INDIA
AND THE AFRO-ASIAN BLOC
IN
THE UNITED NATIONS
D. R. SADH
Lecturer, Govt. Sanskrit Degree
College, Indore
The
United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter, has
two functions: First it is a forum for international discussions, and secondly
it is an instrument of collective security and international peace. The latter
function is more significant than the former, although the importance of
international exchange of views cannot be under-estimated. Unfortunately the
United Nations has not lived upto the intentions and
objectives enshrined in the Charter and has not succeeded in performing its
functions of maintenance of peace and security effectively. When the
Charter was drafted it was assumed that the five sponsoring powers would
continue to co-operate in concluding peace treaties and
in establishing the basis of an enduring peace, but this expectation did not materialise. Even before the cessation of hostilities, disagreement
and conflict developed between two major powers–the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics–which
has been considerably widened now.
The
United Nations–the last hope of the world to bridge the gulf between East and
West–has become an arena of power politics. The world has become bipolarised, namely the Anglo-American bloc and the Russian
bloc. The United States has
been trying to bring into its sphere of alliances–NATO, SEATO, CENTO–Spain,
Pakistan, Phillipines, Formosa etc. The Russians, on the
other hand, are busy extending their sphere of influence by subtler methods of
communist infiltration and by concluding mutual defence
pacts such as The Warsaw Pact.
But
the fundamental problems of Asia and Africa: social and economic; poverty and
unemployment; illiteracy and ill-health, have to be eradicated irrespective of
‘isms’ or ideologies, Military measures are of little avail unless governments
are broad based on the goodwill of the people and unless the elementary needs
of the masses are satisfied. It is but natural for countries which do not wish
to join any defence pacts, to seek, as Mr. Walter Lippman, has said, “Some middle kind of position where they
have a hope, a chance, of not becoming involved in an atomic war.”
In
the midst of such a situation, India
alone stands out with the Afro-Asian bloc as the beacon light of peace,
exercising its moral influence and emphasising the
practical need for peaceful co-existence. What are the points of credit for India’s lead?
Firstly,
India was the first country
in Asia and Africa to achieve independence
from imperial rule, and without bloodshed, which was unique in history.
Secondly, Indian attitude in world affairs is obviously conditioned by her
recent and direct experience with foreign imperialism. Thirdly, India has
indeed been fortunate in the calibre of its top
leadership in the recent past. Fourthly, India could maintain her
independence in the sphere of external affairs. Fifthly, India’s conviction
that ends do not always justify the means, and that a problem solved by unfair
and violent means, leads to many other problems, which in turn may be equally
difficult of solution, if not more troublesome. Sixthly India’s
firm belief in the doctrine of peaceful co-existence. Because of it too,
India
supports the United Nations as a focal point in international relations, and
seeks to enlarge its membership. This is one of the reasons due to which India still supports the entry of People’s China into the
United Nations, though at present the relations between the two nations are of
extreme hostility. Seventhly, India
believes that the edifice of a lasting peace can only be built by elimination
of colonialism, racial discrimination and poverty. India has, therefore, always
championed the cause of dependent people in international conferences. Lastly, India’s entire
attitude towards the questions that come up before the United Nations was of
judging each issue on its own merits. Any success that India had is
largely due to the happy blend of idealism and realism and the earnest attempt
to respect the ethical and moral values of human society.
The
United Nations affords the best opportunity for the common interests of India and the
other Afro-Asian nations to find practical expression. The agencies are used
for much consultation and co-ordination of policy. A system of multilateral
relations has been politically much more important than the widely advertised
Asian and African conferences. Indeed it may be said to be the best indictor
because there is very little collective political action among any large number
of Asian and Africans nations outside the United Nations.
Nevertheless,
What is the picture today? With the disintegration of
the imperial system, new states have joined the comity of nations. Their
membership of the United Nations has changed its complexion. And even though China still
remains blocked out, the United Nations can now claim a unique character,
unparalleled in the history of our race.
What
is the real significance of the new membership? Today in relation to votes at
least, the United Nations is no more a captive of the United States.
If all the states function freely and express their opinions without trusting
the protagonists of the cold war, it would be difficult for them to carry out
their plans through the United Nations. On the other hand, the United Nations
can become the organization of the uncommitted world; in other words the
overwhelming majority of mankind can find true expression of its desires
through the United Nations. Once again it must be remembered that never in the
history of the world organization has such a democratic situation prevailed.
The
emergence of the Afro-Asian bloc in the United Nations is largely due to the
failure of the major powers to give a lead to the other nations and also an awareness that on issues, which are brought before the
world organization, usually the points of view of both the blocs do not
represent their (smaller nations’) views. The other factor for the emergence of
the Afro-Asian bloc was the ideology of neutralism and non-alignment as
compared to the ideologies of the power camps. A third factor which may be
regarded contributory is the identity of interests and views on a large number
of subjects among the nations of these regions which is in sharp distinction to
the other parts of the world. It was also learnt by experience that these
nations can pull their weight in a better way if they try to tackle issues in an united manner. On many occasions, even on questions of
war and peace, the members of the Afro-Asian group consulted one another and
tried with some success to evolve a common policy. Thus there emerged a third
force by name ‘Afro-Asian Bloc’ in the United Nations.
It
is better here to clear out the notion about the word ‘bloc’. A bloc, it is
generally taken for granted, implies aggressive intentions and is as such
inimical to international co-operation. Mr. Nehru wanted to clarify India’s position when he said on March 8, 1949
in the Indian Parliament that India
was averse to joining or forming any bloc or entering into any alliance with
any country, on the ground that such activity involves military and other
commitments which are often binding. Of significance in this regard was the
preference, as he said, for “other forms of association which do not bind but
which help to bring nations together for the purpose of consultation and
necessary co-operation “.1
In
this sense, the Afro-Asian bloc is an association of member-states in the
United Nations, not having any binding force but to act on the basis of mutual
co-operation and with a common purpose of establishing peace.
When
the United Nations was founded in Sanfrancisco in
1946, it had only twelve Asian-African members–an insignificant, weak and
powerless group–without a platform, without a programme. The largest single
bloc was the eighteen-member Latin American group, so closely tied to the United States.
With its backing the Western Powers could do anything which they wanted to be
done.
That
happy hey-day is now history. In 1958 this Afro-Asian group consisted of. twenty-eight states; in the year 1960 the number has
increased to forty-four states. In the year 1961, more countries of Africa were admitted to the United Nations, thus
increasing the strength of the Afro-Asian bloc to fifty members. At present out
of 110 nations, near about 56 nations will be representing the Afro-Asian
continent. That is more than four times the number of Afro-Asian states which
were represented in the United Nations in 1949.
The
impact of the new complexion of the United Nations is already being felt. The
concept that the United Nations can either be bypassed or ignored is becoming
outdated. Hans J. Margenthao, in his book “Politics Among Nations,” writes: “With the committed nations firmly
in their respective orbits, the sole element of flexibility for the balance of
power is provided by the prospective moves of the uncommitted nations. To which
side they are, for instance, the Arab nations, India,
Indonesia,
finally going to turn?” Further, he writes: “The development of the world
balance of power in the immediate future will largely depend upon the course
these and other uncommitted nations will take.”
2
The
Afro-Asian group came into existence, on Indian initiative, in 1950 when the
Korean war became the charge of the United Nations.
From those early days, when it had just thirteen members, it had worked for
colonial freedom, and peace through reconciliation between the great powers.
From 1953, it ceased to be an appealing group when Mr. Krishna Menon, as the Indian
representative, took over charge. Its fullest impact was felt at the time of
the Suez
crisis. Now it is on the eve of a new phase of its development.
