Non-Alignment Policy

Original Paper by K. B. Usha, JNU and Scott N. Romaniuk, University of South Wales
Edited by Brajabandhu Mahanta, Dharanidhar University

The non-alignment policy is a set of foreign policy principles adhered to by the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in their pursuit of peace, security, justice, and development. NAM was established as a platform for coordinated policies in international relations when Third World leaders—Nehru (India), Tito (Yugoslavia), Nasser (Egypt), and Sukarno (Indonesia)—convened to agree on a shared approach to dissociate themselves from the Cold War’s East-West bipolar blocs led by the United States (USA) and the Soviet Union. In essence, the policy of non-alignment emphasized the promotion of peace and abstention from superpower confrontations.

While this policy was highly relevant during the Cold War, its significance diminished following the Soviet Union’s disintegration and the Cold War’s conclusion. However, NAM’s role in global politics reemerged when smaller nations faced threats from Washington’s unilateral policies. As of the 16th summit in 2012, NAM comprises 120 member states and 17 observer countries, alongside 10 observer organizations, a composition that remains unchanged. The 18th summit conference was hosted by Azerbaijan on October 25-26, 2019.

In the evolving global order, the relevance of the non-alignment policy remains significant, particularly from a security perspective. Today, NAM appears to have reemerged as a subtle yet influential actor in international politics, underscoring its continued importance in navigating global challenges.

---

---

The Genesis of Non-Alignment: Historical Context

The origin of non-alignment, both as a foreign policy strategy and as a political movement for advancing a common agenda among postcolonial Third World countries, is deeply rooted in a rich historical context. Key events such as the League Against Imperialism and Colonial Oppression (1927), the Bandung Conference (1955), and the Non-Aligned Conference in Belgrade (1961) were pivotal in shaping the non-alignment policy among Afro-Asian and Latin American nations.

The Brussels Conference in 1927, organized by Willi Munzenberg and Virendranath Chattopadhyaya (Chatto), both communists linked with the Communist International (Comintern), marked an important moment in the interwar period. It was the first major attempt to create a global anti-colonial movement and foster a comprehensive understanding of imperialism. Jawaharlal Nehru, representing the Indian National Congress, emphasized that “imperialism was not a problem between colony and colonial power, but a characteristic of the international political system as a whole” (Dinkel 2018, p. 25).

Following the independence of many colonies, the relationship between Asia and Europe became a critical issue. Newly independent countries in Asia were focused on decolonization and nation-building, prioritizing development over power politics. At this time, Western powers sought to divide Afro-Asian countries under the guise of anti-communism and freedom, attempting to reassert their dominance. Nehru, critical of the creation of military blocs in Asia and Africa, viewed it as a form of neocolonialism. In the Indian Constituent Assembly on March 8, 1949, he remarked, “In each country of Asia – underdeveloped more or less – the main problem is the problem of food, clothing, education, health. We are concerned with these problems. We are not directly concerned with power politics” (Dutt 2007, p. 12).

The challenges faced by postcolonial countries were immense: consolidating independence, maintaining sovereignty, asserting national identity, and focusing on economic development, all while avoiding neo-colonialism. These countries sought to defend themselves from exploitation by superpowers while resisting “capitalism-imperialism” and striving for a just and peaceful world order. They aimed to build peaceful and secure environments to foster socioeconomic development. Given their experiences of severe economic exploitation, deprivation, and the loss of political freedom under colonial rule, Asian and African leaders interpreted military alliances as a repetition of colonial practices. Thus, opposing Cold War politics, bloc politics, and power politics became central to the non-alignment movement (Misra 1981).

Non-alignment as a foreign policy doctrine emerged after World War II, shaped by the postwar international system characterized by decolonization, the Cold War, socio-economic underdevelopment, and the rise of international organizations (Farajalla 1984, p. 199). The policy opposed Cold War tensions, the friction between superpowers, and aggressive military alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact, alongside the broader struggle for world peace. Non-alignment sought to assert the new identity, dignity, and voice of newly liberated postcolonial countries in Asia and Africa by promoting independent foreign policies, peaceful coexistence, and friendly relations with all nations.

The first significant impulse for non-alignment as an international doctrine came from the 1955 Bandung Conference. Following this meeting, many leaders invoked the “spirit of Bandung” to advocate for non-alignment as their official foreign policy. The conference adopted a declaration promoting world peace and cooperation based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (or the Panchsheel Treaty), which had already been outlined in the Indo-China agreement of April 29, 1954, as part of non-alignment. These five principles include:

1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty
2. Mutual non-aggression
3. Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs
4. Equality and mutual benefit
5. Peaceful coexistence (Fifield 1958, p. 504).

