NAM 2003: Consistent messages characterise an otherwise diverse gathering

No matter where one walks, there is national costume sparkling between the otherwise uniform dark suits. Except for the occasional reminder that many of the world's poor live in states with control or significant influence resting in the hands of the military: regalia is worn with pride by some.

So it was to some surprise that General Musharraf took the stand in a dark suit. His security men, likewise, did not wear uniforms. Musharraf wants to be seen as working to decrease tensions with India over Kashmir and nuclear threat. He sees a hidden agenda behind the problems with North Korea's nuclear programme - Pakistan and India want "nukes" but don't want to be seen as aggressors. So he wants to stand back from any hint at militarism. And consistently throughout his speech, he followed the NAM line: "NAM must strive for equitable global disarmament achieved through negotiated agreements rather then forcible actions," he said. One of the unspoken messages about the North Korean crisis is the indefensible position that states with nuclear capability demand that others do not have the same. And the India-Pakistan dispute over their own proliferation is based on a terrifying game of "you show me yours and I'll show you mine."

The border dispute over Kashmir was tied to the Palestine question by references to "oppressed people." But then Musharraf immediately widened his argument to deal with the thorny problem of defining terrorism - something which has defeated almost all international groups as each seeks to protect the actions of themselves, their friends and to try to prevent a re-writing of history with previous conflicts being adversely reclassified. And something which which India later made special point of agreeing with.

"We must not allow anyone to manipulate the fight against terrorism to de-legitimise just struggles of peoples against illegal occupation." However, it is probable that his offer to host in Pakistan a mechanism, sponsored by NAM, for conflict resolution will not be accepted: currently, Pakistan's inbility to resolve internal conflict in the North, where religious intolerance and the drugs trade threaten the stability of the region and, ultimately, his government, may be seen as making it an unlikely candidate for a centre for reduction of conflict: in this sense, at least, actions may be seen as speaking louder than words.

However, his words should not be taken out of context. Many of the heads of government addressing the conference addressed the same issues. Some even used phrases so similar to each other that they took on the feeling of a litany. Thabo Maki, President of South Africa quoted W B Yeats: "Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." Maki went on "without claiming powers we do not have, we must insist that the centre must hold. We must position ourselves in word and deed as the enemies of anarchy."

It should be remembered that Pakistan borders Afghanistan. Indeed, it is the borders with Afghanistan that host much of the world's drugs trade. It should also be recognised that Afghanistan remains a Muslim country despite the departure of the Taliban. And Pakistan is primarily Muslim. They therefore have related problems: and more, they have internal problems that those who would be involved in the drugs trade claim some religious justification for involvement: whilst it is clear to true followers of Islam that such actions are fundamentally against the religion and the connected actions, including associated violence, are entirely contradictory to their religion.

But noticeable in the speeches was the general lack of a split on religious lines: the approach was universal - Iraq must comply with UN Resolution 1441. There was little evidence of Muslim siding with Muslim because of common faith. This is important because it puts in perspective the widespread condemnation of the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel and the fact that NAM has long been calling for the creation of a formal Palestinian state. The Summit was saddened that Yasser Arrafat was not able to attend because of Israel's continuing refusal to let him travel. NAM welcomes all its members and is a movement for peace: even the arrival of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe caused few ripples amongst the delegates.

The gasps were reserved for Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India.

He began to address the Summit in what had become almost a traditional style, supporting the aims of NAM, prodding it gently in the direction of great objectives of poverty reduction, the autonomy of governments and peace. His comments "there can be no confusion between terrorism and freedom struggles and no implicit condoning of terrorism through an investigation of its root causes" were a side glance over the border to Pakistan and it looked as if the tit-for-tat comments were the end of the matter.

Not so.

Coming to the end of his speech, Vajpayee turned on Musharraf with severity. Claiming to be responding to comments by Musharraf in which he made "allegations against India," Vajpayee said "does he go into the root causes of sectarian terrorism in his country? Or does he take stern action against the perpetrators of that terrorism? He talks of 'the oppressed people of Kashmir.' These same people very recently cast their votes in an election universally recognised as free and fair. They defied the bullets of the terrorists aided and abetted by Pakistan. Those very terrorists assassinated candidates and political activivists.... yet General Musharaff talks of an international order." He said that Musarraf's "strange logic masks Pakistan's territorial designs on an integral part of India. He justifies terrorism against India by talking of root causes."

The slogan of NAM2003 is (in short) "Revitalising NAM." As the Indian PM took his seat, it was not just revitalised, it was galvanised.