View of the United Nations General Assembly, which on three occasions this year has censured the invasion of Russian forces in Ukraine and where many countries have expressed non-alignment with the positions taken by the contenders. CREDIT: Manuel Elias/UN

By Humberto Márquez
CARACAS, Jun 20 2022 (IPS)

Numerous countries of the developing South are distancing themselves from the contenders in the war in Ukraine, using the debate on the conflict to underscore their independence and pave the way for a kind of new de facto non-alignment with regard to the main axes of world power.

Meetings and votes on the conflict at the United Nations and in other forums, the search for support or neutrality, and negotiations to cushion the impact of the economic crisis accentuated by the war are the spaces where the process of new alignment is taking place, according to analysts consulted by IPS.

Once Russian forces began their invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, the United States “activated and consolidated the transatlantic alliance with Europe to confront Moscow, and has been seeking to draw in allies in Asia, but the situation there is more complicated,” said Argentine expert in negotiation and geopolitics, Andrés Serbin, speaking from Buenos Aires."But if the confrontation escalates and spreads beyond Europe, it will be difficult to stay non-aligned. Our countries will then have to learn to navigate in troubled waters.” -- Andrés Serbin

Serbin, author of works such as “Eurasia and Latin America in a Multipolar World” and chair of the academic Regional Economic and Social Research Coordinator, believes that many Asian countries do not want any alignment that would compromise their relationship with that continent’s powerhouse, China.

The rivalry between the United States and China – a growing trading partner and investor in numerous developing nations – fuels the distancing demonstrated by countries of the so-called Global South in the face of the conflict in Ukraine, a priority for the entire West.

Doris Ramirez, professor of International Relations at the Javeriana University in Colombia, argues that “now countries are better prepared to take a position and vote in international forums according to their interests and not according to ideological alignments.

“Emblematic cases are India, which is not going to break its excellent relations with Russia, its arms supplier for decades, or Saudi Arabia, now more interested in its relationship with China as the United States withdraws from the Middle East,” Ramirez observed from Bogota.

The struggle between nations that were ideologically aligned – with the United States or the then Soviet Union – led in 1961 to the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which sought to stay equally distant from the dominant blocs while promoting decolonization and the economic interests of the South.

Its promoters were prominent leaders of what was then called the Third World: Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Josip Broz “Tito” of Yugoslavia and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana.

Over the years, the Non-Aligned Movement grew to 120 members, many of which were clearly aligned with one of the blocs and, although it still exists formally, its presence and relevance declined not only with the disappearance of its leaders, but also when the socialist bloc ceased to exist as such after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The display board of the votes at the UN General Assembly on the suspension of Russia from the Human Rights Council reflected the diversity of opinions, with more countries taking independent positions with respect to those of the Western powers. CREDIT: UN

UN display board reflects new non-alignment

The invasion of Ukraine was quickly addressed by the 193-member UN General Assembly, which on Mar. 2 debated and approved a resolution condemning the invasion by Russian forces and demanding an immediate withdrawal of the troops, reiterating the principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries.

After 117 speeches, the vote – for, against, abstentions and absences – reflected on the display board at UN headquarters, became a first snapshot of the current “non-alignment” – the decision by many countries of the South not to subscribe to the positions of Moscow or its rivals in the West, led by the United States and the European Union.

The resolution received 141 votes in favor, five against (Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Russia and Syria), 35 abstentions and 12 absences.

“It is difficult for a country to support an invasion, it is not possible to find within the UN or international law a formula to justify it,” said former Venezuelan ambassador Oscar Hernández Bernalette, who has been a professor at the University of Cairo, in Egypt, and the Central University of Venezuela.

Therefore, “in order not to remain in the orbit of Moscow or Brussels or Washington, abstaining from voting is a way to demonstrate neutrality,” said Hernández Bernalette.

Russian anti-aircraft units during maneuvers in Egypt in 2019. Moscow’s military cooperation partly explains the political position of African countries, distant from the stances taken by their former colonial rulers, and their growing ties with powers such as Russia and China. CREDIT: MinDefense Russia

Of the 35 countries that abstained, 25 were from Africa, four from Latin America (Bolivia, Cuba, El Salvador and Nicaragua; Venezuela was unable to vote because of unpaid dues) and 14 from Asia, including countries with a strong global presence such as China, India, Pakistan and Iran, and former Soviet or socialist republics such as Laos, Mongolia and Vietnam.

A second resolution was discussed and approved at the Assembly on Mar. 24, to demand that Russia, on humanitarian grounds in view of the loss of civilian lives and destruction of infrastructure, cease hostilities.

The vote was practically the same, with 140 votes in favor, the same five against, and 38 abstentions, which this time also included Brunei, Guinea-Bissau and Uzbekistan.

A third confrontation took place on Apr. 7, to decide on the suspension of Russia from the UN Human Rights Council, made up of 47 states chosen by the General Assembly, which meets several times a year in Geneva, Switzerland.

Moscow’s critics then drummed up 93 votes in the Assembly, but there were 24 against and 58 abstentions – evidence of independence and criticism of the web of alliances and institutions that guide international relations.

This time, countries that previously abstained, such as Russia’s neighbors in Central Asia, and Algeria, Bolivia, China, Cuba and Iran, voted against the proposal, and many of those who previously supported it, such as Barbados, Brazil, Kuwait, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates, abstained.

The Summit of the Americas this June in Los Angeles, California served as an opportunity for a group of heads of state in the hemisphere to distance themselves from Washington by boycotting the meeting in protest against the exclusion of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. CREDIT: US State Department

Grouping together, but in a different way

Bilateral and group forums and negotiations are being put on new tracks as the conflict in Ukraine drags on, with new proposals for understandings and alliances, and also new fears.

The impact of the war on the energy markets – as well as on food and finance – was immediate and created room for new realignments. Thus, the United States, as it watched the price of fuel rise at its gas stations, went in search of more oil supplies, from the Middle East to Venezuela.

Washington held two significant summits in recent weeks: one in Jakarta, with 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) interested in sustaining their relationship with the US while maintaining the ties woven with China, and another in Los Angeles, California: the ninth Summit of the Americas.

This triennial meeting served as an opportunity for governments in this hemisphere to demonstrate their independent stance and refrain from automatic alignment with Washington. In addition to the three countries not invited (Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela), the heads of state of seven other countries decided not to attend, to protest the exclusion of their neighbors.

This snub marked the Summit, in which Washington was barely able to cobble together an agreement on migration, with other issues pushed to the backburner, while Latin American countries, still lacking a united front, continue to develop their relations with rivals such as Russia and China.

In the Caribbean, in Asia and especially in Africa, the old relationship between former colonial powers such as France and the United Kingdom – which are confronting Moscow as partners in the Atlantic alliance – and their former colonies is also waning.

“The world no longer works that way,” said Hernandez Bernalette. “For many African or Asian countries, the relationship with new economic players such as China is much more important, in addition to the ties, including military ties, with Russia.”

However, the loose pieces in the international scaffolding also give rise to fears and problems that seriously affect the developing South, such as the possibility of an escalation of the conflict between China and Taiwan, or the grain shortages resulting from the war in Ukraine and affecting poor importers in Africa and Asia.

Serbin said that for the countries of the South, and in particular for those of Latin America, the conflict “offers opportunities, for the placement of energy or food exports for example, provided that the necessary agreements and balances with rival powers are maintained.”

“But if the confrontation escalates and spreads beyond Europe, it will be difficult to stay non-aligned. Our countries will then have to learn to navigate in troubled waters,” he concluded.

Children surf the net in a remote island community in the Philippines where fishing is the main source of income. Credit: eKindling/Lubang Tourism.

By Branislav Gosovic *
VILLAGE TUDOROVICI, Montenegro, May 21 2015 (IPS)

More than four decades ago, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) launched the concept of a New International Information Order (NIIO).

Its initiative led to the establishment of an independent commission within the fold of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), which produced a report, published in 1980, on a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO).Incomprehensible to the general public and not suitable for consideration in multilateral policy forums, the Internet governance deliberations have largely been under control of the world superpower and its cyber mega-corporations from Silicon Valley.

The report, titled “One World, Many Voices,” is usually referred to as the MacBride Report after its chairman.

The very idea of venturing to criticise and challenge the existing global media, namely the information and communication hegemony of the West, touched a raw political nerve, apparently a much more sensitive one than that irked by the developing countries’ New International Economic Order (NIEO) proposals.

A determined, no-punches-spared counteroffensive was launched by the Anglo-American tandem, which silenced UNESCO, effectively banning the MacBride Report and excluding the concept of NWICO from the international discourse and U.N. agenda.

The neo-liberal globalisation and neo-con geopolitics tide was on the rise and reigning supreme on the world scene.

The common front of the South was wavering and unsure vis-à-vis the well orchestrated challenge from the North and its multilateral arsenal deployed via the Bretton Woods and WTO troika – and, indeed, via the global media it controlled.

On the defensive and in retreat, with individual countries and their leaders targeted, pressured and tamed, the Global South lowered its profile and, facing stonewalling developed countries, it effectively shelved much of its 1960s/1970s agenda, including its quest for NIIO.

