Non-alignment policy is even more relevant today

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered a debate regarding Nepal's commitment to non-alignment policy. As the world watched, Nepal voted in the United Nations’ proposal that condemned Russia's aggression, while neighboring South Asian countries, including India, chose the path of abstention.

This divergence of stance stirred criticism from foreign policy experts and communist parties, who vehemently posited that Nepal's vote in the UN resolution represented a stark deviation from its enduring non-alignment doctrine. They contended that Nepal, like several regional counterparts, should have maintained a resolute neutral position.

In recent months, a fresh discourse has taken root among foreign policy luminaries and political leaders, probing the question of whether Nepal should relinquish its non-alignment policy in light of the ever-shifting regional and global power dynamics. Yet, some proponents of this shift offer their case without specifying what should supplant the non-alignment policy.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), born in the cauldron of the 1950s and 1960s, had at its heart the notion of eschewing alignment with either of the two prevailing blocs: the democratic realm led by the United States or the communist sphere headed by the Soviet Union. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the bipolar world transitioned into a unipolar landscape under US dominion. Currently, there are 120 members that follow the non-alignment policy. 

Nepal has enshrined it in its constitution of 2015. Article 51 of the constitution explicitly mandates Nepal to conduct an independent foreign policy based on the United Nations Charter, non-alignment, Panchasheel principles, international law, and world peace norms. It underscores the overarching imperative of safeguarding Nepal's sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence, and national interests.

Those advocating for abandoning the non-alignment policy often cite India as an example. They argue that India has embraced a multi-alignment doctrine in recent years. India's reduced emphasis on global non-alignment conferences is seen as a testament to this shift. Experts assert that India has deftly carved a path of strategic autonomy and multi-alignment, all while preserving the core tenets of non-alignment.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, India's steadfast neutrality and ongoing engagements with both Russia and the US have underscored the nuanced nature of its foreign policy. Professor of international relations, Khadka KC, contends that even India has not categorically severed ties with non-alignment, hinting that Nepal, in its own way, has been practicing a form of multi-alignment since the 1960s, all while upholding the principles of non-alignment.

It's argued that Nepal actively pursues economic benefits from major global powers, including Russia, and, since 1960, has remained untethered to military alliances. Experts assert that the current non-alignment doctrine does not preclude Nepal from engaging with any nation to further its national interests. However, the unique geography of Nepal necessitates a cautious avoidance of taking sides in global conflicts.

Beyond Nepal's borders, the Global South at large grapples with the intricacies of non-alignment and neutrality, particularly in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite fervent lobbying by the US and its allies, many Global South nations have refrained from endorsing US sanctions on Russia. The positions of these smaller nations have triggered consternation, as they effectively curtail the impact of the sanctions on Russia’s economy.

Professor KC staunchly advocates for Nepal's continued adherence to non-alignment, affirming that it's intrinsic to Nepal's foreign policy fabric. He emphasizes that geography and evolving regional and global power dynamics underscore the primacy of Nepal's non-alignment policy.  “Nepal can simultaneously reap economic benefits from major powers while remaining committed to non-alignment,” he says.
Former diplomat Dinesh Bhattarai insists that at the core of Nepal's non-alignment policy lies the art of making independent judgments without tilting toward any side, a principle perfectly aligned with Nepal's unique geographical constraints. He dismisses claims that non-alignment stifles development.

“I have heard the contention that non-alignment policy hinders our development. What I say is geography is an omnipotent factor, and taking sides offers no guaranteed path to rapid progress.” 

Mriendra Bahadur Karki, executive director at the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, offers a nuanced perspective. “Nepal should reinvent non-alignment to involve active engagement in global affairs while sidestepping military alliances,” he says.  

Karki also defends Nepal's prudent decision to vote against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, portraying it as an embodiment of active non-alignment.

International relations analyst Gaurab Shumsher Thapa underscores that non-alignment does not entail turning a blind eye to regional or global events. “Instead, it beckons active engagement in world affairs without shackling Nepal to any military blocs.”  Given Nepal's intricate geopolitical milieu, Thapa asserts that the relevance of non-alignment will likely increase rather than dwindle in the country's future.

To date, Nepal remains an ardent advocate of the non-alignment policy. In a recent ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau, Foreign Minister NP Saud reaffirmed Nepal's unwavering faith in the principle of the Non-Aligned Movement. He stressed the imperative of international cooperation within NAM, the strengthening of south-south collaboration, and the fortification of multilateralism with the United Nations at its nucleus, as a means to surmount contemporary global challenges.

Saud maintained: "As NAM members, we must address the root causes of persistent global problems, such as poverty, conflict, and violence. We must champion enduring peace through dialogue and respect for diversity while accelerating our economic development to attain the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development."

Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in conversation with ApEx, contend that the ongoing debate on non-alignment falls short of mirroring the contemporary reality. In the face of external forces exerting pressure to enlist Nepal in their ranks, they say the most prudent course for Nepal would be to remain steadfast on its non-alignment commitment. 

They firmly assert that Nepal, in view of its unique position, cannot afford to antagonize any nation by picking sides. Critics of non-alignment, they argue, have yet to furnish a coherent alternative.