Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Our job is to
take complex, sprawling global topics, stack
up the research, and give you, the learner, the
essential insight you need to understand their
significance in the modern world. Today, we're
diving into a geopolitical body whose enduring
success is built entirely on, well, the massive
paradox of not choosing a side. It is the ultimate
act of collective rebellion against a geopolitical
binary. We are, of course, talking about the
non -aligned movement or NAY. And if your first
instinct is to file that name under Cold War
Relic. You're missing, I mean, you're missing
the biggest global story nobody is talking about.
Exactly. I have to admit, I thought it was purely
historical. You know, a footnote in the history
of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. A lot of people
do. But what our sources show is that NAEA isn't
just alive. It's massive, it's organized, and
it is flexing real political muscle in a way
that directly shapes global politics. Especially
now, as new great power competition heats up
again. So let's just set the scope for you. This
is not a small, quiet club. After the United
Nations itself, the non -aligned movement is
the largest grouping of sovereign states worldwide.
The largest after the UN? The largest. We are
talking about an astonishing 121 member states
and 18 observer states. Wow. Think about that
for a moment. This collective represents nearly
two -thirds of the UN's total membership and
a whopping 55 % of the global population. This
isn't just a voice, it's a chorus. Okay, so our
mission today is to pull back the curtain on
this giant mechanism. We need to understand its
traumatic origins in the intense bipolarization
of the 1950s Cold War. We have to grasp the foundational
principles that somehow managed to weld together
such a radically diverse group. And this is the
crucial part. Explore how it has reinvented itself
since 1991 to become the powerful, unified diplomatic
voice of the global South against new forms of
economic and political inequality. Okay, let's
unpack this movement, starting right at the beginning.
To truly appreciate why NN was so necessary,
you have to rewind. Go back to the post -World
War II period, specifically the early to mid
-1950s. Right. The world had just emerged from
the brutal chaos of global conflict, but instead
of settling into peace, it immediately began
to cleave into two distinct, antagonistic spheres
of influence. And the moment the Korean War broke
out in 1950, that division became existential,
didn't it? You had the pro -Soviet socialist
bloc anchored by the newly formed Warsaw Pact.
And on the other side, the pro -American capitalist
group dominated by NATO. And this wasn't just,
you know, an ideological divide. It was a military
and economic ultimatum. An ultimatum for who?
Exactly. Well, this rapid, aggressive bipolarization
created an immense problem for newly independent
nations. Remember, this era saw an explosion
of decolonization. Of course, all across Africa
and Asia. Exactly. States were finally achieving
sovereignty after generations of foreign rule.
They had fought so hard to kick out their colonizers.
And then suddenly two new global superpowers
were knocking on their door demanding allegiance.
It was like a global draft. And the price of
aid or security often meant joining one of these
military blocs. And giving up a degree of that
national autonomy you just fought for. So the
problem NAM solved was, well. It was straightforward.
It provided a viable third path. It was a principled
rejection of the idea that sovereignty meant
simply exchanging one master for another. And
this path, this idea, it began remarkably early.
The sources show the term non -alignment was
actually used for the first time at the UN in
1950. As early as 1950? Yes, by India and Yugoslavia.
They were already signaling to the global community
their refusal to be conscripted into the massive
multi -alliances that were crystallizing around
the Korean conflict. It's so interesting that
the concept was articulated before the movement
was even a formal thing. We see the Indian diplomat,
V .K. Krishnamenon, taking up that mantle, formally
representing this doctrine at the UN in 1953.
He was really setting the stage. But theory needs
practice. It needs a catalytic event. And that
takes us to the truly foundational moment, the
Bendung Conference in 1955. This was far more
than just a diplomatic meeting. It was a declaration
of identity for the nascent global south. Hosted
by Indonesian President Sukarno, it gathered
leaders from 29 African and Asian states. These
were nations representing over half the world's
population at the time. And who are the main
players here? We're talking about true giants
of 20th century history. Absolutely. Think of
this as the first grand coalition of the decolonized
world. You had Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Sukarno
himself, of course, Joseph Brostito of Yugoslavia,
Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, and Kwame Nkrumah.
