The public cannot be blamed if despite the lengthy despatches from Algiers in newspapers throughout the past one week, it is unable to make out what the non-aligned summit has been all about. Even those who pay more than passing attention to such events are not likely to find it easy to discover the purpose and significance of this conference.
One obvious difficulty is that the concept of non-alignment itself has been greatly blurred by the Russo-American detente, improvement in Sino-US relations, erosion of the solidarity of the two blocs as illustrated by America’s trade disputes with the European Economic Community and Japan and Bucharest’s defiance of Moscow, and aggravation of the Sino-Soviet conflict to a point where it may not be too much of an exaggeration to say that it has replaced the East-West cold war as the principal contradiction in world affairs.
It can be argued that non-alignment was not defined precisely. But its broad meaning and purpose have been fairly clear. Despite the presence of Yugoslavia and the valuable role it has played in the group, there can be little doubt that essentially non-alignment was a product of the desire of newly independent and non-communist countries to avoid entanglements of alliances with their former rulers and to make their presence felt in world bodies like the United Nations and that the concept acquired legitimacy and vigour because the Soviet Union found it useful to endorse it in the interest of its own struggle against the West.
New Situation
In the new world situation, the concept no longer possesses either the old clarity of purpose or vigour. The United States and the Soviet Union ceased needing intermediaries long ago. Now they do not even believe that it is either possible or even necessary for them to win predominant influence in the so-called third world. Indeed, they are more than willing to subordinate their competition in Asia, Africa and Latin America to the need for co-operation in other fields, especially in those of arms control and economic exchange. The Soviet Union finds itself caught in a competition with China in Asia and East Africa. But that is a different proposition.
The third world has also suffered in its own esteem partly because rivalries and disputes among its own members have proved too persistent and strong to permit meaningful co-operation in any field and partly because they have begun to realise that their anti-imperialist and anti-racist rhetoric does not impress anyone any more in view of their continued dependence on the West for aid and trade and the actions of men like General Amin.
Indeed the leaders of the third world assembled at Algiers more out of habit than out of conviction that the summit could take any effective action. Though they were uneasy because they knew that the old concept of non-alignment had become more or less obsolete, they were unable to respond to Col. Gaddafi’s appeal that they should look for a new definition because any attempt to do so would have torn the group apart. Though known for his impetuosity and ruthless, if bizarre, logic, the Libyan leader himself finally found discretion the better part of valour. He not only dropped his plea for a new definition of non-alignment but also made peace with Mr Fidel Castro whose right to be present at the summit he had earlier challenged.
Even so it would be a mistake to dismiss the Algiers summit as an exercise in futility. On the contrary, in the perspective of history, it may well turn out to be symbolic of a new turn in international affairs.
Oil Leverage
Like the previous non-aligned summits, the latest one too can be said to have been dominated by an anti-Western bias. The denunciation of all forms of aid to Israel, the admission of Prince Sihanouk’s government-in-exile and the South Vietnamese Provisional Revolutionary Government, the call for their recognition and the general tenor of the political resolution can certainly be cited to support the view that a vast majority of non-aligned countries remain more critical of the West, especially the United States, than the Soviet Union.
It is also true that in view of the growing world-wide shortage of oil and America’s rapidly increasing dependence on imports, the Arabs have at once regained the importance they commanded in the non-aligned group in the heyday of President Nasser and acquired a new confidence in their capacity to force a change in America’s West Asia policy. Since even so conservative and pro-US a leader as King Feisel has come to think in terms of using oil as a political weapon, it is only to be expected that the Arabs will tend to rely on the leverage they have acquired. In this effort they will undoubtedly enjoy the support of non-aligned countries not only because they are convinced of the justice of the Arab cause but also because they wish to secure their own oil supplies.
But a new element has entered the scene in the form of intense Sino-Soviet rivalry and it seems that in future the concept of non-alignment will be shaped not so much by the Russo-American competition as by this one. Mr Castro’s clash with Prince Sihanouk and Col Gaddafi may therefore be a better guide to future developments in the non-aligned group than the Cuban leader’s confrontation with the Brazilian representative whose government he described as a “tool of US imperialism”.
The Sino-Soviet conflict is, of course, not a new development. But after 1965 when the Chinese wrecked the second Bandung-type Afro-Asian conference which was due to be held in Algiers because they had failed to make sure that the Soviet Union would be denied admission and thereby recognition of its status as an Asian power, it is only recently that this rivalry has become a significant factor in the political life of the two continents. In between the Chinese were wholly preoccupied with developments at home leading to and resulting from the cultural revolution.
The recent pronouncements of Soviet leaders and writings in the Soviet press clearly show that the men in the Kremlin are uneasy at the prospects. They are not likely to be reassured by the general tenor of most of the speeches at Algiers.
They deeply resent being bracketed with the United States because they see in such bracketing an endorsement of the Chinese charge of collusion between the two super-powers and a rejection of their claim that a detente with Washington has become possible only because of the shift in the overall balance of power in their favour and that this detente will benefit developing countries as well. Yet a majority of the leaders assembled at Algiers bracketed the two super-powers and demanded that they must not try to settle the fate of other countries over their heads.
The Soviet Union enters the fray under fairly serious handicaps. In its anxiety to take advantage of the Arab-Israeli antagonism, exclude the West from an area of such critical importance as the oil-rich West Asia and consolidate its own hold there, it over-reached itself in 1967 when it perhaps unwittingly set President Nasser on the collision course with Tel Aviv. Since then it has tried but failed to recover the lost ground for the simple reason that it has been beyond its capacity to help the Arabs get back the territory which they lost as a result of the ill-advised war in 1967. This has become a kind of albatross round the Kremlin’s neck.
Soviet Position
It could perhaps have retrieved the situation to some extent if the so-called non-capitalist path of development had produced good results in the key country of Egypt. But it has not, with the result that President Sadat has found it necessary gradually to dismantle the system erected by his predecessor and liberalise the economy. At the same time, two fiercely anti-communist leaders – King Feisel and Col Gaddafi – have come to dominate the Arab world making it extremely difficult for the Soviet Union to regain its old influence.
Most Afro-Asian leaders have so far observed discreet silence on the issue of Soviet hold in Eastern and Central Europe. But representing new nationalisms as they do, it is a foregone conclusion that the Chinese charge on this score will attract a sympathetic, even if silent, response from them.
The Chinese, on their part, will be able to take advantage of Soviet handicaps only if they keep their profile low, do not meddle in the affairs of other countries in the name of being the truest upholders of Marxism-Leninism and do not relapse into the kind of turmoil and disorder from which they have just barely emerged. The third world is grouping towards a sturdier and more self-reliant form of autonomy and no government which misses this point is likely to endear itself to it.
The Times of India, 12 September 1973