The Bandung Conference also declared ten principles to foster friendly cooperation and promote peace and tolerance, including:

1. Respect for basic human rights and the principles of the United Nations (UN) Charter
2. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
3. Recognition of the equal rights of all races and equality of all nations, regardless of size
4. Respect for the right of every country to defend itself, both individually and collectively, in line with the UN Charter
5. Non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries
6. Refraining from the use of collective defense agreements for the private interests of great powers
7. Refraining from acts of aggression or threats of force against any country’s territorial integrity or political independence
8. Settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, arbitration, or legal processes
9. Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
10. Respect for justice and international commitments (Gupta 1987, p. 7–8).

The concept of non-alignment was further articulated by its leaders in various conferences of the Non-Aligned Movement, cementing its role as a defining principle in the postcolonial struggle for independence and peaceful coexistence.

Non-Alignment: Concept and Meaning

The concept of non-alignment emerged in the postwar period, with its roots deeply embedded in India. Like the principles of “satyagraha” and “nonviolence,” non-alignment is another significant contribution from India to the field of international relations (IR). While some have described non-alignment as “neutrality” (as seen in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Sudan), “positive neutralism” (Ghana, Guinea), “constructive neutrality” (Algeria), and “non-dependence” (Morocco), others have criticized it with terms like “isolationism,” “neutralization,” “unilateralism,” and “non-involvement” (Singh 2009). From a more negative perspective, one could argue that non-alignment implies a form of pseudo-pacification.

However, non-alignment is based on Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of nationalism and internationalism, which promoted the idea of “one world.” His vision included five guiding principles: peaceful coexistence, cooperation among nations, the rejection of war, the quest for disarmament, and the concept of a world government (Kumar 2011, p. 38). These positive principles of non-alignment reject the pessimistic views and instead reflect a harmonious blend of nationalism and internationalism. That being said, the concept may not always be implemented in successful or prosperous terms in practice.

Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, conceptualized and elaborated the doctrine of non-alignment. He rejected the idea of neutrality, arguing that its significance only emerges in times of war. Nehru’s non-alignment consisted of three essential components: (1) refraining from entering military alliances with any country, particularly with members of either the Western or communist blocs, (2) adopting an independent approach to foreign policy based on the nation’s best judgment, and (3) striving to maintain friendly relations with all countries, including those in Cold War blocs (Appadurai 1981).

In a speech to the Lok Sabha on December 6, 1958, Nehru stated:

“…when we say our policy is one of non-alignment, obviously, it means non-alignment with military blocs. You cannot have a negative policy. The policy is a positive one, a definite one, and I hope, a dynamic one. But in so far as the military blocs today and the Cold War are concerned, we do not align ourselves with either bloc. That in itself is not a policy; it is only part of a policy… One has to lay stress on the fact that we are not parties to the Cold War and we are not members, or attached to any military bloc. The policy itself can only be a policy of acting according to our best judgment, and furthering the principal objectives and ideals that we have.” (Nehru quoted in Appadurai 1981, p. 4).

In response to a query from Adlai Stevenson, Nehru also explained:

“Broadly, non-alignment means not tying yourself off with military blocs of nations or with a nation. It means trying to view things as far as possible, not from the military point of view, though that has to come in sometimes, but independently, and trying to maintain friendly relations with all countries.” (Nehru quoted in Appadurai 1981, p. 1).

Tassin (2006, p. 162) observes that non-alignment was a tool for nations to shape and assert their national and cultural identities, including the right to determine their own paths of socioeconomic development based on their unique historical contexts.

Non-alignment has never been a negative or static concept. Instead, it is broad, universal, and dynamic (Rajan 1980). Misra (1981, p. 26) argues that from both a substantive and terminological perspective, non-alignment is inherently positive. Its core objective is to promote national reconstruction, supported by appropriate international transformation.

The content of the concept of non-alignment evolved over time in response to changing global circumstances, such as China’s 1962 invasion of India, the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971, the India-Bangladesh Treaty of 1972, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. As these events unfolded, the principles of non-alignment were reinterpreted and adapted without altering their foundational logic. New terms and ideas have been introduced into the lexicon of non-alignment, which have been discussed during Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit meetings, where member states have worked to build consensus and cooperation on policies and initiatives.

