Pretty soon after the expulsion of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan, the political map of the world changed drastically. Alliances were reviewed, reestablished, severed or rearranged. A bipolar world slipped into a political unipolarity. In the alleyways of politics, the players were changed. International balance of power maintained by a fragile equilibrium broke. One of the superpowers in the far left, responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan started to pay the price dearly by having to abandon its Leftist doctrine and by giving away its sole hold on power in a country they called the nation of soviets. International repercussions of the event went far and deep.

In the West, the new players found themselves in sole control of international politics., so much so that the Bush doctrine of " you are either with us or against us" took root in response to the evil of terrorism that shook the foundation of the free societies.

With bipolarity lost, checks and balances on international conduct by the powerful also vanished. 114 countries of the world making almost two thirds of all nations who had aspired to the philosophy of nonalignment found themselves perplexed as they lost direction. Nonaligned with whom?

Under these conditions the nonaligned nations that began with world famous personalities such as Tito of Yugoslavia, Sukarno of Indonesia, Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, Nehro of India and Nasser of Egypt at its vanguard finds itself in search for a new identity. The Afghan leader, the late Sardar Moahmmad Daoud, one of the pioneers of the movement would have wished for the movement to survive and thrive. The then Soviet regime had great ambitions for befriending of the movement. It played with phrases such as: "The Soviet Union is the natural ally of the nonaligned movement." Cuba in the Western hemisphere representing Leninism, was a key member of the non-aligned ! In 1979 Cuban President Castro hosted the NAM summit in Cuba. Many leaders with socialistic tendencies were members of the movement. Although the movement supposedly was nonaligned, yet on many occasions it was led to support hegemonic policies of the Soviet system. India, for example, called Soviet intervention in Afghanistan a legal step and found nothing wrong with it. Nevertheless, the increasing number of the NAM membership that rose from 25 countries who participated in its first summit to 114 provided the movement with power and a forum in world politics and international organizations. At least,as the name implied, it was supposedly neutral regarding either of the two rival powers in the world.

Now the movement serves as a loose union of nations who have lost the reason for their unity namely the need for non-alignment. Under these circumstances, a NAM summit is planned to be held in Kuala Lumpur. In a preparatory meeting for the summit, many words of wisdom were uttered by Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar. Addressing Senior Officials of the movement, Syed Hamid said: " from the rigid rule of the Cold War, which saw the two rival blocs thrusting and parrying at each other, the world is now unipolar in character in which the dominant, even hegemonic, super power veers between isolationism and unilateralism, thus creating a lot of uncertainty and disequilibrium in international system."

Syed Hamid said the concept of sovereignty of states -- so sacrosanct to the movement had now come under challenge and being constantly undermined by a number of factors. "For many of us still locked in the process of establishing a firm foundation for nationhood, this diminution of national sovereignty has wrought immeasurable damage, at times threatening our very viability and existence as nation states," he said.

On the economic front, Syed Hamid said developing nations' share of the so-called "prosperity" brought about by globalization had been too little and too fleeting.

On the contrary, far too often the developing countries have to bear the main brunt of the negative effects of globalization, he said.

Syed Hamid, in criticizing developed nations, said while lecturing and targeting developing countries for alleged human rights violations, acts of racism and other forms of related intolerance, such things were on the increase in their own countries.

"It would seem that the fight against terrorism has brought out the worst racist impulses in these countries, which is now manifested in their policies established in the aftermath of Sept 11 (2001), including those which can be considered to be racial profiling," he said.

The NAM Summit is expected to consider a wide range of issues in its two day session on Monday and Tuesday. But the most important question that the world would want to find an answer for as a result of these deliberations would be whether the NAM could survive the changed political atmosphere in this dawn of the 21st century in a unipolar world where its main superpower says: " You are either with me or against me."

Of the original founders of the movement, the only surviving leader, Sihanouk would witness this final step in the long journey with anticipation as his old colleagues have vanished one after the other including the Afghan leader Sardar Mohammad Daoud who was also considered as one of the forefathers of the movement and who had reflected the wishes of his nation for nonalignment in Bandung of Indonesia even prior to the First NAM Summit. But in a fast changing political scenario in our fast moving world, it is questionable if the movement under its present name would have a meaningful life. Now that there are no two blocs, would Mubarak of Egypt, Karzai of Afghanistan or the many leaders of the newly established Balkan nations be considered nonaligned? Could anyone imagine severing of the alignment between some of these leaders and the main remaining superpower namely the United States? Would the NAM therefore be considered obsolete or would it acquire a new name and a new mission? 02/22/03