That is a powerful lineup. These leaders represented
entirely different cultures and political systems.
Completely different. But they were unified by
their recent history of subjugation and their
shared very real fear of neocolonialism. And
their achievement at Bandung was the adoption
of the Declaration on Promotion of World Peace
and Cooperation. That sounds broad, but I imagine
it was a radical shift in who was defining world
peace. It was revolutionary because it centered
the concerns of the developing world. And that
spirit was then formalized a year later, in 1956,
with the Burdjouni Declaration. Burdjouni. So
this is where the core three really solidify
it. The core three. Tito, Nehru, and Nasser.
This declaration moved the idea from a regional
assertion that was bandung. to a globally applicable
doctrine. I think we need to linger on the philosophy
they outline there because it gets right to the
heart of NAM's mission. It wasn't just passive
neutrality, was it? Oh, far from it. They made
their philosophy explicit. There's a key passage
they stated. Peace cannot be achieved with separation,
but with the aspiration towards collective security
in global terms and expansion of freedom, as
well as terminating the domination of one country
over another. That fundamentally reframes the
whole debate. They weren't just saying, leave
us alone. No, they were saying, the world system
is inherently unstable because of superpower
rivalry, and we must collectively build a new
inclusive security framework. That insistence
on collective security and terminating domination,
that's what makes it a proactive movement. And
this paved the way for the formal establishment
in 1961. In Belgrade, Yugoslavia, the first conference
of heads of state or government of non -aligned
countries. And the location itself, Belgrade,
right on the edge of the Soviet sphere in Europe.
That was a political statement. A very powerful
choice. And once they were formalized, they needed
a guiding creed, a set of behavioral rules that
could hold together over 100 vastly different
nations. That creed became the five principles
of peaceful coexistence. Pancho. Exactly, Pancho.
Let's detail those principles because they are
really the constitutional core of the entire
movement. They originated in Sino -Indian relations
back in 1954, but they became the bedrock of
a name. They are deceptively simple. First, mutual
respect for each other's territorial integrity
and sovereignty. This protects nations from aggressive
neighbors and, of course, former colonial masters.
Second, mutual nonaggression. Third, mutual noninterference
in domestic affairs. And this is perhaps the
most crucial principle for newly sovereign states.
You can see why. It ensures that foreign powers,
superpowers, or even neighbors cannot meddle
in their fragile national politics. It was a
direct rejection of both the U .S. strategy of
intervening against communism and the Soviet
strategy of imposing socialist regimes. Right.
If you look at the 1960s, so much of the Cold
War was fought through proxy conflicts and internal
interference. Precisely. NAM provided a shared
diplomatic shield against that very mechanism.
Okay, so what are the last two? The remaining
principles are, fourth, equality and mutual benefit,
and finally, fifth, peaceful coexistence. Together,
they form a kind of anti -domination pact. It's
a moral and legal critique wrapped up in a foreign
policy doctrine. And that comprehensive anti
-domination mandate was perfectly summarized
years later in the 1979 Havana Declaration by
Fidel Castro. He really defined the organization's
explicit mission there. Castro framed the purpose
as ensuring the national independence, sovereignty,
territorial integrity and security of non -aligned
countries in their struggle against imperialism,
colonialism, neocolonialism, racism and all forms
of foreign aggression, occupation, domination,
interference or hegemony, as well as against
great power and block politics. He left nothing
out. It was a comprehensive charter for liberation.
It was. So Antiem was founded not just to sit
on the fence, but to actively struggle against
all. forms of global power abuse. And this set
them up for massive success, but also massive
internal tension in the decades to follow. With
that comprehensive mandate, the movement achieved
major political traction and remarkably quickly,
particularly throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
The early years of ANE were really characterized
by tangible achievements in the global arena.
