Talk:Non-Aligned Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



which country became memebr of NAM in which year are to clearly mentioned in any of the links

bad link ?[edit]

could somebody check the link to foot note 3 ? it may be invalid as I couln't bring up anything 200803281126 John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I guess I'm responsible for the new organization of the article into subsections (i.e., Origins, Summits, Members). I don't know if that's the ideal way to break up the article (I'm an expert on neither NAM nor wikipedia style) but it seemed like the easiest way to break it up at the time without a significant rewrite, and as the article was written before, I think it was definitely getting too long to be just one section. What do others think? Is there a more clear & logical way to break up the article, or should it stay as is?

If the "Summits" section remains, it seems like the events of every summit should be summarized, not just the first 3 or 4 summits, as the article now stands. But would a synopsis of all 13 summits really add to the value of the article? Comments are welcome. --Osbojos 16:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


Why image doesn't show countried of ex-Yugoslavia as members of Non-Aligneg Movement when it is obvious that its president Josip Broz Tito was very important individual in the organization.

Because the successor states of Yugoslavia aren't members of NAM. A historic map with Yugoslavia marked as NAM member would be possible, if someone could provide an accurate list of member states for a specific representative date. Maybe a map with the member states of NAM in 1955 would be a good idea, but I don't know a free world map that shows the corresponding national borders for 1955. --Baikonur 23:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What if we just create a list of the founding members of NAM such as the SFRJ.-t

It's also possible to add a list of former members.


PRC is shown as observer on the map but not in the article. What is right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksabbath43 (talkcontribs) 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that there are 116 member countries of NAM, Antigua and Barbuda and; Dominica joined during the Coordinating Bureau Ministerial Meeting of NAM in Putrajaya, Malaysia in May 2006. Please confirm to the Government of Malaysia of NAM website if verification is needed. ----


The numbering of the member states on this page isn't correct - it goes back to 1 at the top of each column. Don't know how to fix this myself. Matt 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the numbering issue using HTML:
  <ol> <!-- Ordered List -->
    <li value="115"> <!-- List Item that starts with 115 -->
Just add this piece of HTML if you have to add another country. Black and WhiteBlack and WhiteUSERTALKCONTRIBSBlack and White 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

NAM Member Countries[edit]

I appreciate all the work people have put into creating a list of NAM member countries, but it strikes me as redundant since the NAM template at the bottom of the article also lists all the countries (and does so in a form that's more compact and, I think, better looking). I'd like to see the new list of NAM member countries deleted. Other thoughts? --Osbojos 22:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The numbering is useful. Maybe it can be transferred into the template at the bottom. --Baikonur 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some problem with Belarus - on their official site, its numbered both as a member state and as an observer state. I have no idea what this means-- 01:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Serbia was expelled from the organization in the early 1990s because of the war in ex-Yugoslavia and due to strong lobbying of islamic countries and has not returned as a member yet. As far as I know that is.-- 11:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"What is above called "Serbia" was at the time called Yugoslavia--"Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" to be precise. This was so until the change of regime in Belgrade with the ousting from power of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000 I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narodnifront (talkcontribs) 11:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Cyprus was a member of the NAM for a time - now that it's an EU member, it too also retains observer status. -- (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank all the people who shared in writing the article about NAM, it is a very good effort, I would like to help them by adding that the total no. of the NAM countries is 118 not 119 , that is because Fiji is not a NAM member, I would appreciate if the responsible/s could take into account this fact , thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Argentina be listed among the "Former members"? Argentina joined as an observer in 1964, and became a full member in 1973, when the Justicialista (Peronist) Party was elected to power, after a series of military dictatorships. - source Daeron (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


Although I'm ignorant on the subject, and therefore went to browse this page, it seems this statement is slanderous:

"While leaders like Tito, Nasser, Sukarno or Nehru could represent an ideology of non-alignment, a leader like Fidel Castro made a mockery out of the whole concept."(period, no more details given)

I'd like to know more about the subject, and Fidel Castro, but am turned off by the obvious slant of this contributor. Why do Tito, Nasser, Sukarno or Nehru represent an ideology of non-alignment, and Fidel Castro not? Later on in the article it mentioned some speeches that were pro-soviet and eventually might of contributed to soviet invasions, but it's not like they specifically advocated aggression.

