On 2nd August, 2008, expired the two week term during which Iran was supposed to respond to the offer of western powers, namely Germany and five permanent members of the UN Security Council, i.e. the United Kingdom, China, France, the Russian Federation and China. In terms of the offer Iran was submitted proposals concerning the acquisition of diverse advantages in the field of civil power engineering, trade, finance, agriculture and technology which were put forward by French European Union presidency. The condition was the compliance with the request to freeze disputable uranium enrichment. Teheran stated in its reaction that it would accept any requests to negotiate about its controversial nuclear program. However, it would insist on its rights and would not budge an inch. Nevertheless, on 6th August, 2008, the six world powers agreed that they would weigh up new sanctions on Iran after Teheran didn’t give an unequivocal answer to the appeal to terminate the uranium enrichment program. Therefore the European Union imposed new economic sanctions on Iran which include a striking restriction of loans for Iran and stricter goods control.
Western countries say that Iranian nuclear programs endanger the whole international community. The community requests an immediate termination of uranium enrichment. Anyway, using the formulation about the international community the West has been probably exaggerating because at the ministerial conference of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member states held in Iranian capital on 28th-30th July, 2008, Iran and India gained firm support of further 116 member states, which are inhabited by more than half of the world’s population, for its nuclear program.
15th Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement
In Teheran on 30th July, 2008, the 15th meeting of foreign affairs ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement states ended. Postures on current international relations issues were adopted at this session. Apart from documents, in which the participants condemned the use of unilateral coercive measures by any country in terms of international relations as well as the adoption of politically motivated resolutions concerning the observance of human rights in individual countries, the conclusions reached at the ministerial conference encompassed also the demand to create a global action plan for the fight against human trafficking and the establishment of international mechanism for the securing of equal access to alternative and renewable energy sources utilisation technologies (1).
At the official opening of the two week ministerial conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the conference room of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the Belarusian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Martynov said that the unipolar world model hadn’t established itself. With regard to the sceptical attitude of western countries, he appealed to the movement members to play a more active role in solving severe regional and international issues. He added that only the cohesiveness and solidarity of his colleagues could change unipolarity and give people satisfaction and happiness which rid them of misery, terrorism and illiteracy.
According to the Venezuelan Foreign Affairs Minister Nicolás Maduro, who was elected the representative of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean at the ministerial conference, multilateralism, polycentrism and pluripolarism are the manifestation of the origin and consolidation of a new multipolar era. He at the same time conveyed the support of multilateralism based on international law that was supposed to manifest itself in the transformation of the UN as well as its integral reform (2).
In connection with the growth of tension, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad highlighted the big potential of the movement the motto of which is “Union for friendship, justice and peace”. In his opinion, NAM will be able to defend the interests of all its members against aggression exerted by powers that, according to him, are in an arms race (3) and simultaneously spread the disease of civilisation AIDS (4) to member states (5). During the ceremonial opening of the session, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Manouchehr Mottaki appealed to member states to back Iranian application for the position of a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in the period 2009 and 2010 (6), which will be decided on in October 2008 (7), so that the securing of the movement’s defence potential was achieved.
NAM as a neutral course between the US and the then Soviet Union
The Non-Aligned Movement is an organisation uniting 118 developing and rapidly developing countries from four continents (8) which committed themselves not to join any military or political blocs. The movement’s objective is to represent political, economic and cultural interests of the developing world (9). Within the movement, several states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Ukraine, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Uruguay, Salvador and China) and international organisations (the United Nations Organisations – UN, African Union – AU, the League of Arab States – LAS, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference – OIC, Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organisation – AAPSO) as well as some national movements in dependencies, for instance, Puerto Rican Independence Movement and Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) from New Caledonia, have the status of observers.
