Ani, Kelechi Johnmary (2012) “The Role of Non-Aligned Movement in Contemporary International
Conflict Management”, Uzu: Journal of History and International Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, December.
pp. 179-192
Abstract
The post-World War II era witnessed the rise of cold war and the division of the world into
the Communist and Capitalist blocs respectively. Consequently, the structural violence
created in the cold war era led to the rise of Non Aligned Movement (NAM). This paper
traces the historical origin of NAM. It showed how the movement’s goal changed towards the
agitation for a new international economic order as well as the need for the democratization
of the United Nations Security Council after the cold war. The paper equally reveals some
contributions of Nigeria to the advancement of the NAM goals and goes on to point out that
the peace goals of NAM, which were used to weaken the cold war rivalry could be factored
in promoting contemporary international conflict management, especially through large scale,
small and medium disarmament in countries and regions ravaged by contemporary conflicts.
Introduction
The post World War II globe was overtaken by the wave of structural violence created during
the era of cold war politics, which divided the world into the capitalist and communist blocs
respectively. The term ‘cold war’ was coined by H. B. Swope and popularized by Walter
Lippman to describe the state of neither war nor peace between the Western and Eastern
blocs after the Second World War1. The days of cold war created multidimensional forms of
structural violence on international relations during the second half of the twentieth century.
In the course of the cold war, the world was divided into two blocs; the capitalist bloc, which
was led by the United States of America and the Communist bloc that was headed by Soviet
Union. “Both blocs sought as their maximum objective, to enhance their respective strengths
by adding the territory, population and resources of the emerging nations. Their minimal aim
was to prevent these states from joining the adversary bloc” 2. The most threatening aspect of
the cold war was that “secrecy prevails over publicity” 3. “The United States and the Soviet
Union loomed over all aspects of international relations, still reducing other factors (of global
relations) to a miserable impotence”4. The cold war neglected the major world problems of
inequality5, which was amongst the things that pushed the non-aligned states farer from the
war, as they were mainly without resources and also ill-prepared for the violent military
politics at that time. While the United States of America and Soviet Union were struggling to
1
integrate the Third World into their different blocs; many states in the developing countries,
who were already victims of colonial exploitation perpetrated against them by the developed
countries, resisted the alliance and rallied together to form the Non Aligned Movement
(NAM).
The origin of NAM dates back to 1948, when Yugoslavian communism under the
leadership of Tito split from the Soviet bloc and sought a new alliance towards world security
at a time Abdel Nasser had consolidated his position in the Egyptian Free Officers Group.
Copeland6 explains that in February 1955, Nasser met Nehru and Tito to discuss a new
foreign posture devoid of great power influence. Jawaharlal Nehru, a former Indian Prime
Minister in his introductory broadcast on September 2, 1946 stated that “we propose as far as
possible to keep away from the power politics of groups aligned against one another, which
led in the past to world wars and which may again lead to disaster on an even vaster scale 7”.
Consequently, on 18th and 19th June, 1956, the late Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru;
Egyptian President, Gamel Abdel Nasser and Yugoslavian President, Josef Broz Tito, met at
Broni, Yugoslavia; to discuss the rising tension in the world, which was threatening global
peace and efforts made towards decolonization. In the late 1950s, Tito, Nehru, Nasser,
Sukarno of Indonesia and Kwame Nkuruma of Ghana had another meeting centred on new
approach to foreign intervention and peaceful co-existence. These leaders discussed equally
some of the resolutions of the Afro-Asian conference held in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955. A
meeting convened by the Prime Ministers of Burma, Ceylon India, Indonesia and Pakistan
brought leaders of twenty nine states from Africa and Asian continent to discuss the common
challenge of developing a joint peaceful policy of international relations.
