Aligned Movement (NAM) at Sharm El-Sheikh earlier his month, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak declared that the Movement was ‘alive and well.' But is it? No doubt the 118 heads of government who were present enjoyed an agreeable holiday on Egypt's Red Sea coast. But was anything of substance achieved? One should not, I suppose, be too critical. Among the achievements of the Summit were the following: Palestine and the Dominican Republic established diplomatic relations; Algeria cancelled a $90m debt owed to it by Yemen; and Egypt agreed to set up a NAM institute for women's empowerment. Resounding declarations were made calling for international disarmament, for the reform of the United Nations; for the reshaping of the international economic system, for the need to devise a comprehensive energy agenda; for the lifting of America's 50-year embargo on Cuba, and other such worthy causes. But how influential are such appeals? Who listens to the Non-Aligned Movement? The conclusion one cannot fail to reach is that the developing world is in something of a mess. It lacks corporate muscle, inspired leadership and political will. It is crippled by conflicts, which it seems incapable of resolving. Israel shows no sign of ending its occupation of the West Bank or its cruel siege of Gaza, while feuding Palestinian factions recklessly squander the unique chance of statehood offered them by the providential figure of US President Barack Obama. There seems to be no end to the squabbles in the so-called Third World. Formally launched at Bandung in 1955, the aim of the Non-Aligned Movement was to protect its members from the US-Soviet Cold War, then at its dangerous height. The Movement's towering figures were India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (who coined the term ‘non-aligned'), Egypt's Nasser; Yugoslavia's Tito; Ghana's Nkrumah; and Indonesia's Sukarno, who hosted the Bandung meeting. The goals of the Movement (as stated in the Havana Declaration of 1979) were to ensure ‘the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries' in their ‘struggle against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, dominion, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.' Few of these noble goals have been achieved. The Palestine cause received verbal support at Sharm El-Sheikh, as it has at previous NAM summits, but nothing was said or done which might persuade Israel to end its racist, neo-colonial occupation of Palestinian territories. As far as I can gather, Iraq and Afghanistan hardly got a mention at Sharm El-Sheikh, although the former is attempting painfully to pick itself up after the devastation of an imperial war – in effect the destruction of a major Arab country by the United States (and its British ally) – while the latter is the theatre of a savage conflict, the violent collision of a Western and a tribal world, with no end in sight. Indeed, the war against the Taleban in Afghanistan has spread to Pakistan, with terrible consequences for the population of the North West Frontier Province. It would seem that although the Cold War is long since over, the Non-Aligned Movement has yet to develop the cohesion which might make it a force in international affairs. It represents nearly two-thirds of the UN members and comprises 55 per cent of the world's population, but it has not yet reinvented its purpose. It is a talking shop, not an effective actor on the world stage. To be fair, the two super-powers who once dominated the world are themselves in serious trouble. Embroiled in an unwinnable war, suffering record unemployment and a shattered banking system, the United States is wrestling with the catastrophic legacy of the Bush years. Although Barack Obama is struggling to put things right, he cannot at a stroke restore America's economic health or its moral authority. He has made overtures to the Arab world, to Iran, to Russia. He is clearly a man of peace, in welcome contrast to his bellicose predecessor. But in seeking to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, his hesitation to put real pressure on Israel demonstrates the real constraints on his freedom of action. The United States remains the foremost great power, but it no longer is as unchallenged as it used to be. Russia, in turn, is no more than a shadow of the former Soviet Union. Although it is anxious to regain influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia, it no longer has the means to do so convincingly. According to a report in the authoritative French daily Le Monde, Russia's population is shrinking fast: it has fallen from 148.9 million in 1993 to 141.9 million today. In the Russian Far East, the population is so sparse that large numbers of Chinese are moving in to cultivate the land. Russia is suffering half a million deaths a year from poor food and, especially, from the excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol. In 2007, the number of children per woman was no more than 1.4. Life expectancy for men has fallen to 61.4 years, lower than in a poor country like Bangladesh. One man in three dies between the ages of 20 and 60. If the Great Powers themselves are floundering, is it reasonable to expect the ‘Third World' to do better? Perhaps it is the whole planet which needs to come to its senses.