The momentum of decolonization seems, I mean,
it seems intrinsically linked to the movement's
growth. Oh, absolutely. ANE was instrumental
in pushing the decolonization So they were effectively
mobilizing global opinion. Yes, against continued
colonial rule, even when Western powers were
dragging their feet. And beyond decolonization,
they had successes in disarmament efforts, a
really strong opposition to racism, and they
were pivotal in the global campaign against apartheid
in South Africa. So by 1970... The movement felt
strong enough to start defining internal behavior,
too. The Lusaka Conference, they expanded their
aims, formalizing expectations for member states.
Right. They moved beyond just external opposition.
They added aims like the peaceful resolution
of internal disputes, the explicit abstention
from big power military alliances, and a strict
opposition to the stationing of military bases
in foreign countries. These additions were designed
to police the behavior of members then, to make
sure that non -alignment wasn't just a convenient
label. But a real commitment. But the real shift
in the 1970s and 80s seems to be this recognition
that military non -alignment wasn't enough. The
structural power imbalance was primarily economic,
and they started targeting the nuts and bolts
of global wealth distribution. This is where
NI broadened its mandate significantly. It moved
into the highly technical domain of international
economics and information flow. They sponsored
two massive, coordinated global campaigns. First,
the push for the new international economic order.
The NIEO. That sounds like a revolutionary proposal.
What exactly were the practical mechanisms they
were demanding to restructure commercial relations?
Well, they argued that the post -war system,
you know, the Bretton Woods institutions, the
IMF, the World Bank, was inherently rigged against
resource -rich but cash -poor developing nations.
Right. So their NIEO demands included very concrete
things, guaranteeing national sovereignty over
their own natural resources, regulating multinational
corporations, increasing development aid without...
conditions, and crucially, establishing preferential
trade agreements for developing countries. And
they used their combined voting power in the
UN General Assembly to push through declarations
supporting these principles. That was the strategy.
So it was an attempt to democratize global capitalism,
or at least make it less extractive. And simultaneously,
they tackled information flow with the New World
Information and Communication Order. The NWICO.
Exactly. They saw information control as another
form of neocolonialism, a cultural one. At the
time, global news flow was almost entirely dominated
by four major Western agencies. AP, UPI, Reuters,
and AFP. So the argument was that this created
a biased narrative. A deeply biased one. N .A.
argued that this coverage distorted the image
of developing nations and consistently served
the interests of the powerful. And the tangible
outcome of that push was the establishment of
the non -aligned news agencies pool in 1975.
A physical mechanism to achieve collective self
-reliance and information. This pool aimed to
share news directly between member states, bypassing
those Western gatekeepers. Did it work? It struggled
with funding and infrastructure, you know, but
it was a massive political statement about media
sovereignty and cultural independence. It later
transitioned into what's now the N .A. News Network.
This coordinated power became, well, terrifyingly
real to the Western bloc in 1975 with that specific
political action in the U .N. General Assembly.
That was truly the high -water mark of their
collective diplomatic clout. In 1975, the NAM
bloc, combined with the Arab and Soviet blocs,
successfully pushed UN General Assembly Resolution
3379. And this was the resolution that made a
bold, non -binding declaration, formally equating
Zionism with South Africa's apartheid and racial
discrimination. They did. That coalition, NAM,
the Arab bloc, and the Soviet bloc. It was powerful
enough to completely reframe a massive international
debate. What was the political calculus there?