Similarly, Olagunju and Oyovbair point out that they “would like to acknowledge the
colossal influence of the illustrious founder of modern Egypt, President Gamel Abdel Nasser,
on the emergence and consolidation of the organization”8. Nasser understood from the early
days of the cold war that the treaties between the Great powers and the Afro-Asian states
were highly strategic. He was suspicious that the cold war was a military imperialism on the
Third World, which would not help the Afro-Asian continents. Hence, he began to strategize
on how to positively manipulate the East-West dichotomy for maximum growth of his
influence and that of the Egyptian State in the Comity of Nations. Nasser’s personal concern
for the Afro-Asian world could be perceived from “his defiance of the Western World (and
his idea of) the coloured man standing up to the white man, which was applauded in
editorials and cantons from Senegal to North Korea” 9. He called on Afro-Asian countries to
2
unite and form a new International Governmental Organization (IGO) that would be
influential on world affairs. Nasser further aligned with the newsprint industry of some AfroAsian States to propagate the idea of non alignment. He got into the newsprint in association
with the Congolese and Guinean media actors. His meetings with Tito and Nehru “appealed
to him (Nasser) to take certain initiatives in the up-coming Afro-Asian conference in
Bandung, Indonesia”10. Nasser was agitating for positive neutrality among the non-aligned
members. He indeed showed up an impressive figure during the Bandung conference, in
which he sought to bring about a higher degree of coordination in the policies and
administration of NAM. He turned Cairo into the haven for nonaligned activities. Radio
Cairo became the most persistent national voice for propagating nonaligned programs. “He
was able occasionally to speak to Nkuruma of Ghana, Toure of Guinea and Keita of Mali on
international conflicts”11. Thus, it was no surprise that few years after the formation of NAM
in 1961; the movement had their next meeting in Cairo in 1964.
More still, at the 1961 NAM meeting, the Third World leaders shared their similar
problems of resisting the pressure the violent pressures of the major powers and maintaining
their independence. They opposed colonialism, neo-colonialism and western domination. The
summit conference of twenty five states convened by Marshal Tito at Belgrade in September,
1961 is credited as the landmark origin of Non-Aligned Movement. This implies that the
Belgrade summit is the nucleus of an international movement that rejected being officially
called a bloc, when in reality, their operational style at the onset made them a third bloc that
was meant to balance the arms race of that era.
“The foregoing clearly points to one thing, which is the necessity for unity and
solidarity of the Third World”12. It was the perception of the founding members of NAM that
the unity and cooperation among the countries of the Third World Countries, herein mostly
referred to as the developing countries are indispensable instruments for adopting common
attitudes and approaches to their common problems of underdevelopment and dependence on
the industrialized countries. The formation of NAM as an ‘international political canopy’
emanates from the fact that no state is self-sufficient and fully self-supportive, hence, no state
can live in isolation. The movement has as part of their idea that an independent state’s
political, economic and social policies should be based on domestic interests rather than on
the basis of interests of external powers. Again, the movement’s activities reveals that the
developing states were determined to avoid the destructive consequences of war between the
great powers. NAM was therefore formed for the purpose of advancing the economic,
3
political and social interest of the developing countries. The NAM has held her meetings
since the Belgrade Conference of 1961. At first, Cuba was the only Latin American country
to attend but all that has changed today. This work therefore presents the origins, aims and
dynamics of NAM policies. It does not include the specific roles of the twenty five founding
member states of NAM in 1961 neither does the paper cover the over hundred member states
of NAM, rather it is centred on the role of Nigeria in the development of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) and the relevance of the movement’s peace goal to the promotion of
contemporary international conflict management.
Conceptualizing the Idea of Non Aligned Movement
The term non-alignment is an intellectual ‘victim’ of multiple definition and diverse
interpretations. Non Aligned Movement as a concept was ‘given birth’ to by the need for
peace and non violent international order on the global village during the cold war politics.
“The maintenance of order in the international society has as its starting point the
development among states, a sense of common interest in the elementary goals of social
life”13. In the game of nations, the idea of common interest in the elementary goals of
universal social life does not in itself provide standard to what behaviour of states should be.