A decade ago, at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the developing countries did not have the collective will and were not prepared and organised to raise and press these broader issues.

They focused on the “digital divide”, as their key concern, which, although important, was not politically sensitive and did not represent a challenge to the existing global information order.

The rise and evolution of the Internet found the South ill-prepared to deal in a comprehensive manner with its implications, challenges and opportunities that it presented, not only for the developing countries individually and collectively, but also for the world order – economic, information and political – and for humankind in general.

The U.N. was marginalised and not allowed in depth to analyse and in an integrated, cross-sectoral and sustained way to deal with the Internet, and as a result did not provide a focus and platform that could have prompted and assisted the Global South in building and evolving its own case and vision.

The Internet-related debates and analyses have largely been focused on and limited to highly specialised and technical, often esoteric, acronym-dominated questions of its governance, which, though of vital importance, has helped to conceal or bypass many fundamental concerns.

Incomprehensible to the general public and not suitable for consideration in multilateral policy forums, the Internet governance deliberations have largely been under control of the world superpower and its cyber mega corporations from Silicon Valley, and the US-centric nature of the Internet has been defended tenaciously and preserved.

The WSIS+10 Review will be taking place shortly. There is an apparent attempt by the West – assisted by its transnational corporations (TNCs) dominating and providing key services on the Internet – to minimise the political importance and limit substantive outputs of this event.

The Group of 77 (G77) and NAM have to focus not only on the non-implementation of the Tunis agenda, but also to work out their position concerning the basic, underlying issues, including the linkages between the Internet and the international development agenda, and, more broadly, the Internet’s relevance to the international economic and political order and world peace.

There is the risk that WSIS+10 Review may turn out to be a missed opportunity for the South, and yet another encounter forced to remain within the parameters drawn and preferred by the traditional, well-entrenched masters of the global information and communication order.

Waiting one more decade for the next WSIS+20 Review may not be a recommended approach given the global economic and geo-political trends.

This relative circumspection of the Global South regarding the nature and future of the Internet is compensated in part by the voices coming from some sectors of the civil society that dare stray beyond what is allowed and permissible under the reigning global paradigm.

Thus, for example, the workshop “Organizing an Internet Social Forum”, held at the 2015 World Social Forum (WSF) in Tunis, articulated an alternative vision of an Internet and its directions for the future radically different from the current dogma.

And, an international conference on the Internet as a Global Public Resource was recently hosted by government of Malta and DiploFoundation.

“Global public resource” is a term akin to “global public goods”. The latter is a concept first launched by the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) but expurgated from its work and the U.N. discourse during the recent period, probably seen as unsuitable and a threat to the ideological purity of the privatisation gospel, a move to accommodate the political predilections of dominant elites and the current doctrinaire aversion to anything “public”.

To move the global debate and multilateral negotiations in a desired direction largely depends on the developing countries as a collectivity, the Global South.

These countries need to grasp the gravity of the systemic issues involved, on par and indeed in some ways more important than those of the traditional international economic, financial, political and social agendas.

The moment is ripe for them to brush up on the original NAM NIIO initiative and the Report of the McBride Commission on NWICO, and consider their relevance in the age of the Internet.

They should work on an alternative vision of the Internet, its functions and governance, which should evolve into the backbone of a future global information and communication order needed in a multipolar world of the 21st century.

Currently, the Internet remains a prisoner of the dominant neo-liberal paradigm and its mantras forced upon the planet by the Western powers and in the service of their global, geopolitical and corporate interests. It needs to be liberated from these shackles.

Debate and study that view the Internet from humankind’s point of view need to be launched. This will require the Global South to do its homework in depth and fully on the implications and potential roles of the Internet, in order to prepare its platform and press for the initiating of all-inclusive multilateral negotiations and debate.

The BRICS countries together possess the necessary expertise, experience and power to provide the leadership and motor force for mobilising the Global South’s collective stand and action on the Internet.

With the high likelihood that the core countries of the West will react negatively, pressure individual developing countries (as appears to have been the case with Brazil, which has lowered its traditionally forceful public stance on Internet issues), and that obstacles within the U.N. system will persist, doing something concrete independently, via South-South cooperation will be required, and indeed is the only way out of the current impasse.

Here many options exist, including creating supporting institutions and expert bodies and organising regular deliberations, at both technical and political levels.

Bridges should be built with the progressive civil society and possibly with some like-minded countries in the North that are not too happy with the existing system.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

By Pablo Piacentini
ROME, Sep 22 2014 (IPS)

The idea of creating Inter Press Service (IPS) arose in the early 1960s in response to awareness that a vacuum existed in the world of journalism, which had two basic aspects.