It was a perfect storm of interests. The NAM
supplied the sheer numbers, the majority of the
General Assembly members. The Arab bloc provided
the motivation and the specific agenda. And the
Soviet bloc provided the ideological backing
against Western interests. And the resolution
passed overwhelmingly. It did, and it demonstrated
that when the Global South voted as one unified
front, it could dictate the moral and political
narrative of the world's most important diplomatic
body. This resolution, although it was later
revoked, it led to a cascade of subsequent resolutions
systematically condemning Israel, which really
reinforced their strength. However, this picture
of global unity, it fractured internally. How
did the movement reconcile its core principles
of non -aggression when some of its most prominent
members were locked in brutal conflicts with
each other? That tension was the organization's
persistent Achilles heel. Despite all the shared
rhetoric of peace and non -aggression, you had
deep existential conflicts between members, most
notably India and Pakistan, and later the absolutely
devastating war between Iran and Iraq. So it
always raised questions about whether the commitment
to peace applied externally to the superpowers,
but internally. Internally, the commitment was
often secondary to national interests. It just
highlighted the inherent challenge of unifying
over 100 sovereign states under one diplomatic
banner. And this inherent problem of cohesion
came to a head. with the ultimate moment of fragmentation.
The Cuban Paradox and the Soviet -Afghan War
in 1979. Cuba was actively seeking leadership
in the 70s, right? Yeah. Positioning itself as
a revolutionary beacon. Oh, they were masterful
at it. Cuba established military and social missions
across Africa and Central America, a policy they
called internationalism. And this was praised.
It was openly applauded at the 1976 conference,
particularly for Cuba's military assistance to
Angola against South Africa's racist regime.
This earned Castro immense revolutionary credit
among NAM members. So by 1979, Cuban prestige
was at its absolute peak. No question. The 1979
Havana conference saw Fidel Castro become the
chairman of NAM and the movement's de facto spokesman.
He hosted the event, radiating revolutionary
confidence. And critically, most attendees genuinely
believed. Cuba was acting as an independent revolutionary
non -aligned state. Distinct from Soviet dictates.
That's what they believed. And then just months
later the ultimate test of non -alignment arrived.
In December 1979, the Soviet Union intervened
in the Civil War of Afghanistan. And the crucial
point here is that Afghanistan was an active,
committed Anaya member state. An invasion of
one of their own. A violation of the most sacred
principles of the movement, mutual non -aggression
and non -interference. So how did Anaya react?
They reacted strongly, which actually demonstrated
their genuine commitment to the non -interference
principle. When the U .N. held a vote condemning
the USSR's invasion, the non -aligned members
overwhelmingly voted 56 to 9 to condemn the USA.
The world expected NMM's chairman Castro to lead
this condemnation. Wait. Cuba, the newly minted
leader of the non -aligned movement, voted against
the resolution. They publicly backed the Soviet
Union. A monumental diplomatic betrayal. Castro,
who was supposed to be the spokesman for the
world's biggest peace movement, chose his revolutionary
allegiance to his Soviet sponsor over the core
principle of defending a fellow member's sovereignty.
I can't imagine the fallout. It was immense.
This single action deeply and irreparably split
the movement, particularly among the Muslim states
who saw the Soviet invasion as aggression against
a Muslim country. Cuba's credibility was shattered
just overnight. It cost Castro his non -aligned
leadership and his reputation for decades. It
proved that for some members, ideology still
trumped non -alignment. It did. A very painful
lesson for the movement. That's a powerful illustration
of the movement's fragility. And yet it managed
to survive. So we have to ask, how did an organization
that just weathered such a massive political
split managed to remain structurally intact.
That's the brilliant strategic paradox of NM's
organizational structure. I mean, given the massive
internal tensions and the sheer scale of 121
numbers, you would expect a colossal bureaucracy.
Right. A huge, rigid institution. But NM intentionally
lacks a strict, permanent organizational structure.
That flies in the face of modern international
organization theory. Why the deliberate lack
of institutional rigor? It stems directly from
its anti -block origins. Think about it. Creating
a rigid bureaucracy, a permanent headquarters,
or a standing military command would make it
look and feel exactly like the geopolitical and
military structures they were founded to oppose.