The Rise and Development of the Non-Aligned Movement

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was founded at its first summit in Belgrade, where it emerged as a collective platform for discussing shared policies and strategies. The ten principles of the Bandung Conference were adopted as the core objectives of the non-alignment policy and became key criteria for NAM membership. Since its inception during the Cold War, NAM has grown in strength and influence, establishing itself as a significant force in international affairs. Summit meetings have been held regularly, every three years, to facilitate mutual consultation and coordination among member states.

NAM’s membership steadily increased from 25 countries in Belgrade (1961) to 47 in Cairo (1964), 53 in Lusaka (1970), 75 in Algiers (1973), 85 in Colombo (1976), 92 in Havana (1979), and 99 in New Delhi (1983). Today, the movement is fully institutionalized with 120 member countries, 17 observer nations, and 10 observer organizations, despite political, economic, and cultural differences among members. As the largest grouping of states after the United Nations, NAM continues to be a vital player in global diplomacy. The most recent NAM summit was held in 2019, during which Azerbaijan assumed the chairmanship.

The criteria for NAM membership include:

1. The country should adopt an independent foreign policy based on coexistence among states with different political and social systems and a commitment to non-alignment, or show a tendency toward such a policy.
2. The country must support national independence movements consistently.
3. The country should not be a member of a multilateral military alliance formed within the context of great power conflicts.
4. If the country has a bilateral military agreement with a great power or is part of a regional defense pact, the agreement or pact must not be formed in the context of great power conflicts.
5. If the country allows foreign military bases on its territory, the concession must not be made in the context of great power conflicts (MEA 2012).

It is important to note that NAM does not have a clearly developed theoretical framework. The concept was initially seen as broad, flexible, and dynamic, reflecting the diversity of its members. This diversity has led to NAM being based on ideological pluralism, which is the central pillar of the movement. However, the absence of an official definition of non-alignment could potentially create contradictions within NAM’s otherwise fluid and fundamentally positive character.

Despite this, NAM has played a significant role in international affairs, particularly in fostering North-South dialogue, South-South cooperation, advocating for disarmament and arms control, and promoting a new economic order. These are just a few of its major contributions.

India, as a key player within NAM, has played a central role in shaping the movement’s content within the context of changing global politics. Non-alignment, in many ways, defined the position of India and other newly independent Third World countries within the postwar global landscape marked by superpower rivalry and the Cold War. As noted by Dutch diplomat Van Eekelen (1967, p. 4), “non-alignment is typical of the policy of India and a number of countries aligned to her.” India, a significant and influential player both regionally and internationally, has worked to shape the postcolonial order, and despite the inherent contradictions within NAM, it has maintained a positive role among its members.

Non-alignment Challenged

As previously mentioned, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has faced criticism and challenges over the years. Initially, it was condemned by the West as immoral. After China’s 1962 invasion of India, doubts arose about whether NAM could effectively guarantee the security of smaller nations or influence their stance on military aid. While some of these challenges have been addressed and redefined in response to the shifting dynamics of international politics, both during and after the Cold War, NAM has continued to play a constructive role in global affairs. It has promoted genuine independence, the democratization of international relations, and fostered conditions conducive to peace, justice, equality, and global cooperation (Appadurai 1981, p. 10).

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the rise of a unipolar world led by the United States was heralded as the “end of history” (Fukuyama 1992), signaling the supposed conclusion of ideological rivalry and the ultimate triumph of liberalism. Given that non-alignment stood in direct opposition to bloc politics, the dissolution of one bloc was seen as the death knell for non-alignment. The West argued that while non-alignment was relevant during the Cold War’s bipolar order, it was no longer pertinent in a unipolar world.

However, new and emerging challenges—many non-traditional, non-military, and non-statist in nature—have emerged in the post-Cold War era. These include the decline of the US-led global order, great power competition, aggressive nationalism, economic crises, poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, energy crises, terrorism, nuclear threats, human trafficking, and pandemics. We argue that these challenges have significantly revived the relevance of non-alignment, particularly from a security perspective.

The array of insecurities and global problems that no single nation can resolve alone demands international cooperation. This creates an opportunity for NAM to play a vital role on the global stage in striving for a more secure and peaceful world.

