Anything to Celebrate NAM?
Fifty years is surely a long time, especially in developing nations where average life expectancy is about 60 years. Much current has gone by, leaving in its wake, myriad changes, some fundamental and have altered the world economic, political, and social system for ever, others a repeat of past events, perhaps showing more than anything else that man, still stubbornly refuses to learn from past lessons. One of the most significant and influential changes we have witnessed has been the collapse of communism, not the philosophy as many vestiges of diehards still abound, hoping for yet another revanche, but even them, despite fervent zealotry have had to accept that practically the sentimentality of a collective society with property belonging to all, hardly any leadership to direct others; has been proved by time if not by events, to have been a mere figment of Fredrick Angels and Karl Max imagination. Well, at best it was an ingenuous masterpiece of rhetoric, obfuscation and semantics, ever pieced together by God’s creation..
Indisputably China is still avowed largest communist state, economically buoyant Vietnam still venerates the sickle and hammer as part of its national symbol, Cuba, despite odds, still flirts with communism dictates, at least in rhetoric and official circles. Like it or not, the magic of a free market economy as conceived by Reagan and Margaret Thatcher has apparently taken hold. The incessant jockeying of “ bread-and-better is better than bullets” has at long last prevailed, at least in high political circles. Economic liberalization has taken hold, albeit begrudgingly in many nations and circles, as deregulation of financial and real sectors took hold, divesting state investment to usher in efficiency and incentive for investors became catchphrases towards the end of the 20th century. With time, however, economic realities tend to take courses that are diametrically opposite to those promised to ardent seekers of change. Apparently, leaving the market to the forces of an ‘invisible hand’, does not always, if at all, do the wonders of allocating resources to the most needy sectors; rather as abundant evidence has shown, opens the Pandora’s box of economic, social, and political malaise, from which many a nation that pell-mell threw its weight behind the free market have often been forced to revisit not only the concept, but the practicality in a world incomplete, thin, or no markets at all in many a product, input and services, in which transactions are conducted in developing economies. In a word, we are at the cross roads today. While many owners of immense capital continue to bandy about the idea that freeing markets is the magic wand, call it the hard and fast fix to all economic, and social woes, rising numbers are questioning the very rationale of it. Communism with the command state was the first casualty; slowly but surely sweet romanticism with laissez faire capitalism is all but flickering out. It is difficult for longtime workers in multitude of dingy Russian Federation coalmines, to imagine losing the meager social security they have, at the time when their small real wages have been truncated by rising inflation. The case is not any difficult in Ukraine, whose only hope perhaps, today, is a corrupt free democratic society. Even here, the way Yuschennko handles Industries in the East, will determine whether he will lead Ukraine out of poverty or propel the impoverished nation into deeper economic, social and political quagmire. Privatization has become a bitter word n many a moths, these days. Be an antagonist and you win votes, be a proponent, and you write your political obituary. If that is the world today, can one unequivocally say, the 1950s are beckoning once again? Those days when state had overpowering control over economic, social, political, even cultural life? Well maybe not quite to the letter. The world then as now, was under the tutelage of the industrialized nations. Few nations such as Indonesia, Egypt, India, Pakistan, defunct Yugoslavia, were already holding their heads high as strongly nationalistic, and ready, if need be, to go it alone. This was more than evidenced by the Asia –Africa conference of 1955, when President Soekarno, Prime Minister Jawahru Nehru, Gamel Abdel Nasser, and Josip Broz Tito, of Indonesia, India, Egypt, and now defunct Jugoslavia, respectively, among others, took chances to chart a new course, which they hoped, was in the interest of de-colonized nations. The conference led to the founding of the Non Aligned movement, which, as its name denotes, was supposed to display impartiality to either political block then in ascendance. The conditions underlying the formation of the non-aligned movement o purported to exercise was characterized by a bitter divide between nations that saw capitalism as the way forward for the better of mankind, North American and Western European nations trying their might to win over as many nations as they could to their side, an exercise that was echoed in former Eastern block and Soviet nations. The move was of strategic importance for several reasons. By declaring their non-alignment, the move sent a signal to big nations that ‘we are not ready to become subservient again’. The expectation was that common ground would be taken on issues that pitted the capitalist camp on one hand, and the Communist camp, on the other. One surmised developing nations, would play the capitalist camp against the communist camp to their advantage. Did things go as expected? Perhaps not. For several reasons. It was difficult to figure out what role the non aligned movement would play on the international scene, once the deliberations were over, and delegates went home to juggle solutions to economic, social and political difficulties that were both common and unique to them. Perhaps, another mishap, was that some leaders thought of the organization as a way to catapult themselves from national to international leaders, which itself meant that some nations had to agree to a truncation of their independence for the common good of a solid non aligned movement. One cant forget to note that coming as it did, just in the thick and thin of the raging de-colonization movement especially in Africa, some eyes the budding states as potential satellite states to fulfill their megalomaniac ambitions. This feeling definitely threw off many potential enthusiasts from not just signing treaty to join the organization, but play an active role in it. That explains why many a small nation, decided to continue working with a strong former trusted colonial power, rather than throw themselves into the stranglehold of potential empire builders. Another problem with the organization was that the leaders on the forefront saw it as an avenue to vent their anti-imperialism sentiments, which was noble and good. The problem was that the communists, though not entirely supportive of their ambitions, didn’t show as vehement opposition to its principles, as it did with the capitalist camp. The capitalist camp didn’t fail to see a tenuous sharing of a common goal between dictates of non-alignment and saving the workers of the world from Imperialist yoke, championed by the Eastern Bloc nations. Political and eventually military support often came from the communist countries to aid the non-aligned cause, which created a wedge between avowed members of the organization and the west. Without plan of action to further its goals, and sandwiched between the East and West in international forums, no plans of action, not sufficient funds to pursue any concrete plans duly because of its closeness to the impoverished Eastern bloc, the non-aligned movement only served the landmark as an assorted assemblage of fiery leaders, with ambitions plans but hardly any concrete strategy to realize them. So as we commemorate 50 years of Bandung Asia Africa conference, reflections should focus on what went wrong! Why a noble goal can end up becoming a loud sounding, but hardly hard-hitting paper tiger? The role to be played by the non-aligned world in the new world economy of a single superpower (single economic bloc) is awaited. At a time when the largest communist nation is the largest recipient of foreign direct investment, and others are trying to emulate what it has done to achieve that, irrespective of ‘overt’ political inclinations. Let us wait for the memorable communiqué that will be issued by the dedicated delegates. It should be encouraging if a redefinition of the non-aligned movement takes center stage, to give a new lease of life to the all but dormant organization. Otherwise, if it will be business as usual, this once again will be nothing more than pomp and pageantry with no substantial long-term benefits to people in the developing world, and a huge waste of the scarce resources. It is an opportunity cost developing nations can’t afford today.