Firstly, there was a marked imbalance in international information sources. World news production was concentrated in the largest industrialised countries and dominated by a few powerful agencies and syndicates in the global North.

By contrast, there was a lack of information about developing countries in the South and elsewhere; there was hardly any information about their political, economic and social realities, except when natural disasters occurred, and what little was reported was culturally prejudiced against these countries. In other words, not much of an image and a poor image at that.A journalist specialised in development issues must be able to look at and analyse information and reality from the “other side.” In spite of globalisation and the revolution in communications, this “other side” continues to be unknown and disregarded, and occupies a marginal position in the international information universe

Secondly, there was an overall shortage of analysis and explanation of the processes behind news events and a lack of in-depth journalistic genres such as features, opinion articles and investigative journalism among the agencies.

Agencies published mainly ‘spot’ news, that is, brief pieces with the bare news facts and little background. Clearly this type of journalism did not lend itself to covering development-related issues.

When reporting an epidemic or a catastrophe in a Third World country, spot news items merely describe the facts and disseminate broadcast striking images. What they generally do not do is make an effort to answer questions such as why diseases that have disappeared or are well under control in the North should cause such terrible regional pandemics in less developed countries, or why a major earthquake in Los Angeles or Japan should cause much less damage and fewer deaths than a smaller earthquake in Haiti.

Superficiality and bias still predominate in international journalism.

While it is true that contextualised analytical information started to appear in the op-ed (“opposite the editorial page”) section of Anglo-Saxon newspapers, the analysis and commentary they offered concentrated on the countries of the North and their interests.

Today the number of op-eds that appear is much greater than in the 1960s, but the predominant focus continues to be on the North.

This type of top-down, North-centred journalism served the interests of industrialised countries, prolonging and extending their global domination and the subordination of non-industrialised countries that export commodities with little or no added value.

This unequal structure of global information affected developing countries negatively. For example, because of the image created by scanty and distorted information, it was unlikely that the owners of expanding businesses in a Northern country would decide to set up a factory in a country of the South.

After all, they knew little or nothing about these countries and, given the type of reporting about them that they were accustomed to, assumed that they were uncivilised and dangerous, with unreliable judicial systems, lack of infrastructure, and so on.

Obviously, few took the risk, and investments were most frequently North-North, reinforcing development in developed countries and underdevelopment in underdeveloped countries.

Pablo Piacentini

In the 1960s, those of us who created IPS set ourselves the goal of working to correct the biased, unequal and distorted image of the world projected by international agencies in those days.

Political geography and economics were certainly quite different then. Countries like Brazil, which is now an emerging power, used to be offhandedly dismissed with the quip: “It’s the country of the future – and always will be.”

At the time, decolonisation was under way in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Latin America was politically independent but economically dependent. The Non-Aligned Movement was created in 1961.

IPS never set out to present a “positive” image of the countries of the South by glossing over or turning a blind eye to the very real problems, such as corruption. Instead, we wished to present an objective view, integrating information about the South, its viewpoints and interests, into the global information media.

This implied a different approach to looking at the world and doing journalism. It meant looking at it from the viewpoint of the realities of the South and its social and economic problems.

Let me give an example which has a direct link to development.

The media tend to dwell on what they present as the negative consequences of commodity price rises: they cause inflation, are costly for consumers and their families, and distort the world economy. Clearly, this is the viewpoint of the industrialised countries that import cheap raw materials and transform them into manufactured goods as the basis for expanding their businesses and competing in the global marketplace.

It is true that steep and sudden price increases for some commodities can create problems in the international economy, as well as affect the population of some poor countries that have to import these raw materials.

But generalised and constant complaints about commodities price increases fail to take into account the statistically proven secular trend towards a decline in commodity prices (with the exception of oil since 1973) compared with those of manufactured goods.

IPS’s editorial policy is to provide news and analyses that show how, in the absence of fair prices and proper remuneration for their commodities, and unless more value is added to agricultural and mineral products, poor countries reliant on commodity exports cannot overcome underdevelopment and poverty.

Many communications researchers have recognised IPS’s contribution to developing a more analytical and appropriate journalism for focusing on and understanding economic, social and political processes, as well as contributing to greater knowledge of the problems faced by countries of the South.

Journalists addressing development issues need, in the first place, to undertake critical analysis of the content of news circulating in the information arena.

Then they must analyse economic and social issues from the “other point of view”, that of marginalised and oppressed people, and of poor countries unable to lift themselves out of underdevelopment because of unfavourable terms of trade, agricultural protectionism, and so on.

