NON-ALIGNMENT: NEED FOR A VALID DEFINITION

This conceptual analysis addresses the definitional challenges surrounding the concept of non-alignment in international politics during the early 1980s. The article examines how the meaning and practice of non-alignment have evolved since the movements inception and identifies the growing need for a more precise and operationally valid definition. The research explores the historical origins of non-alignment, tracing its development from the Bandung Conference through various summit declarations and state practices. The study analyzes the diverse interpretations of non-alignment among member states and examines how these differences affect the movements coherence and effectiveness. The article investigates the relationship between non-alignment as a foreign policy principle and its practical application in specific international contexts, including superpower relations, regional conflicts, and economic negotiations. The research also considers how changing global dynamics, including the evolution of bipolar competition and emerging North-South issues, necessitate a redefinition of non-alignment. Furthermore, the analysis proposes criteria for developing a more valid and functional definition that can guide non-aligned countries in contemporary international relations.

The concept of non-alignment faced significant definitional challenges by the early 1980s, with this article providing a thorough examination of the need for conceptual clarity in the movements principles and practices. The research begins by tracing the historical evolution of non-alignment as both a foreign policy orientation and an international movement, examining how its meaning has shifted across different historical contexts and geopolitical environments. The analysis explores the original principles articulated at the Bandung Conference in 1955 and their subsequent elaboration through various Non-Aligned Movement summits. The article examines the diverse interpretations of non-alignment among member states, identifying how countries with different political systems, economic structures, and security concerns understood and applied non-alignment principles differently. The study investigates the tension between non-alignment as an idealistic principle of independent foreign policy and its practical manifestations in specific international situations, including voting patterns in the United Nations, alliance relationships, and economic partnerships. The research analyzes how the changing nature of superpower competition, including détente periods and renewed tensions, affected the operational meaning of non-alignment. The article also considers the economic dimensions of non-alignment and how calls for a New International Economic Order complicated the movements traditional political focus. The study examines case studies of how specific non-aligned countries navigated major international crises and how their actions reflected different understandings of non-alignment. Based on the comprehensive analysis, the article proposes elements for a more valid and operational definition of non-alignment that could accommodate diverse national circumstances while maintaining core principles. The research also considers how a clearer definition could enhance the Non-Aligned Movements effectiveness in addressing contemporary global challenges. The findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of non-alignment as a foreign policy concept and its practical relevance in the evolving international system of the early 1980s.