Like NATO or the Warsaw Pact. Exactly. They define
themselves by their fluidity and their non -hierarchical
nature. So where does the actual power and coordination
sit? within this deliberately decentralized system
the authority is concentrated at the top and
handled dynamically the highest decision -making
authority is the summit conference of heads of
state or government of non -aligned states which
meets roughly every three to four years this
summit is where the policy the direction and
the agenda are defined and the chairmanship is
a temporary but crucial role absolutely the chairmanship
rotates it changes hands at every summit to the
country hosting the event this ensures a broad
geographic representation and prevents any single
country or handful of countries from permanently
dominating the movement. It's a mechanism for
enforced democracy. And we've seen that rotation
move all over the world, maintaining continuity.
Iran held the chair from 2012 to 2015, then Venezuela,
then Azerbaijan. And now, as of the January 2024
summit, Uganda holds the incumbent chair. So
you've got Asia, South America, the edge of Europe
and Africa just in that recent list. OK, so the
summit is the top authority. But what about the
day -to -day work? That falls to the Coordinating
Bureau. This is especially important for coordinating
the bloc's diplomatic activities at the UN. The
bureau is based right at the U .N. headquarters
in New York City, and it directs the work of
the movement's numerous task forces, committees
and working groups. This flexible structure allows
for something truly remarkable, which is this
incredibly diverse ideological coalition that
still manages to agree on core foreign policy
goals. The ideological tent is astonishingly
wide. I mean, think about the leaders involved
over the years. You have Joseph Bras Tito, a
committed Marxist -Leninist leader in Yugoslavia.
And then you have Suharto, the famously anti
- communist militaristic leader of Indonesia.
Right. Or more recently, you have Nelson Mandela,
a democratic socialist, alongside Mohamed Morsi,
a conservative Islamist from Egypt. So how did
that actually work in practice? How do such diametrically
opposed regimes achieve any kind of unity? Their
unity lies not in domestic ideology, but in their
shared international commitment, a declared commitment
to world peace, collective security, and resisting
external domination. They agree on how they should
interact with the rest of the world, even if
they violently disagree on how they should govern
themselves. I see. At the 1983 New Delhi summit,
NAA even described itself as history's biggest
peace movement. That's a testament to the collective
ambition, despite all the internal contradictions.
So how strict are the membership requirements
for this massive, diverse club? Does a country
need to be truly neutral or just non -aligned
with the big alliances? The requirements are
based heavily on those original 10 Bandung principles.
They are essentially a commitment to the fundamental
tenets of international law. Respect for sovereignty,
non -interference. Exactly. Respect for sovereignty
and territorial integrity, abstention from intervention
or interference, refraining from aggression and
respecting international obligations. The single
biggest requirement, though, and this is the
one that caused Malta and Cyprus to leave, is
that you cannot be part of a multilateral military
alliance anchored by a major power like NATO.
Looking at the geography, it is overwhelmingly
a global sales organization in scope. Absolutely.
The membership is concentrated in countries that
are defined as developing. The concentration
in Africa is near absolute. Every single African
country is a current member of NM. Every one?
Every one. And geographically, Europe is virtually
empty. It currently only hosts two members, Azerbaijan
and Belarus. This concentration really reinforces
its contemporary role as the major unified diplomatic
voice for the developing world. We mentioned
the founding states earlier. What is the status
of the pivotal nations like Yugoslavia and India
today? Their status reflects the turbulent history
of the past 30 years. Yugoslavia's membership
was suspended in 1992 following its collapse
and breakup. The successor states, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia,
they all retain observer status. So they keep
diplomatic ties but are no longer core members.
Correct. And Malta and Cyprus, as we said, ceased
their membership in 2004 when they joined the
European Union. Their required participation
in the EU's common security and defense policy
conflicted with that principle of abstaining
from multilateral military pacts. And India.
A co -founder, a historically essential leader.
