National security adviser Shivshankar Menon, Prime Minister’s special envoy Shyam Saran, former NSA and West Bengal governor M.K. Narayanan, and other leading figures of the establishment are slated to launch on February 28 their vision of the country’s foreign and strategic policy over the next decade, which they are calling Nonalig-nment.2.
While the ideas to be projected have been in the works for more than a year, the contextual irony for the midwifing of Nonalignment.2 can hardly be missed. On February 16, a US-backed non-binding resolution seeking the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria cleared the UN General Assembly in what can only be called a revolutionary wave. The voting was 137 for, 12 against, and 17 countries abstained. The negative votes were led by Russia and China. India, the undisputed leader of Nonalignment.1 was on the opposite side, along with the US. Upto the dissolution of the USSR, when the original nonalignment was around, the US complained of “the tyranny of the majority” in the UNGA. On major questions, its side suffered momentous defeats. The February 16 result is a stunning reversal of that historical trend.
If the politics of that reversal can be sustained by influencing friendly countries around the world, it is not inconceivable that one day America might have its way even on the Palestine question, on which the defeats of the US bloc and Israel have been the most spectacular.
The resolution that came to the UNGA had been vetoed in the UN Security Council by Russia and China on January 27. It is unusual for a move that is knocked out in the UNSC to carry the day in the UNGA with such aplomb, as we have witnessed in the Syria case.
So, is there a change afoot on the international stage, or Syria is only a one-off? Proponents of Nonalignment.2 will need to think carefully as they answer the question.
The document they hope to present next Tuesday is slated, according to the organisers, to contain ideas about factors favourable to India in the world, the likely problems and challenges, and the approach to world affairs to be adopted.
The last is tied to issues that were privileged by the original nonalignment, principally, opposition to “colonial” or “neo-imperial” wars which took a toll of the poor countries, the former colonies.
The key problem for nationalists in the world of the fifties or the sixties, the “principal contradiction” in the language of the Marxists who backed the nonaligned movement led by nationalists of many stripes-was “imperialism”, essentially US-bloc policies for global domination.
What is the “principal contradiction” today? The success of Nonalignment.2 may be predicated on how this is defined. Also, on how the definition is canvassed round the world.