Originally, NAM was founded by 25 states. The so-called five great initiators were the pioneers: Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Indonesian President Achmad Sukarno as the representative of the Muslim world, Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser as the representative of the Arab world and Ghanaian Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah. From the very beginning, Brazil has played a central role in establishing the movement’s policy. Notwithstanding the agreement with the majority of NAM about stances on international problems, it hasn’t become its full member so far. Within the movement, Brazil has the status of associated member thanks to which it could easily obtain full membership. However, owing to the maintenance of its bilateral economic relations with more developed countries, it still keeps distance from NAM (10). Malta and Cyprus, which were the only representatives of the movement from the European continent alongside Belarus, ceased to be its members entering the European Union in 2004.
Conditions, which a candidate country for movement membership has to fulfil, were defined at the founding summit in 1961 and are completely in accordance with principles which the UN is based on. Among these principles are:
– respect for basic human rights enshrined in the UN Charter,
– respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all member countries,
– the recognition of the equality of all nations irrespective of their size and race,
– refraining from intervention in the internal affairs of any member country,
– respect for every nation’s right to protect its homeland individually or collectively in accordance with the UN Charter,
– refraining from any acts and threats of aggression or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any movement member,
– the settlement of all international disputes through peace means in accordance with the UN charter,
– the pursuit of mutually favourable goals,
– the support of peace cooperation,
– respect for justice and international commitments.
In view of the fact that movement members are also Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Myanmar and North Korea, one has to assume that all these countries should be capable of fulfilling commitments emerging from movement membership from the very beginning. Nonetheless, never-ending unrests, conflicts and wars, which are under way in their territories, attest to lax approach to their fulfilment.
The concept “non-aligned” was imposed right by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. In 1954, he suggested to forge Chinese-Indian bilateral links on the basis of five pillars known as Panchsheel which were later adapted to the movement’s status and included in the 1979 Havana Declaration:
1. peaceful coexistence,
2. equal membership and same advantages for every participating country,
3. mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty in their fight against imperialism, (neo)colonialism, apartheid, racism (including socialism),
4. refraining from any form of foreign aggression, occupation or dominance,
5. refraining from intervention into the internal affairs or supremacy of powers as well as their military-political blocs.
India, as one of the largest colonies, which gained independence in 1947, pursued to assume control over the “developing third world”, i.e. states which were getting rid of colonial supremacy gradually. In the period of the 1970’s and the 1980’s, however, it started to pursue pro-Soviet policy, which manifested itself in its stance on events in Cambodia and Afghanistan (1979). That’s why Indian ambitions were foiled in terms of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The summoning of the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1954, to which Indonesian President Achmed Sukamo invited the top representatives of Asian and African countries, was a milestone in further development of the movement. The summit was held within the bounds of neutralistic doctrine developed by five great initiators, which was based on “small” states’ desire for independence from powers as well as their disapproval of the world’s bloc arrangement (11). Their objective was the preservation of balance between both world blocs and the creation of conditions for a better representation of former colonies and semi-colonies, which gained independence, in international political and economic arena. Later on, countries taking part in the summit committed themselves not to involve in the Cold War and to struggle for world peace cooperation based on five pillars proposed by the Indian PM. The first official conference, at which the movement was founded, was initiated by the then Yugoslav President Josip B. Tito in Belgrade in 1961. The origin of the movement was motivated by fears that arms race would result in a war between the Soviet Union and the US. Subsequently, Tito became the first Secretary General of NAM.
The institutional structure of NAM
NAM, as an international organisation, prides itself on some qualities through which it differs to a large extent from other international and regional organisations. Firstly, the movement hasn’t got a hierarchic organisation structure and therefore none of the countries has an exclusive veto right or any special privileges in any area. The supreme decision-making body of the movement is the Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government. The chair rotates and the Secretary General is elected at the summit every three years. Since 2006, “the Cuban family of Castro’s”, which took over the chair from Malaysia, has been the movement’s head. It’s in charge of the preparations for summits as well as the control of administration till the Egypt Summit Conference scheduled for the middle of September 2009 (12). The main task of the Secretary General is the coordination of member states’ policies and their representation in the UN as well as further international and regional forums. In 1997, the Troika mechanism was imposed in order to secure a smooth running of the movement. It presupposes closer cooperation and more frequent meetings of former, present and future presidency (13), i.e. in current term of office of Malaysian, Cuban and Egyptian chairperson.
