Recent Articles

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Role of Non-Aligned Movement in International Politics

Saturday, June 19, 2010 - 2 Comments

Analyze the role of NAM Non-Aligned Movement during Cold War.

Ans: Movement (NAM) is an international organization of states considering themselves not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. It was founded in 1950s; as of 2007, it has 118 members. The purpose of the organization as stated in the Havana Declaration of 1979 is to ensure “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, Zionism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics”. They represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nation’s members and comprise 55% of the world population.

Important members have included Yugoslavia, India, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, South Africa, Iran, Malaysia, and, for a time, the Peoples Republic of China. Brazil has never been a formal member of the movement, but shares many of the aims of NAM and frequently sends observers to the Non-Aligned Movement’s summits. While the organization was intended to be as close an alliance as NATO or the Warsaw Pac, it has little cohesion and many of its members were actually quite closely aligned with one or another of the great powers. For example, Cuba was closely aligned with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War era. India was effectively aligned with the Soviet Union against China for many years. Additionally, some members were involved in serious conflicts with other members (e.g. India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq). The movement fractured from its own internal contradictions when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. While the Soviet allies supported the invasion, other members (particularly Muslim nations) of the movement found it impossible to do so.

The Non-Aligned Movement has struggled to find relevance since the end of the Cold War. After the break-up of Yugoslavia, a founding member, its successor states of Yugoslavia have expressed little interest in membership though some have observer status. In 2004, Malt and Cyprus ceased to be members and joined the European Union.

Secretaries General

Between summits, the Non-Aligned Movement is run by the Secretary general elected at last summit meeting. As a considerate part of the movement’s work is undertaken at the United Nations in New York, the chair country’s ambassador to the UN is expected to devote time and effort to matters concerning the Non-Aligned Movement. A Co-ordinating Bureau, also based at the UN, is the main instrument for directing the work of the movement’s task forces, committees and working groups.

Role of NATO after the September 11 Attacks

NATO After the September 11 Attacks

The expansion of the activities and geographical reach of NATO grew even further as an outcome of the September 11 attacks. These caused as a response the provisional invocation (on September 12) of the collective security of NATO’s charter – Article 5 which states that any attack on a member state will be considered an attack against the entire group of members. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included the first two examples of military action taken in response to an invocation of Article 5: Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour.

Despite this early show of solidarity, NATO faced a crisis little more than a year later, when on 10 February 2003, France and Belgium vetoed the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its right to break the procedure but said it supported the veto.

On the issue of Afghanistan on the other hand, the alliance showed greater unity: on 16 April 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all 19 NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATO’s history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. Canada had originally been slated to take over ISAF by itself on that date.

In January 2004, NATO appointed Minister Hikmet Cetin, of Turkey, as the Senior Civilian Representative (SCR) in Afghanistan. Minister Cetin is primarily responsible for advancing the political-military aspects of the Alliance in Afghanistan.

On 31 July 2006, a NATO-led force, made up mostly of troops from Canada, Great Britain, Turkey and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a U. S.-led anti-terrorism coalition.

Role of NATO during Cold War when different Nations were in Détente

Détente

During most of the duration of the Cold War, NATO maintained a holding pattern with no actual military engagement as an organisation. On 1 July 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opened for signature: NATO argued that its nuclear weapons sharing arrangements did not breach the treaty as U. S. forces controlled the weapons until a decision was made to go to war, at which point the treaty would no longer be controlling. Few states knew of the NATO nuclear sharing arrangements at that time, and they were not challenged.

On 30 May 1978, NATO countries officially defined two complementary aims of the Alliance, to maintain security and pursue détente. This was supposed to mean matching defences at the lever rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact’s offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms race. However, on 12 December 1979, in light of a build-up of Warsaw Pact nuclear capabilities in Europe, ministers approved the deployment of U. S. Cruise and Pershing II theatre nuclear weapons in Europe. The new warheads were also meant to strengthen the western negotiating position in regard to nuclear disarmament. This policy was called the Dual Track policy. Similarly, in 1983 – 84, responding to the stationing of Warsaw Pact SS-20 medium-range missiles in Europe, NATO deployed modern Pershing II missiles able to reach Moscow within minutes. This action led to peace movement protests throughout Western Europe.

The membership of the organisation in this time period likewise remained largely static. In 1974, as a consequence of the crisis in Cyprus, Greece withdrew its forces from NATO’s military command structure, but, with Turkish cooperation, was readmitted in 1980. On 30 May 1982 NATO gained a new member when, following a referendum, the newly democratic Spain joined the alliance.

In November 1983, NATO manoeuvres simulating a nuclear launch caused panic in the Kremlin. The Soviet leadership, led by ailing General Secretary Yuri Andropov, became concerned that the manoeuvres, codenamed Able Archer 83, were the beginnings of a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in Eastern Germany and Poland were placed on alert. Though at the time written off by U. S. intelligence as a propaganda effort, many historians now believer that the Soviet fear of a NATO first strike was genuine.

© 2013 Notes for Pakistan. All rights reserved.
Designed by SpicyTricks