Contemporary Relevance of Non-alignment in a Changing World

The relevance of non-alignment in today’s world was highlighted by former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his speech at the 14th NAM Summit in Havana, Cuba. He stated:

“…if we wish to revitalize the Non-Aligned Movement, the collective message of our Summit must be seen as central to the success of global efforts to address urgent transnational issues – whether terrorism, pandemics, energy security, or the environment. As a group, we have rejected extremes. We must spread the message of Gandhiji, the apostle of peace. Our voice must then be one of moderation, harmony, and reason. If such is the voice of more than half of the people of the world, it will prevail. And, it will guide the destiny of our planet.” (Singh, 2006)

India has made efforts to rethink and redefine NAM’s role in an evolving international environment with the publication of Non-Alignment 2.0, aimed at strengthening strategic autonomy in its foreign policy. The 17th NAM Summit, held on September 17–18, 2016, at Margarita Island in Venezuela, outlined several key objectives that reflect NAM’s continued relevance in the 21st century:

1. Strengthening and revitalizing NAM.
2. Promoting international peace and security.
3. Supporting the right to self-determination, including calls to end Israel’s occupation of Palestine’s West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Syria’s Golan Heights.
4. Advocating for disarmament and a nuclear-free Middle East (without naming Israel’s nuclear stockpile).
5. Protecting and promoting human rights and the principles of the UN Charter.
6. Condemning the use of unilateral coercive measures against NAM countries, in violation of the UN Charter and international law.
7. Condemning terrorist acts in all forms and manifestations (IRNA, 2016).

NAM has thus continued to gain support for its vision and its practical applications across states and regions. The movement emphasizes the need to address broad, transnational threats that require cooperative efforts among states to find solutions, demonstrating that NAM’s fundamental principles remain relevant where other international concepts have faltered.

An additional important objective associated with NAM is the concept of Dialogue Among Civilizations. Former Iranian President Seyed Mohammad Khatami (2012, p. 11) articulated that, while dialogue has been a human pursuit for centuries, the idea of a “dialogue among civilizations” became a widely recognized and inclusive theory after its timely presentation. Even after the tragic 9/11 attacks, which shifted global discourse towards violence and war, the pursuit of intercultural dialogue continued in various fields.

NAM has also been instrumental in efforts to address deeply entrenched conflicts in the Middle East, reform the UN system, promote Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), advance education and science, combat climate change, and enhance economic governance. It has fostered South-South cooperation, provided international solidarity in addressing health crises like pandemics, and highlighted the role of youth and women in peace and security. Additionally, NAM has contributed to the development of a “new world information and communication order” (IRNA, 2016). As Delcy Eloína Rodríguez Gómez, Vice President of Venezuela, said in her speech at the 17th NAM Summit, “Emancipation, anti-imperialism, and peace are the flags that define the XVII NAM Summit, Venezuela 2016” (Doval, 2016).

Ironically, India’s current Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite being one of the founding members of NAM, became the first Indian leader to skip a NAM summit. In response, Pushpesh Pant, former Professor of International Relations at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), remarked, “We have been aligned with the Americans post-globalization. And it’s not just happened under Modi. Even the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) did it. They staked their government on the nuclear deal. India’s engagement with the US has been a continuous process; in fact, we can even say PM Modi is reaping the harvests of previous regimes” (Doval, 2016).

While India’s Ministry of External Affairs has maintained the relevance of NAM, Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar has stated that “blocs and alliances are less relevant today and the world is moving towards a loosely arranged order.” Modi also skipped the 18th Summit held in Baku, Azerbaijan. Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale remarked that “India has moved on from its non-aligned past. India is today an aligned state – but based on issues” (Basu, 2020). These comments and actions have sparked debate on whether India should dismiss NAM, seeing it as outdated or even obstructive. However, during the intense COVID-19 pandemic, Prime Minister Modi used NAM as a platform for collective action against public health insecurity by participating in a virtual NAM summit in May 2020, thereby reaffirming NAM’s relevance in a critical time.

In the multipolar world, global issues often emerge and evolve, presenting challenges that no single state can address alone. The post-Cold War optimism surrounding market economies and the spread of democratic values has faded, giving rise to new political, economic, and social uncertainties. As international cooperation wanes and state-centric politics resurges, India finds itself in a unique position to play a more prominent role in both regional and global politics. This dynamic creates an opportunity for India to revisit and emphasize the principles of non-alignment, focusing on issues beyond ideological disputes or isolationist policies.

Conclusion

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) represents a unique worldview formed by newly independent postcolonial nations across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, with a focus on pursuing independent foreign policies, peaceful coexistence, and promoting global peace, security, and development. NAM emerged in the wake of colonial domination, particularly in India, which had experienced violence and oppression under colonial rule, alongside a strong tradition of anti-colonial resistance. In this sense, NAM can be seen as a reflection of the principles of non-violence. The Panchsheel Treaty has served as a cornerstone for guiding the international behavior of non-aligned countries, contributing to the success of the movement.