India has visibly downgraded its emphasis on
the movement since the Cold War ended. It seems
to be focusing instead on forging bilateral ties
and playing a more active role in other forums
like the Quad. This leads us to the observer
status, which is a fascinating layer of complexity
here. These are countries or organizations that
watch and participate, but aren't full members.
And the list includes some massive global players.
This is where NM's diplomatic weight becomes
really evident. China has been an observer since
1992. They understand that nearly two thirds
of the U .N. members are in this bloc. You'd
want a seat at that table. And critically, Russia
was granted observer status in 2021. The presence
of these two major world powers, the very powers
NM was designed to avoid, as observers just underscores
the sheer diplomatic influence of the 121 member
states they are trying to influence and woo.
It sets up the biggest pivot in the movement's
history, the need to find a new purpose after
the world fundamentally changed. When the Soviet
Union collapsed in 1991 and the Warsaw Pact dissolved,
well, the very reason for NM's existence counterbalancing
two superpowers vanished overnight. This triggered
a severe identity crisis. The fundamental question
must have been, if the threat of bipolarity is
gone, are we still needed? Did the foundational
ideologies of national independence and anti
-colonialism still apply in this brave new world?
Exactly. They were forced to redefine their enemy.
And after some intense internal debate, the conclusion
was not that the conflict had ended, but that
the structure of domination had changed. The
world's poorest nations remained exploited and
marginalized, but no longer by two opposing ideological
spheres. Instead, they faced a unipolar world
dominated by a single geopolitical, economic,
and cultural approach. So the enemy became consolidated.
They essentially realigned themselves to challenge
Western hegemony and neocolonialism. It was a
brilliant pivot that ensured their survival.
The movement shifted its focus from tactical
neutrality between two competing blocs to actively
challenging the dominant global structure. They
understood that the struggle for sovereignty
had moved from the military sphere to the financial
and economic sphere. This led directly to the
formalized Global South strategy. NAM emphasized
multilateralism, equality, and mutual non -aggression
to forge a unified front. What was the goal of
this strategy in practical terms? The primary
goal was leverage. NAM aimed to increase the
collective political leverage of its member states
when negotiating with developed nations or international
institutions on issues like trade, debt relief,
climate policy, or political conflicts. Because
a single developing nation has very little power.
Very little. But 121 nations speaking with a
unified voice have immense power. The rhetoric
around anti -imperialism evolved from being about
military bases to being about global economic
systems. The focus shifted dramatically towards
socioeconomic challenges. NAIM began identifying
economic underdevelopment, poverty, social injustices,
and environmental crises as the growing threats
to peace and security rather than just troop
movements. Let's unpack those new threats specifically
because this is where the modern relevance really
lies. What are they actively resisting now? They
are resisting what they view as structural inequality
inherent in the modern globalized system. Specifically,
they oppose the inequalities manifested by globalization,
arguing that its rules, often set by developed
economies, systematically favor the rich world.
And they oppose the implications of neoliberal
policies that frequently accompany international
loans or trade agreements. Yes, policies which
often require privatization or deregulation.
And the debt crisis is a perpetual focus for
them, isn't it? It is central. They actively
fight the crushing burden of debt and what they
deem unfair trade practices, arguing that past
colonial exploitation and current resource extraction
models created this untenable debt cycle. And
this leads right into the critique of the IMF
and the World Bank. The term they use is donor
conditionality. For the listener, what exactly
is donor conditionality and why does N view it
as neocolonial? Well, donor conditionality refers
to the policy requirements tied to the issuance
of development aid or structural adjustment loans.
So, for example, if a country needs an emergency
loan from the IMF, the IMF might mandate that
the borrowing government must cut social spending,
privatize state -owned enterprises. Like electricity
or water utilities. Right. Or aggressively open
its markets to foreign competition. Which, in
the view of Anam, compromises sovereignty. Exactly.
NAM views this as the new mechanism of domination.
