inter-national ot-no-she-ni-yah, not-about-ho-di-most equal-right -go and mutual-mo-you-year-but-go-with-work-no-thing-st-va between-zh-du go-su-dar-st-va-mi; the struggle for the formation of a new economic order on the basis of justice and equality viya. Ka-ir conference (Egypt, October 1964; 47 states) osu-di-la any forms of incorporation into internal de-la state-states, you have spoken out for the prohibition of nuclear tests in all environments.
With the Lu-Saka conference (Zambia, September 1970; 54th state), the stage of establishing the DN as one but from the institutes in the system of inter-people's from-no-she-nies. The conference for the first time used the terms “Movement of non-connection” in its do-ku-men-tahs " and "go-su-dar-st-va - members of the Movement of non-pri-soe-di-non-niya", with-nya-la prin-tsi-pi-al-but important new decision to “consolidate and expand the area of mutual cooperation in the inter-family” ny, regional, two-sided framework; ensure the continuity of the activities of the pro-ve-de-ni-em of the per-rio-di-che-consul-ta-tions of the pre-sta-vi- those non-united countries at various levels.” The line of the Lu-Sak-conference, aimed at giving stable organizational forms to our co-workers -dar-but-sti-not-with-di-niv-s-countries, was-long-on at the highest forums of the DN in Al-zhi-re (Al- fat, September 1973; 76 state-states), Ko-lom-bo (Sri Lanka, August 1976; 84 state-su-dar-st-va and one national-os-vo- active movement), Ga-va-ne (Ku-ba, September 1979; 92 state-su-dar-st-va and 3 national-os-vo-bo-active movements ), De-li (India, March 1983; 97 states and 2 national-organized movements), Ha-ra-re (Zim-bab-ve, September 1986; 100 states and national movements), Bel-grad (SFRY, September 1989; 98 NAM members). To comply with the adopted resolutions, more than 50 organi- sations were recruited. In the conditions of the “cold war”, using the pro-ti-vo-speech between the West and the East, DN do-bi-elus-tu-pok from both of their military-political blocs, sleep-cha-la on sub-regional-nom and re-gio-nal- nom levels, and then on a global scale. In the 1950s-1980s, in the DN do-ku-men-ts, many places were dis- w-de-nyu ko-lo-nia-liz-ma, neo-ko-lo-nia-liz-ma, apart-tei-yes, ra-siz-ma, that the object is closer together -lo DN with the USSR and the countries of the socialist la-ger. This is the basis for the Soviet leadership to regard the DN as its own union. One-on-most of the countries of the DN osu-di-whether the entry of troops of the Or-ga-ni-za-tion of the War-shav-sko-go-go-vo-ra into Che-kho-slo -wa-kiyu (1968) and Soviet troops in Af-ga-ni-stan (1979).
In the 1990s, in the context of the United States' aspirations to create a possible world in a row, ka, DN is faced with the prin-ci-pi-al pro-ble-my op-re-de-le-of his place and role in the world li-ti-ke. The situation has become increasingly hostile to the crisis of tendencies within the DN itself. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has dissipated, pre-se-da-tel-st-vo-v-shay in it since 1989. In 1991, Ar-gen-ti-na left the DN. Ut-ra-ti-li in-te-res to the DN its European schools - Cyprus and Malta, who submitted applications for entry to the European Union (EU). Such influential members of the NAM as India, Ku-ba, Al-zhir, for different reasons, pay attention to the pro- ble-ma-ti-ke not-pri-soe-di-ne-niya. Dis-cus-siya on po-vo-du per-spek-tiv DN dos-tig-la apo-gay to the moment of co-call of the conference not-with-connection -niv-shih countries in Ja-kar-te (In-do-ne-zia, September 1992; 108 states). At the conference of non-joining countries in Kar-ta-he-ne (Columbia, October 1995; 104 go-su-dar- st-va), in Dur-ba-ne (South Africa, September 1998; 103 go-su-dar-st-va), Kua-la-Lum-pu-re (Malaysia, February 2003; 106 states) and Ga-va-ne (Ku-ba, September 2006; 115 states) formed the modern face of DN as a me-ha-low- ma for the con-co-li-da-tion of the South and from the flock of its in-te-re-sows in the dialogue with Se-ve-r. Dur-ban-skaya de-la-ra-tion op-re-de-li-la place and the role of DN in inter-folk from-no-she-ni-yah as “per-re- before the strength of the new you-th-year-old era, the era of rising nations, the era South, the era of op-rav-dav-shay-sya na-de-zh-dy.” The priority tasks of the DN are the elimination of poverty and ensuring sustainable development countries of the “third world”, giving the globalization a strong social component. Members of the NAM continue to demonstrate ra-di-calism in issues of development, especially nuclear tra-di-ci-on-but voz-la-gaya ot-vet-st-ven-nost for ot-sut-st-vie pro-gress-sa in this issue on the “official-ci-al” “new” nuclear powers - the USA, Russia, France, Great Britain and China. At the same time, the DN is not ready to join the nuclear club of two of its members - India and Pa-ki-sta-na. Participation in the conference in Havana (2006) supported Iran's right to create its own nuclear technology. logic for peaceful purposes. In the or-ga-ni-za-tion of the tra-di-tsi-on-but are strong in the zi-tion of the Islamic states, under the influence of which it I didn’t stand for a clear position in relation to NATO’s actions against Yugoslavia, which were among the DN experts. An important NAM activity is UN reform. DN you-stu-pa-e-et for the re-dis-pre-de-le-tion of the full-but-possible between the Security Council (SB) and General As-samb-le-ey in favor of her, for turning the Security Council into a body accountable to her, in your opinion understanding the role of specialized bodies and UN agencies.
