Africa,the second lagest continent among the seven continents in the planet "earth" with about 700millions, in terms of human population, with more than 28% of world resources is unaguebly the most poorest continent of all. Africa, can be simply defined as the center of the world where HUNGER, DISEASE, WAR and CORRUPTION symbolised it major physics. It leaders rule with methods of; dictatorship, clownisty and weakness. The followers on the other hand, are sheepishly pre-designed to follow these non-well meaning ruling class with happiness and containment, despite all the vises bedeviling them. Most African academics are rather a threat to education rather tha sources of enlightments. Our educational centeres are mere institutes of paper work for job seeking instruments. As our ruling class whose major place or position within the community of world leaders is that of third class beggers, the following class have shown no signs of any posible difference, or zeal to change our present condition. Like the religious held hamitic hypothesis, we Africans have choosen either consciously or unconsciously to remained the way we are by our actions.
It seems that, our major contribution to world science and civilization is to provide fossil facts, other historic and archeological arte-facts and to donate ourselves for scientific experienment as a form of guinea pigs, for other people of other continents to use. We have become warship centres, where big corporations make used of to test their newly made small and medium scale arms. Not forgeting the economic experienment as always undertaken by the World Bank, IMF and other Bretton Woods institutions. Our commitment can only be seen in talk shows, as witnessed in the various UN general assembly meetings every september, NAM and AU talk-shows as well.
The future had been compromised already. What is left is the posibility that might come later, if the continent is not further consumed by unseen phenomena.....
ABDULAZEEZ BARNABAS ISA >
IS AFRICA’S MEMBERSHIP OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT NECESSARY?
The idea and the emergence of NAM can be said to be a reaction to the post 2nd world war’s emergence of the two ideological blocs; the Western bloc led by the USA and the Eastern bloc led by the USSR. Belgrade’s summit from 1st to 6th September 1961 led to its official emergence, which conceptually based its central theme on international politics of participatory-neutrality; neither against nor for any of the two world new contending power blocs. Its ideologies were influenced by the foreign policy of; Egypt, India and Indonesia. As at 2012, NAM has about 120 member countries, which numbered more than half of the world countries, 53 which are African countries. NAM has neither a charter nor a budget. The main decisions of the movement are in nature of recommendations and are past by consensus. It did not have a permanent secretariat or any bureaucratic structure. NAM was never established as a formal organisation, but became a name that referred to the participants of its conference of heads of states and governments. The basic principles of NAM’s the founding members were: mutual respect for one another’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefits and peaceful co-existence. They focused on neutrality in face of bi-polar world, with support for decolonization of yet to be independent states. In terms of its objectives; the attainment of full sovereignty for its members and other countries yet to be independent was another major goal alongside neutrality, then consistency in world politics, to help create peaceful-coexistence with even opportunities for development for member states and non-members alike. From Belgrade’s 6th September 1961, 1st summit to Tehran’s August 2012 16th summit, NAM objectives had continued to change, due to influence of globalisation. Which had led to questions like; is NAM not a mere instrument of other players or a means of communicating between interlocutors? Is the movement not one of the type which participants jostle in transaction with other groups in absurdity? Is it part of the scenery itself or a common ground for gathering? In 1960s, NAM countries stated that, the movement had no intention and indeed could not form a new, or the third bloc. The implication of this position was that every individual member was free to be aligned with any of the two blocs, which in principle contradicts the movement’s central theme of neutrality. The anti-war, anti neo-imperialism and anti-nuclear energy position of NAM also remained, amidst India’s nuclear capabilities and its arm race with Pakistan. Moreover, the industrially developed countries could afford to forego the exercise of sovereign rights of many former colonies as they could impose their will economically by relying on their high industrial development, organisation and technical knowledge. In terms of anti-war stand, NAM did not influenced beyond verbal rhetoric and theoretical measures as; Arab-Israeli war, Congo war, Nigerian civil war, and other conflicts raged on. International movement must be an instrument to achieve certain goals, within a larger political unit. In the 1960s, NAM during its first phase bore the characteristics of an institution fulfilling the role of an instrument in the hands of a selected few of its mainstream members; Egypt, India and Yugoslavia. 1970 to 1979, NAM changed from the position of mere instrument in the hands of the mainstream founding members, as new influential members emerged led by Cuba, Libya, Algeria, etc with open ideological shift toward the left by many of the members, thus bringing NAM closer to the USSR and China. From 1980 to 1989, NAM’s basic foundation was being threatened by the changing direction in global politics, as the threat to the peace of the world continues to reduce, with the vanishing possibilities of another world war. The movement became more of an arena, where members come together, propose different views but without being effective, partly as results of the aging strengths of the anti-colonial position, in which no any other objective seemed to have been so strong. 1990 to 1999 brought about some important debates into the movement as NAM discovered the nature in which it was becoming increasingly irrelevant, as the end of the cold war, further strengthened the view that it had became ineffectual, powerless, passive, disunited and removed from the main international political stage. For the movement to continue effectively, its concept had to be re-defined. NAM in the 21st century is a phase with a different challenge, different scenario and with a different but complex phenomenon. NAM is now looking at development as the continued increase as implied, in capacity to regulate both internal and external relationship. This can be seen in the movement’s quest to influence world politics through the United Nations, but the new millennium had come with another form of challenges where aggressions, racism, use of force, unfair economic practice; foreign occupation, liberalism and globalization have become the order of the millennium. NAM has also shifted towards the relief off, of the debts of the impoverished states in relation to the creditors, a strong stand against the