Rethinking Neutrality and Nonalignment: NAM Countries’ Benefits and Limitations in the Face of Great Power Rivalry

Matias Spektor, writing for Foreign Affairs, proposes a “fence-sitting” approach for non-aligned countries in navigating great power rivalries. This approach was demonstrated by the dozens of countries that abstained from U.N. votes on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While neutrality and nonalignment can be beneficial, they should not be used as an excuse for inaction when fundamental international norms are being violated. The concept of neutrality must be evaluated in conjunction with evolving ideals of nonalignment, particularly in a world where aggressive war is outlawed. The Nonaligned Movement (NAM), with 119 member states, remains an important platform for advocating principles of peaceful coexistence and opposition to hegemony. The NAM and similar organizations can help prevent devastating conflicts that implicate major nuclear-armed powers and shape policies to address issues like humanitarian crises and economic inequities. However, recent events highlight the challenges of non-alignment, with NAM members avoiding taking sides in U.N. votes condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine. This reluctance to speak out or take action highlights historical grievances and divisions within NAM, but inaction in the face of clear violations of international norms and laws only reinforces a sense of impunity.