Non-Aligned Movement Research Articles

OF HAWKS AND DOVES

The policies toward countries aspiring to acquire nuclear weapons continue to be heavily contested, differing even among countries that consider nuclear proliferation as one of the main threats to international security. This article maps the actual policies of liberal democracies toward Iran and North Korea along a continuum from confrontation to accommodation. Using data from an expert survey, the authors outline four main findings. First, policies toward both Iran and North Korea have become increasingly confrontational over time. Second, no policy convergence was observed among the states studied; that is, notwithstanding the adoption of joint sanctions, differences remained between states preferring confrontation and those opting for accommodation. Third, states maintained remarkably stable policy profiles over time. Finally, despite obvious differences between the norm violations of North Korea and Iran, states generally followed remarkably similar policies toward both countries. The authors’ findings indicate that states exhibit stable preferences for either confrontation or accommodation toward nuclear aspirants. Although a comprehensive examination of the causes of these policy differences is beyond the scope of this article, the authors present evidence that a major cleavage exists between members and non-members of the Non-Aligned Movement, indicating that the degree to which nuclear aspirants’ sovereignty should be respected is a main issue of contention.

The Cost of Globalization: Global Winds at the Bottom of the Pyramid

Today’s world is a consumerist world and globalization has given the consumer a range of choice. But the main benefit has been at the elite level where in today’s elite studies at Harvard, vacations in Switzerland, buys luxury products from France and lives a jet setting life style. By reducing the cost of globalization, the benefits of globalization can be had at bottom of pyramid and this could ensure broad based support for globalization. In the last part of the article, we look at how Indian Institutions such as IIT have fared at the bottom of the pyramid in a period of globalized labor markets. We look at how India has reduced security costs through membership in the nonaligned movement. We also look at how Indian culture has survived the onslaught of globalization and indeed is thriving all over the world. It is an advanced view of globalization in which the bottom of the pyramid is able to thrive on the winds of change. Also there is an ethical point as costs to culture and environment are kept low. The costs of globalization have had a deep effect on India and in turn India has influenced the world.

The Fourth Asian Games (Jakarta 1962) in a Transnational Perspective: Japanese and Indian Reactions to Indonesia's Political Instrumentalisation of the Games

This article focuses on the Fourth Asian Games (Jakarta 1962) and the influence the Cold War, decolonisation and the Non-Aligned Movement had on international sports events. Caught between Indonesian nationalism under President Sukarno's ‘guided democracy’, pan-Asian responsibilities and the ‘Olympic ideal’, including not to mix sport and politics, a way had to be found to deal with Indonesia's decision to bar the participation of two member countries inthe Asian Games. Since the Games had been planned as a prestige project by the Indonesian government, foreign delegates faced the risk of serious political repercussions if Indonesia's behaviour was criticised or even challenged. Nevertheless, at the same time, international sports organisations put pressure on the delegates to uphold the ‘Olympic ideal’ of non-discrimination for political reasons. This article discusses how the Japanese and the Indian delegates responded to these incompatible demands.

A Transformed Turkey: What is the Role for Ankara as a Regional Power?

Over the course of a decade, Turkey has transformed itself from a status quo-oriented, peripheral member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to an emerging power with an ambition to shape regional power dynamics. This transformation was accomplished in two phases. In the first phase, backed by its impressive economic performance, Turkey emerged as an influential regional actor, prioritizing its soft power. The second, ongoing phase was prompted by the Arab Spring and Turkey’s need to respond to these changes. This paper examines the drivers of both transformation phases and evaluates the consequences for Turkey’s relations with its neighbors. The First Big Change: A Quest for Strategic Autonomy 1 Since the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Ankara’s foreign policy has had one overriding objective: to assist with the country’s transformation into a modern nation state. The founding fathers of modern Turkey wanted to make a clear break with the country’s Ottoman past. Therefore, imperialist policies were replaced by policies that contributed to the modernization of Turkey, and the Westernization of Turkish society. A consequence of this national objective, however, was the loss of Turkey’s strategic autonomy. The Cold War dictated Turkey’s strategic dependence on the United States, which acted as a global security provider. With its eastern frontier bordering the Soviet Union, Turkey sought to ensure its security by joining NATO. Membership in the alliance affected Turkey’s foreign policies and limited its policy space. As a NATO member, Turkey found it difficult to diversify its relations with many of its neighbors that were part of the Warsaw Pact or members of the Non-Aligned Movement. After 1960, the drive for Turkey’s membership in the European Union (EU) generated a similar dynamic. While the EU membership process helped Turkey to vastly improve its democratic deficit, it also enhanced Brussels’ leverage over Turkish policy. As a result, Turkey was constrained by the need to align itself with the Western consensus. Turkey’s ruling elites accepted the trade-off between security and autonomy as the cost of Turkey’s Westernization.

Appendix II: Prior Non–Aligned Movement heads of state or government summits

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Notes

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Chapter One: NAM origins, structure, policymaking and politics

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Chapter Four: Looking to the future

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Chapter Three: Peaceful uses and beyond: NAM in Vienna

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Appendix I: List of members, NAM and the G-77

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Chapter Two: NAM, nuclear non-proliferation and the 2010 NPT Review Conference

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Conclusion

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Introduction

The Non-Aligned Movement is the largest grouping of states engaged on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues, comprising more than two-thirds of the membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, the movement is often misunderstood by Western scholars and policymakers, who typically fail to appreciate the diversity of views among its 120 members and 17 observer states. This Adelphi explores the structures and politics within NAM, and stresses the potential for greater engagement between NAM members and the West in mitigating many of the most pressing nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorism challenges. Its thorough examination of how NAM business is conducted, along with an analysis of how prominent members or groups of members have sought to dominate it for their own purposes, offers invaluable insight ahead of the 2015 NPT Review Conference and as NAM approaches a possible watershed moment inthe movement's history: the assumption by Iran of the chairmanship in mid-2012.

Africa–India nuclear cooperation: Pragmatism, principle, post-colonialism and the Pelindaba Treaty

The United States–India nuclear agreement, announced in 2005, was a first step in the process to normalise India's international nuclear relations despite the fact that India is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Africa is largely seen as a uranium supplier rather than nuclear power producer in the world nuclear order. The position that African states take towards Africa–India nuclear cooperation, uranium supply to India in particular, is informed by two seemingly contrasting factors, namely economic and political pragmatism on the one hand, and non-proliferation imperatives and norms on the other. The African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, also referred to as the Pelindaba Treaty, prohibits uranium and nuclear-related exports to states without comprehensive safeguards of their nuclear facilities, but the case of India is still open for interpretation. Africa and India's shared post-colonial consciousness, manifesting in their historical ties, membership of the Non-Aligned Movement and South–South cooperation, is often regarded as another factor facilitating Africa–India nuclear relations. A more critical view points to the different notions of post-coloniality in Africa and India, resulting in different approaches to nuclear non-proliferation that constrain their nuclear relations.

China's Maritime Challenge in the Indian Ocean

Every Indian of my generation has some abiding childhood memories relating to China. I can recall, from my school own days, inspiring phrases about “Panchsheel” and the “Non-Aligned Movement” which...

A NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TEST

The most important short-term success of President Barack Obama's nuclear weapons policy has been to halt the erosion of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Obama's policies helped extract a minimum positive result from the 2010 NPT Review Conference, a favorable outcome compared to the chaos that his predecessor's representatives had created at the 2005 conference. However, the result is only a compromise of the least common denominator between the nuclear weapon states and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The nuclear weapon states refused to agree to any specific actions or deadlines for disarmament, while the NAM states rejected any strengthening of the nonproliferation toolbox. The 2010 conference's final document is thus an exercise in minimalism, with the notable exception of the section addressing the Middle East. As measured by delegates’ statements, the Obama policy was welcomed as a positive development. This factor enabled key players, such as Egypt and Brazil, to strive for compromise, and others, such as Russia and China, not to block it. This outcome owes more to the “Prague spirit” and the New START than to the Nuclear Posture Review. By compromising on the Middle East, the Obama administration showed the necessary flexibility to motivate the key NAM actor, Egypt, to deliver the agreement of that bloc, foiling the intentions of Iran to prevent a consensus.