Powerful donor countries or institutions dictate
internal policy, undermining the national independence
of the receiving state. And on top of that, they
criticize the lack of transparency and democracy
in international financial decision -making.
Yes. NAM argues that institutions like the UN
Security Council, the World Bank and the IMF
are still fundamentally undemocratic. They function
as instruments of developed world hegemony. The
struggle against domination has moved from the
battlefield to the boardroom. So if NAM has redefined
itself as the collective voice of the Global
South, how does it convert that sheer weight
of numbers, 121 members, into practical influence
today? The most visible area is its outspoken
advocacy for UN reform. This is the mechanism
by which they attempt to address that structural
inequality in global governance. Makes sense.
NAAM is openly critical of current UN structures,
stating that the organization is too often manipulated
by powerful states in ways that violate the fundamental
principles of sovereignty and equality that all
NAAM members share. It's logical. They represent
two -thirds of the UN members, yet the five permanent
members of the Security Council, the US, UK,
France, Russia, and China, wield disproportionate
veto power. And that is the core frustration.
NAM specifically advocates for the structural
reform of the UN Security Council, the UNSC,
to improve transparency, democracy, and critically,
the representation and power of non -aligned
states. They want the structure. which was codified
in 1945 to be updated to reflect the geopolitical
realities of the 21st century. And the overwhelming
voice of the Global South. They often demand
restrictions on or even the abolition of the
veto power. And to manage this huge diplomatic
agenda, the Coordinating Bureau relies heavily
on specialized working groups chaired by member
states. This shows a high degree of operational
specialization. That's how they execute the collective
agenda. For instance, Egypt chairs the working
group on the reform of the UN Security Council,
so they're actively coordinating NAM's proposals
at the UN. And there are others. Oh, yes. Indonesia
chairs the working group on disarmament. Crucially,
Venezuela leads the working group on unilateral
coercive measures, which is the mechanism for
coordinating opposition and legal challenges
against economic sanctions imposed by powerful
nations. Morocco even shares a group on peacekeeping
operations. Beyond structural reform, the movement
maintains its original, powerful commitment to
specific decolonization and self -determination
causes that have been stuck on the UN agenda
for decades. The long memory of the movement
is key here. They have consistently supported
the discussion of Puerto Rico's self -determination
before the UN since 1961. It's 1961. Arguing
for the island's right to choose its own future
free from U .S. control. Likewise, since 1973,
they have supported the discussion of Western
Sahara's self -determination, reaffirming their
support for the Sahrawi people. This consistency
shows that the anti -colonial mandate is deeply
woven into Enem's identity, regardless of the
year. It is. And speaking of consistency, NAM
remains a unified voice of criticism against
the foreign policy actions taken by the sole
remaining superpower after 1991. They've repeatedly
issued communiques openly denouncing specific
U .S. actions. Denouncing them as roughshod attempts
over smaller nation sovereignty. This includes
its strong criticism of the 2003 invasion of
Iraq and aspects of the wider war on terrorism,
arguing these actions violated international
law and national sovereignty. They also criticize
attempts to stifle countries' legitimate aspirations
for development, like with Iran and North Korea's
nuclear plans. Right. That focus on double standards
is constant. Kim Yong -nam, the chairman of North
Korea's Parliamentary Standing Committee, publicly
articulated this stance, arguing that the U .S.
attempts to deprive countries of their legitimate
right to peaceful nuclear activities. It highlights
the opposition to perceived political double
standards. We've covered the political and diplomatic
front. Now let's move to the practical developmental
side, the mechanism of collective self -reliance.
This is perhaps the most tangible evidence of
their post -Cold War reinvention. And this is
where the NA Center for South -South Technical
Cooperation comes in. This is a major engine
for the Global South strategy. The Non -Aligned
Movement Center for South -South Technical Cooperation,
or NMCSTC, is located in Jakarta, Indonesia.
