NAM faces criticism over disconnect between intentions and practice in global Geopolitics

NAM faces criticism over disconnect between intentions and practice in global Geopolitics
The NAM Summit

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), comprising 120 countries and awaiting the admission of South Sudan, stands as the second-largest country grouping after the United Nations.

Despite its numerical strength, experts suggest that a significant disconnect between formal intentions and real practice weakens NAM's impact on global geopolitics, especially amid the multi-polarization of world powers.

While the numerical strength of NAM is often considered a cornerstone for influencing the geopolitical agenda, critics argue that the organization grapples with maintaining a strategic focus.

Dismas Nkunda emphasizes the importance of numerical strength, stating, "NAM does have numerical strength, but its impact is weakened by a lack of strategic direction."

Prof Julius Kiiza, adding a layer of complexity, suggests that NAM operates as a space for strategic ambiguity, noting,

"It's a space where member states navigate between East and West, often without a clear strategic stance."

Since its inception in 1961, NAM has faced setbacks impacting its independence and relevance. Dr. Sam Kazibwe points out that founding members have often aligned themselves with either the East or the West, compromising the movement's independent stance.

Dismas further highlights a paradox, stating, "Many member states, despite achieving political independence, remain economically dependent on either the West or the East, going back to them for funds."

Critics argue that NAM member states have failed to deepen their relationships, diminishing the group's resolve.

Dr.  Kazibwe critiques the lack of a single vision and strict organizational culture within the movement.

Prof. Kiiza adds that despite being largely developing countries, NAM has not effectively leveraged its potential.

Dr. Kazibwe stated, "The movement has never had a single vision, and its organizational culture lacks the cohesiveness needed for impactful collaboration."

Prof. Kiiza noted, "It's crucial for NAM to integrate political, social, and economic agendas to avoid becoming a mere talking shop."

In light of the critiques, Prof. Kiiza advocates for NAM to adopt a hybrid approach, integrating political, social, and economic dimensions.

He warns that without a concerted effort to pursue the economic agenda for its citizens, NAM risks fading into irrelevance.

Prof, Kiiza warned, "It is high time NAM makes a hybrid of the political and social space with pursuit to the economic agenda for citizens of its member states, or else risk becoming a talking shop."

As NAM grapples with internal challenges, the call for strategic coherence and a more comprehensive agenda becomes increasingly urgent for the movement's continued relevance on the global stage.

Reader's Comments