Thread by @JuergenDinkel

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Conference of Non-Aligned States in Belgrade 1961, some reflections on the historical research of the Non-Aligned Movement. #otd #ColdWar #GlobalSouth

Undoubtedly and fortunately, historical interest in the NAM has been increasing in recent years. A good overview of the state of research on the 50th anniversary is provided by Mišković et al.(2014) which at the same time gave an important impetus to the research.

Since then, as historical interest in international history, global history, and postcolonial studies has grown, so has interest in the NAM. In this process, research has slowly shifted from the pre-founding and founding history of the NAM in the 1950/60s in three directions:

First, there has been increased research into the collaborations and competitions between NAM and other organizations in the Global South like the Afro-Asian movement, the tricontinetal conference in Havana 1966, or the OAU.

Second, recent studies have focused on the international activities of NAM in the 1970s and 1980s. In particular, the significance of the NAM for the North-South conflict and international law has been intensively discussed and elaborated from different perspectives.

Third, the focus has shifted from heads of government and the core areas of bi- and multilateral foreign policy (military and economy) to other fields. Recent studies ask about social exchange processes (student exchanges, development aid, film exchanges) between NAM countries.

The role of women in NAM networks, and cultural manifestations of nonalignment (e.g., in the form of museum exhibitions). As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that the NAM was not only a political project in international politics, but produced numerous social effects.

At the moment, I see the greatest research desideratum for the period after the end of the Cold War. The history of the movement after 1989/1991 is only beginning to be written.

There are only a few unsystematic answers to the question of why the movement still exists today.

I am least convinced by the explanation that NAM is a relic of the Cold War, since I do not consider NAM as a product of the Cold War either.

More convincing is an explanation from political science theory, according to which organizations, once established, create path dependencies and always seek new goals and tasks to legitimize themselves.

This explanation, however, only raises the question of which goals and tasks the non-aligned have sought out anew, or which old goals hold the states together to this day.

In this context, it is usually pointed out that it is primarily internationally isolated states and dictators that cling to the NAM in order to maintain at least some of their contacts through it.

More important are probably global wealth inequalities and the challenges of climate change, which affects the NAM countries in several ways. While the industrialized countries are responsible for most of the Co2 emissions, the NAM states are most affected by their consequences.

At the same time, they face the question of how to modernize their countries in times of climate change. However, to my knowledge, the position of the non-aligned on climate change and global warming has not yet been studied from an historical perspective.

Finally, the Corona pandemic has recently shown the Global South the need for cooperation. The NAM criticized industrialized countries' nationalist protectionism, withholding existing vaccine for their own populations and refusing to waive the rights to Corona vaccines.

What consequences the short-sighted nationalistic protectionism of countries (like Germany and the USA) has on the cooperation of the non-aligned states will probably only become clear in the future. We will know more then on the occasion of the 70th anniversary.