Neutrality

1. 5/4/23, 12:43 PM
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a Moment
Page 1 of 7
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/EjT8zu
https://www.usip.org /publications/2023/05/new-nonaligned-movement-having-moment
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a
Moment
As the Global South states look to insulate themselves from great power
competition, they must uphold the principles of the international order.
Thursday, May 4, 2023 / By: Andrew Cheatham
Editor’s Note: The following is the first installment of a two-part series looking
at the nonaligned movement amid and after Russia’s war on Ukraine. Part two
will discuss why the nonaligned movement should condemn Russia’s invasion
and continue to support the foundational principles of the international order.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has accentuated emerging geopolitical trends that
have coincided with the rise and intensification of great power competition. The
re-emergence of the nonaligned movement (NAM) as a geopolitical force is
perhaps the most salient example. Indeed, this month’s edition of Foreign
Affairs — a reliable barometer of key trends in international affairs — is
dedicated to the “nonaligned world.” By definition, NAM states do not want to
be forced to choose sides between the United States and/or Russia and China.
But as we move into a multipolar era of accelerating great power competition,
these states will find themselves caught between major powers.

2. 5/4/23, 12:43 PM
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a Moment
Page 2 of 7
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/EjT8zu
Egypt’s foreign minister delivers remarks at the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 24, 2022.
Nonaligned countries like Egypt have been reluctant to “take sides” between Russia and
the West regarding the war in Ukraine. (Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Matias Spektor argues in Foreign Affairs that NAM countries can benefit from a
"fence-sitting" approach, maintaining neutrality and avoiding direct alignment
with any major power. The dozens of countries that have abstained from U.N.
votes on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are an example of this fence-sitting. It
may be true that NAM countries can benefit from this approach. As showcased
throughout the Cold War, nonaligned countries were often able to leverage
U.S.-Soviet competition for their own ends, without bending to pressures from
either side. However, “fence sitting” and neutral geopolitical positions amid
great power rivalry should never be an excuse for refusing to act, or even
speak out, against violations of the most fundamental laws and norms of our
current international order, like Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Rethinking Neutrality and Nonalignment for a New Era
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has renewed discussions of state “neutrality” as a
matter of law and policy. However, in a world where aggressive war has been
outlawed, modern concepts of neutrality should be evaluated in conjunction
with the evolving ideals of nonalignment, such as those professed by the NAM.

3. 5/4/23, 12:43 PM
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a Moment
Page 3 of 7
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/EjT8zu
An inquiry into the implications of the normative, legal and realpolitik
deployments of neutrality for conflict dynamics around the world may help
shape policies that seek to prevent a devastating spill over from the war in
Ukraine or other potential conflicts that implicate major nuclear-armed powers.
One question is how policymakers, particularly those from nonaligned states,
may contend with the history and the evolving constructions of neutrality within
the international liberal order and its contributions to preventing interstate
conflict.
In war, neutrality implicates the classic legal obligations outlined in the 1907
Hague Conventions, among other legal instruments. Long-term or so-called
“permanent” neutrality, as well as nonalignment, can both apply to peacetime
relations with potential warring parties. Despite shifts in international law and
international relations since Europe‘s 19th and early 20th century “age of
neutrals,“ several political scientists argue that the concept has “remained a
potent issue for domestic reasons that emerged or continued long after
neutrality had outlived its original functions of providing security and stability in
Europe.”
Soon after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, analysts explored Ukraine’s potential
“neutralization” as a possible negotiated buffer to address Russian grievances
linked to NATO expansion. Meanwhile, the NATO applications of Finland and
Sweden, two states with a history of neutrality, has also raised questions about
the future of neutrality in the modern era. Some observers have reviewed the
terms of neutrality under international law, as it related to the supply of
weapons and materiel to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression.
But the center of gravity for less legalistic discussions of neutrality has
emerged outside of Europe, coinciding with dynamic diplomatic, geopolitical
and economic developments in the Global South. These conversations are a
reinvigoration of the related concept of “nonalignment” — a term and
designation that has evolved since its great prominence in diplomacy during
the Cold War.
Nonaligned states, like permanently neutral ones, remain outside security
blocs; however, nonalignment is not legal by bilateral treaty, by the multilateral
1907 Hague Conventions’ “neutral rights and duties,” or by customary law.
Scholars often clarify that neutrality and nonalignment of the sort that emerged

4. 5/4/23, 12:43 PM
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a Moment
Page 4 of 7
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/EjT8zu
in the NAM, while related, are technically distinct. However, neutrality in
normative and political terms can encompass the modern definition of
nonalignment when applied perpetually in war and peace.
Today, the NAM includes 119 U.N.-member states, including many countries
highly influential on the global stage like India, Indonesia and South Africa. In a
world where realpolitik and great power rivalry increasingly dominate
international relations, the core principles of peaceful coexistence that lie at the
heart of the nonaligned movement are as important as ever. Wars of
aggression like the one we see waged by Russia on Ukraine, are clear
violations of these fundamental principles and should be unambiguously
condemned by members of the NAM.
The Founding of the Nonaligned Movement
To better understand the current inflection point for conceptions of
nonalignment, it is important to review the evolution of the NAM. Since the
beginning of the Ukraine conflict, many NAM members signaled worries that
support for Ukraine would draw disproportionate international attention and
resources in the face of many other pressing global humanitarian and security
challenges. In recent months, many NAM members voiced further frustrations
as food, fuel and financial crises, caused or exacerbated by the conflict, have
disproportionately impacted nonaligned states. The recent tragic violence in
Sudan offers yet another chance for critics to highlight the failed development
and diplomatic interventions of the West and the broader international
community in Africa. These understandable concerns are born of a rich history
of advocacy for decolonized, decolonizing and developing nations, which have
had to bear the hypocrisy and exceptionalism of great powers for the better
part of a century.
The concept of nonalignment evolved in the latter half of the 20th century with
the ideas of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who promoted a “third
way” for countries sympathetic to the idea of refusing to choose between the
capitalist liberalism of the United States or the communism of the Soviet Union.
The NAM was formally established at the 1955 Bandung Conference in
Indonesia. Among the members, a “declaration on the promotion of world
peace and cooperation,” incorporating the principles of the U.N. Charter,
including territorial integrity, sovereignty and nonaggression, was unanimously
adopted.