There has being the progressive growth in the number of movements and international
organizations that are influencing the push and pull relations of both the sovereign and nonstate actors in the games of nation. The Non Aligned Movement (NAM) is one of such
bodies.
Non-Alignment is a term “commonly associated with the Third World countries
because of their policy; to stay away from the cold war between the super powers”14. It was a
foreign policy orientation that has been widely adopted within the current international
system by states of the Third world. Non Alignment seeks to avoid blocs, coalitions and
alliances, while promoting balanced growth and reduce prime cost 15 of the cold war. At that
time “the so-called uncommitted world seeks to occupy middle grounds between America
and Soviet Union and to remain aloof from ‘power blocs’. They speak of ‘neutrality’,
‘independence’ and ‘non-alignment”16. J. K. Holtis defined non-alignment as a “strategy of
non-commitment in the wars, conflicts and disputes between the great powers” 17. Ali Mazrui
conceptualized nonalignment as both “a movement for moderation in East West relations and
a commitment to global reforms in North-South relations”18. For Vernon McKay, it was a
4
policy “formulated by the emergent nation states after the end of the World War II not to
align with either the Western or Eastern powers in their political, economic and military
activities”19.
As a social phenomenon, it is very dynamic and its aims and objectives as well as
principles and practices tend to change with time and in response to the changes in
international relations. This paper adopts the peace-oriented definition by some scholars as
the working standard for its development. Assisi Asobie defines non-alignment as “a new
approach to the conduct of international relations, which rejects force, balance of power and
spheres of influences as the basis of international order and seeks to institute negotiation,
cooperation and peaceful co-existence as the dominant mode of inter-state interactions”20.
Non-alignment was simply the posture and expression of man’s quest for peace and universal
disarmament during the cold war rivalry. The idea of NAM is rooted on the posture of being
associated with neither Washington nor Moscow in the post World War II global rivalry.
NAM was an agreement amongst the Third World countries not to engage in the hostilities of
the cold war. Kwame Nkuruma defined the concept as “the ability to be free to judge issues
on their merits and peacefully, irrespective of the interests involved” 21. It should be noted
that nonalignment differs from the traditional policy of neutralism by being “an orientation
that is assumed or taken up by the parties themselves, rather than being granted and assured
by outside interests”22.
Having thrown away the colonial bondage, these new states were concerned to
maintain a respectable distance from the international alliances dominating global polity of
that time. This radical departure of the Developing or Third World Countries as it was called
then, from the First World States due to non-alignment, went against the perception and
wishes of the super powers at that time. This is because “the governments of the developing
countries that favoured the strengthening of the asymmetrical centre-periphery or metropolis
satellite relationships are accepted as good governments... while those that strive to loosen or
severe the links are branded bad governments”23. The act of stereotyping some sovereign
nations by other independent states and criminalizing others as bad or good states, zones of
death terror states etc, directly or indirectly sent danger signals to many leaders in the
developing countries to find a way and escape the ‘potential political Armageddon’ inherent
in the cold war armaments and race for supreme might. This even made some Third World
Countries as they were called then, to avoid to a reasonable extent, closer economic and
political ties with the colonial actors as most of the states that were involved in the cold war
5
politics “concentrated their economic ties with one or a few advanced countries whether in
terms of aid, private direct investment, foreign personnel or trade” 24.
The greatest percent of the sovereign states in Africa, Asia and the Latin America are
members of this movement. Membership of this movement had increased geometrically with
every summit. The summit of the movement is held every three years. “At Belgrade in 1961,
the non-aligned countries were 25; at Cairo in 1964, they were 47; at Lusaka in 1970, 54; at
Algiers in 1973, 85; at Colombia in 1976, 85; at Havana in 1979, 96; at New Delhi in 1983,
98; at Harare in 1986, 101 and at Belgrade in 1989, 102”25. In 1992, it was held at Jakarta,
Indonesia; in 1995, Cartagena de Indias, Indonesia; in 1998, it was the turn of Durban, South
Africa; in 2003, it was held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; in 2006, it was held in Havana,
Cuba; while in 2009, the meeting took place at Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. Africa currently has
fifty three member states, twenty six from America, thirty six from Asia and two from
Europe as well as three countries from Oceania.
