The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is an international organization of states that define themselves as not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. Founded in 1961 during the Cold War, NAM was established by leaders seeking an independent foreign policy path outside of both the United States-led Western alliance and the Soviet-led Eastern bloc. With 120 member states as of 2024, NAM is the largest intergovernmental organization by membership outside the United Nations. Its founding principles emphasized national sovereignty, self-determination, opposition to colonialism and imperialism, and peaceful coexistence among nations.

NAM emerged from the broader Bandung Conference of 1955, held in Bandung, Indonesia, which gathered 29 African and Asian nations to discuss anti-colonialism, neutrality, and economic development. The five leaders most closely associated with founding NAM were Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indonesian President Sukarno, and Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah - a grouping sometimes referred to as the “Initiative of Five.” The first NAM summit was held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in September 1961, with 25 member states in attendance.

The movement's founding doctrine was shaped by the “Pancha Shila” (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence), articulated in the 1954 Sino-Indian agreement, which established mutual commitments around sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, equality, and peaceful coexistence. See Non-Aligned Movement - History for a full treatment.

NAM's membership is drawn primarily from Africa, Asia, and Latin America - regions that were, at the time of its founding, largely composed of recently decolonized or still under colonial rule territories. Membership criteria historically required that a state pursue an independent foreign policy, not participate in multilateral military alliances tied to great-power competition, and oppose colonialism and racial discrimination. In practice, these criteria were applied inconsistently; several member states maintained bilateral military relationships with one or both superpowers throughout the Cold War.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NAM lost its original strategic rationale as a buffer between two competing superpowers. The organization has since reoriented around issues including economic development, opposition to unilateral sanctions, reform of international financial institutions, Palestinian statehood, and resistance to what member states characterize as neo-colonialism or Western interventionism. Critics argue that NAM has become a vehicle for authoritarian governments to deflect international scrutiny under the cover of sovereignty norms. Defenders counter that the organization remains a legitimate forum for the Global South to coordinate positions in multilateral bodies such as the United Nations. See the debate page for competing assessments of NAM's contemporary relevance and character.

NAM operates by consensus and holds summits every three years. The organization has no permanent secretariat; the host country of the most recent summit holds the chairmanship. Cuba, Venezuela, Egypt, and Iran have each held prominent roles in recent decades, which has drawn attention to the tension between NAM's stated neutrality and the foreign policy orientations of its most active members.

No formal scholarly or scientific consensus pages currently exist for this topic. Historians broadly agree on NAM's founding circumstances and Cold War role; its post-Cold War significance and internal coherence are subjects of ongoing debate in international relations scholarship.

• NAM as legitimate multilateralism - This viewpoint holds that NAM represents a principled effort by smaller and developing states to resist domination by great powers and to assert collective sovereignty in the international system. Third World Solidarity Viewpoint

• NAM as cover for authoritarianism - Critics argue that NAM's sovereignty norms have been exploited by authoritarian member states to shield human rights abuses and anti-democratic governance from international accountability. Authoritarian Shield Viewpoint

• NAM as obsolete or performative - Some analysts contend that NAM is a relic of Cold War politics with no coherent strategic identity in a multipolar world, functioning largely as a rhetorical forum with no enforcement capacity or unified foreign policy. Obsolescence Viewpoint

• NAM as counter-hegemonic bloc - A competing view, associated with dependency theory and post-colonial scholarship, frames NAM as a structural counterweight to Western-dominated international institutions and norms. Counter-Hegemony Viewpoint

• Non-Aligned Movement - History
• Non-Aligned Movement - Debate
• Bandung Conference
• Cold War
• Decolonization
• Global South
• UN General Assembly
• Sovereignty in International Law

1. Dinkel, Jürgen. The Non-Aligned Movement: Genesis, Organization and Politics (1927-1992). Brill, 2019.
2. Brands, Hal. “Third World Politics in an Age of Global Turmoil: The Non-Aligned Movement and the Cold War, 1955-1975.” Diplomatic History 33, no. 4 (2009): 689-722.
3. Lorenzini, Sara. Global Development: A Cold War History. Princeton University Press, 2019.
4. Prashad, Vijay. The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World. New Press, 2007.
5. Morphet, Sally. “Multilateralism and the Non-Aligned Movement: What Is the Global South Doing and Where Is It Going?” Global Governance 10, no. 4 (2004): 517-537.
6. Non-Aligned Movement. “About the Non-Aligned Movement.” NAM News Network. Accessed 2024. https://www.namegypt.org/