DN - the number of states between which there are deep political and ideological ideas -logical pro-ti-vo-speech, as a result of this, it does not have a clear structure and organization. DN does not have a constitution or a budget. Re-she-nii, with-ni-mae-my con-sen-su-som on sam-mi-tah or con-fe-ren-tsi-yah mi-ni-st-ditch, but-syat re-ko -men-da-tel-ny ha-rak-ter. DN does not have a sec-re-ta-ria-ta or other structure. The main role in the preparation of fo-ru-mov and the management of current affairs is played by the pre-se-da-tel-st-vuyu state -st-vo. An important co-or-di-national mechanism is the “three”, which includes the previous, current and bu-du-shy before-se-da-te-li. Members of the NAM in 2006 included 116 states of Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania, including 51% of the planet's population lives in this area, 46% of the world's land and 86% of the world's land pa-sov oil. Of the countries included in the CIS, Belarus, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are members of the NAM, and Armenia -nia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uk-rai-na po-lu-chi-li pra-va na-blue-da-te-ley. Since 1995, Russia has been teaching in DN formations in the quality of the state.
Essays:
The movement of non-pri-so-di-ne-niya in do-ku-men-tah and ma-te-ria-lah. 2nd ed. M., 1979.
NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT (NAM), an international organization that unites countries that have declared non-participation in military-political blocs and groupings as the basis of their foreign policy.
The development of NAM as a new trend in the system of international relations began with the Bandung Conference of 1955. At the Cairo meeting of representatives of 20 countries of Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America(June 1961) a number of principles of the non-alignment policy were agreed upon: independent foreign policy, support for the national liberation movement, non-participation in multilateral military alliances concluded in the context of confrontation between great powers. Among the founders of the NAM were such outstanding politicians as J. Nehru, G. A. Nasser, I. Tito, Sukarno, K. Nkrumah. NAM was established as an organization at the Belgrade Conference (Yugoslavia, September 1961; 25 states). The declaration adopted at the conference set out the basic principles of the NAM: rejection of dictatorship, hegemony and expansion in international relations, the need for equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between states; the struggle for the formation of a new economic order based on justice and equality. The Cairo Conference (Egypt, October 1964; 47 states) condemned any form of interference in the internal affairs of states and spoke in favor of prohibiting nuclear tests in all environments.
The Lusaka Conference (Zambia, September 1970; 54 states) began the stage of formation of the NAM as one of the institutions in the system of international relations. The conference for the first time used the terms “Non-Aligned Movement” and “member states of the Non-Aligned Movement” in its documents, adopted in principle important decision“strengthen and expand the area of mutual cooperation in international, regional, bilateral frameworks; to ensure continuity of activities by holding periodic consultations of representatives of non-aligned countries at various levels.” The line of the Lusaka Conference, aimed at giving stable organizational forms solidarity of non-aligned countries was continued at the highest NAM forums in Algiers (Algeria, September 1973; 76 states), Colombo (Sri Lanka, August 1976; 84 states and one national liberation movement), Havana (Cuba, September 1979; 92 states and 3 national liberation movements), Delhi (India, March 1983; 97 states and 2 national liberation movements), Harare (Zimbabwe, September 1986; 100 states and national liberation movements), Belgrade (SFRY, September 1989; 98 members DN). To implement the adopted resolutions, over 50 bodies were formed. In the conditions of the Cold War, using the contradictions between the West and the East, the NAM achieved concessions from both military-political blocs, first at the subregional and regional levels, and then on a global scale. In the 1950s-80s, NAM documents devoted a lot of space to anti-imperialist slogans, condemnation of colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, and racism, which objectively brought NAM closer to the USSR and the countries of the socialist camp. This gave reason for the Soviet leadership to consider DN as its ally. However, most NAM countries condemned the entry of Warsaw Pact troops into Czechoslovakia (1968) and Soviet troops into Afghanistan (1979).
