Foreign ministers from around the world gathered in Algiers from May 28-29 for the 17th Ministerial Conference of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. The Non-Aligned Movement, formed in Belgrade in 1961, was creation of several national leaders who were part of a new generation of political leadership brought to power as colonial regimes crumbled in the 1960s. Designed as an alternative to the competing U.S. and Soviet-led alliance structures of the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement has struggled to define itself since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The effectiveness of multinational blocs, even regional ones, is almost universally impeded by the diverse and often competing interests of their member states. The Non-Aligned Movement is no different. Despite its stated purpose and its name, most of the states had leanings toward either the West or the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. Some members, such as India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, have even gone to war with one another. The movement's support of a given issue, such as advocating for Puerto Rican independence, is of little practical benefit. And although the 120 member states represent the vast majority of the United Nations' membership, the exclusion of global powers such as the United States, Western Europe, Russia and Japan limits the bloc's ability to impact global trends or to enforce its own resolutions.
Despite a lackluster past, the Non-Aligned Movement could have a larger role in the future. What began as an alternative to taking sides during the Cold War has evolved into diplomatic training grounds for emerging states and a foreign policy tool for countries like Iran. The movement is not yet a powerful global player, but its opportunities for pursuing a foreign policy not centered on the United States, the European Union, Russia or China makes the bloc popular among its member states. As East Africa, India and Southeast Asia continue to develop, Russia, China and the West could realize that many of the movement's members' views in international politics will have to be taken into consideration — especially as global leaders like the United States increasingly look to regional partners to help achieve goals instead of taking unilateral action.