The 16th NAM summit took place in Tehran, Iran from 26 to 31 August 2012.
According to MehrNews agency, representatives from over 150 countries were scheduled to
attend. Attendance at the highest level includes 27 presidents, 2 kings and emirs, 7 prime
ministers, 9 vice presidents, 2 parliament spokesmen and 5 special envoys. At the summit,
Iran took-over from Egypt as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement for the period 2012 to
2015. The movement stems from a desire not to be aligned within a geopolitical/military
structure and therefore itself does not have a very strict organizational structure. Some
organizational basics of NAM were defined at the 1996 Cartagena Document on
Methodology. The Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned
States is "the highest decision making authority". The chairmanship rotates between countries
and changes over three years time, during the summit of heads of state or government to the
country organizing the summit. Over the years, NAM has established series of ad hoc and
permanent committees as well as agencies, through which the policy process is implemented.
The overall process is carried out by a large, flexible committee of individuals and groups
from member states. Those who are engaged in the process of policy making usually do not
see themselves as decision makers or innovators but only as imputers, recommenders, voters
and approvers26.
The aims of NAM include that they desire to end colonialism and imperialism. They
opposed the division of the world into two antagonistic power blocs, hence, opposing the
6
progressive nuclear weapon proliferation, attacking the arms race of the cold war era and
supporting all efforts towards disarmament. These policies they believed, would guarantee
more peaceful resolution of national and international conflicts. By the end of cold war, they
began to agitate for the bridging of the economic gap between the South and the North,
through a fairer international economic order. They equally leant their voice strongly towards
the need for the democratization of most global institutions, especially the United Nations.
Okpata et al27 summarized the aims and objectives of non-aligned movement thus:

Non-alignment aspires to act independently in international politics and to enthrone
justice as well as equality in place of exploitation and domination as basic principle of
international relations.

Its central demand is to restructure the inequitable international system.

The ultimate aim is the maintenance of international peace and

It aspires to consolidate national independence through liberation and development.
Furthermore, while some have criticized the non-aligned posture as non-existence in
the practical reality, for instance, some scholars have promptly asserted that the Third World
finds its basic thrust on the potentiality of external determination of internal economic and
socio-political process28; it should be noted that NAM was a historical reality that mended
fence in the negative peace and violent quest for arms that took over the world stage during
the cold war era. During the cold war era, NAM remained a peaceful mediator than a violent
actor. The protagonists of the cold war, United States of America and Soviet Union gradually
spread the cold war tentacles to non-great power nations. Cuba’s involvement in the cold war
crisis was seriously opposed by the non-aligned countries. This is because Cuba, a foundation
member of NAM in 1961, by 1962 has turned into a base for cold war diplomacy. This
therefore gave way to a more complicated pattern of international relations, in which the
world super powers geometrically increased their arms spending. Non alignment thus became
a form of foreign policy posture affecting relations amongst member states and non-member
states.
The end of the cold war came with the new challenge of redefining the role and
concept of non-alignment. At the 10th Summit of the movement in Jakarta in 1992, there was
a great deal of talk about the movement’s repositioning to meet the new challenges of the
twenty first century. Non alignment, by the end of the twentieth century, started demanding
for the abolition of the monopoly by the five super power permanent members of the United
7
Nations Security Council. They demanded that it should be replaced or improved through a
democratic process. Again, the Non Aligned Movement led the way to sanity in global
politics29. Apart from the effect of the special session on world disarmament, the nonaligned
group has promoted “the establishment of a new international economic order” 30. This they
believed would be achieved when resources pushed into contemporary ‘arms race’ and
preparation for internal and external conflicts are re-diverted towards the developmental
needs of better global economy as against the current imperial zero sum game in international
economy.
