In the age where power is everything and who you’re allied with means a lot, I’m beginning to feel that there are some world organisations (probably clique would be a more suitable word) are getting more and more irrelevant by the day.
NAM is an obvious example. Who or what is it that they are not aligned with? And this makes them what… chaotic neutral?
According to the Wikipedia page on NAM, the five principles that form the basis of NAM are:
- Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty
- Mutual non-aggression
- Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
- Equality and mutual benefit
- Peaceful co-existence
Wow… no wonder NAM remains nothing more than a talking shop since its inception. Virtually all of its “five principles” are impossible to implement or simply reeks of being bad rules altogether. Come on, seriously now… Malaysia and Singapore would be a very easy to digest example. Malaysia complains to no end about Singapore’s land reclamation activities and Singapore reciprocated by fussing about Malaysia’s proposed “scenic bridge”.
Iraq had invaded Kuwait. Both are members of NAM. So much for “mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty”, eh? I’m especially intrigued by the “mutual non-interference in domestic affairs” principle. How much is going to be too much to prove that such a principle is stupid at best, and ignores serious flaws in the affairs of your “family members” at worst. Gee, I just can’t find enough examples to illustrate this point.
And these countries are complaining about partiality of other countries, especially the US. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.