The NAM was founded in Yugoslavia in response to the US-Russian proxy war in Korea. The organisation saw itself as opposing all forms of imperialism, advocating instead for self-determination and an end to global inequality. Though it failed on a number of key aims, the body was able to pressure both West and East on issues such as nuclear non-proliferation.

But post-1991, the idea that states could remain ‘unaligned’ diminished. The US was so dominant that most were expected to fall in line — any country that risked challenging America’s hegemony could easily be frozen out of the world order. By the time the 2016 NAM conference came around, only eight heads of state showed up.

But even as the US pressures countries to pick a side in the Russia-Ukraine war, only one officially non-aligned state (Singapore) has actually sanctioned Russia, while other major NAM members and observer states (South Africa, Brazil, China) tread lightly. Many of those who abstained on the UN vote backed a South African-penned resolution which made no mention of Russia’s role in the conflict. Outside Europe and North America, Putin is not faring so badly in the information war.

What good could come of a resurgent NAM other than bolstering a shower of strongman governments? The states delicately abstaining on the Russia question are no anti-authoritarian icons. China’s rise, in particular, complicates any application of the ‘three-world model’ to contemporary geopolitics.

But this was also true of the original Non-Aligned Movement when participants ranged from quasi-monarchist states like Saudi Arabia to USSR-backed Cuba and Vietnam. The supposed point of the NAM was not countries’ individual alignment with West or East, but their ability to pressure both great powers. A revived NAM could, for example, create pressure to reform the moribund UN Security Council.

What’s more, some policy aims of the NAM, such as the eradication of tranches of third world debt, could also be shown to benefit both the world’s superpower and the global economy. As the climate crisis worsens and inevitably leads to the restructuring of the global order, third world countries must also cooperate to prevent the burden of and blame for global warming being placed entirely on the Global South. They could instead promote the sustainable use of the vast natural resources that they command.

Whatever happens, the US and Russia will continue seeking influence among the global 55%. But in a multipolar world, weaker nations may join together to present a powerful bloc of their own.

---

Matt Broomfield is a freelance journalist and co-founder of the Rojava Information Center, the leading independent English-language news source in north and east Syria.

MattBroomfield1

---