The
emergence of the Afro-Asian bloc is not a deliberate contrivance of India, but it can be said that its evolution was
due to the support that India
gave to it. The Indian delegate to the United Nations usually acts as the
Chairman of the informal meetings and in the meantime, India is recognised by
many as the leader of the Asian-Arab bloc, without of course any attempt of India to impose
its leadership. This was publicly acknowledged in the compliment that the
Secretary General of the Arab League paid to India
when he thanked her for her support to the Muslim nations struggling for
freedom and when he recognised India’s
leadership in the ‘bloc’.
Let
us turn to India’s approach
to the problems of Asia and Africa. First, India does not
want to assume the leadership of the Afro-Asian bloc. As India is situated in the centre of Asia, she desires to develop relations–economic and
cultural–with countries in that area. The countries of Asia and Africa comprising sixty per cent of the world’s
population and forty per cent of its land area, have a
gross national income which is only 3 per cent of the world’s total income. So
they wish to expand their trade, increase their knowledge and information about
other lands, give and receive technical advice and build up useful contacts.
Mr. Nehru, speaking at the time of the Geneva Conference in 1953, said: “We do
not seek any special role in Asia, nor do we champion any narrow and sectional
Asian regionalism, we only seek to keep ourselves, and for the adherence of
others, particularly our neighbours, a peace area,
and a policy of non-alignment, and non-commitment to world tensions and wars.
This is essential for our own sake and can alone enable us to make our
contribution to lowering world tension and further disarmament and world
peace.” 3
It
is true that India
wishes to be friendly with all other countries. Surely she desires to see
freedom installed and grow everywhere and see colonialism quit. It is true
likewise that India
would be happy to see other countries grow according to their wishes and their
indigenous genius without menacing others. India stands for all these.
Naturally all Asiatic and African countries are looking up to her for guidance.
For instance in the fifteenth session of the General Assembly all the important
leaders of the Afro-Asian countries were anxiously waiting for the arrival of
Mr. Nehru at the United Nations headquarters. And only because of his
initiative, they were able to sponsor the Five-Power resolution. But anyhow
India
does not want to be the leader of any bloc, not even of the
Afro-Asian bloc whose cause she has persistently championed. As
Mr. Nehru once observed: “We want to be comrades and friends of other nations
and leaders of none. We want no leaders either, sitting above us.”
4
Whenever
possible and in spite of vigorous denials of an Afro-Asian bloc, Indian
initiative in the United Nations takes the form of proposed
joint resolutions, backed by the combined moral and political
strength of most of the Afro-Asian world represented in the Organization.
Keeping
the above fact in mind, the Indian representative in the United Nations always
served and will serve as a guide or leader to the Afro-Asian nations, in the
cause for freedom, economic and social welfare, disarmament
and world peace.
Richard
Lawenthal has aptly remarked that “from the point of
view of world peace the importance of the neutrals in the United Nations is not
that of a morally superior arbitrator-mediator, but of an audience before which
the rival blocs may have to justify their actions.”
5
It
follows that the neutrals’ roll in the East-West conflict is restraining rather
than contributive; they are not in a position, for instance, to impose a
compromise on disarmament, which must depend on both sides finding a true point
of common interest on the basis of detailed inside knowledge, But they may
prevent a provocative walk-out by one side before all chances of negotiations
are exhausted. Similarly it was inherently futile for the Neutrals to try to
bring about a summit meeting between President Eisenhover
and Mr. Khrushchev. But it may have been quite useful that neutrals took the
initiative. Some critics are of the opinion that the strength of the Afro-Asian
nations in the United Nations is a potentiality rather than an actuality. But
this must not be taken as granted for all time.
1 Quoted
in United Asia, March-April 1949, P. 447
2 Margenthao, Hans J. “Politics Among Nations” pp. 351-352. Ncw York Alfred A. Kroft. 1960.
3 Mehta
G. L. Understanding India,
P. 7
4 The
Hindu, February 7, 1954
5
Richard Lawenthal.
“Neutrals’ Role in the United Nations” Hindustan
Times, November 10, 1960.
Back