They must understand how and why some emerging countries are succeeding in overcoming underdevelopment, and what role can be played by international cooperation.

They also need to examine whether the countries of the North and the international institutions they control are imposing conditions on bilateral or multilateral agreements that actually perpetuate unequal development.

World economic geography and politics may have changed greatly since the 1960s, and new information technologies may have revolutionised the media of today, but these remain some important areas in which imbalanced and discriminatory news treatment is evident.

In conclusion, a journalist specialised in development issues must be able to look at and analyse information and reality from the “other side.” In spite of globalisation and the revolution in communications, this “other side” continues to be unknown and disregarded, and occupies a marginal position in the international information universe.

An appreciation of the true dimensions of the above issues, the contrast between them and the information and analysis we are fed daily by the predominant media virtually all over the world – not only in the North, but also many by media in the South – leads to the obvious conclusion that there is a crying need for unbiased global journalism to help correct North-South imbalance.

To this arduous task and still far-off goal, IPS has devoted its wholehearted efforts over the past half century.

(Edited by Phil Harris)

Excerpt:

The growing political uproar over the unlawful denial of European airspace for a jet carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales has spilled over into the United Nations.

Bolivian President Evo Morales. UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

The 120-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest single political grouping in the world body, has expressed its “deep concern over the flagrant violation of the diplomatic immunity” of a sitting head of state.

“This serious incident put at risk the life of the Head of State of a sovereign developing country and the entourage that accompanied him by forcing the official airplane that carried him to make an emergency landing in Austria,” said the NAM statement.

“The Heads of State and their airplanes enjoy full immunity in accordance with international law,” the group asserted.

On Tuesday, a delegation of ambassadors from Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela met with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to register a formal protest over the violation of diplomatic immunity. The meeting was followed by widespread speculation that the issue may surface at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and possibly before the 193-member General Assembly in New York.

The Bolivian presidential jet was denied airspace by several European countries, including Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, while it was returning from Moscow where Morales had attended a meeting in early July.

The denial is attributed to “unfounded rumours” that the plane also carried Edward Snowden, a U.S. national and whistleblower who is in “legal limbo” in the transit lounge of the Moscow airport, after leaking details of a massive U.S. phone and Internet surveillance programme.

The administration of President Barack Obama has accused Snowden of espionage and wants him back in the United States for prosecution.

Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “It’s always interesting to me how the old and remaining powerful nations such as the United States sometimes tear off their human rights mask and undermine their pious words in the efforts to ensure continuing hegemony and empire.”

He said the forcing down of the diplomatically-protected plane of President Morales is a prime example of wielding the big stick of imperialism and trying to teach a lesson to the smaller countries of the world.

“I have no doubt it was an act of aggression under the U.N. Charter and a kidnapping of the president,” said Ratner, who is president of the Berlin-based European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights.

In the end, he said, the law embodied in the U.N. Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is cast aside by the big powers when convenient.

“But we are in a different time,” he added. “The United States has again exposed itself as the world’s bully, as did the UK, when it threatened to extract Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder) from the Ecuador Embassy in London.”

Now, the reaction of what were once the colonies is a check on these powers, said Ratner, who is one of the U.S. attorneys for Assange and Wikileaks.

In a statement released after his meeting with Latin American envoys Tuesday, the U.N. secretary-general said he understood “the concerns which have been expressed about this unfortunate incident”.
Ban said he was relieved it did not lead to consequences for the safety of President Morales and his entourage, and it was important to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future.

Ban also said “a head of state and his or her aircraft enjoy immunity and inviolability”.

He expressed the hope that “all of the concerned governments will discuss these concerns amicably and in good faith, with full respect for all legitimate interests involved, and with a view to maintaining friendly relations among nations.”

At a summit meeting of Latin American political leaders in Bolivia last week, Morales said “apologies from a country that did not let us pass over its territory are not enough.”

“Some governments apologised, saying it was an error, but this was not an error,” the Bolivian president declared.

The incident also triggered strong denunciations by leaders from Venezuela, Ecuador, Uruguay and Argentina, among others.

Asked about the U.S. role in the denial of European airspace, State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki refused to confirm or deny whether U.S. authorities had asked other countries to deny airspace to the Bolivian plane.

“I would point you to them to describe why they made decisions if they made decisions,” she told reporters.

Ratner told IPS the laws broken by the United States and its allies that it pushed around are myriad.

President Morales’ diplomatic plane was protected and so was he as the president.

“Imagine a country forcing down Air Force One with Obama on board as the plane tried to refuel. That country would likely be obliterated,” said Ratner. “It was not only the president and his plane that were protected but so would Edward Snowden have been, had he been on the plane.”

