非同盟の起源(下)

The non-aligned movement came into existence by promoting relations among its founding fathers-Tito of Yugoslavia, Nehru of India, and Nasser of Egypt. Why did they come to work together in the international stage? In this article, I attempt to answer this question through a concrete examination of various conditions surrounding these countries at this time. I divide their conditions into three levels: domestic, international, and regional. Seen thusly, we can have a better understanding of their situation. (1) Domestic level In domestic politics, these three countries-Yugoslavia, India, and Eqypt-aimed for their different varieties of socialism independent of other nations. Egypt and India held up the idea of their unique brand of socialism in order to shake off the yoke of colonialism, namely, the rule of western nations, and to achieve rapid economic advance under governmental guidance. As for Yugoslavia, it also aimed for its own brand of socialism in order to distinguish itself from the socialism that the Soviet Union advocated. These forms of socialism in India and Egypt did not mean that they wanted a closer relationship with the Soviet Union. This was demonstrated by the fact that they suppressed communists at home. The socialist policies that these countries carried out at home implied opposition to the rule of great nations-the Soviet Union as well as western countries. Non-alignment as a diplomatic policy was the external side of their own brands of socialism, which meant opposition to the rule of great powers. (2) International level These three countries refused to enter the cold war whether on the western side or on the eastern side, and they succeeded in cooperating with each other through the policy of non-alignment. However, they did not always have common ideas about what the cold war meant for them and what roles they should play in it. Yugoslavia was exposed to a real menace, military and economic, from the Soviet Union and eastern European countries. It came to adopt the policy of non-alignment to evade this menace from the eastern block. As a result, it made many friends around the world outside of Europe. India thought of itself as a mediator between the United States and the Soviet Union. This self-image was greatly influenced by Nehru\u27s thought and actions. Besides, it was significant that India seriously wanted peace among great powers as a condition to achieve its economic development. The reason India selected non-alignment as a foreign policy was that it had a strong desire to play this part of mediator. On the contrary, Egypt regarded the antagonism between the East and the West as a tool to be used to develop economically and to establish its own security. Egypt was going to make the most of the cold war, on condition that the antagonism between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was not a real threat to Egypt and the Arab world. The non-alignment was thought of as the best means of achieving this. (3) Regional level The nations which participated in the non-aligned movement were confronted with indeterminable antagonisms in each region. Yugoslavia was exposed to military and economic threat from the Soviet Union and eastern European nations. India was isolated in the southern Asian region, even though it appeared to think little of the fact. Egypt was anxious to establish a regional organization under its own leadership, but ultimately could not gain the cooperation which it needed. On the other hand, African countries deepened their antagonisms because of the Congo problem, and they were divided into two blocks-the Casablanca group and the Monrovia group. The lack of cooperative systems in each region motivated these nations to take part in the non-aligned movement, and it was this difficulty of not being able to establish regional organizations capable of resolving regional difficulties which brought the movement into being. Both the motives for taking part in the non-aligned movement and various appeals which the movement made to the international society emerged from the problems and the demands the non-aligned countries actually experienced. These problems and demands also express internal antinomies of the modern international political structure. I believe that we might bring the problems of the structure of modern international politics to light by understanding the organizing process of the non-alignad movement