Opinion / Columnist
Non-Aligned Movement is a big sham!
18 Jan 2024 at 14:35hrs | Views
Is there anyone who is genuinely unbiased and neutral in their views or stances on particular issues?
We can even move on to the political landscape.
Who can claim to be totally impartial when it comes to particular political ideologies, groupings, or parties?
On the global stage, is there a country that can sincerely claim to be sitting on the fence as far as geopolitical dynamics are concerned?
Let us not lie to ourselves - each and every one of us has some bias towards or against certain views, groups, or countries.
There is no one, not even one, who can, in all truth, allege to be disinterested where two or more differing sides or viewpoints are in conflict.
So, what I do not understand is that, when in September 1961, several countries mooted the idea of a Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), who did they think they were fooling?
There is absolutely no concept called 'non-alignment' in anything, more so when it comes to geopolitics.
The organization was established with the view to advancing interests of developing countries in the context of Cold War confrontation.
Member states portrayed themselves as not taking sides or aligning with rival global powers during that time - namely, the US and Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, were these nations not, in actual fact, aligned to one or the other side?
The very fact that this organization was formed in the then Yugoslavia (led by Josip Broz Tito) speaks volumes.
Was this nation not a de facto 'satellite state' - which was aligned to the Soviets - although not formally a 'Warsaw Pact' member?
Cuba, under Fidel Castro, joined afterward the same year - a known staunch Soviet ally.
Who can forget the Cuba missile crisis only a year later - where the Soviet Union deployed missiles on the Latin American island - in response to a similar move by the US in Italy and Turkey?
So, were Yugoslavia and Cuba neural and non-aligned?
We can see the same in Africa.
This is primarily in the context of the manner in which these nations attained their independence from colonial rule.
Quite a number of these countries received enormous support - political, financial, and military - from the East, especially the Soviet Union and China.
As such, after the decolonization process, most of these countries found themselves in the tight grip of their liberation struggle benefactors.
Nations as Zimbabwe did attempt to cut the Chinese and Soviet umbilical cord soon after 1980 - however, they went straight into the arms of their erstwhile colonizers.
In fact, then leader Robert Gabriel Mugabe was reported to have had quite a close relationship with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
When members of Mugabe's cabinet celebrated her (Thatcher's) removal from office in 1990, Mugabe rebuked them.
He reportedly said, "Who organized our independence? Let me tell you - if it hadn't been for Mrs. Thatcher, none of you would be here today. I'm sorry she's gone."
Interestingly, he kept several British advisors around him during the early part of his rule, including Lord Soames with whom he had formed a friendship.
Mugabe went further by allowing the British to maintain their military bases in Zimbabwe.
Throughout the 1980s, Mugabe described himself as "an Anglophile" and was frequently seen to wear British-made Savile Row suits.
He also heavily promoted cricket in Zimbabwe, saying, "Cricket civilizes people and creates good gentlemen."
He declared, "I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe. I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen."
Of course, Mugabe was finally acknowledged for all these efforts and knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1994.
Was this a sign of 'non-alignment' on the part of Zimbabwe - since the country had joined the grouping in 1980 and subsequently hosted its heads of state summit in 1986?
As current president Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa today flew out of the country to Uganda for the 19th NAM Summit, those pressing questions played in my mind.
Is Zimbabwe, or any other NAM member state, genuinely non-aligned?
Let us also remember that after Mugabe fell out with the British, in a most spectacular fashion, at the turn of the millennium, he, in turn, 'looked East'.
This was in the wake of a violent and panicked dispossession of land from white farmers - resulting in a frosty relationship with the British.
Henceforth, the Chinese, in particular, have virtually overran the country.
They were seemingly granted by both the Mugabe and Mnangagwa administrations, carte blanche over our mineral resources.
Chinese mining companies appear to operate above the law - as they freely, without shame, displace local communities from their ancestral lands.
In all this, these indigenous people are seldom awarded just and fair compensation, nor is there any meaningful development.
Both local communities (in the areas these companies operate) and the country as a whole have never seen any benefit from the wanton exploration of our minerals by the Chinese.
In spite of the Chinese amassing phenomenon wealth from our diamonds, for instance, over the past 18 years, the people of Marange in particular and Zimbabweans in general continue to languish in abject poverty.
Is this not a new form of colonialism?
We can go onto the international arena.
Over the past two years, ever since Russia launched its war on Ukraine in February 2022, the Mnangagwa government has never been shy in openly declaring their support for the Russians.
Whenever resolutions are tabled at the UN, Zimbabwe openly votes with Russia.
On the other hand, Harare opts to either abstain or vote against any resolution that is perceived to be anti-Moscow.
What non-alignment is there?
I have deliberately singled out Zimbabwe as that is my country.
However, I am sure a quick study of other NAM member states will reveal a similar pattern.
Who can claim that Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, to name but a few, are non-aligned?
Curiously, this NAM meeting in Uganda is being held concurrently with the G77 (group of 77) and China summit.
That should paint an accurate picture of the real position of NAM in relation to geopolitics.
If these countries are non-aligned, then I am the president of the United States!
So, is this group still relevant?
In fact, did it serve its stated purpose?
Or, it is now simply a front for Chinese global dominance ambitions!
Maybe it is time NAM was dissolved.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
We can even move on to the political landscape.
Who can claim to be totally impartial when it comes to particular political ideologies, groupings, or parties?
On the global stage, is there a country that can sincerely claim to be sitting on the fence as far as geopolitical dynamics are concerned?
Let us not lie to ourselves - each and every one of us has some bias towards or against certain views, groups, or countries.
There is no one, not even one, who can, in all truth, allege to be disinterested where two or more differing sides or viewpoints are in conflict.
So, what I do not understand is that, when in September 1961, several countries mooted the idea of a Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), who did they think they were fooling?
There is absolutely no concept called 'non-alignment' in anything, more so when it comes to geopolitics.
The organization was established with the view to advancing interests of developing countries in the context of Cold War confrontation.
Member states portrayed themselves as not taking sides or aligning with rival global powers during that time - namely, the US and Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, were these nations not, in actual fact, aligned to one or the other side?
The very fact that this organization was formed in the then Yugoslavia (led by Josip Broz Tito) speaks volumes.
Was this nation not a de facto 'satellite state' - which was aligned to the Soviets - although not formally a 'Warsaw Pact' member?
Cuba, under Fidel Castro, joined afterward the same year - a known staunch Soviet ally.
Who can forget the Cuba missile crisis only a year later - where the Soviet Union deployed missiles on the Latin American island - in response to a similar move by the US in Italy and Turkey?
So, were Yugoslavia and Cuba neural and non-aligned?
We can see the same in Africa.
This is primarily in the context of the manner in which these nations attained their independence from colonial rule.
Quite a number of these countries received enormous support - political, financial, and military - from the East, especially the Soviet Union and China.
As such, after the decolonization process, most of these countries found themselves in the tight grip of their liberation struggle benefactors.
Nations as Zimbabwe did attempt to cut the Chinese and Soviet umbilical cord soon after 1980 - however, they went straight into the arms of their erstwhile colonizers.
In fact, then leader Robert Gabriel Mugabe was reported to have had quite a close relationship with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
When members of Mugabe's cabinet celebrated her (Thatcher's) removal from office in 1990, Mugabe rebuked them.
He reportedly said, "Who organized our independence? Let me tell you - if it hadn't been for Mrs. Thatcher, none of you would be here today. I'm sorry she's gone."
Interestingly, he kept several British advisors around him during the early part of his rule, including Lord Soames with whom he had formed a friendship.
Mugabe went further by allowing the British to maintain their military bases in Zimbabwe.
Throughout the 1980s, Mugabe described himself as "an Anglophile" and was frequently seen to wear British-made Savile Row suits.
He also heavily promoted cricket in Zimbabwe, saying, "Cricket civilizes people and creates good gentlemen."
He declared, "I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe. I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen."
Was this a sign of 'non-alignment' on the part of Zimbabwe - since the country had joined the grouping in 1980 and subsequently hosted its heads of state summit in 1986?
As current president Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa today flew out of the country to Uganda for the 19th NAM Summit, those pressing questions played in my mind.
Is Zimbabwe, or any other NAM member state, genuinely non-aligned?
Let us also remember that after Mugabe fell out with the British, in a most spectacular fashion, at the turn of the millennium, he, in turn, 'looked East'.
This was in the wake of a violent and panicked dispossession of land from white farmers - resulting in a frosty relationship with the British.
Henceforth, the Chinese, in particular, have virtually overran the country.
They were seemingly granted by both the Mugabe and Mnangagwa administrations, carte blanche over our mineral resources.
Chinese mining companies appear to operate above the law - as they freely, without shame, displace local communities from their ancestral lands.
In all this, these indigenous people are seldom awarded just and fair compensation, nor is there any meaningful development.
Both local communities (in the areas these companies operate) and the country as a whole have never seen any benefit from the wanton exploration of our minerals by the Chinese.
In spite of the Chinese amassing phenomenon wealth from our diamonds, for instance, over the past 18 years, the people of Marange in particular and Zimbabweans in general continue to languish in abject poverty.
Is this not a new form of colonialism?
We can go onto the international arena.
Over the past two years, ever since Russia launched its war on Ukraine in February 2022, the Mnangagwa government has never been shy in openly declaring their support for the Russians.
Whenever resolutions are tabled at the UN, Zimbabwe openly votes with Russia.
On the other hand, Harare opts to either abstain or vote against any resolution that is perceived to be anti-Moscow.
What non-alignment is there?
I have deliberately singled out Zimbabwe as that is my country.
However, I am sure a quick study of other NAM member states will reveal a similar pattern.
Who can claim that Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, to name but a few, are non-aligned?
Curiously, this NAM meeting in Uganda is being held concurrently with the G77 (group of 77) and China summit.
That should paint an accurate picture of the real position of NAM in relation to geopolitics.
If these countries are non-aligned, then I am the president of the United States!
So, is this group still relevant?
In fact, did it serve its stated purpose?
Or, it is now simply a front for Chinese global dominance ambitions!
Maybe it is time NAM was dissolved.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
