Last week, there was a Conference of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) next door in Venezuela, but the resounding silence in the local and world media about the event that involved 120 nations is perhaps symbolic of the waning of this once powerful organ of the poor and the powerless of the world. It was conceived as an alternative path between the two superpowers – the US and USSR – engaged in their post-WWII Cold War that became very hot in a number of colonies of the Empires.
NAM was actually conceptualised during the Asia-Africa Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955. The conference was led by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser, Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah and Indonesian leader Sukarno, and brought together leaders of 29 states from the two continents. It was formally launched in 1961 in Yugoslavia. During the Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned countries held in Guyana from August 8-11, 1972, a monument to the four founders was unveiled by the then President, Arthur Chung at Company Path Gardens, in front of St George’s Cathedral.
This Conference was the high point of Guyana’s then vigorous international diplomacy that was located within the NAM’s insistence that countries must be allowed to pursue paths that were aligned to their real interests rather than those of the superpowers. While the decline of the importance and interest in NAM – how many Guyanese know of the monument, much less have visited it? – might be due to the end of the Cold War in 1989, the question of “national interest” as a guide to the activities of the vast majority of the members that remain enmeshed in poverty is still critically relevant.
And this is why it was somewhat surprising that Guyana did not attend the Conference. In general, some may explain that as due to NAM’s declining importance: only nine leaders showed up in Venezuela last week. But then that could be due to the fact that the annual United Nations General Assembly meet that attracts most world leaders was held almost simultaneously. The fact remains, however, that representatives of most of the member countries did attend.
And this is why Guyana should have been there. Just as during the heyday of NAM when Venezuela tried to burnish its global credentials, our Government could have followed the example of the then Government of Forbes Burnham which adroitly used the organisation to present Guyana’s case on the Venezuelan-precipitated border controversy. Guyana embarrassed Venezuela then as a larger power imitating the superpowers and bullying a small poor nation and Guyana could have done the same in the present.
Maduro went out of his way to host a successful NAM conference by stressing his “progressive”’ credentials and more than anything else, we could have applied pressure on him and his Government by showing the world how Venezuela was still a bully. To wit, that they are insisting on continuing with the UN Secretary General “Good Offices” process that has not produced any progress on the controversy and yet refuse to agree to the juridical process that is also an option available.
Guyana could have demonstrated to the delegates the reasonableness of our position: why would a country deny having an impartial and credible UN organisation like the World Court at The Hague settle the border controversy, unless it was very unsure of the bona fides of its case. Attending the NAM conference would not have been at the expense of President Granger not attending the UN General Assembly where he admirably pleaded with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to move the process forward. But any proposal by the latter would have to be agreed to by Venezuela and this is where Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge could have brought immense pressure for Maduro to do so, via the representatives of 120 countries who were attending a “progressive” conference.
