Another God that Failed
Nonalignment. Edited by J. W. Burton. Foreword by Kenneth Kaunda. (Deutsch, 18s.)
How time flies! Some twenty years ago we were reading the first volumes of what was to become the massive corpus of the literature of disillusionment with Communism. One god having failed them, progressive people then started looking elsewhere for ideals—the West, it seems, offers scant moral sustenance for men and women of sensibility. Gandhi and Nehru took the places of Lenin and Stalin, the Third World became the repository of hope and sanity, and nonalignment replaced commitment. Today the wheel has come full circle, and we are back at square one, with another collection of essays in disenchantment. Only this time it is non- alignment itself that has failed.
The loss of an illusion can sometimes lead to useful results. In the most level-headed of these essays, Mrs Margaret Legum sets out to dispel the notion, still rather widely held, that the policy of the 'nonaligned' countries is motivated by spiritual values and high moral considerations. 'Like all foreign policies,' she writes, 'non- alignment is dictated by the desire to further the national self-interest. It is neither neces- sarily particularly moral nor particularly "oppor- tunistic."' Fair enough—only why is it, then, that the West is being incessantly exhorted to eschew the wicked doctrine of self-interest, and to base its policies on high-minded principles, which somehow invariably tend to coincide with the interests of the ex-colonial states?
But the message conveyed by most of the other authors is stark indeed: nonalignment has not only been found wanting, it has become positively dangerous. The most forceful indict- ment of the concept of nonalignment is made by Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien, who upbraids those 'liberals in the West who persist in idealising the "nonaligned" countries, and in giving credence to the insubstantial concept of non- alignment,' and who warns everyone to be on his guard against the term 'nonalignment' and 'its possible role as a reserve position in the international anti-Communist strategy.' The scales have fallen from Dr O'Brien's eyes: 'Instead of thinking of a nonaligned Third World, it would be more realistic to think in terms of a world-wide capitalist economy of which the supposedly nonaligned countries form an integral part and, considered as a whole, a profitable part.'
This analysis is indistinguishable from the 'two camps' view propounded most recently by the late A. A. Zhdanov : namely, that the world was sharply divided into two parts, the socialist and the capitalist, and that whoever did not belong to the one camp was self- evidently a member of the other. Messrs Brezh- nev and Kosygin, it is only fair to say, take a much more broadminded view of the Third World and of nonalignment than does the astringent Dr O'Brien. Moreover, as Marxists, they would probably regard 'social forces' as more important agents of change than the CIA agents by whom Dr O'Brien seems to be obsessed.
True nonalignment, we gradually realise, means alignment against the West, within what one of the authors calls the 'anti-imperialist camp.' Hence the somewhat idiosyncratic classi- fication of nonaligned countries: the only two non-Afro-Asian nations to be included in this magic category are Communist Cuba and Com- munist Yugoslavia. The editor himself, a reader in international relations at University College, London, is carried away to such an extent that he even lists the Yugoslav experience as a prime example of the recent past of a typical Afro- Asian ex-colonial new state.
One is not surprised, therefore, to see the Indian contributor speak nostalgically of his country's former genuine nonalignment as of a policy whereby 'India rallied to Egypt's help during Suez, and refused to support Western criticism of Soviet action in Hungary.' Neither is one really surprised by the extraordinarily virulent anti-Americanism which pervades much of the book. The following passage is fairly typical:
America's 'benign and friendly' policies in South-East Asia have manifested themselves in a variety of ways, ranging from the bombing of hospitals in North Vietnam to attempts to subvert the government in Singapore.
However, all is sweet and light when one turns from American enormities to the virtues of Com- munism.
Thus, 'the Communists naturally take the lead in championing the aspirations of the people'; equally naturally, China is seen as the injured party in the dispute with India; and it goes without saying that 'the monster of Chinese expansionism exists largely in the heads of the Pentagon and State Department planners.' In fact, the only conceivable solution to the crisis of nonalignment lies in the adoption of the Com- munist system. This is bound to come anyway : `The new nations of Africa and Asia, including India, are following the same processes which ultimately led to the regimentation of Russia and China.' The word 'regimentation' is not used here in any invidious sense; indeed, it is made quite clear that it is of the essence if de- velopment and stability are to be achieved. Just as in China, 'a point will be reached at which those who obstruct development while they defend privilege will be eliminated, not by per- suasion, but by force.'
What the 'nonaligned' countries need, if they really want to tackle their problems, is 'a high degree of central control and plan- ning, including the control and planning of some aspects of the lives of people . . a high degree of regimentation, resistance, sup- pression, and probably a long period of sacrifice of individual freedom in the Western sense.' In other words, back to the last but one god that failed. To drive the lesson home, the editor in- cludes a lengthy, paean to the beneficial results of Stalin's rule, remarking high-mindedly that 'any Russian today' would be incapable of such objectivity. How true! But then, very few Russians have the opportunity of expatiating upon the benefits of Stalinism in the cosy sur- roundings of an English senior common-room.
But never mind : all this is in the nature of preliminary sparring. a gradual build-up to the great moment when the Champ himself climbs into the ring. Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien is at the top of his rumbustious form. The opponent —nonalignment—is knocked out cold with two powerful left-handed punches. One: revolu- tionary social changes must occur throughout the underdeveloped world. and they are not likely to be carried out except by movements of the Communist type. Two: 'It is not enough to say
that an underdeveloped country has the right to be nonaligned; it is necessary to recognise its right to "go Communist," if that is the tendency of the political and social forces inside the country itself.'
Well and good. But what happens if there are also other 'political and social forces inside the country itself' that do not want to 'go Com- munist'? And, finally, would Dr O'Brien concede to Communist countries the right to 'go capitalist' or, at the very least, to `go nonaligned,' however distasteful that concept may have become to him?
TIBOR SZAMUELY
Previous page