Another auxiliary body of the movement is the Joint Coordinating Committee which operates in UN headquarters in New York. It meets once a month and unites the permanent representatives of member countries (14). The Joint Coordinating Committee implements decisions, adopted at summits, and concurrently manages and directs individual committees, task forces and working groups established by the movement’s member states.
Secondly, in view of manifold stances and priorities of a large number of member states, no constitution has been adopted and no permanent secretariat has been established which would instigate the division of countries into smaller and larger groups and subsequently also the movement’s collapse in their pursuit of pushing through a common stance. In NAM, decisions are made on the basis of a consensus which, however, rules out the need of unanimity for the adoption of particular document.
The only serious obstacle might be the movement’s character. The movement resembles rather a formal political forum, where solely opinions are exchanged, because in view of various stances of member states, NAM doesn’t act as a cohesive whole when reacting on individual thorny issues of international political and economic relations. It emerges from its name at last. The concept of “non-alignment” means neither “isolation” nor “neutrality”. NAM is an independent movement that promotes the right of every nation to pursue own policy without joining any political bloc and entering thus its sphere of influence. From this point of view we may consider the goals of five great initiators of the movement’s origin achieved since neither of the then two world superpowers has joined the ranks of NAM.
The adaptation of NAM to the current conditions of contemporary unipolarity
Circumstances, under which the movement acted in the period of its origin and during the Cold War, have changed since the 1990’s. The Iron Curtain fell and the bipolar world ceased to exist because the USSR along with its allies had been pushed out of international scene. The Warsaw Treaty Organisation and the apartheid regime in the Republic of South Africa vanished. Only a few small territories remained colonies. Aggression is generally forbidden, although it’s in fact an integral part of the African, Asian and Latin American continent. Despite these changes, member states, with the exception of certain countries, are still among poor ones. They feel misused and marginalised by western hegemony and its (neo)colonialism. This applies primarily to the US, which is the only dominant hyperpower in the present unipolar world.
In connection with the transformation of the world’s arrangement from a bipolar into a unipolar one, NAM membership uniting states dissatisfied with western practices has turned from the original number of 25 founding members in 1961 into a megawhole encompassing nearly two thirds of UN member states. Although NAM membership is to a large degree comprised of developing states (15), the importance and weight of the movement on the international scene is strengthened by economic potential of member states. This consists in the enormous size of territory, labour and consumer market with more than 55 per cent of the world’s population and unlimited wealth of natural sources (16).
Since the origin of NAM, the critics have been referring to its demerits owing to which the movement becomes a real grouping of non-aligned countries that don’t intervene in internal affairs of partner states at all, although sometimes it’s necessary. As an argument may serve also the restraint of many member states during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 which divided the movement into two camps. NAM authority was disputed by the alliance of many of its members with the USSR. In NAM member states, both blocs financed various projects the costs of which amounted to around three trillion USD (17). The aim was to win the support of the states. In view of their economic and military weakness, the states in question couldn’t resist such a tempting aid and allied themselves with one of the blocs. A special case was the relation of Cuba and Vietnam to the then Soviet bloc. Due to Soviet support of their policy of expansion, these countries couldn’t be regarded as non-aligned that time.
In the middle of the 1970’s, Cuba started its policy of expansion in seventeen countries of the African continent. Materially supported by the Soviet Union, it sent financial assistance and experts in diverse fields to these countries. Approximately 65,000 Cubans, who cost Cuba eleven per cent of its state finances, were sent (18). Cuba also participated in some African conflicts and worsened them. These continue up to the present time: Angolan-Zairean, Ethiopian-Somalian, etc. Larger and more aggressive involvement of Cuba in the African continent as well as its collaboration with the Soviet Union often stirred up the dissatisfaction of African leaders, who highlighted the question of ruling Cuba out of the Non-Aligned Movement. However, their efforts failed.