MINDFUL OF THE MIDDLE EAST

This article explores the official Egyptian reaction to the 2010 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) through three lenses: Egypt's national security prism; its ideological stance on nuclear weapons; and the compatibility of the 2010 NPR's goals with the position on nuclear weapons of Egypt's like-minded cohort states, including members of the League of Arab States, the African Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the New Agenda Coalition. Egypt is one of the strongest US allies in the Middle East, a region considered a hotbed of potential nuclear weapons development and activity. As such, Cairo's opinion on the direction of recent US nuclear weapons policy could provide valuable insight into the feasibility of the US goals of preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism and the compatibility of this policy with the Middle East's greater goals of eventual total nuclear disarmament and the safe and peaceful use of nuclear energy. Egyptian officials have reiterated their commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East and their support for a world free from the threat of nuclear arms. The Egyptian assessment of the NPR will be contingent on the implementation of the review's lofty goals on a rigorous and progressive pace. This article evaluates the NPR's provisions from three angles with particular emphasis on Egypt's national security prism, which involves a complex regional perspective.

A Revolution Nonetheless: The Global South in International Relations

There have been debates on the meaning and appropriateness of the term Global South. To many, no unifying term can apply to regions and countries whose differences extent to the colonial past, cultural traditions, economic trajectories, and administrative or organizational structures. The critics are mistaken. This essay postulates that the term Global South is a symbolic designation with political implications. It is meant to capture a cohesion that emerged when former colonial entities engaged in political projects of decolonization and moved toward the realization of a postcolonial international order. As it stands today, the Global South has its origins in twentieth-century anti-colonialism, the 1955 Bandung Conference, the 1961 Non-Aligned Movement, and Cuba’s Tricontinentalism, among others. Although the term Global South gained currency at the end of the Cold War, when the term Third World seemed to fall into disfavor, the change does not signify a renunciation of the ‘Third World.’ It merely signals an adjustment in ideological and political positioning to reflect the new forms of contentions around the legacies of colonialism. Thus, the Global South captures the spirit of Third World engagements in that it continues to invite re-examinations of the intellectual, political, and moral foundations of the international system. The Global South is therefore a multifaceted movement that underscores the need for a postcolonial international community of interest that advances the objectives of equality, freedom, and mutuality in the form of a new ethos of power and subjectivity through foreign policy, international solidarity, and responsibility to self and others in an international order free of the institutional legacies of colonialism. Finally, as a movement, the Global South has no central structure, no central command, and no appointed spokesperson. It has had multiple custodians, all of them self-selected, in reaction to the deepening and multifaceted violence experienced at the moment by its members.

Africa and the Non-Aligned Movement

Africa and the Non-Aligned Movement

ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVES FOR ARMS CONTROL

The efforts of President Barack Obama and his administration to restore the United States as a driving force of multilateral arms control and nonproliferation negotiations are commendable, yet the lack of progress on such issues over the last eight years has ensured that U.S. policy has not kept pace with changes in the geostrategic environment and the evolving security agenda. Meanwhile, an alternative agenda has been articulated by non-Western countries. This article focuses on the arms control perspectives of Non-Aligned Movement states and others that have begun to embrace the idea of “disarmament as humanitarian action.” It explores this idea in the context of recent initiatives and argues that if the Obama administration wants to make progress on its arms control and nonproliferation priorities, it should consider a multifaceted approach that incorporates this emerging alternative agenda.