Nigeria in Non Aligned Movement
Immediately after independence, Nigeria started a “conscious diversification of the country’s
external ties31” with the expanded link created by the Afro-Asian movement. Nigeria joined
the non-aligned group in 1964, at the Cairo conference. It should be noted that immediately
after independence, Nigeria came out strongly to fight the end of political crisis in the globe.
Her first peace keeping mission was in Congo, but not that was not under the confines of
nonalignment, nor was it influenced by NAM. But there were historic actions taken by the
country to justify her position in NAM.
Firstly, Nigeria promoted the “adoption in the OAU Charter, of the principle of nonalignment”32. She supported freedom fighters in the nonaligned states of South Africa,
Angola, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Some months after joining the movement, Nigeria
exhibited her ‘Big Brother’ tendencies by taking a posture against western rule, which was a
fundamental policy of the NAM states at that time, by funding the nationalist movements in
many nonaligned African States.
She “offered #20 million in aid to the FRELIMO
government in Angola, while over #5 million had been provided to the African Congress
Freedom Fighters. In addition, #2.5 million was given to Mozambique to enable her cope
with the financial hardship arising from the closure of her border with Rhodesia in March
1976”33.
Nigeria perceived the Non-Aligned Movement as the manifestation of a strong
political will that could contain the danger of arms race. Nigeria strongly supported the
Geneva Accord, “which resulted in the withdrawal from Afghanistan of Soviet troops” 34 and
called on the non-aligned countries to redouble their support for the South West African
8
People’s Organization (SWAPO) as the recognized, authentic representative government of
the Namibian people as opposed to the Great power support to the opposition groups. Nigeria
equally threw her diplomatic weight in resolving the historic differences and conflicts
between Libya and Chad, Morocco and Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, Mauritania and
Senegal as well as that between Sudan and Ethiopia. It is not only in Africa that Nigerian
contribution to international conflict resolution was felt. This is because she contributed in
resolving the political crisis in Central America, particularly in the crisis between Nicaragua
and Panama.
Consequently, by the end of the cold war, Nigeria joined other NAM states to call for
improved international economic relations in the world stage. She was part of “the Uruguay
round of multilateral trade negotiations, which she considered as a test of the pronounced
willingness of the major market economy countries to see a more liberalized world trade
regime”35. She was an outstanding critic of the worsening economic situation of NAM states
occasioned by the new global trade and neo-imperialism.
The Relevance of Non Aligned Movement Peace Goals to Contemporary International
Conflict Management
E. H. Car had already written that “history means interpretation” 36, hence, the need for a new
peace framework for the management of contemporary international conflict. Historically,
Non Aligned Movement played mediatory role in the Vietnam War of 1954-1975. That
prolonged war was fought between the communist armies of North Vietnam that were mainly
supported by the Chinese and Russian troops on one hand, against the armies of South
Vietnam, who were mainly supported by the United States of America. Today, the crisis
ravaging North and South Korea could be mediated on by NAM. This is because the quest for
a formal institutional approach to peace in the arms race of the cold war era dated back to the
1961, when “the Non Aligned group, however, renewed its call for the convening of a World
Disarmament Conference at each of its summit meetings, combining it with a request for the
convening of a United Nations Special Session on Disarmament” 37. NAM has historically
tried to eschew violent power politics and replace it with a new system that would be more
peaceful and promote the universal laws of equity, justice, peace and fair play through
international institutions, regional and national governments.
9
Similarly, “the loss of defensive function38” by the Great powers made nuclear terror
very close to the life of the nonaligned countries. These NAM states, therefore reminded the
Great Powers that “by taking appropriate actions in terms of strategic warfare planning and
active as well as passive defense measures, casualty rates could be reduced considerably” 39.
