
Third World needs to ditch the 'Diplomacy of Non'
The principles of non-interference, non-intervention and non-alignment became the hallmarks of what could be termed the 'Diplomacy of Non.' However, this agenda was not a construct in itself but rather a counter-construct against Western hegemony and, more broadly, against any external imposition on newly independent states.
The roots of this approach were not solely based on anti-imperialist fears; they also reflected the sheer diversity of post-colonial nations, many of whom found it impossible to reach a consensus on political and economic models. Thereby, it received mutual recognition from democratic India to Communist China and many countries in between.
Despite the inherent differences among post-colonial states, this approach secured widespread acceptance. It provided a framework for newly established nations to navigate international affairs without being drawn into the Cold War binary.
The Bandung Conference of 1955 was a defining moment, where countries from Asia and Africa consolidated their commitment to non-alignment, reinforcing sovereignty as the bedrock of their international engagement. This consensus allowed weaker states to resist coercion, at least rhetorically, and to assert their right to self-determination in an era of geopolitical turbulence.
Yet, the most vocal champions of this vision, India and China, often contradicted their own advocacy. India, while positioning itself as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), engaged in interventions within its neighborhood, such as in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 and Sri Lanka in the 1980s.
China, too, pursued interventionist policies, most notably in the Korean War and Vietnam. The contradiction lay in the fact that while both nations rhetorically upheld non-interference, they strategically wielded power in their respective regions.
The claims about neutrality could not survive their contradiction with realpolitik. Therefore, New Delhi itself aligned with the Soviet Union, while Beijing shifted towards Washington after a split with Moscow in the early 1970s.
By the second half of the Cold War, the general orientation of the post-colonial states that concealed their sympathy for the anti-Western Soviet Union by the rhetoric of non-alignment looked West. Suharto's Indonesia and Sadat's Egypt are clear examples.
These divisions undermined the 'third world' consensus, reaching a Western-dominated unipolar moment where most of the world embraced neo-liberal globalization, albeit with muted resentment.
On the other side, the victorious West exhausted its liberal rhetoric and took this acceptance as an unlimited mandate. The disillusionment with liberal interventionism grew in the aftermath of military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Plus, the failure of the Arab uprisings and the strategic exposure faced later by successful democratic movements in Ukraine, Armenia, and lately Sudan revealed the vulnerabilities of any political transition.
Adding to that, the war in Gaza and the unshakable support from Biden's administration, along with the morally oriented European Union, eroded the credibility of liberal internationalism.
Eventually, the liberal consensus lost its relevance to realpolitik and its inherent contradictions, not to some authoritarian conspiracy, as Biden once claimed.
Even within the United States, segments of the political right lament the removal of figures like Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi with a growing appreciation for stability over chaos caused by elusive democratization.
Prominent MAGA figures today feel ideologically closer to Putin than the American liberal establishment. With Donald Trump openly dismissing democracy promotion and human rights as core tenets of US foreign policy, the moral justification for interference has faded.
His administration's rhetoric frequently ridicules concerns over women's rights in Afghanistan, political prisoners and other liberal values that once served as a cornerstone of Western diplomacy. This shift signals that the US is no longer willing to expend political or military capital on interventions cloaked in democratic ideals.
However, this does not imply that the US has adopted full military passivism. The ongoing military escalation in Yemen, along with provocative statements about taking over Canada and Greenland, suggests a turn towards a more overt realpolitik.
Rather than interventions framed in liberal discourse, future US military actions are likely to be driven by stark strategic calculations, untethered from normative justifications.
The US version of the 'Diplomacy of Non' will refrain from intervening, not generally but only in its global peers' sphere of influence. This can pave the way to better coexistence among great powers in a multipolar world, but it will not result in a 'global order.'
As global power dynamics shift, the 'Diplomacy of Non' cannot be sustainable. India has gradually positioned itself as a middle power, engaging in strategic partnerships and military alliances, while China has emerged as a global power with expanding economic and security footprints.
The very tenets of non-alignment that once shielded these nations from entanglement now appear less viable as they assume more proactive roles in global governance and regional security.
In this evolving environment, the old order has unraveled, dismantling both its fair and unfair rules. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for emerging powers. The passive nature of the 'Diplomacy of Non', while historically useful, is no longer sufficient in an era of uncertainty.
A constructive agenda is needed, one that moves beyond mere resistance to Western dominance and towards proactive rule-making. This is now more urgent than ever since the West has lost its ideological consensus, which has been contorted enough that it is unlikely to come back soon.