A person seeking asylum has a right under Article 14 of the UDHR to go to a country to seek asylum from persecution. Even the United States recognises that whistle blowers are entitled to protection under the refugee convention, he added.

The U.S. actions here, and those of France, Spain and Portugal, have interfered with this important right.

“Luckily, there seems to be a tide in the world flowing over old habits of imperialism and that has the potential to limit the exploitation and power of countries that used to act with impunity,” Ratner said.

“We see it on the streets of Greece, Spain and Italy. We see it in the actions of those like Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Jeremy Hammond, Barrett Brown [all of them either whistleblowers or journalists under siege] and others who understand what is at stake: our freedom,” said Ratner.

It must be considered pure fortuity for the Islamic Republic of Iran that the decision to hold the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran was made three years ago in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.

Although the previous NAM summit took place shortly after Iran’s contested 2009 presidential election, it’s unlikely that anyone could have predicted the significance that the next summit would have for Iran in light of the Obama administration’s systematic effort to tighten the sanctions regime and the changes in the region.

The extraordinary effort put into the summit – it will include five days of holiday for government workers in Tehran along with 30 extra litres of rationed gasoline, perhaps as an encouragement for people to take a vacation away from the capital city – is intended to showcase Iran’s global role and offer concrete evidence that the United States-led initiative to isolate Iran has failed.

This is not my interpretation. It is a point loudly made by various officials in Iran. For instance, Ezatollah Zarghami, the head of Iran’s radio and television, called the summit “a maneuver against arrogance…giving the message that the nation of Iran can play a role in global equations irrespective of the power of global arrogance”.

The summit is being used to make a visually forceful case that it is not the “global community” that has problems with the Islamic Republic, as repeatedly asserted by U.S. officials, but only a U.S.-led and pressured coalition of countries. And, ironically, the Obama administration is conceding that point by identifying Tehran as a “strange and inappropriate choice” for the summit while trying to dissuade various leaders from attending the meeting.

According to Ali Saeedlou, Iran’s vice president and chair of the secretariat for the summit, 150 delegations, including from 20 international organizations, will participate. Saeedlou said Tehran is prepared to host 7,000 delegates with plans for them to visit “industrial plans, and cultural and historical venues”. India’s delegation alone will include 250 people and will be led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

To be sure, whether this showcasing of Iran’s non-isolation will strengthen Iran’s hand and actually have an impact in denting the escalating U.S.-imposed sanctions regime is an entirely different matter. NAM has already issued several statements in support of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and there is not much else that it can or will do in Tehran beyond confirming its past positions.

There is potential for a degree of unpleasantness regarding Syria, which will have representation in the summit. According to IRNA, a news agency close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there is even debate in Iran about whether President Bashar al-Assad should attend.

But Assad’s attendance is highly unlikely and chances are that a rather bland statement calling for regional cooperation on resolving the Syrian imbroglio will satisfy the attendees. IRNA has already conceded that inclusion of support for Syria’s sovereignty as a member of NAM in the Summit’s final statement is unlikely.

Probably the most important aspect of the summit is Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi’s decision to attend. But this decision is more about Egypt’s new foreign policy direction than Iran’s non-isolation. The Egyptian president is the current secretary-general of the Nonaligned Movement and had he not gone to Iran to hand over NAM’s rotating leadership, his move would have been seen as an insult to NAM as well as a continuation of Egypt’s U.S.-dependent foreign policy under the ousted Hosni Mubarak.

And, if Egypt and Iran do eventually decide to re-establish full diplomatic relations, that decision will not be based on what happens at the summit; it will result after the time and desire for resuming diplomatic ties has finally come in both countries.

In Iran, the desire and concerted effort to elevate relations with Egypt has existed since Mohammad Khatami’s presidency and the last vestiges of opposition have vanished with the political change in Egypt. Meanwhile, the exchange of ambassadors between the two countries is effectively the least expensive way for Egypt to announce its new independent foreign policy. Not having ambassadorial relations with Iran when every other Arab country including Saudi Arabia does simply doesn’t make sense anymore and even the U.S. must understand this.

Ambassadorial-level relations do not necessarily mean friendly relations – as the current state of Iran-Saudi relations show. And the extent to which Cairo will be willing to deepen relations with Tehran will depend on, and in all likelihood be limited by, the balance of power in Egypt’s domestic politics as well as the country’s relations with the U.S. and other regional powers.

Still, depending on how well organised the summit turns out to be, Tehran will try to garner as much publicity as possible for a show staged essentially for an audience that resides outside of Iran.