Today, in almost all the crisis ravaging the globe, the contemporary Great Powers often sings
with discordant tones. From Syria to North and South Korea as well as Sudan and South
Sudan, down to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis; the great powers often have parallel ideological
interest that mitigates the rise of peace and conflict management. The continuity of
contemporary conflicts for the Non-Aligned Movement was a process of social metaphor
where safety would be the sturdy child of terror and survival of the twin brother of
annihilation. Therefore, “to obtain some moderate advantage in order to make negotiations
for peace”40 was vital in the diplomatic process of the non-aligned group.
Ray Ofoegbu had shown that “negotiations and conflict resolutions” which are
dominant features of the non-aligned movement “are systematic processes”41. NAM peace
building process could equally be seen “as the activities of individuals and groups within
states and involving governmental machinery of states but designed to have an impact on the
policies of other states and actors... in the international system”42. Since the World War II, the
introduction of dangerous weapons of mass destruction has become a cause for great concern,
especially in the area of international security and world peace. “To check the proliferation of
these weapons, especially the extremely dangerous nuclear weapon, the policy of arms
control was developed to regulate the armament policy of states” 43. NAM has over the years
promoted disarmament in the cold war era; however, the reality of progressive and geometric
violence in the contemporary violence shows that disarmament is needed now more than
ever. Disarmament is “the reduction, removal or elimination of identified weapon systems” 44.
Right from the League of Nations to the United Nations, there has always been the
“Committee on Arbitration, Security and Disarmament” 45 but they have not succeeded in the
past because the committee is often dominated by those countries that fuels violence and
sponsors conflict in national and internationals spheres in order to attain their realist national
interests.
Today, there is need for a new wave of regional, continental and global disarmament.
This has made it imperative that developing countries and emerging-power nations, like some
nonaligned states should revive the crusade for a new wave of disarmament culture. It is only
when the numerous nations that belong to the wave of developing states starts talking peace
10
through disarmament and reduction of violent blocs as well as stopping arms race that the
world would be on the road map for peace. It should be noted that the traditional idea that
“unilateral or regional disarmament by the non-communist states alone might well be the
height of folly”46 is therefore misleading. Raymond Fosdick had shown that by ironical but
demonstrable laws, nations which have armed themselves hardly preserve peace47. In 1976, at
the Fifth Summit Conference of the nonaligned group in Colombo, Sri-Lanka, a new decision
was taken; calling for the United Nations special session on the issue of disarmament. “The
General Assembly, at the initiative of the non-aligned group, adopted Resolution GA31/189B
on December 21, 1976; calling for the convening of a United Nations’ Special Session on
Disarmament to be held from May to June, 1978” 48. In the 1980s, Yugoslavia was using the
Helsinki Accords of 1975 to lobby for the promotion of peace. The Helsinki Accords
amongst other things was meant to mediate in international conflicts.
The Non-Aligned Movement espouses policies and practices of cooperation,
especially those that are multilateral and provide mutual benefit to all those involved. Many
of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement are also members of the United Nations. Both
organisations have a stated policy of peaceful cooperation, yet the successes that NAM has
had with multilateral agreements tend to be ignored by the larger western and developed
nations, which have dominated the UN. The historic African concerns about apartheid were
linked with Arab-Asian concerns about Palestine-Israeli conflict and the need for multilateral
cooperation in these areas has enjoyed moderate success. The Non-Aligned Movement has
played a major role in various ideological conflicts throughout its existence, including
extreme opposition to apartheid regimes and support of liberation movements in various
locations, including Zimbabwe and South Africa. The support for these sorts of movements
stems from a belief that every state has the right to base its policies and practices with
national interests in mind and not as a result of relations to a particular power bloc. The NonAligned Movement has become a voice of support for issues facing developing nations and it
still contains ideals that are legitimate within this context.