NAM’s formation was shaped by the historical context of the postwar period, during which many nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America gained independence through decolonization. These newly sovereign nations faced concerns about their security, development, and prosperity within a rapidly changing international order. India, in particular, sought to prevent external aggression and aimed to play a constructive role in global politics.

Jawaharlal Nehru articulated non-alignment as a policy that allowed for the advancement of national interests while enabling a country to judge global developments independently. At its core, non-alignment represents anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, resistance to hegemony and foreign occupation, and the aspiration to act as a balancing force in international relations (Singham and Hune, 1986). Nehru sought to unite Afro-Asian solidarity and advocated for distancing from the Cold War’s bloc politics and superpower confrontations. The ten principles adopted at the 1955 Bandung Conference laid the foundation for NAM, which was formally established at the 1961 Non-Aligned Conference in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

Over time, the movement gained strength and became a significant force in international affairs, engaging with the UN and operating independently to promote freedom, peace, and development. NAM faced criticism and challenges, particularly during the Cold War, often finding itself in paradoxical situations due to internal differences among its members. Despite this, it remained a platform for advocating justice, peace, and progress. By 1990, NAM had institutionalized, with regular summits held every three years, ensuring the continued momentum and development of the movement.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 posed a challenge to NAM’s relevance, as NATO became the dominant military bloc. However, the emerging global issues and insecurities have revitalized NAM, highlighting its continued relevance today. India, in particular, still sees NAM as vital in addressing non-traditional challenges such as climate change, pandemics, environmental degradation, cyber threats, and the pursuit of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), human security, and inclusive globalization. Despite India’s absence from two NAM summits, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s participation in the May 2020 summit illustrated the movement’s importance, particularly for developing nations. Modi called for collective action to combat challenges like COVID-19, demonstrating NAM’s significance in addressing global crises that cannot be resolved by any single nation alone.

NAM’s relevance has not diminished, but its success requires ongoing commitment and effort to ensure it remains a strong and constructive force in international affairs.

---

References

1. Appadurai, A. (1981). Non-alignment: Some important issues. International Studies, 20(1–2), 3–11.
2. Basu, N. (2020). Modi had turned his back on NAM and SAARC. Covid brings them back on his table. The Print.
3. Dinkel, J. (2018). The non-aligned movement: Genesis, organization and politics (1927–1992). Leiden: Brill.
4. Doval, N. (2016). Narendra Modi skips NAM summit, the first Indian PM to do so. Mint.
5. Dutt, V. P. (2007). India’s foreign policy since independence. New Delhi: National Book Trust.
6. Farajalla, S. B. (1984). Non-alignment: Ideological pluralism. India Quarterly, 40(2), 198–206.
7. Fifield, R. H. (1958). The five principles of peaceful co-existence. The American Journal of International Law, 52(3), 504–510.
8. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.
9. Gupta, D. K. (1987). Role of India in non-aligned movement: A select annotated bibliography (Master’s Thesis). Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University.
10. IRNA. (2016). 17th NAM summit ends issuing 21-article final declaration.
11. Khatami, S. M. (2012). Dialogue among civilizations: Contexts and perspectives. UN Chronicle, 49(3), 11–14.
12. Kumar, S. (2011). Nehruvian internationalism: Principles, features and relevance. Pakistan Horizon, 64(2), 33–51.
13. Mates, L. (1983). The concept of non-alignment. India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 39(1), 6–22. DOI
14. MEA. (2012). Members and other participants of NAM movement.
15. Mišković, N. (2014). Introduction. In N. Mišković, N. Fischer-Tiné, & N. Boškovska (Eds.), The non-aligned movement and the cold war Delhi – Bandung – Belgrade (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge.
16. Misra, K. P. (1981). Towards understanding non-alignment. International Studies, 20(1–2), 23–37.
17. Rajan, M. S. (1980). Non-alignment: The dichotomy between theory and practice in perspective. India Quarterly, 36(1), 43–67.
18. Singh, M. (2006). Statement by the Prime Minister of India Dr Manmohan Singh at the XIVth Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, Havana, Cuba.
19. Singh, S. (2009). NAM in the contemporary world order: An analysis. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 70(4), 1213–1226.
20. Singham, A., & Hune, S. (1986). The non-aligned movement and world hegemony. The Black Scholar, 18(2), 48–57.
21. Tassin, K. S. (2006). “‘Lift up your head, my brother’”: Nationalism and the genesis of the nonaligned movement. Journal of Third World Studies, 23(1), 147–168.
22. Van Eekelen, W. F. (1967). The policy of non-alignment. In Indian foreign policy and the border dispute with China. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI