Could New Zealand champion a new non-aligned movement to avoid US-China cold war?

US-China tensions are leading several countries in the Indo-Pacific to seek a third alternative to getting caught up in a great power struggle
Malaysia and Indonesia are obvious candidates to lead such a movement, but New Zealand could be a dark horse given its independent foreign policy

Nicholas Ross Smith

Published: 3:30am, 8 Nov 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

Several leaders met in Belgrade, the capital of what was then Yugoslavia, in 1961 to discuss their ideas for how they, as relatively smaller powers, could best manage the spiralling security situation of the Cold War.

Yugoslavian president Josip Broz Tito was the architect of the meeting. He was joined by four other key figures – Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Indonesian president Sukarno and Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah.

The geopolitical situation at the time provides important context for why this meeting was conducted with such urgency. By 1961, it was clear the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union was deteriorating.

Massive global polarisation had occurred, solidified by Nato’s creation in 1949 and the Warsaw Pact’s in 1955. The Berlin Wall had been erected and the nuclear arms race had entered new, terrifying territory with the creation of thermonuclear weapons.

Further, with the onset of decolonisation in Africa and Asia, the Cold War became a truly global phenomenon as both the Americans and Soviets ramped up competition in these newly formed states.

02:47

US ‘not seeking a new cold war’, Biden says in first UN address

Influenced by the 1955 Bandung conference, the leaders who met in Belgrade in 1961 decided to formalise a stance of non-alignment in the Cold War. As a group, the Non-Aligned Movement aimed to “create an independent path in world politics that would not result in member states becoming pawns in the struggles between the major powers”.

Tito’s pathway to embracing non-alignment was more by accident than design. At the end of World War II, the expectation was that Yugoslavia would align itself closer to Moscow than Washington since it was a socialist country.

This was initially the case as Yugoslavia was a keen participant in Moscow’s post-war-order building. Belgrade was even chosen as the headquarters of the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers’ Parties. However, Tito’s personality, independence and ambition irked Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, and in 1948 he excommunicated Tito and Yugoslavia from the Soviet international order.

Stalin’s betrayal elicited significant shock and consternation in Belgrade. Yugoslavia, out of desperation, sought help from the US and was able to avoid immediate economic ruin and political collapse.

Until Stalin’s death in 1953, Yugoslavia walked a tightrope. Stalin was enraged by Yugoslavia’s dealings with the US and contemplated invading in 1951. But Yugoslavia also came under pressure from the US to align itself more westward.

Tito’s lesson from all this was clear: he had to do whatever it took to make sure Yugoslavia could stay largely independent of Washington and Moscow. The genius of Tito was not in how he played the two nations but rather that he realised, for non-alignment to have a chance, he needed international friends as independence did not need to also equate to isolation.

With the rapid split occurring between the “capitalist” and “communist” worlds, those friends would largely have to come from the global south.

The success of the non-aligners was patchy. Yugoslavia and India were able to pursue consistent non-alignment for most of the Cold War. Others such as Egypt, Ghana and Indonesia succumbed to internal instability. Yet, the notion of non-alignment remained an ideal many countries aspired to during the Cold War.

Foreign minister Zhou Enlai (left) and Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru speak at the 1955 Bandung Conference, which set the scene for birth of the Non-Aligned Movement. Photo: UPI

The end of the Cold War saw the Non-Aligned Movement fall into irrelevance. The institution still exists and has 120 members. Regular conferences and summits take place, but it no longer holds the international weight it did.

However, with the rapidly changing landscape of Sino-American relations, which could be moving towards a new cold war, it is time for non-alignment to return as a viable third option for countries.

Just as with the original founding of the movement, it is imperative that new leaders emerge to create a credible and galvanising movement. Given that any new cold war will be centred on the Indo-Pacific region, several countries there have already shown a desire to avoid being embroiled in the rising tensions.

Indonesia and Malaysia seem obvious candidates. Indonesia, arguably the country with the most “street cred” on non-alignment given the legacies of the Bandung conference and Sukarno, has already hinted at taking a nuanced approach in handling Sino-US tensions.

For instance, at the announcement of the Aukus agreement between Australia, Britain and the US, Indonesia expressed concern over possible knock-on effects and the potential to spark an arms race between Beijing and Washington. Malaysia joined the criticism, and the two seem committed to finding a middle ground between China and the US.

While there are other Non-Aligned Movement members in the Indo-Pacific that could provide leadership, there is another, more left-field candidate – New Zealand. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand has maintained friendly relations with Beijing and avoided joining any anti-China initiatives.

New Zealand strongly identifies as a principled, independent national actor. Ardern has also proven adept at statecraft, becoming arguably the most internationally well-known New Zealand leader of any era.

Whether New Zealand is bold enough to spearhead a new non-aligned movement is debatable. However, the fact remains that non-alignment will become an attractive option for many of the smaller countries caught in the middle as Sino-US relations continue to deteriorate.

But, as the original movement showed, leadership and friendship are essential elements in making such a movement work. Who will be the 21st-century’s Tito, Nasser, Nehru, Sukarno and Nkrumah?

Nicholas Ross Smith is an adjunct fellow at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand