 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. It is 50 years since the founding of the non-aligned movement or NAMM. To discuss this we have with us today Professor Anuradha Shinoi of the School of International Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University. Welcome to NewsClick Anur. Let me begin by asking you the perhaps cliched question. Does NAMM still have relevance today or does it in fact have a renewed importance in the context of the contemporary assaults on the global south? I think it has both relevance and renewed importance depending how it renews itself because the space and the need is very much there for the non-aligned countries. They are ultimately the post-colonial countries. They are the countries of what is called the global south. They have a large number of common problems. The G8 and now the G20 have common interests of sustaining the kind of capitalist advancement that they already have and on that basis they continue to have a kind of hegemony in international politics and for that the inequality in the international political system continues to remain and is sustained by this unequal international system. So in that if the third world countries the global south want to become equal or have a more equal world, want to have developed more then they can do so more collectively. Similarly I would say in the context of two or three things. Currently you see that the international system has four or five different kinds of crisis. One is the crisis of the financial system, the euro debt crisis, the American debt crisis. In this crisis both America and Europe have repeatedly said that this is the new Asian century meaning that the rising powers are from the emerging countries or the new emerging tigers sometimes they call them and which are these powers China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia and so on and so forth and they are hoping that by exporting to these countries or by hitching their economies to these countries they can be pulled out of their financial crisis and so you can see the potential that these countries which were not part of the former G8 or the imperialist countries what potential they have. So they can help instead of helping you know the north which doesn't require that kind of assistance collectively they can help themselves more and the global south and become a much more powerful counter hegemonic bloc. Which precisely brings me to the question that given these continued economic, political and cultural assaults coming from capitalist globalization on the global south you have new groupings the BRICS or the IBSA involving India, Brazil, South Africa sometimes including Russia and China as well are these groupings trying to play or potentially can play a role what NAMM used to play? Well in a sense these are new what we call plurilateral forum which are a kind of multilateralism in which countries not geographically linked but who have common interests and in the case of BRICS it was actually a name given by Jeffrey Sachs kind of grouping but what has happened is that this grouping belongs neither to the G8 or G20 nor to NAMM they have in fact broken out of NAMM several of them some several of them are former from the socialist bloc Russia and China but they are all the great emerging powers and they have common interests but at the moment these are very new groupings they have just had about 2 years or 3 years of meetings and they seem to be closer to the G8 than they are to the global south though because number one Brazil and China were never part of NAMM they China came to the Bandung conference but did not join NAMM obviously it was part of the socialist bloc but they have a lot of current common interests and Russia and China even when they were part of the socialist bloc were votaries for NAMM so there is potential for them to get together and work collectively for the global south and there would be interests interests in developing new industrial you know enclaves in all all kinds of things raw material plus in different aspects of the economy and in politics these countries need each other a lot in politics especially when there are these for example wars in Afghanistan or a rising in later earlier in Iraq now the Arab Spring so they have a voice and if they come together like they used to I think they can change the nature of the international system to make it more equal but there is a growing suspicion shall we say that these groupings like bricks or Ipsa are more interested in jockeying for influence economically or politically with the G8 and the advanced capitalist countries rather than resisting their hegemony absolutely there is that interest all these countries now do not want to be completely associated with the poor global south they feel that drags it down but actually in reality it's a reverse their interests lie within their region after all how can a country let's say for example India become a greater power it is if it takes a region along with it if South Asia as a region is trouble and distress free or G77 or G77 and Brazil for example how does that become a greater power if it takes along the Latin American countries and is a power within Latin America it cannot be a power vis-a-vis just America or the G8 so it isn't their interest to take along the G old G77 which is larger now you know take along the new democracies which are developing in in West Asia along with it and increase their bargaining capacity vis-a-vis G8 whether it's membership of the Security Council United Nation reforms or changing the terms of relations within other multilateral fora whether it's a World Bank WTO etc which are all here to stay clearly objectively the conditions are right for countries like India Brazil and others emerging economies of the global south playing a leading role but subjectively do they show themselves inclined or willing to play the role that history requires them to do see I think in all these countries and you can see with the example of India in the strategic realms strategic thought there is always a discourse and two narratives one narrative which says you know we have to go towards being a great power and we can do that by linking up with the United States and therefore you know the rest of the NAM is no longer relevant and you have analysts who argue along those lines very strongly and on the other side you have the other narrative which says that the you know India of course can be a great power is a great power but it has to you know be stronger internally get rid of some of the internal disparities link up with the G8 link up with Russia and China and increase its negotiating position and the government policymakers you will notice go somewhere in between the two shifting from one side to the other at some points not giving up NAM though hardliners or hawks as we call them advocate that NAM is of no use but they still go for NAM meetings the prime minister goes so it's very high level so I think that kind of narrative which pushes for linking up with NAM needs to be strengthened so that the policymakers ultimately move towards this kind of discourse rather than the hawkish discourse which goes with or thinks their interest is with the hegemonic pause let me close by asking you finally what do you think the prospects are and what do you think can or need be done to see that there is a revival of the non-aligned movement and what it stood for in terms of its fight against imperialism and the neo-colonial legacy see the international system has changed dramatically since NAM was made NAM was created in the 1950s it strengthened in 60s you know it had capacity to there are north south dialogues etc now you don't have that old socialist world like Russia and China the socialist bloc you have many new countries you don't have the Cold War so NAM should also change just like the G8 has changed to G20 etc they should ask countries like China and Brazil to become part of NAM which weren't part of NAM that will really strengthen NAM if they do they should now be of earlier it was a front against colonialism now it should be a front against wars it should be a front for peace it should be a front for having more equal and democratized international system for UN reforms so it should be creative and have new members which weren't there earlier and have you know that old leadership also which included India Yugoslavia which is no longer there they they you know need to have a more structured and collective leadership and structure it in a way where meetings are more regular there is there are events in between meetings and that will really help NAM for example in Africa or in Asia they should play a greater role rather than allowing countries of NATO to take the lead thank you Anu thank you