If emerging powers wish to shape the new world order rather than merely react to it, they must lay down new rules that reflect contemporary geopolitical realities and push towards stability and development.
Islam Alhalawany is a Beijing-based international affairs researcher and policy consultant. He is a Chevening Scholar with a master's degree in development and international business from Queen Mary University of London.
Islam previously served as an assistant professor of practice and assistant dean for international collaborations at Jindal Global University in India. He worked as a senior research analyst at Standard & Poor's (S&P) in London and for the Egyptian government through research posts in Cabinet-affiliated think tanks.
His work has been published by renowned think tanks, including the Atlantic Council, The National Interest, the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore and IDSC.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South China Morning Post
10 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong slams Western countries over criticism of bounties for second straight day
The Hong Kong government has hit out at 'irresponsible remarks' by Western countries for the second straight day following its decision to pursue overseas-based activists for alleged national security violations related to a group called 'Hong Kong Parliament'. Advertisement Authorities said on Sunday that they strongly opposed and disapproved of 'smears with distorted facts' that had been communicated by officials and politicians from countries such as the US, Canada and Australia, as well as 'anti-China organisations'. 'Not only did such foreign government officials and politicians, as well as anti-China organisations, turn a blind eye to illegal acts of criminals, but also deliberately smeared and spread irresponsible remarks, in an attempt to mislead the public, about the measures and actions taken by the [Hong Kong government] in accordance with the law,' the government said. The statement followed a similar one issued a day earlier, which had slammed remarks made by UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who had described the latest round of bounties as 'transnational repression'. Western governments and politicians have been voicing their criticism since the city's decision on Friday to place bounties on 15 activists and issue new arrest warrants for four more over their involvement in the 'Hong Kong Parliament', a group deemed subversive by authorities. Advertisement US Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the latest round of warrants issued for activists, including those based in his country, saying Washington would not tolerate 'transnational repression on US soil'. In Canada, Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand and Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree said in a joint statement that actions taken by Hong Kong 'threaten the sovereignty of Canada and security of the people in this country'.


South China Morning Post
16 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
North Korea will be ‘honourable victors' in anti-US battles, leader Kim says
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said the country would achieve victory in 'anti-imperialist, anti-US' battles, as Pyongyang marked the 72nd anniversary of the Korean war armistice, state media reported on Sunday. At his recent visit to a war museum, Kim 'affirmed that our state and its people would surely achieve the great cause of building a rich country with a strong army and become honourable victors in the anti-imperialist, anti-US showdown,' the KCNA state news agency said. North Korea signed an armistice agreement with the United States and China on July 27, 1953, ending the fighting in the three-year war. US generals signed the agreement representing the United Nations forces that backed South Korea. North Korea calls July 27 'Victory Day' even though the armistice drew a border dividing the Korean peninsula roughly equally in area and restoring balance after the two sides had made major advances back and forth during the war. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (centre) pays respect to fallen soldiers at the Fatherland Liberation War Martyrs' Cemetery in Pyongyang in a photo released on Sunday. Photo: KCNA/Reuters


South China Morning Post
a day ago
- South China Morning Post
‘Failure' for Taiwan's William Lai as all 24 opposition KMT lawmakers survive mass recall vote
Voters in Taiwan on Saturday resoundingly rejected a mass recall campaign targeting opposition lawmakers, dealing a major setback to Taiwanese leader William Lai Ching-te and his ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) while handing the Kuomintang (KMT) a surprise reprieve. All 24 lawmakers from the Beijing-friendly KMT who faced recall votes survived, in what analysts described as a serious political miscalculation by the DPP and its affiliated civil society groups. The backfiring of the DPP's high octane campaign, which was championed as a way to root out 'pro-China forces' and safeguard Taiwan's democracy, exposes growing public fatigue with 'anti-China' rhetoric as a blanket strategy. Beijing, which regards Taiwan as a part of China to be reunited by force if necessary, has intensified military pressure on the island since Lai took office in May last year and provoked Beijing with what it calls 'separatist' and pro-independence remarks. 01:40 Tens of thousands rally in Taiwan against William Lai as recall turmoil engulfs legislature Tens of thousands rally in Taiwan against William Lai as recall turmoil engulfs legislature The United States, like most countries, does not recognise self-governed Taiwan as independent. However, it is opposed to any unilateral change to the status quo and is committed to supplying Taiwan with weapons for defence.