More details need to be added before making such a conclusion. Non-alignment is obviously a tricky subject in the cold war, and although the author might very well be correct, some more details or references needed to be made before such a strong conclusion is drawn. I'm inclined to delete the above quoted passage. TallChris11 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For someone wanting to know more about the subject, throwing around accusations of slander isn't exactly a good start. Fidel Castro was aligned with the soviet union during the cold war. It is impossible to be "aligned" with the soviet union and represent an ideology of being non-aligned. When the Soviet Union overthrew the government of Afghanistan and occupied the country with its army, Castro stood firmly in support of the Soviet Union's actions. As well, in the late 1970s, Castro used his position of leadership within the non-aligned movement to promote the idea that the interests of the Soviet Bloc were the same as the interests of the non-aligned movement.
I'm inclined to wonder why you state you are "ignorant on the subject" while at the same time that you are willing to rush in and delete passages which cover well-known issues within the non-aligned movement in the 1970s. This page is not the appropriate place to go into great detail on the nature of Cuba's relationship with the Soviet Union or Castro's support of the Soviet Union during their Afghanistan War. Very few people would dispute the idea that Cuba and Castro were aligned with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Today things are of course very different. Fidel Castro and Cuba today can very properly consider themselves non-aligned. 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is contradictory since Tito and Castro were both Socialist. The term "mockery" is too strong even if the poster's criticism of Cuba's participation is justified. Obviously, the huge number of other neutral member nations do not think so or else they wouldn't have let Cuba join. Furthermore, some historians consider that Cuba would not have joined the Soviet alliance without the Bay of Pigs Invasion, making it in origin and essence a neutral nation seeking to preserve independence.

The wording that it lost credibility is also suspect. In whose eyes did it lose credibility? In the eyes of the accused imperialist powers, or in the eyes of the other neutral powers?

I vote to delete the words "mockery" and "lost credibility" and add in a Cuban explanation of its status as a "neutral" nation in the Cold War (interesting for viewers). --Rako

Castro non-aligned? During the heyday of the movement, he was stuck to the Soviet Union like glue. Go read a history book and you will see there is no "slander" in the statement. John Paul Parks (talk)John Paul ParksJohn Paul Parks (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, quite a number of the NAM countries were more closely aligned with NATO then they were with the Soviet Union. Secondly and more importantly while Cuba was more closely aligned with the Soviet Union then NATO, it's unclear if this was Cuba's desire or something that was forced on them. Definitely Cuba has show a strong interest in having good relations with NATO countries such as Canada and Mexico as well as other NATO countries and NAM countries who were closely aligned with NATO. One could say that in reality, it's not that Cuba was closely aligned with the Soviet Union but that the United States prevented Cuba from having relations with NATO Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what strikes me, and others, is how many of the states involved in what they called a "Non-aligned movement", were, and still are, heavily aligned. Cuba, North Korea, India and Syria, were all Soviet aligned states. Meanwhile states like Colombia, Saudi Arabia were similarly attached to the US. Some states, such as Egypt, started out as tied to the USSR, and later wound up equally tied to the US. That's why people question the credibility of some of these states, and include these criticisms in their edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the intro seems almost dismissive of the NAM, compared to the UN. As pointed out above, it has had issues in the past - in terms of defining an identity etc. But it's not like the UN has had a smooth ride. There's too much historical weight in the first paragraph, rather than talking about the current functioning of the movement -- as the UN article does. We can deal with the identity crisis in a separate section, but the intro needs to be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


This list includes:

14th Summit – Durban, 17 August 2004 – 19 August 2004

that doesn't fit the three year cycle, and does not appear on the website. I don't think it should be there. If there was a meeting in Durban then, it wasn't one of the numbered summits.

-- Beardo 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Given that the overwhelming majoirty of members are undemocratic governments that oppress their citizenry the NAM does not, as claimed, represent 55% of the world's people. It represents a rather large proportion of murderous dicators, but that's about it I'm afraid.

According to wikipedia, iran hasn't invaded another country in over 2 centuries. on the other hand, america is supporting israel's murderous, hitler-like persecution against the palestinians, israel's war against palestinians (the justification of which reminds me of the justifications Hitler gave in invading poland), as well as invading Korea, Vietnam and Iraq in recent memory, killing who knows how many thousands or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And then the people in the invaded countries are conveniently labelled as "terrorists", so that the US can go on torturing, beating and killing innocent people, all in the name of democracy. I think that if you're looking for evil, domineering countries, USA is a safe bet. 9/11 was terrible yes, but the same amount and MORE of innocent people are killed all the time in america's colonial-like finger-sticking into various regions of the world, most recently Iraq. so if you're talking about oppressed citizenry, then yes, the US oppresses and kills many innocent people in the countries it gobbles up, so maybe you should open your eyes to what really goes on.-- (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the statement about representing people. I think a statement saying that NAM represents a large number of governments is better.
Let's not split hairs about the meaning of words here. Clearly the original author intended "represent" to mean "comprise." I'm sure no one who ever read this article assumed that meant all NAM countries were enlightened representative democracies. But then again, thinking about it that way doesn't leave much room for fake outrage, and we all know wikipedia doesn't have enough of that. Also, sign your comments, like this: --Osbojos 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