Similar policy was pursued by Vietnam, which struggled for political and economic control over neighbouring Cambodia and the rest of Southeast Asia. Initially, it provided great assistance in fight against Pol Pot’s regime. Since the 1970’s, it interfered actively in economic and political affairs of the republic. That time, Vietnam was considered to be “Cuba of the East” as the eastern pillar of Moscow.
India, as one of the movement’s founders, kept distance from both world camps at the beginning. Following the wars on Pakistan, however, it started to uphold more the alliance with the USSR in military field obtaining thus a good deal of military technology and financial assistance from the USSR. As a counterbalance to increasing socialist influence in India, the US started to finance Pakistan, which sparked the worsening of Indian-American relations, which culminated in Indian support of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Anyway, Singapore was NAM member too. It has been siding with the US since its origin in 1965.
Primary spheres of NAM’s interest
Declarations, adopted during fifteen ministerial conferences since 1961, encompass the movement’s stances on burning issues of international relations of the particular period. Problems, which the Summit of Heads of State and Government and the Joint Coordinating Committee deals with, vary. Recently, they have been focusing particularly on:
– policy of expansion of the US and other western states, orientated primarily on Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Lebanon, which they consider the breach of UN Charter Principles, i.e. the violation of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs and a gross violation of fundamental human rights in the mentioned countries;
– Arab-Israeli conflicts in terms of which they condemn Israel for the occupation of Palestinian territory, forcible resettlement of its population and the blockade of territory which they also regard as the violation of basic pillars of the UN Charter. The movement, which plans to establish a non-nuclear zone (19) in the territories of its members, forces Israel to abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the principles of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nonetheless, it recognises the right of Iran to a peace utilisation of its nuclear program (20) and backs the agreement on nuclear cooperation between India and the US (21),
– UN reform with the aim of intensifying the participation and influence of the countries united in the movement in UN decision-making process, which they perceive non-transparent and non-democratic because of US majority share and contribute thus to the multipolarity of international relations,
– development and cooperation in terms of the movement in economic, cultural and legal area. Since 1994 alongside the Group 77 (22) taking account of specifics and differences existing in individual countries united in the movement. NAM committed itself to active implementation of eight Millennium Development Objectives adopted in the UN in 2000 which are supposed to help to attain sustainable development in the movement’s countries. According to NAM members, however, impediments applied by the international community, hamper their achievement – globalisation, the burden of high indebtedness, unfair business practices, decrease in the overall volume of provided development aid, the criteria of donors that demand the fulfilment of a large number of conditions in return for provided assistance and the lack of democracy in international financial institutions.
Obstacles to a deeper cooperation of NAM
One of the common features of most of developing countries are unrests and conflicts which either ended (Indonesia versus Eastern Timor) or are under way in individual states (Sudan, Kenya, etc.) and among each other (Israel – Arab countries of the Middle East, Ethiopia – Eritrea – Somalia – Djibouti or Morocco – Algeria). In come cases, they have spread to the territories of neighbouring states.
Portugal was fit by the decolonisation wave too. On 28th November, 1975, autonomy and independence was declared by the colony East Timor, which was occupied by Indonesia after two weeks. The dream of East Timorans to make their homeland independent came true on 20th May, 2002. Nevertheless, the 25 years of occupation cost the lives of 100,000 East Timorans and destroyed infrastructure in the entire country, which is one of the poorest in the world. Thus East Timor became the first independent country in 21st century. It’s simultaneously the last country where 97 per cent of inhabitants are Roman Catholics after Philippines.
Fatal was, for example, the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which had been annexed by Ethiopia since 1962. In April 1993, a referendum was held in which the Eritreans chose the establishment of an independent Eritrean state. This happened without exact definition of common borders. Ethiopia disapproved of the economy policy pursued by independent Eritrea in terms of which even a new currency was imposed in 1997. It affected its economy because their economies were firmly interconnected – the majority of Eritrean foreign trade was conducted with Ethiopia. Ethiopian dependence on the newly established country consisted also in the use of Eritrean roads and ports for the export of its production since Ethiopia hadn’t access to the Red Sea. The tension between the two African states, whose economies were badly affected by droughts and a lack of foods, escalated owing to the penetration of Eritrean soldiers into the disputed territory administered by Ethiopia. In the period between 1998 and December 2000 when a peace treaty was signed, the conflict claimed around 100,000 victims on both sides and approximately 700,000 people were rendered homeless. In April 2002, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague defined the borders between Ethiopia and Eritrea by allotting the disputed Badame territory to Eritrea. Ethiopia wasn’t satisfied for this sake. Meanwhile, the war spread to neighbouring Somalia and later in June 2008, it became the reason for a conflict between Eritrea and Djibouti. Djibouti accused Eritrea of digging a trench in the disputed border territory Ras Doumeira and penetrating its territory.
