Nonalignment as a Diplomatic and Ideological Credo

Nonalignment can be, and too often is, a highly ambiguous and ill-defined concept. Frequently, it is equated with other ideas (like "neutralism" or "neutrality" or "isola tionism") which distort the doctrine and which engender wide spread misapprehensions about it outside the zone of nations committed to this credo. In recent years, misunderstanding of nonalignment has been prevalent in the West, particularly in the United States. More often than not, it has been con demned rather than understood. The first requirement of better understanding is to comprehend the doctrine of non alignment correctly. In turn, this demands differentiating it from certain closely related concepts and identifying those ele ments which are common to diverse African, Arab, and Asian interpretations of the doctrine. Admittedly, the fifty-odd na tions dedicated to nonalignment do not always agree upon its precise meaning. Considerable scope exists, and has been used, for diverse national interpretations and for policy diver gencies based upon the concept. Yet there is also basic agree ment on certain pivotal ideas implicit in it and upon certain diplomatic goals and strategies which are logical outgrowths of it. More intelligent and dispassionate understanding of the ideas central to nonalignment is prerequisite to assessing its importance, to evaluating its impact, and to predicting its fu ture on the international scene.