5. 5/4/23, 12:43 PM
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a Moment
Page 5 of 7
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/EjT8zu
In subsequent years, what would become the NAM gained great momentum in
countries deeply impacted by European colonialism. In the 1960s, Kwame
Nkrumah of Ghana, a major leader in the NAM, popularized the term
“neocolonialism,” which he used to explain the efforts by the former colonial
powers and the United States to maintain dominion over newly independent
states. Despite ideological and policy differences, the movement vigorously
sustained the principle of united opposition to hegemonic interference.
By the 1970s, the NAM had grown significantly and began to splinter. Following
the 1970 Lusaka Summit, some members moved to use the group to act as a
formal voting bloc in the U.N. General Assembly; others disagreed.
Additionally, while the NAM remained defined by its ambivalent policies
towards the East and West, there was a noticeable shift to a more activist
group of new leaders supporting aggressive advocacy for their economic
demands. In 1989, with the end of the Cold War, the NAM largely lost
relevance. However, its members continued to meet and often focused
discussions on global economic equity and opposition to unipolar U.S.
hegemony.
Nonalignment in the 21st Century
The NAM of the 21st century is pragmatic and instrumental but is also
characterized by vocal opposition to issues such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
reduced development assistance, climate and energy inequities and other “sins
of the West.” For many NAM members and countries that have been
supportive of the movement, like China, these historical grievances have made
them reluctant — or at least hesitant — to side with the West in multilateral
forums, which includes today an unwillingness to “take sides” between Russia
and the West regarding the war in Ukraine.
This reluctance was on full display early in the conflict when the U.N. General
Assembly put forward a resolution in March 2022 condemning Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine. While 141 U.N.-member states supported the measure, 25
abstained, including two influential NAM members, India and South Africa. The
following month, when the General Assembly voted to expel Russia from the
Human Rights Council, more dissenting voices emerged, with 58 member
states abstaining and 24 voting against it. These abstentions included the
surprising additions of several large nations, like Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Egypt
and Indonesia, three of which are core members of the NAM.

6. 5/4/23, 12:43 PM
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a Moment
Page 6 of 7
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/EjT8zu
Moreover, NAM members like India, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan,
Indonesia and Malaysia have helped Russia sidestep sanctions by increasing
their bilateral trade in goods such as semiconductors, arms, cellphones,
fertilizers and other products. Russia recently announced that its oil sales to
India increased 22 fold in 2022 and liquid natural gas exports to the country
also increased significantly. In fact, Russia became India’s fourth-largest
trading partner during the sanctions period with imports from the country
increasing “five times to $32.9 billion” between April and December 2022.
Commentators note that the war has accentuated existing political, economic
and cultural divisions and contributed to more illiberal politics. In addition to the
reluctance to condemn Russia’s aggression — a sign of disrespect for the
liberal international order — nonaligned countries have also responded to and
been influenced by broader geopolitical changes, such as U.S. reductions in
diplomatic and development programs since the global financial crisis of 2008
and subsequent shifts away from the Global War on Terror.
These trends have allowed leaders to centralize and concentrate power at
home, often at the expense of fundamental liberal principles, evidenced most
comprehensively by international human rights law violations. One strong
indicator of a country’s infidelity to international human rights norms is whether
the U.N. Human Rights Council has issued a special mandate to investigate
human rights abuses within specific countries. Of the 14 countries with these
“special procedures” in place in 2022, all but Russia and North Korea are
members of the NAM.
Moreover, according to Freedom House, 21 of the 30 countries with the largest
10-year declines in freedom are nonaligned. Anecdotally, the NAM’s five
largest members — India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh —
have in recent years been heavily criticized for growing human rights concerns.
These trends follow a pattern that predates Russia’s aggression in 2022, as
many nonaligned countries also elected to abstain from U.N. votes
condemning Russia following its annexation of Crimea in 2014.
The NAM’s current grievances are legitimate, and the growing influence of
members such as India, Indonesia and South Africa on the international stage
is undeniable. As the world enters a new phase of state alliances and
diplomatic relations, reviewing the international legal structures that underpin
the existing order is necessary. Constructive developments in this arena must
account for changing national identities, including struggles to find and agree

7. 5/4/23, 12:43 PM
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a Moment
Page 7 of 7
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/EjT8zu
on joint narratives and collective norms. At the same time, the rules of the
international liberal order emerged out of a generation devastated by the
scourge of modern warfare. Commitment to theses foundational liberal
principles of territorial integrity, sovereignty and nonaggression was a
cornerstone of the NAM’s creation. These principles must not be abandoned or
eroded by power politics or shallow identity politics.
Global Policy