O.K. change the word to comprise, maybe a sentence or two about how NAM governments think it's fun to go on mass killing sprees while babbling inanely about neo-colonialism and zionism would be nice as well. 19:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no splitting of hairs. Dictators and horrible governments like that of Myanmyr or Sudan do not represent, comprise or do anything else in the name of the people who live under those regimes. We are not talking about enlighted representative democracies vs. other forms, but rather a collection of all the worst brutal/vicious/murderous regimes on the planet. The reason those words are there is because they have been used in NAM's propoganda for years. NAM wishes to project the image that it speaks for the majority of the planet. The reality is that the majority of the organizations members are governments of no particular legitamacy as far as the populations of those countries. They certainly do not represent the peoples they control. I further suggest that you review Wikipedia policy before giving your opinions as to what people's motives are. Your accusation that those who do not agree with your views are expressing "fake outrage" is over the line. 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That the total population of NAM member countries makes up 55% of the world's population is a fact. It should be included in the article to allow readers to understand the scope of the organization. Let's have enough faith in readers to make up their own minds about exactly how representative each of these regimes is in regarding the desires of it's people. Changing the word to "represent" to "comprise" helps to avoid any mispercetions. This article has been edited heavily by NAM critics in the last week or so, which I have absolutely no problem with; however the majority of these edits have consisted of vandalism, the removal of useful information, and snarky comments. (Thus explaining, though not excusing my rude comments above.) I would suggest instead that a "Criticism of NAM" section be added, where the unrepresentative nature of many of the regimes, anti-israel sentiment, and the organizations potential irrelevance can be discussed at length. With that option in mind, I am going to (at least provisionally) return the 55% world population clause to the article and would eagerly await the addition of a criticism section. Additionally, I'm making another editor User:AntelopeInSearchOfTruth aware of this disagreement. I've found him to be reasonable and fair-minded in the past, and think he would serve as a good referee. --Osbojos 21:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"We are not talking about enlighted representative democracies vs. other forms," etc....

I think acknowledging statistics about NAM member populations is worth noting and can be done without implying anything in particular about the political legitimacy of the governments involved. Simply saying there are X number of people living in New York does not imply that all of them stand behind a certain political party. Nor does stating such a fact indicate that any number of them support or oppose any particular governmental policy.

Any contributors to a Criticism of NAM section need to make sure they are clearly identifying what a particular critic is criticizing, when they are adding content. Simply saying that So-and-So Jahosafat said that NAM needs to be more responsible about statements made at their last summit, is not enough. If they refered to a certain statement by the NAM, that needs to be shown, not just the argument against that statement.

Secondly, we need to avoid original research here. This can be easily done; don't fiddle with directly quoted content, and avoid changing adding content that expresses an editorial stance. We should not be doing anything other than reporting what we are citing from.

Example using recent edits of a statement from the BBC on this article; NAM delegates expressed, "support for Iran's nuclear energy plans," was changed into something like, "support for Iran's right to nuclear weapons," then it was changed into, "gave support to Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology (for peaceful purposes)". BOTH of the subsequent edits warped what was actually said into what the editors THOUGHT it was supposed to mean. We need to leave the content to represent what was said, not what you thought it said.

If they say, "X". We simply report that they said, "X" and cite where we found it. Maybe we can cite what others said in response to "X". We are not allowed to cite something where they said, "X," and then add in our own words what we think that means or what others should know it really means. That is original research.