In recent years the organization has criticized US foreign policy. The US invasion of
Iraq and especially its attempts to stifle Iran and North Korea's nuclear plans, and its other
actions like the war on terrorism have been denounced as human rights violations and
attempts to run roughshod over the sovereignty of smaller nations. The movement's leaders
have also criticized the American control over the United Nations and other international
11
structures. The movement has been quite outspoken in its criticism of current UN structures
and power dynamics, mostly in how the organisation has been utilised by powerful states in
ways that violate the movement's principles. It has made a number of recommendations that
would strengthen the representation and power of 'non-aligned' states. The proposed UN
reforms are also aimed at improving the transparency and democracy of UN decisionmaking. The UN Security Council is the element considered the most distorted,
undemocratic, and in need of reshaping.
Conclusion
The cold war has come and gone but its footprints remain with us. The NAM which was one
of its creations is still alive and active in international politics. This paper has traced the
origins of NAM and Nigeria’s role in the movement. It showed that today, NAM is more
focused on the need to ‘fight’ against the violent implication of globalization and neoimperialism of the twenty first century. Economic issues have become important themes in
their conferences from Lusaka (1970) to Lima (1973) and Algiers (1975) 49 till the
contemporary times. The exploitation of the developing countries has remained a geometric
act of international relations championed by the developed South. The export of high valueadded goods from the West to the Developing countries and the import of raw materials
buttressed by tariffs and other restrictions on the import of cheap manufactured goods from
the developing countries are essentially continuous features of economic imperialism on the
world stage today50. “For much of the past century, the international system was run by great
powers through the mechanism of imperialism, which held subject people down and which
led these imperial powers to contend with and fight each other on a variety of pretexts” 51.
Finally, it therefore becomes imperative that that the non-aligned movement must not
only abstain from the historic wars among the above imperial powers but must ‘fight’ to end
all forms of imperialism against the developing countries today. This they can achieve
through taking action on international political, economic and social issues on the basis of
equity, justice and commitment to global peace. They must not abandon their traditional
roadmap to peace and peace building. This is because the movement’s idea of promoting
peace through disarmament is most needed in the contemporary international arena as all
manners of conflict have befallen humanity, through national and intractable regional
12
conflicts as well as inter-continental terror networks. The nonaligned group have preached
and should today reinforce their old position on the prohibition and progressive development
and deployment of new types of weapons in the multidimensional contemporary conflicts on
world stage. It is only when nation states have minimal arms according to the positive
humane-needs of the national, frontier and international system that states and many regions
of the globe would have improved peace, necessary for the maintenance of international
security.
End Notes
1
G. Evans and J. Newnham, Dictionary of International Relations, London: Penguin books,
1997, p. 70
2
C. A. Ndoh, An Introduction to Political Science: Organization of Government, the Citizen
and State, Owerri: Concave Publications, 2003, p. 199
3
D. W. Tarr, “Military Technology and the Policy Process”, The Western Political Quarterly,
XVII, 1965, p. 135
4
P. Savigar, Cold War or Detente in the 1980s: The International Politics of American-Soviet
Relations, Sussex: Wheat sheaf books ltd, 1987, p. 1
13
5
C. A. Leeds, Political Studies, Britain: Watson and Viney Ltd, 1981, p. 340
6
M. Copeland The Game of Nations, New York: Rockefeller Centre, 1969, p. 186
7
J. U. Anyaele, Comprehensive Government, Lagos: Johnson Publishers, 1994, p. 339
8
T. Olagunju and S. Oyovbaire, For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today: Selected
Speeches of IBB Volume II, United Kingdom: Safari Books ltd, 1991, p. 294
9
Copeland, Miles The Game of Nations, p. 186
10
Ibid, p. 187
11
Ibid, p. 189
12
T. Olagunju and T. Oyovbaire, For Their Tomorrow, p. 296
13
W. Howard et al. A Reader in International Relations and Political Theory, Canada: UBC
Press, 1993, p. 268.