As to the audience inside Iran, once the summit is over, it will continue to be divided and weighed down with the reality of severe economic challenges and a broken and paranoid political system that still does not know what to do with a large number of disaffected citizens and cannot offer an explanation for why a former prime minister (and his spouse) and a former speaker of the Parliament continue to be incarcerated without charge.

The good news for this audience though is the persistence of its wry sense of humor. Making fun of the five-day holiday that the government is giving Tehranis, a joke is going around that during the past weekend 30 people have drowned in the Caspian Sea and 90 people died in car crashes. The punch line? “If Israel waits, a whole bunch of us will just pass away during the summit holidays.”

*Farideh Farhi is an Independent Scholar and Affiliate Graduate Faculty at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. She has taught comparative politics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, University of Hawai’i, University of Tehran, and Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.

Brushing aside a warning by the Israeli government and rebuffing a campaign by pro-Israeli lobbying groups in the United States, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has decided to visit Iran next week to participate in the summit meeting of the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), described as the world’s largest single political coalition.

U.N. spokesperson Martin Nesirky told reporters Wednesday the secretary-general is “fully aware of the sensitivities (of his visit) and also fully aware of his responsibilities” (as a representative of the international community).

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will attend the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Iran from Aug. 26-31. Credit: Bomoon Lee/IPS

Responding to questions from reporters, he pointed out that it was customary for the secretary-general, as in previous years, to attend the NAM summit, which includes more than two-thirds of the members of the United Nations.

“It is an important and valuable platform,” Nesirky added, pointing out that the secretary-general has an obligation not to miss this opportunity to meet with Iranian officials at the highest political levels.

The discussions will include a wide range of issues, including the country’s nuclear programme, its role in the ongoing Syrian crisis, human rights, terrorism – and some of the recent anti-Semitic statements emanating from the political leadership in Tehran.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported early August that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally appealed to the secretary-general not to attend the NAM summit, describing Iran as “a regime that represents the greatest danger to world peace”.

Israel, which has threatened to unilaterally attack Iran on the ground that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons, does not want Ban to give legitimacy to the summit, scheduled to take place in the Iranian capital Aug. 26-31.

In an editorial titled “U.N. Chief Should Boycott Tehran Conference”, the Washington Post said last week that the conference promises to be “a festival of resistance to the United States, the U.N. Security Council and Israel”.

And the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a strongly pro-Israeli lobbying group, urged Ban not to travel to Iran.

In a letter to Ban, ADL said: “Your presence in the Iranian capital at this time will be counterproductive to the efforts of the international community to bring Iran into compliance with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions”.

In a statement released Wednesday, the ADL said Ban’s visit “could be seen as rewarding the regime’s belligerence on the nuclear issue and escalating anti-Israel, anti-America, and anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement”.

The secretary-general’s decision to attend the summit meeting, however, is being viewed as a rejection of all these arguments.

Nesirky said Ban will use the opportunity to convey the clear concerns and expectations of the international community on the issues for which cooperation and progress are urgent for both regional stability and the welfare of the Iranian people.

And over the past weekend, he said, Ban “was dismayed by recent remarks threatening Israel’s existence attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and condemned the comments, which he described as offensive and inflammatory”.

At a briefing in Washington DC last week, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said Iran is “a strange choice for where to hold this meeting particularly given how many aspects of their U.N. obligations Iran is not in compliance with”.

“We’ve made that point to the secretary general. And its just does not send a good signal.”

Still, Nuland refused to dissuade Ban from participating in the NAM summit.

Pressed further by reporters, she said: “I think our expectation would be that if he goes at this time that he will use the visit to make the point about our broad concern as an international community and the U.N.’s concern about the number of aspects of their U.N. obligations that Iran is flouting.”

Asked if the United States would prefer that he not go to Iran, Nuland said: “Again, he’s going to make his own decision. We’ve made our views known that we think that this is a strange place and an inappropriate place for this meeting.”

Asked if there was any city in the world that would be acceptable for this meeting to be held, Nuland responded, “Again, this is an organisation that we are not a member of. Our point is simply that Tehran, given its number of grave violations of international law and U.N. obligations, does not seem to be the appropriate place”.

NAM, which was created in 1961, has been chaired by 12 countries from the global South, including the former Yugoslavia, Algeria, Sri Lanka, India, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Zambia, and currently Egypt, which formally hands over the chair to Iran at the Tehran meeting.

Iran will be chairing NAM for the first time in the 51-year history of the movement.

