Few dispute that Russia’s invasion of its sovereign neighbour Ukraine — a year ago on 24 February 2022 — has been an atrocity for the Ukrainian people. Amid virtually universal calls for a peaceful resolution of this murderous conflict, neither side seems ready to compromise.  

Might there be a way to end this atrocity and revive relevance and respect for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)?

In joining this debate, I offer four notes of caution at a time when the global order seems especially volatile and unpredictable.

Who belongs to today’s NAM?

A coalition of countries that led the formation of the NAM, first met as a group at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia of 29 African and Asian leaders. 

Two strategic concerns predominated: freedom and self-determination for the millions of people still under colonial domination; and collective protection from becoming pawns in the global competition for ideological domination at the height of the Cold War.

Principles motivating NAM were those of the UN Charter — all member states formally commit to respect the sovereign equality and territorial integrity of all states. While often violated in practice, especially by the powerful against the weak, these are again being tested in Ukraine.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, institutions that emerged in response to the Cold War either adapted or atrophied. NAM assumed a broader identity as the representative of the Global South, as opposed to the Global North, essentially the poor and vulnerable nations in a world dominated by increasingly rich nations. Such distinctions, however, are in flux.

For example, does this mean North Korea can qualify for NAM while South Korea is aligned with rich fellow members of the OECD? When NAM was created, China was poor, but now its economy rivals that of the US. India too is developing rapidly.

In an increasingly pluralistic world, distinctions between how nations are governed and nationalisms debated and defined, also have acquired greater salience and uncertainty.

Who might lead a NAM revival?

In 1955, five strong men, the heads of state of Indonesia, India, Egypt, Ghana and Yugoslavia led the charge to form the NAM. In a far more diverse and pluralistic world today, it is difficult to imagine the emergence of a similar cohort.

There are, of course, the five leaders of the BRICS nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Three have credible NAM identities and interests. And Russia, China and South Africa are currently engaged in joint military training operations. 

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

South Africa, which has indicated a desire to broker a peace accord between Russia and Ukraine, will chair and host the 2023 BRICS summit. Whether Ukraine and its Western supporters would agree, is doubtful. Russia chaired the UN Security Council when Ukraine was invaded, rendering serious debate about the core UN principles at stake impossible. 

Remembering Mandela

NAM enthusiasts rightly can cite numerous examples of US foreign interventions to counter allegations that being non-aligned toward Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine endorses that evident violation of the core UN and NAM principles of mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

The 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq is often named as illustrative of US double standards when criticising Russian aggression in Ukraine. What few acknowledge is the scathing public criticism on 31 January 2003 by former South African president Nelson Mandela of the US military buildup, warning against any invasion, nearly two months before the event.

Then-president Thabo Mbeki issued an even more blistering indictment within two weeks of the 20 March invasion, which featured prominently in The New York Times.

Regarding the war in Ukraine, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Dr Naledi Pandor did issue a statement immediately after Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion, calling for respect of that country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, an immediate withdrawal, and a peaceful settlement. But since then, SA policy has been to claim neutrality and non-alignment, while calling for peace.

Prospects for NAM facilitating an end to the war in Ukraine

Few predicted Russia would invade; the valour shown by Ukrainians; the leadership of president Volodymyr Zelenskyy; the rejuvenation of the Western alliance; or Russia’s poor military performance while so far adapting to and mitigating the effects of Western sanctions.

So, offering a plausible scenario for how the war ends is risky.  The most credible one I know of has been offered by the eminent historian of Soviet and Russian affairs, Stephen Kotkin. NAM, however, plays no role and his scenario suggests why.

Before the war, the GDP of Ukraine was about $200-billion, or about half the size of South Africa’s economy that year. Currently, the cost of reconstructing a nation already devastated by Russian bombardment is estimated to be $350-billion, twice pre-war GDP. They must also rebuild governing institutions, not ones of military resistance. Ukraine continues to talk bravely about regaining all its rightful territory.

Kotkin argues that the only means for Ukraine to rebuild and fulfil its ambition for national self-determination is to become a member of the European Union, not Nato. Russia would gain control of areas of Ukraine it now occupies.

For NAM, this would reaffirm its calls for a negotiated solution.  And because Russia allegedly flouted the sovereignty of Ukraine while also chairing the UN Security Council, NAM would have a historic opportunity to demand changes in the Security Council to make it more representative of the diversity of UN members. DM