14
S. O. Ayah, Nigerian Foreign Policy, Enugu: Jamoe Enterprises, 2002, p. 117
15
G. Bannock, R. E. Baxter and E. Davies, Dictionary of Economics, New York: Penguin
Books, 1998, p. 20 & p. 329
16
N. D. Palmer, and H. C. Perkins, International Relations, New Delhi: CBS Publishers,
1999, p. 457
17
J. K. Holtis, was quoted in F. O. Okpata, Et al. Understanding Government, Abakaliki:
Folsun Technologies, 2000, p. 300
18
AlI Mazrui was quoted in A. Asobie “Non-Alignment: The Problem of a Political Concept
in a Changing International System”, Journal of International Affairs, 1983, p. 30
19
V. McKay, African Diplomacy: Studies on the Determinants of Foreign Policy, New York:
Praegar Publishers, 1966, p. 40
20
A. Asobie “Non-Alignment” p. 31
21
K. Nkuruma, Toward Colonial Freedom, London: Pan African Books ltd. 1973, p. 101
22
G. Evans, and J. Newnham, Dictionary of International Relations, p. 378
23
A. A. Nwankwo, Can Nigeria Survive?, Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Company
Ltd, 1981, p.63
24
See B. B. Stallings. Economic Dependency in Africa and Latin America, California: Sage
Publishers, 1972, p. 7
25
J. U. Anyaele, Comprehensive Government, p. 340
26
R. Hilsman, “The Foreign Policy Consensus: An Interim Research Report”, Journal of
Conflict Resolution, III, 1959, p. 363.
27
F. O. Okpata, Et al, Understanding Government, Enugu: Providence Press, 2000, p. 302
14
28
see B. E. Ate “Nigeria and the United States: A Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of
Twenty Five Years of Relationship” in G. O. Olusanya and R. A. Akindele (Eds.) Nigeria’s
External Relations: The First Twenty Five Years, Ibadan: University Press Ltd, 1986, pp.
236-240
29
T. Olagunju and S. Oyovbaire, For Their Tomorrow, p. 319
30
R. Petkovic, “Nonalignment and Disarmament” in Review of International Affairs, Vol.
XXIX, June 1978, p. 9
31
O. Aluko Essays in Nigerian Foreign Policy, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1981, p. 4
32
S. O. Aya, Nigerian Foreign Policy, p. 4
33
O. Aluko, Essays in Nigerian Foreign Policy, p. 237
34
Ibid, p. 320
35
Ibid, p. 322
36
E. H. Carr, What is History, Australia: Penguin Books Ltd, 1961, p.23
37
M. A. Vogt, “The Non-Aligned Group and the United Nations’ Special Session on
Disarmament”, Nigerian Journal of International Affairs, Lagos: Academy Press, 1977
38
B. Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age, Princeton: University Press, 1959, p. 225
39
D. W. Tarr, American Strategy in the Nuclear Age, London: Collier Macmillan ltd, 1969,
p. 7
40
41
K. V. Clausewitz On War, Washington D C: Combat Forces Press, 1953, p.580
R. Ofoegbu The Nigerian Foreign Policy, Enugu: The Star Printing and Publishing
Company ltd, 1978, p. 2
42
J. N. Rosenau, International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and
Theory, New York: Free Press, 1961, p. 300
43
O. R. Oji, An Introduction to Political Science, Enugu: Marydan Publishers, 1997, p. 145
44
E. Graham and J. Newham, Dictionary of International Relations, p. 131
45
R. Eagleton, International Government (Revised Edition), New York: Ronald Press
Company, 1948, p. 395
46
N. D. Palmer and H. C. Perkins, International Relations, p. 201
47
R. Fosdick “We Need New Words and New Faiths”, New York Times Magazine, December
19, 1948, p. 35
48
M. A. Vogt, “The Non-Aligned Group, p. 87
49
C. A. Leeds, Political Studies, Britain: Macdonald and Evans ltd, 1982, p. 341
50
G. Bannock, R. E. Baxter and E. Davies, Dictionary of Economics, p. 121
15
51
F. Halliday, Rethinking International Relations, London: The Macmillan Press ltd, 1994, p.
239
16