Okay, I have to go buy peanut butter for my pop-tarts now. Hope I was of some assistance.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone know where I could find a list of the dates on which each member joined and/or left? Thanks! Josh 00:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

'effectively aligned'[edit]

"India was effectively aligned with the Soviet Union against China for many years." this statement cites neither a source or facts to support may be one opinion but in that case shouldn't it say India was allegedlyItalic text aligned with the Soviet Union against China for many years. 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)calvin

Explanation Please[edit]

It says in the header, that the NAM nations are against Zionism. I find it to be highly debatable, and highly unlikely that this is one of the mission goals of the NAM. Perhaps for some of the Muslim nations, but for all of them, I think not. Therefore, I will be deleting it, unless someone can provide a good reason for puting it back. -- 02:30, December 16, 2006 Reticulum

the good reason is that Zionism is listed in the quoted portion of the Havana Declaration. Altering quotes like that is Orwellian historical revision. That said, the current NAM statements might be critical of Israeli actions, but I can find no references calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, if anything, their recent statements imply NAM considers the state of Israel a foregone conclusion. See here, and their web page contains no references to Zionism. One could certainly argue that anti-Zionism is not a current focus of the NAM movement, and thus the purpose described in the Havana Declaration is misleading as the opening description in the NAM entry. If someone were willing to do the research to back up that position, it would seem reasonable to replace the current description of NAM's mission with one that doesn't mention Zionism. Although the results would look similar to your edits, that's a very different prospect than altering the substance of a quote. Continued efforts in the latter direction will continue to be reverted. Also, if the Zionism reference is removed from the header, perhaps NAM's historical anti-Israel attitude should be briefly mentioned in the body of the article? --Osbojos 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This Havana Declaration as an opening description doesn't seem to be an optimal choice to me either. Apart from the fact that, taking Wikipedia's definition of zionism, it is simply not a form of racism. Treos 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Admission dates[edit]

please can you explain me the role of Africa after the cold war in the non align movement. send to —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone find out and add the dates of admission of new members to the NAM? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

African Nations in the AU[edit]

Could someone perhaps explain to me how various African nations that are members of the African Union can be members of the NAM? Someone please beat away my ignorance. -- 15:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

these organizations aren't exclusive. For instance, the US is a member of NATO as well as a member of the UN. --Osbojos 20:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The Non-Aligned Movement was a response to the pressures of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Membership in other multinational organizations, such as the AU, does not preclude membership in the NAM. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Every Country In Africa?[edit]

Is that map right? -MichiganCharms 07:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Josh 06:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


What will happen if Croatia joins NATO next year? Won't they be booted out of the NAM? Contralya 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are so many states in the movement that are already dominated by the U.S. My answer is no.
The NAM does not follow a policy of booting out countries because they align themselves. Indeed the NAM does not have any particular rule that states this

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


it seems like the last paragraph of the origins section are saying the same thing as last 1.5 paragraphs of the first section —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Founding dates?[edit]

The introduction says the NAM was founded in 1955. The ORIGIN section says, "A significant milestone in the development of the Non-aligned movement was the 1955 Bandung Conference." The Cold War article says that "The consensus reach [sic] at Bandung culminated with the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961." Could someone clean this up? Mrsmathmom (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I love my country. I am sure each of you love your country. Would you at least agree that no matter what country you live in, each of us have the same concerns, the same needs, the same desires for our children, and the same goals for our countries. Leaders do not always speak for the majority of a country and therefore policies can place undue burdens on a population which they may not have supported but are without the power to change or modify. For example, one man desired to "create a master race" and rule the world, all at the expense of his country and many others. Hitler was concerned with Hitler, not the people of his or any country. So actually who won WWII? Absolutly no one. We all lost! Thousands and thousands of lives lost and billions and billions in property destroyed. But the German and Japanese citizens lost even more. While some leaders expound their support for the "non-aligned movement" of nations, their actions do not support such intentions. Their actions speak much louder than their words. Some would put their personal agendas ahead of the properity and well being of the citizens they serve. The biggest threat to any nation is apathy and greed. If we sit back and do nothing nor hold our leaders accountable, then we have little right to complain. I only ask we examine the reasons for the actions of the leaders before we blindly allow them to make decisions which are counterproductive to the very goals they propound. Thank you for allowing me to post my comment. I am concerned about our international community. I know we are separated only by language barriers in most instances. Mutual respect and mutual cooperation can take us much further in achieving our goals than the personal ambitions of dictators. Sincerely, Curious Patriot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious Patriot (talkcontribs) 01:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

eat shit "So actually who won WWII?" Soviet Union won WWII. (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


Oh, come on. "The Non-Aligned Movement was formed as an attempt to thwart the Cold War[3] and has struggled to find relevance after the Cold War ended then it has fucked."

