BRICS and the legacy of the Non-Aligned Movement

Could the BRICS become the Non-Aligned Movement of the 21^st century? Historian Nataša Mišković highlights the differences and parallels and calls on Europe to engage with them on equal terms.

The vision of a peaceful world where people live together by common rules and trade freely has mercilessly vanished into thin air in recent years and months. Not that peace has prevailed everywhere since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. But since Donald Trump’s second term as US president at the latest, it has become clear that the great power politics, once thought to be a thing of the past, has returned to the world stage, driven by the law of the strong. In this volatile environment, Europe, including Switzerland, is forced to reposition itself and rethink its alliances.

What is Europe supposed to do when in the East the Kremlin chief rattles his sabre while in the West his powerful ally questions the military alliance and suddenly imposes outrageous import tariffs?

Against this backdrop, an organisation long deemed obsolete after the Cold War is once again coming back into focus in political and diplomatic circles: the Non-Aligned Movement. In Brazil this summer, at the summit of the BRICS, a forum for cooperation among a group of leading emerging economies, Brazilian President Lula da Silva even went so far as to dub the BRICS group “a legacy of the Non-Aligned Movement”. A bold claim given that Brazil was never part of it; in fact, of the BRICS founding states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), only India was. So, what prompted da Silva to make this appeal? And why does it matter today?

An alliance driven by interest

The Non-Aligned Movement emerged from countries of the Global South that had no interest in joining NATO or the Warsaw Pact in the bipolar world of the Cold War. It was founded in September 1961 in Belgrade, then the capital of Yugoslavia.

At the invitation of Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito, heads of state and government from 25 countries signed a declaration on disarmament and de-escalation. The declaration was based on the Panchsheel, the five principles of peaceful coexistence which align with the UN Charta and draw from the experiences of the anti-colonial independence struggles.

Jawaharlal Nehru, prime minister of India, independent since 1947, and Zhou Enlai, premier of the People’s Republic of China proclaimed in 1949, formulated these principles as the foundation of their 1954 agreement on Tibet.

The five principles are: 1. mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; 2. mutual non-aggression; 3. mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; 4. equality and mutual benefit; 5. peaceful coexistence at the bilateral and international levels.

In other words, sovereign member states mutually respect each other’s borders, do not interfere in each other’s internal affairs and pursue a policy of non-aggression. They cooperate and strive for world peace in international forums, especially through the United Nations.

From left: Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito in July 1956 on the island of Brijuni during a summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. Afp Or Licensors

Aspirations versus Realpolitik

The Non-Aligned Movement was a value-based alliance that derived from the anti-Imperialist independence struggles of decolonisation. The founding fathers are considered to be Tito, Nehru and Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. They strove to unite postcolonial countries in order to stand up to the superpowers during the Cold War.

Early on, Nehru pursued an active foreign policy. During the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955 he was the driving force for inviting the then-isolated People’s Republic of China. The meeting carried immense symbolic weight as it celebrated solidarity among sovereign states in Asia and Africa. Yet, the interests of the participating countries diverged sharply. The most notable failure was Nehru’s China policy. Unresolved border issues in the Himalaya and the Dalai Lama’s flight to India in 1959 sparked conflicts that continue to this day.

Nehru sought alternatives for his vision of a non-aligned, solidarity-based alliance and found suitable partners in Tito and Nasser. Tito, a Second World War hero, represented a European country and had lived in the Soviet Union for many years. Yugoslavia’s independence was dearer to him than loyalty to Moscow. He boldly broke with Stalin in 1948.

In 1952 Nasser came to power in Egypt through a military coup. Four years later he nationalised the British-controlled Suez Canal which triggered the Suez Crisis. He became the face of secular Pan-Arabism and a driving force behind the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

Together with Nehru and Tito, this charismatic trio forged the Non-Aligned Movement, creating an alliance that organised countries of the Global South on the world stage and, thanks to their sheer numbers, allowed them to influence votes in the UN General Assembly. The superpowers were not amused.

The collapse of the Non-Aligned Movement

Through intimidation, loans and arms deliveries, both the US and the Soviet Union tried to sway member states to their side. Tito triumphed as a broker of world politics, hosting the powerful at his summer residence in Brioni and brokering deals. He was able to prevent Soviet infiltration of his life’s work until the very end, when in 1979, shortly before his death, he attended the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Havana and firmly put Fidel Castro in his place after the Cuban leader had hailed the Soviet Union as the “natural ally” of the Non-Aligned Movement. Such an alliance would have destroyed the very idea of the non-alignment.

With Tito’s death in 1980, the last of the founding fathers had gone. The Non-Aligned Movement lost much of its clout, even as its numbers continued to grow. The Panchsheel became more folklore than guiding tool, with its five principles invoked only when needed. Apart from regular summits, the movement’s main legacy today is the Non-Aligned Caucus at the UN, which is a diplomatic platform where representatives of hostile states can meet discreetly.

A volatile alliance

So what exactly does the Brazilian president mean when he describes the BRICS as a legacy of the Non-Aligned Movement? The group was launched as an alliance of influential non-Western countries. Its roots trace back to an initiative by former Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov who, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, sought an alliance with China and India to create a counterweight to the US.

Contrary to today’s Non-Aligned Movement, the BRICS’ geopolitical relevance must not be underestimated. Primakov’s vision of a counterweight to the West is currently taking shape, especially in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s undiplomatic assaults on the rules-based international order.

What significance do the BRICS have for Switzerland? Read more here:

The political agendas of the BRICS countries diverge sharply with China, Russia and India openly pursuing their own power interests. As part of the expansion process, Indonesia – the host of the 1955 Bandung Conference – joined the club this year.

On top of that, the BRICS have invited 13 countries, mainly from the Global South, to join as partner states. The Brazilian president pays homage to the Non-Aligned Movement and makes a powerful appeal to the old solidarity among postcolonial states. Lula da Silva does not pull any punches when condemning the escalating conflicts worldwide, the disregard for international law and the violations of the sovereignty of Ukraine and Iran. At the same time, he holds NATO responsible for the acceleration of global armament.

Although Russia was never part of the Non-Aligned Movement, it is a full member of the BRICS. If the BRICS are to see themselves as the movement’s legacy, they would have to respect the Panchsheel principles, especially that of non-aggression. This also applies to Ukraine, which may well be another reason behind da Silva’s appeal.

On the other hand, many non-European countries have taken a neutral stance on the war in Ukraine and implicitly accept Moscow’s imperial claims. By contrast, European countries are perceived as an integral part of the Western Bloc while the former Eastern Bloc countries are not regarded as “post-colonial” states. Awareness of their traumas and security concerns remains limited, while NATO’s eastward expansion is routinely criticised as an infringement of Russia’s security interests.

European countries would be well advised to show more independence and treat the (new) BRIC states as equals. At the same time, these new BRICS states should be made aware of the interests of the former Eastern Bloc countries guided by the Panchsheel principles and the legacy of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Edited by Benjamin von Wyl. Adapted from German by Billi Bierling/ts

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of Swissinfo.