At the turn of the 1990s, in the context of the US desire to create a monopolar world order, the NAM was faced with the fundamental problem of determining its place and role in world politics. The situation was aggravated by the growing crisis trends within the NAM itself. The SFRY, which had chaired it since 1989, collapsed. In 1991, Argentina left the NAM. Its European participants, Cyprus and Malta, who submitted applications to join the European Union (EU), have lost interest in the NAM. Such influential NAM members as India, Cuba, and Algeria have, for various reasons, weakened their attention to the issue of non-alignment. The discussion about the prospects for NAM reached its climax at the convening of the conference of non-aligned countries in Jakarta (Indonesia, September 1992; 108 states). At conferences of non-aligned countries in Cartagena (Colombia, October 1995; 104 states), Durban (South Africa, September 1998; 103 states), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia, February 2003; 106 states) and Havana (Cuba, September 2006; 115 states ) formed modern look NAM as a mechanism for consolidating the South and defending its interests in dialogue with the North. The Durban Declaration defined the place and role of NAM in international relations as “the vanguard of the new millennium, ushering in the era of resurgent nations, the era of the South, the era of fulfilled hope.” The priority tasks of the NAM are the eradication of poverty and ensuring sustainable development of the Third World countries, giving globalization a strong social component. Members of the NAM continue to demonstrate radicalism on issues of disarmament, especially nuclear, traditionally blaming the lack of progress on this issue on the “official” nuclear powers- USA, Russia, France, UK and China. At the same time, NAM did not respond to joining nuclear club two of its members - India and Pakistan. Participants of the conference in Havana (2006) supported Iran's right to create its own nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The organization has a traditionally strong position Islamic states, under the influence of which it did not take a clear position regarding NATO’s actions against Yugoslavia, which stood at the origins of the NAM. An important area of NAM activity is UN reform. NAM advocates a redistribution of powers between the Security Council (SC) and the General Assembly in favor of the latter, for turning the Security Council into a body accountable to it, and increasing the role of specialized UN bodies and organizations.
NAM is an association of states between which there are deep political and ideological contradictions; as a result, it does not have a clear structure and organization. The NAM does not have a charter or budget. Decisions taken by consensus at ministerial summits or conferences are advisory in nature. The NAM does not have a permanent secretariat or other structure. The presiding state plays the main role in preparing forums and conducting current affairs. An important coordination mechanism is the “troika”, which includes the previous, current and future chairmen. Members of the NAM in 2006 included 116 states in Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania, which are home to 51% of the planet's population, 46% of arable land and 86% of the world's oil reserves. Of the CIS countries, Belarus, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are members of the NAM, and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine have received observer rights. Since 1995, Russia has been participating in NAM forums as a guest.
Publ.: Non-Aligned Movement in documents and materials. 2nd ed. M., 1979.
Lit.: Non-Aligned Movement. Problems and prospects. M., 1986; Alimov Yu.I. Non-alignment: history, theory, problems. M., 1990; Misra K. R. Nonalignment in international relations. New Delhi, 1993; Agaev E., Krylov S. 116 states in the Non-Aligned Movement // International Affairs. 2006. No. 4.
Non-Aligned Movement - international association developing states, whose policy is based on non-participation in military-political blocs. At the beginning of the 90s. 102 states and national liberation movements took part in it (the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the People's Organization of the South West Africa(SWAPO). At its origins stood prominent political and statesmen. One of them was Indian Prime Minister J. Nehru. Yours current name The Non-Aligned Movement received its 3rd conference in Lusaka in 1970; its emergence dates back to the late 40s - early 50s, when after the end of the Second World War the national liberation movement of the peoples of the colonies unfolded (see Colonialism). It was institutionalized in September 1961 at the 1st Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in Belgrade; Representatives from 25 countries took part in it. Conferences are convened regularly - once every three years (1973 - Algeria; 1976 - Colombo; 1979 - Havana; 1983 - Delhi; 1986 - Harare; 1989 - Belgrade).
At the conferences, the main policy documents Movements that record its goals and principles, aimed at fighting against imperialism and colonialism, and strengthening the positions of non-aligned countries.
In the period between conferences, the country that hosted the last conference performs coordination functions, liaises between countries and represents the Movement at international arena. At the same time, conferences of foreign ministers are held, at which the most important problems of the current moment are discussed and the positions of countries are agreed upon. The annual meetings of heads of delegations and foreign ministers, convened on the eve of the opening of the UN General Assembly sessions, are also devoted to these issues.
To resolve current and other issues, specialized bodies are formed. Decisions at all levels are advisory in nature.
The Non-Aligned Movement has no Charter or budget; its headquarters is the capital of the country where the last conference of heads of state and government was held.
It should be noted that if at first the Movement was mainly concerned with the internal problems of the countries participating in it, then in last years it is paying more and more attention to the most important issues of modern international relations. Thus, at the conference in Harare, issues such as the fight against the arms race and disarmament issues were discussed. The Belgrade Conference showed that the participants of the Non-Aligned Movement are keeping up with the times, advocating participation in a broad international dialogue to solve pressing problems of our time. At this conference, special resolutions were adopted on environmental issues, the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking. The Non-Aligned Movement is also showing great interest in finding new approaches to restructuring the international economic cooperation based on fair and democratic principles.
The Non-Aligned Movement plays an ever-increasing role in the activities of the UN. At sessions of the UN General Assembly, the countries of the Movement make various proposals and introduce draft resolutions on a number of issues.
Loading...