This is thinly veiled at best. You can do better than this, you weasely little fellows, you. I expect PROPER propaganding in my articles. You hear me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Why not make some suggestions to improve the article? I've tweaked some of the headings to make the article a little less slanted. Please see what you think. --John (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Moon migration?![edit]

There is a sentence of "The Non-aligned movement also largely believes that the population of Earth should be gradually migrated to the Moon and other Space Colonies by the year 2040." That doesn't sound credible, and more it has no reference. Remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


I've just moved the section on "Contemporary relevance" ahead of "Current activities and positions" because, after reading them, it seems to me to flow better, from the general idea of modernity to the specific activities that define it. But it might help if there were more history of NAM's activities just preceding "Contemporary relevance". I thought about connecting it with the "Origins" section, but that's still too much about the beginnnings, with little in-between history. Also, the "Policies" and "Structure" sections seemed to me to be well placed before discussions of current affairs, so I was reluctant to do any more moving just now. I'll leave it to regular editors of this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

NAM acronym usage[edit]

I recommend adjusting the text to replace NAM with Non-Aligned Movement in all cases except the first sentence. the acronym NAM is likely used by hundreds of organizations. Using NAM frequently in the text cause confusion in search engines. Replacing NAM with "Non-Aligned Movement" will improve this article's relevance in search engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fiji is a new member?[edit]

I think that Fiji joined the NAM in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Who should we put as Secratary General?[edit]

The NAM secretary general is usually the leader of the country. Since Mubarak resigned on the 11th of February then shouldn't Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, as leader, be the new secretary general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabolisk (talkcontribs) 13:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Secretary general?[edit]

Do we have any indication the movement has a secretary general? And since when? I have been scanning the meeting reports but couldn't find anything to that effect. A ref would help a lot! L.tak (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Egyptian Revolution overthrew Mubarak...[edit] shouldn't we correct the information on the page and make a reference to an acting SG? -- (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the NAM is such a loose organization, these things are simply not well-established (in fact, I can not find a date even for the first mention of a secretary general, which was certainly not simply at the first conference..). So we should only put something on an actign SG if we have some sources the function exists... L.tak (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Brioni summit.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Brioni summit.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya[edit]

Given the update to show Libya as a current member, shouldn't the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya be added to former members? It is no longer recognised by the UN and the main Wikipedia page for Libya refers to the state as 'Libya'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is probably best to wait for the summit next year in Teheran. Then Libya will be or deleted, or suspended, and possibly Movement recognize new government as member. For example, Yugoslavia remained on list, as suspended member, I think even till 1998 when was removed from member states list. That was several years after SFR Yugoslavia stop to exist.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if the comparison is good, because if I am not wrong, the Yugoslavia that was listed as member between 1992 until 1998 was the FR Yugoslavia. It was "suspended" because of all controverses around the Yugoslav Wars and its role in them (because of Milosevic) and because of the oposition of some Islamic countries that were solidary with Muslims in Bosnia. I´ll try to find something about it if you like, but I am most certain that FR Yugoslavia was the suspended member listed as Yugoslavia, and not the defunct one. FkpCascais (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, here (source) you can see how Iran and Malaysia protested in September 1992 because FR Yugoslavia took the seat of SFR Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
In this case, you're right. However, I think is best in such cases to wait for the next summit.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Euler diagram[edit]

Can someone produce a diagram as proposed here? Japinderum (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


"The US invasion of Iraq and the War on Terrorism, its attempts to stifle Iran and North Korea's nuclear plans, and its other actions have been denounced as human rights violations and attempts to run roughshod over the sovereignty of smaller nations" Okay since this is not a forum I won't share my opinion on this but I have a feeling this misrepresents the policy of these nations. How many of them really support a nuclear North Korea, or Iran? (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Simple vs English Wikipedia[edit]

The Simple Wikipedia page for NAM lists Jakarta, Indonesia as Coordinating Bureau of the NAM and the English Wikipedia page lists New York, New York, United States. Which one is correct?Ramputrevu (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Non-Aligned Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


I think it could be added to the category Oxymorons, if it existed. —Mykhal (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Jakarta HQ[edit]

I cannot seem to find anything mentioning Jakarta as the organizational HQ - the only thing that exists is an office called the "South-South Technical Cooperation" which does not seem to be headquarters. I'll remove the info unless there's any other sources about it. Juxlos (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

New chair[edit]

@Selen578: As creator of 18th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, can you double check my work on this article? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Error in List of Members[edit]

The article starts correctly by saying the NAM has 120 members. However, the total listed under the heading Current Members is 121. This is because Azerbaijan is listed both under Asia and under Europe. I am not clear which is the correct classification as far as the NAM are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPedant (talkcontribs) 17:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)