Another conflict area is the region of Western Sahara, which stretches among Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria and in the west, it borders on the Atlantic Ocean. Following the departure of Spanish colonisers in 1976, the territory was occupied by Morocco, Mauritania and the movement Polisario seated in Algeria. There, the movement declared the territory’s independence dubbing it Arab Democratic Republic of Sahrawi (SADR). In 1979, Mauritania gave up its claims and Morocco annexed the whole region. Both sides have supporters from the developing world. Whereas Polisario won African Union’s (around 46 states) support of SADR, Moroccan claims are backed by the League of Arab States. The war between the adherents of independence and Morocco still goes on in Western Sahara.
The relation between NAM and Russia, the US and the European Union
The dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War reflected negatively on the bilateral relations of most of NAM countries with Russia, the US and EU countries.
Russia, as the successor state of the Soviet Union, ceased to push through the ideological support of socialism. It even renounced socialism. In view of hard and chaotic post-Soviet economic and political situation, the newly established Russian Federation stopped to provide economic advantages and development aid to client regimes and started to collect its foreign claims on poor countries of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America instigating thus their resentment. Indebted countries demanded to excuse, or rather, write off immediately these debts owing to the military purpose of the financial means of Soviet origin. Subsequently, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the closure of embassies and consulates in Africa caused Russian influence on the region of the Middle East adn on the African continent to sink dramatically. Thanks to the gradual reanimation of economy and an enormous growth of the prices of main energy materials, Russia begun to reinforce its position in the UN Security Council. It tries to play a more active role in G8, to which it belongs due to its military and security potential. In order to gain more favourable position in world economic area, the RF backs the rapidly developing member and observer states of NAM (emerging economies) in their pursuit of multipolarity through the change of present status quo. This doesn’t correspond to the altered conditions of international relations any longer.
The relation between NAM and the US, as a catalyst for globalisation, and to the European Union, as the former colonial centre of many of its member countries, may be regarded as good as long as western financial means flow to the movement’s poor countries and as long as the West doesn’t interfere in their internal affairs. The European Union and the US are traditionally the major providers of development aid (23), which has been gradually increasing since the demise of bipolar world. They act so simply because of the concern that the poverty and dissatisfaction of southern countries may spark strong opposition against globalisation vectors. In the final analysis, this will result in the worsening of the already bad situation in problematic and conflict regions within international relations. The US and the EU try to intensify collaboration with NAM countries either in the form of summits, annual meetings, forums and various initiatives or by establishing an institutional framework like in the case of cooperation between the US and Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) or between the European Union and Mediterranean countries, which culminated in the inception of Mediterranean Union. Nevertheless, the growing economic potential and political influence of rapidly developing economies, or rather, regional powers are to blame for limiting the intensification of bilateral collaboration between western countries and Non-Aligned Movement states. Among these economies, which struggle for a multipolar world and are in pursuit of obtaining votes and the support of more vulnerable NAM countries, are the Republic of South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Libya and Nigeria on the African continent, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Chile on the Latin American continent, China and India on the Asian continent. They offer enough financial assistance to less developed countries without applying strict western policy of conditionality and promise a better world where all countries will be represented according to their economic and political potential.
