At the G20 the ambiguities of the new non-aligned people emerge – Pierre Haski

The war in Ukraine has brought back a historical reference: non-alignment. Today this expression is used by those countries that do not want to take part in a conflict that they consider foreign and that they consider a consequence of the Cold War, therefore a matter that only concerns Europeans or in any case Westerners in a broader sense, including those like Japan or the ‘Australia.

According to this position, the countries of the “global south” (the global south, a now widespread expression) should affirm their independence from the great powers, old or new. From this approach comes the concept of “new non-aligned”, rather seductive at first sight but also, in fact, quite ambiguous.

The reference is noble: in 1955, in Bandung, Indonesia, the founding meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement was held, which included countries that refused to “take sides” in the confrontation between East and West of the Cold War. At the time, the wind of decolonization blew over the world and made empires waver, but often the new independent countries did not recognize themselves in the “socialist camp” embodied by the Soviet Union, not even after Stalin’s death in 1953. great figures of the new independence (such as the Indian Jawaharlal Nehru or the future president of Ghana Kwame Nkrumah), but also the dissident countries of the socialist world, such as Tito’s Yugoslavia and even Mao’s China, represented at the conference by the astute Zhou Enlai.

The big misunderstanding
Referring to Bandung can serve to ennoble the countries that in 2022 want to escape the polarization of the world. Ironically, China, which in 1955 declared its non-alignment after distancing itself from the Soviet big brother, is today one of the two dominant poles of the world against which, in principle, the new “rebels” of the international order.

The initiative is certainly commendable. If we talk about the multipolar world – we have been doing it for some time, without ever realizing it – the time has come to respect each of the poles and stop exhorting each other to choose which side to take, as in the times of the Cold War. But this is where the great misunderstanding about the concept of non-alignment arises, yesterday as today. In the years following 1955, Bandung’s unaligned momentum was gradually lost, until the countries that animated it became “travel companions” of the Soviet bloc, sometimes unconsciously, in the name of a legitimate anti-imperialism but certainly not it should have pushed the non-aligned to… align, and thus get lost.

Today more or less the same happens. Many southern countries have had enough of being taken hostage by skirmishes between the great powers (of little concern to them) and want to maintain a politically healthy distance. Added to this is the feeling, very present in public opinion in emerging countries, that there is a two-way system imposed by Westerners, who react violently when Moscow violates international law but turn a blind eye when it is the States that do so. United States (in Iraq), Israel (in the Palestinian territories) or Saudi Arabia (in Yemen). Finally, the fact that the West is made up largely of former colonial powers certainly does not help, especially at a time marked by the re-emergence of anti-colonial sentiments among young Africans (which France is currently paying for).

This schism was evident at the latest G20 ministerial meeting, organized in Bali, Indonesia, the same country where the Bandung Summit took place 67 years ago. The G20 brings together the main Western powers, Russia, China, India and the major emerging countries: Brazil, the Gulf countries, Egypt, South Africa and so on. Westerners boycotted the presence, speeches and even the traditional “family photo” every time Sergej Lavrov, head of Russian diplomacy and one of Vladimir Putin’s propagandist “hawks” was involved after the invasion of Russia. Ukraine.

No isolation
In a comment published in the Jakarta Times, the major Indonesian newspaper, French foreign minister Catherine Colonna wrote that “for most of the G20 members the Russian leadership lost its legitimacy as a member of the group when Putin decided to violate the borders of Ukraine “. But in Bali, things did not turn out exactly like this. It is true that no Westerner wanted to meet Lavrov, but the Russian minister wasted no time talking to his colleagues from India, Brazil, Turkey (a NATO country), Argentina, Indonesia and of course with his Chinese “friend” Wang Yi. . In short, there was no isolation, even if Lavrov left early so as not to have to hear the barrages of criticism from Westerners and his Ukrainian colleague Dmytro Kuleba again.

India is a particularly interesting case: despite being part of some structures created by Washington to counter China, such as the Quad (with Australia, Japan and the United States), the Delhi government refuses to turn its back on its old Russian friend, which among other things remains the first arms supplier in the country. India stepped up its purchase of Russian oil (at a reduced price) when Westerners imposed a blockade, and even bought Russian coal in yuan, the currency of its Chinese rival. This Indian position highlights at the highest levels the desire for autonomy of a regional power that rejects alignment. The same is true of Bolsonaro’s Brazil, in the past very close to Donald Trump but which last week declared that the sanctions against Russia “have failed”. Bolsonaro’s rival in the upcoming elections, Iñacio Lula da Silva, also made anti-American statements on Ukraine.

There is a double paradox in this desire for emancipation from the global south: first of all, this sentiment ignores the fact that the starting point of the Ukrainian crisis is the violation of the sovereignty of a UN member state by a sitting country in the Security Council. Secondly, this momentum is asserted despite the fact that the catastrophic consequences of the war for the economies and populations of the South – from the price of energy to food shortages – are due primarily to Putin’s actions. These two factors should have prevented an equidistance which to the Ukrainians sounds a lot like a “betrayal” at a decisive moment for their survival.

Undoubtedly, Westerners pay for too many years of unilateralism and arrogance compared to the countries of the South, an aspect that makes any discourse on “values” not very credible. On the other hand, the Chinese strategy of clientelism through the new “silk roads” or the Russian one of exploiting social networks and anti-Western agitation are bearing fruit.

Non-alignment is a commendable position when it does not ignore a situation of injustice like the one in Ukraine, reduced to rubble by a foreign army. The new “non-aligned” should use their collective strength to try to enforce the laws by everyone, including Westerners. At this point there is the risk of missing an opportunity to redefine the international order by strengthening its equality, and even in this case history seems to repeat itself. Bandung, in 1955, had not produced a force capable of ending the Cold War and proposing “another world“.

(Translation by Andrea Sparacino)