When Cuba chaired the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) back in 1979, Western nations dismissed the world’s largest single political coalition as lacking legitimacy since Havana was considered a close ally of the then-Soviet Union.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has not yet declared his intention to attend or skip the summit. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

Taking the cue from the West, even some of the mainstream news organisations, as a matter of editorial policy, continued to cynically describe NAM as the “so-called” Non-Aligned Movement right through Cuba’s four-year chairmanship, which ended in 1983.

Still, both Cuba and NAM survived the name-calling and political vituperation, despite an organised campaign to discredit the coalition as covertly pro-Soviet.

With Iran taking over the chairmanship later this month – for the first time in the history of the 120-member NAM – the Western world is expected to react as negatively as it did to Cuba.

Israel, which has threatened to unilaterally attack Iran on the ground Tehran is developing nuclear weapons, has urged Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to skip the NAM summit scheduled to take place in the Iranian capital Aug. 26-31.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported last week that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has personally appealed to the secretary-general not to attend the NAM summit, describing Iran as “a regime that represents the greatest danger to world peace”.

But Ernest Corea, former Sri Lankan ambassador to the United States and author of “Non Alignment: The Dynamics of a Movement,” told IPS that if Ban visits Tehran for the NAM summit, “he will be following precedent and reaffirming the bond between the United Nations and the 120-member NAM”.

Of course, he should attend the summit, said Corea, but should keep clear of bilateral discussions with the Iranian leadership on matters within the purview of the U.N. Security Council – unless he is encouraged or authorised to do so by the Council.

In an editorial titled “U.N. Chief Should Boycott Tehran Conference,” the Washington Post weighed in Wednesday, pointing out “the conference promises to be a festival of resistance to the United States, the U.N. Security Council and Israel.”

The editorial said that Ban may be hoping he can single-handedly persuade the Iranians to end their quest for nuclear weapons.

“That assumes the United Nations leader has more clout than anyone else who tried. We’re told that Mr. Ban sees this as a crucial moment for a diplomatic last ditch effort. But it doesn’t seem even remotely likely to succeed.”

If these concerns are related to Iran’s nuclear programme, an Arab diplomat told IPS, “why has the West continued to diplomatically avoid the question as to why Israel should have nuclear weapons but not Iran?”

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is related to its growing energy needs, and not aimed at making weapons of mass destruction.

Chakravarthi Raghavan, a veteran journalist who has covered the United Nations both in New York and Geneva for decades, told IPS whether one likes it or not, NAM is a political gathering, and represents the largest group of nations, and members of the U.N.

“Whatever the views and policies of the host, it would be a folly for the head of the U.N. Secretariat not to go there to present a U.N. view – and not act as a partisan of U.S.-Israeli interests or Israeli lobbying groups in the U.S.,” said Raghavan, who has covered NAM summits from the very inception.

He also pointed out that the secretary-general “is only the head of the U.N. secretariat in terms of the U.N. charter, although U.Thant (a former secretary-general) said at a press conference in the 1960s that the U.N. chief also acted as the conscience of humanity.”

Asked if Ban has plans to attend the summit, his Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo del Buey told reporters last week, “Well, we see reports coming out of Jerusalem, and we have no trip to announce.”

“If and when the secretary-general has something to announce, we will announce it,” he added.

Pressed for an answer Wednesday, he said: “The media is full of reports and a lot of issues. We are not commenting on any proposed trips for the time being. I can continue repeating that if you like; I’ve been doing it for the past few days.”

In a statement issued Monday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a strongly pro-Israeli lobbying group, urged Ban “to make clear that he does not intend to travel to Iran later this month”.

In a letter to the secretary general, the ADL said: “Your presence in the Iranian capital at this time will be counterproductive to the efforts of the international community to bring Iran into compliance with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. ADL has not received a reply.”

NAM, which was created in 1961, has been chaired by 12 countries from the global South, including the former Yugoslavia, Algeria, Sri Lanka, India, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Zambia, and currently Egypt, which formally hands over the chair to Iran at the Tehran meeting.

Corea told IPS that non-alignment as a foreign policy option predates the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement.

As the late Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru once explained, non-alignment is the means by which newly-independent states retained independent control of their foreign policy in the same way that they were – post-colonialism – able to manage their domestic affairs.

“The Non-aligned Movement (NAM) is a coalition of countries that follow a non-aligned foreign policy or profess to do so,” said Corea.

Their founding principles remain intact and relevant in today’s world: mutual respect, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference, mutual benefit, and peaceful co-existence, he said.

NAM’s relevance has to be assessed in relation to how closely its members uphold these principles in practice, he declared.

“All countries holding NAM chairmanship seek clout for themselves while doing so. Some succeed, some don’t,” said Corea.