And it was strategically set up after 1991. Specifically
to promote development and accelerate growth
in developing countries by fostering collective
self -reliance, meaning relying on each other
rather than on developed nations for technical
aid. This sounds like a practical application
of that equality principle. What kind of technical
activities does the center actually organize?
They focus on sharing expertise and building
practical national capacity. For instance, this
includes dispatching agricultural experts to
assist countries like Myanmar with crop science.
They run international training programs on high
tech methods like tissue culture propagation.
So it's real knowledge sharing. It is. And they
organize workshops on shared economic threats,
like those focused on the eradication of illegal,
unreported and unregulated fishing practices.
The goal is lateral knowledge. transfer among
developing nations. That's fascinating. It shows
the movement operating outside of the diplomatic
halls. And the sources point to other specialized
centers too, right? That's correct. The NIM network
recognizes that development requires specialization.
You have other specialized centers focusing on
health, based in Cuba, human rights, located
in Iran, and technology, with the Center for
Science and Technology based in India. These
centers maintain the operational relevance of
the movement across crucial sectors. Finally,
we have to touch on the critical modern debate
about cultural diversity and human rights, especially
as it relates to Western pressure. It's a key
point. NA accepts the universality of human rights
and social justice. However, they strongly resist
what they term cultural homogenization. What
does that mean in practice? It's their pushback
against the idea that a single specific interpretation
of human rights often one derived from Western
liberal democratic traditions, should be universally
imposed on everyone else. They're essentially
arguing that context matters. Precisely. In line
with their foundational principles of sovereignty
and non -interference, they appeal for the protection
of cultural diversity and tolerance of the religious,
sociocultural, and historical particularities
that define human rights in specific regions.
So they believe that while the goals of human
rights are universal, The application and prioritization
must respect the diversity of the world. And
that serves as a diplomatic shield against what
they perceive as cultural or political hegemony
disguised as advocacy. We've traced the remarkable
60 -year journey of the non -aligned movement.
It was born as a necessary defensive response
to Cold War bipolarity, led by the visionaries
of Bandung, and has sustained itself by constantly
adapting its purpose. It really has. It evolved
into a unified diplomatic mechanism that speaks
for the majority of the world's population, fundamentally
changing its focus from military non -alignment
to economic and cultural anti -hegemony. It is
a remarkable story of adaptability, particularly
given the near fatal ideological fractures caused
by events like the Cuban betrayal. The sheer
consistency of the organization just demonstrates
its fundamental importance to the global south.
And we see this continuity in the summits. Yes,
like the recent 19th summit held in Kampala,
Uganda in January 2024, which focused its agenda
on deepening cooperation for shared global affluence.
And it shows their relevance in reacting to modern,
unexpected crises. Think back to the online summit
they organized in May 2020 titled united against
COVID -19. That was a perfect example. It demonstrated
how quickly they can activate their multilateral
framework to address global health and economic
emergencies that disproportionately affect developing
nations. It really solidifies their role, not
as a historical footnote, but as a standing diplomatic
power. NAM proved that states could actively
refuse to be defined by Cold War alliances and
still exercise significant global clout. But
here is the final provocative thought we want
to leave you with. Great power competition between
the U .S., China and Russia is undeniably rising
again. It's ushering in a potentially new era
of bipolarity or maybe multipolarity. So the
question is, is the movement's 60 -year -old
insistence on non -alignment, multilateral cooperation
and challenging the powerful finally returning
to its original radical form? And what would
that renewed radical non -alignment? actually
look like in practice? If the former core members
like India are downgrading their participation,
while major competitors like China and Russia
stand on the sidelines as observers, if N reasserts
its power in a new bipolar world, it will redefine
what winning means for 55 % of the planet. It
will. That's something to consider as you watch
the global landscape unfold. A powerful thought
to explore. Thank you for joining us for the
Deep Dive. We'll see you next time.