Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Foreign Minister NP Saud participated in the 19th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Kampala, Uganda, held from January 15 to 20. The summit began with the theme “Deepening Cooperation for Shared Global Affluence” and ended by adopting the three key documents: The Outcome Document of the 19th Summit of NAM, the Kampala Declaration and the Political Declaration on Palestine.

Addressing the summit, Nepal underscored the principles and values of non-alignment and its balanced and non-aligned foreign policy. It also emphasised the need to build an inclusive and equitable global order, such as through the reform of the United Nations and the international financial architectures, to tackle the myriad of global challenges such as inequality, poverty, pandemics, climate change, sustainable development, conflict, geopolitical tensions and terrorism.

Some argue that the 19th NAM Summit and the Kampala Declaration are milestones for the non-alignment movement when many foreign policy pundits question the relevance of NAM with the rise of India, China and other emerging countries as world powers. India’s Minister of External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, in his book The India Way: Strategies for an Uncertain World, argues, “India must pursue its own interests by ‘leveraging’ the competition among rival great powers to extract maximum advantage for itself”. In India’s national statement to the 19th NAM Summit, Jaishankar focused more on the country’s role in convening and drawing strength from the Global South than the strength of NAM as the voice of the Global South.

The NAM is a group of states which emerged during the 1950s and 1960s. These countries aren’t formally aligned with or against any major power blocs due to the realisation that the newly independent countries should maintain their sovereignty and independence and avoid being drawn to the ideological conflicts of capitalism versus communism between two superpowers—the United States and the former Soviet Union.

However, with the rise of the new Cold War, also known as Cold War 2.0, as manifested in various conflicts such as the Ukraine War, the polarisation between Russia and the West and the trade and technology wars between China and the United States, many foreign policy pundits are wondering whether the NAM countries need the NAM movement anymore as they are under the shadow of superpowers in terms of economic, diplomatic and military relationships.

Moreover, NAM visibly has two major problems. First, compared to other international forums and institutions, such as the Group of 7, Group of 20, BRICS, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Commonwealth, which are productive and outcome-oriented in global peace, trade and development, NAM seems more like a global forum for discussions rather than an effective platform for collective action in addressing pressing global issues. Second, it is also argued that NAM members had different priorities, and they often pursued their national interests by aligning with superpowers, making it challenging to present a unified front on specific issues as a global movement.

Nonetheless, NAM is still relevant in shaping global policies and governance architectures for three reasons. First, with a membership of 120 countries, NAM still holds the soft power to shape and reform worldwide security and economic architectures. With the emergence of a new world order and a growing number of emerging global powers, its voting power for reforming the UN Security Council or the global trade and finance architectures, such as the World Trade Organisation or the Bretton Woods Institutions (the IMF and the World Bank) is significant. Second, NAM could also act as a soft power to check and balance the excessive influence of superpowers’ positions and foreign policy agendas through collective criticism of policies. Third, the current and emerging global powers recognise NAM’s strengths and relevance. Considering the geopolitical tension between the United States and China, the United States tries to influence as many NAM countries as possible through a nuanced and pragmatic engagement.

Relevance in South Asia

The positions of China and India regarding how they view the NAM movement have changed over time. China has increasingly emphasised and highlighted a multipolar world, as a balanced and multipolar international system resonates with its vision of a world where multiple power centres exist. The principle of non-alignment matches China’s foreign policy, as it has grown into a significant global power.

India, one of the founders of NAM, has gradually changed its position regarding aligning itself with the NAM movement. Although it still emphasises the principle of NAM, such as the pursuit of independent foreign policies, the country has moved away from the principle of the “opposition of military alliances” as India became a member of a strategic security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan and the US, commonly known as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD).

Non-alignment has been a fundamental principle of Nepal’s foreign policy. The country was among the 19 countries participating in the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955 that embraced the five principles of Panchsheel. Article 51 of the 2015 Constitution reaffirms Nepal’s independent foreign policy based on the Charter of the United Nations, non-alignment, principles of Panchasheel, international law and the norms of world peace.

All countries in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation are members of NAM despite the new geopolitical order emerging in South Asia, particularly the competition between China and India to retain their regional influence. Given India’s participation in QUAD, India and China are using their foreign policy tools to allure Nepal and other countries in the region to be part of security arrangements (for example, the China-led Global Security Initiative).

With the new geopolitical dynamics in South Asia and Nepal’s geographical location between two emerging powers, the principle of non-alignment is highly relevant to Nepal. Nepal can’t afford to take sides on military and security issues. In navigating the complex dynamics of the world order, its foreign policy should be adaptive, pragmatic and rooted in its national interests. The key is balancing engagement with the global community and maintaining sovereignty and independence.

As BP Koirala eloquently outlined in his 1960 UN General Assembly speech, non-alignment doesn’t mean refraining from taking sides; it means judging every international issue on its merit without considering anyone’s fear or favour. Nepal should follow this understanding and clearly convey its position to the world powers and its neighbours that it does not want to be an integral part of any major power bloc or military alliance.

Nepal aims to diversify its diplomatic and economic partnerships through various regional and international bodies with the non-alignment principle of promoting international cooperation. Through NAM, Nepal should effectively raise the issue of climate change, including establishing and implementing an effective mechanism for the Loss and Damage Fund.

Nepal’s non-alignment foreign policy should be an effective tool to ensure the sustainability of Nepal’s graduation from the least developed country to a middle-income country in the coming years. By effectively engaging in trade agreements, attracting foreign direct investment and strengthening economic ties, the country can promote its economic relations with all countries and avoid being drawn to the security umbrella of any nation.