proliferation of small, medium and light arms as channelled into the developing countries by the developed ones, arm race, forces of new imperialism, expansionism and Zionism. With little or no control over the domestic or foreign policy of its member state, NAM seems too weak to achieve such a broad set of goals. The second obstacle is the symbiotic relationship between transnational organised crime, internal armed conflicts complimented by weak and corrupt governments of which there is no scarcity in Africa and other NAM’s own ranks. With all these short-comings, the movement had achieved some of its goals like; the continued existence of NAM itself amidst diverse ideologies of members, problems related to funds, technology, and logistics, etc. It has helped in reducing world tension with its multilateral policy, through the multi-polar international system. It has also participated actively in world’s conferences. For example, Geneva Disarmaments conference, Nuclear proliferation treaties, the movement was also able to get the world declare racial discrimination day, through the UN, with some consideration of apartheid Nation of South Africa. The movement had at present, refocused her attention from the previous preoccupied; anti-colonialism, anti-cold war or pro-neutrality, to reformations within the United Nations in relations to inequalities of international economic playground, global politics and specifically the membership and influence of the Security Council. But it should be on record that the United Nations whom NAM is now rhetorically calling for its reformation, is also perceived to be a tool of new imperialists; America, UK, France, and even China. Summarily, NAM’s history is not too synonymous with success, and at this 21st century it has shown no signs of consensuses elements in policy direction, except through oratory. The fear of new-imperialism, open and cold war(s) and expansionism can be said to be the main reasons for the emergence of NAM. It has only functioned as unpronounced alternative to the two major blocs. In this construct, NAM was nothing more than a part and parcel of growing global interlocking alliance system, though, has provided an avenue for lobbying and seeming influence. But when stripped of all its ideologies, it is simply a phenomenon where small powers aimed to gain some influence in world politics, it is nothing more than a need to satisfy the psycho-political interest of the newly emerging post colonial elites. One might ask, has NAM been able to stop colonialism? No. Morocco one of its members is still holding up to South Western Sahara. Was, and has the neutrality been maintained? No. Most members were and are either aligned to one of the two blocs, individually or are aligned to one imperialist, expansionist or economically powerful. They are always been infiltrated, influenced or corrupted. Has NAM been able to regulate wars and the proliferation of weapons, even among its members? No. Some of its members like India, Cuba, Iran, South Africa, Pakistan, etc, are today not only engaged in arms race alone, but are part of the states spreading arms all over. NAM did nothing more than rhetoric during Arab-Israeli war in the late sixties and seventies, Angola in the 1975 – 2001, Liberia from 1989 to mid 1990s, Sierra-Leone, invasion of Iraq in 1991 and 2003, Afghanistan, Panama and so many others. NAM is only nominally relevant in global politics as result of the possible bloc’s vote she probably seems to possessed, but that is also a subject to question in today’s global politics. For example the movement inability to agree or put forward a single or group of candidates in case of its open quest in favour of increase in the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. There are those elements showing that some members within are as expansionists and imperialistic of the old and neo-imperialists order themselves. NAM relied on nominal international political status as its major source of power in global political arena. In an era which, African leaders have either consciously, unconsciously or misdirect-ably chosen to remained dependents, bedevilled by corrupt, weak and puppet governments, such suggests that African membership of NAM cannot yield any positive results as it is and by such, is not necessary. It is clear that this multilateralism can neither decide nor influence how, and on what terms nations will compete for the earth’s diminishing resources. It also seemed to be an ordinary reaction seemingly and rhetorically stating that comrade, the European game has finally ended; we must find something different. But in action, the movement had justified philosophy of uncertain allegiance to former colonial states and the world powers, which can be rooted in the saying we brought you up to our level and you are now against your benefactor. NAM has became too secondary to other international organizations, as it cannot be compared in sphere of influence with any continental political body like the African Union (AU), European Union (EU), Organization of American States (OAS), Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), etc. Even within the United Nations, where the movement is struggling to create equilibrium of influence in representation, the issue of overbearing political power of the five permanent members’ of UN’s Security Council is enough to thwart any intention, suggestion and interest of this fragile movement. The absurdity of NAM can be seen in its lack of major political will, direction, ideology, control over member states, etc. <
REFERENCE Alexander Orlov (2002) The Non-Aligned Movement: 40 Years After. Copyright 2002, EBSCO Publishing (PDF file) Chinweizu (1979) The West and the Rest of Us: White Predators, Black Slavers and African Elites; random House. USA Franz Fanon (1952) Black Skin, White masks. Translated by Charles Lam Markmann. Pluto Press, 345 archery Road, London N6 5AA Franz Fanon (1963) The Wretched of The Earth. Translated by; Constance faring. Grove Press, 841, Broadway, New York. NY 10003. George Liska (1990) Nations in alliance. The Limit of International politics of Primacy. John Hopkins Press. Gideon Malherbe Wessel (June 2002) The Changed Meaning of Non-Alignment in International Politics. The Case of NAM; 1961-1992, Master of Art’s Dissertation. University of South Africa. (PDF file) Henie Strydon (2007) A. Von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum (Eds) Non-Aligned Movement and Reform of International Relations. Max Plank Yearbook of United Nations Law. Volume 11, 2007. Koninkljke N. V. Netherlands. Hollis Martin and smith Steve (1990) Explaining and Understanding international Relations. Oxford Cleredon press. N. Florquin (2006) The illicit Trade in Small Arms and light weapons. IIAS News letter 42. www.mpil.de/../01_strydom_11.pdf Sally Morphet (2004) Multilateralism and Non-Aligned movement; What is the Global South Doing and Where is it Going? Global Governance Review Essay. Lynne Rienner Publishers, UK Srivastava, S. K and Sahni, S. N (1995) policy of Non-Aligned; Bandung to Cartagena. International institute for Non-Aligned Studies. Walter Rodney (1972) How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Panaf Publishing, Inc. Powa Complex Asokoro Abuja, Nigeria.