After the September 11 attacks on WTC in 2001, US President George Bush stated that in the fight against international terrorism there can’t be any neutrality (24) in the world in the American’s eyes. Notwithstanding these warnings, the movement, which was founded in the period of the bipolarity of the capitalist West and the socialist East, still manifests its willingness and preparedness to face western challenges via the summits, which are attended by more than two thirds of UN member states. They at the same time believe firmly that Mao Ce-Tung’s words about a paper tiger, i.e. the US which are doomed to demise after a long period of success and respect, will come true. At a conference of foreign affairs ministers, Mao Ce-Tung’s prophecy was confirmed also by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad according to whom the era of big world powers came to an end and small and developing countries united in NAM would play more and more important role in solving global conflicts.
One has to point out that although all countries united in the movement with the exception of thirteen ones are classified as developing countries, some of them, namely the rapidly developing economies (the so-called emerging economies), stand out. They strive to use this forum in order to change the current unipolar status of the US and gain other members’ support of their UN Security Council membership. They want to use the membership for the multipolarisation of international relations.
In view of the potential of the Non-Aligned Movement, there’s no doubt that it will succeed in establishing a multipolar world which is to replace the present unipolar one controlled by the US and other western countries. The only thing that isn’t sure is when this will happen so that the new multipolar world order, where the voice of every single state will have its weight, can originate.
(1) V itogovom dokumente stran Dviženija neprisojedinjonnych jesť belorusskije predloženija. Naviny. 30th July, 2008.
(2) Sugett, J.:Venezuela to Represent Latin America in Non-Aligned Movement. 2nd August, 2008. Net News Publisher.
(3) Neprisojedinivšijesja chotjat objedjinjatsja. Naviny. 29th July, 2008.
(4) According to latest data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approximately 1.1 million people in the US are infected by the AIDS virus and it’s assumed that around 56,300 Americans become infected annually.
(5) Non-Aligned Movement: Why Do You Still Exist? The New Republic. 29th July, 2008.
(6) FACTBOX-Non-Aligned Movement meets in Iran. 29th July, 2008.
(7) Afrasiabi, K.: Iran seeks entry to the lion´s den. 31st July, 2008. Asia Times Online.
(8) Among NAM members are 53 African states including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya and Sudan, 38 Asian states including Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq as well as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and the Palestinian Autonomy, Myanmar and North Korea. Besides these there are also 26 states from Latin America including Cuba. From among European states, only Belarus is NAM member.
(9) Profile: Non-Aligned Movement. BBC.
(10) Morphet, S.: Multilateralism and the Non-Aligned Movement: what is the global South doing and where is it going? http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3562615_ITM
(11) Gális, T.: Nerozhodnosť a rozhádanosť – problém bývalých kolónií. Hospodárske noviny. 21st November, 2003.
(12) Fidel Castro has been replaced in the presidential office by his brother Raúl Castro since February 2008.
(13) Non-Aligned Movement official website.
(14) Non-Aligned Movement. Official website of the Foreign Affairs Department of the Republic of South Africa.
(15) According to the World Bank classification 13 out of 118 NAM countries are classified as countries with high income: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Brunei, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago and United Arab Emirates. The rest of membership are classified as countries with medium or low income. These are usually labelled as developing countries.
(16) Ghofrani, A.: The Status of the Non-Aligned Movement. PressTV.
(17) Gupte, P.: Whither the Non-Aligned Movement? 8th September, 2004. In: The Straits Times, Singapore.
(18) Falk, P.: Cuba in Africa. In: Foreign Affiars, 1987.
(19) Many countries are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but only the Republic of South Africa and Belarus are members of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
(20) Some member states, Kenya for instance, asked Iran for the transfer of their know-how in the field of nuclear technologies during the ministerial conference.
(21) From Tehran to Beijing, India Scales Up Nuclear Diplomacy. 30th July, 2008. Boloji.
(22) Group 77 (G77) is a bloc of developing countries which has been representing joint economic interests of the grouping in the UN since 1964. Out of original 77 founding countries, the group’s membership consists of NAM member states, states of the former Yugoslavia and rapidly developing regional powers: South Africa, China, India, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Venezuela.
(23) The European Union provides approximately one half of world-wide development aid.
(24) ´No neutrality´, warns Bush. 11th March, 2002. BBC.