Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
NAM (India's Contribution to the Non-Alignment Movement: Different…
NAM
-
-
Comments -
TP Sreenivasan - There is need to take wider interpretation of NAM. It does not mean unaligned. Non-military alliances are within the ambit of non-alignment. India does not have to denounce non-alignment to follow its present foreign policy. NAM is a heritage we need not discard.
Prof Anuradha Chenoy (JNU) - NAM has both relevance and renewed importance. NAM countries are both post-colonial and part of global south. They share common problems. Collectively these countries can become much more powerful and emerge as counter hegemonic bloc.
As the world has changed so NAM also has to change. Brazil and China should be asked to join it. It should work for peace, for more equal and democratized international system and for UN reforms.
There is need of proper structure and more regular meetings. NAM should play greater role in Africa, where 53 African countries (except South Sudan) are NAM members, rather than allowing NATO to take the lead.
C Rajamohan - NAM is in a state of coma. It would have been better if member countries had dissolved NAM after CW, claiming mission accomplished. It would have been a graceful exit rather than present state.
Conclusion - NAM's relevance is questioned not because world order has changed but because NAM has no concrete achievement. The Cold War may have ended but peace in the world is still threatened by forces of extremism, terrorism and large stocks of WMD. There is need of result oriented actions and not only general talks.