Time for the new non-aligned

You have to be wide awake to notice some forms of denigration. Our establishment is very canny about it. You might almost conclude that there was collusion or censorship in Western societies.

My text book example is Nick Clegg and his British liberal democrats. Before 2010 Nick’s team was fairly harmless. They are centrists in British politics, openly in favour of the EU, disarmament, fighting inequality and a lot of other causes that might resonate if we got around to thinking about them.

The party to the right and the one to the left have all the historical power and incumbency. They, and their mouthpieces in the press, used to be patronizingly nice to Nick’s liberals while they were no threat. Yes, they said, your ideas are good, thank you for them, and then, sotto voce, it is a shame your team don’t have gravitas or experience and don’t really understand our world. This way the status quo was preserved, and politics could present itself as inclusive and intelligent.

Then in 2010 a strange thing happened. Nick, a decent and talented fellow, nearly won the election. There was a TV debate, and the other two overdid the patronizing and agreed with Nick so much that opinion polls showed that he would win.

Immediately, the establishment fought back. Barbs were trained relentlessly on Nick and his team. The references to his good ideas were drowned out by scare stories of his lack of experience or understanding. In the end he did not win, but he did OK - the other two cancelled each other out, and he ended up in coalition.

He remains there, but has suffered an appalling barrage from the press for four years, so much so that they failed to spot the new challenge to the status quo of UKIP.

The lesson is about the establishment fear of the change and its power to stop it. Threats from the flanks are defeated by the exposure of their daft ideas, as UKIP will be eventually. Those from the centre are defeated by patronization, scare stories and by the denial of any fair debate of their ideas. The EU itself is handled in a similar way.

It is worse in the US, where the entrenched behemoths of the two main parties control debate and money even more tightly. Nothing in the centre sees the light of day. Some other countries have proportional representation so politics is more plural, but don’t pretend that the establishment does not exist.

Extending this thought, consider what else is marginalized in the same way. How much publicity do UN reports receive? These are invariably excellent, but hidden away in specialist organs. There was another one a few weeks back – not by the UN – about social growth. New Zealand came first in the rankings, Holland and Scandinavia did well, and the UK and US disappointed as usual. You have to work hard to find this stuff reported, despite it having clear lessons for all of us about how we might improve.

Thinking about this and about other news jogged something in my memory. Years ago, I heard reference to an organization of non-aligned states. It sounded an eminently sensible thing. Yet it gets no press.

The thought cropped up from considering the trouble spots of the modern world. I believe that the only reason North Korea is not solved is that China fears having a land border with a united Korea loaded up with US weapons. Think about this if true: tens of milions are allowed to live in deprivation for generations because of a strategic fear.

Ukraine is something similar. It seems clear Putin would be able to accept a Ukraine trading with the West, but not the CIA all over Kiev and by extension to his own borders. The proximity is the issue, combined with the US arguably abusing its covert power.

Sadly, the US does not seem to be able to back off. The epitome of this was the famous quote from George W, “you are either with us or against us”. That language is all about power, conquest, dominance, and it still pervades Washington even if we now have a president with some perspective. Peaceful co-existence does not seem to be on the menu.

As China and other regional powers grow, it is already clear that this attitude, and the lack of any solution, will become more of a problem. We have issues in Iran, Syria, Israel, then Venezuela and where else? Things could spiral out of control.

Historically, this has presaged calamitous war. And after the peace, there have been attempts to support an idea of “never again” via institutions. The League of Nations started in 1919, the UN in 1947.

In our globalized world, the nation state itself has become the main blocker to progress. But that is not going to vanish in a hurry (though we should all stand up against its worst effects). So perhaps it is more practical to argue for a revision of institutions, this time before the global war rather than afterwards.

So I recalled the non-aligned movement, and its suppression in establishment discourse, and read about in Wikipedia. It was very interesting.

Nehru was the inspiration for NAM, and Tito was the initial driving force. The current chair-holding country is – wait for it – Iran. Egypt came immediately before, so the community had the confusion of dealing with successive chairmen called Mubarak, Morsi and Al-Sisi. Past chairmen have included Mandela, but also Castro and Chavez. While every African nation (except South Sudan) is a member, the only European members are – wait for it again – Azerbaijan and Belarus.

This reads like a rogues gallery to our Western eyes. But the movement still exists and covers almost all developing nations, so is the true that they are rogues, or is the truth that our eyes have been coloured?

Despite the heterogeneity of its membership, until the end of the cold war at least the movement had a primary theme, that of protecting territorial integrity. After 1989 that purpose has become somewhat nuanced. But the North Korean and Ukrainian examples suggest that a new purpose may be within reach.

As the world has progressed positively, it might be possible to form a large group of nations willing to sign up to more taxing conditions than the UN charter. It might include something about the limited role of the armed forces, about tolerance of minorities and external mediation in the case of dispute, something about institutions and term limits, and even something about free trade. Now, wouldn’t that be a thing!

I call on Finland and Sweden to lead the formation of the group. Finland has finessed its position wonderfully over the last fifty years, as an EU member with a long land border with Russia. Neither Sweden nor Finland have joined NATO. A similar status for North Korea, Ukraine, Georgia, Palestine, Taiwan even Cuba, backed up by global heft, might be just the catalyst to the next era of global progress.

It costs nothing to dream, only perhaps some pre-ordained frustration. But it is always beneficial to the think, and dreaming is a good aid to thinking. Apart from the big idea, there are other things I can take away from this line of thought. One is about whom the outliers are, the West or everyone else. The other is a renewed determination to seek out items that might be suppressed (actively or not) by our Western establishments.