It's been 70 years since the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement, and advocating neutrality today means supporting Putin.

Seventy years have passed since the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement, yet its advocacy today is interpreted as support for Vladimir Putin. The movement, which emerged as a response to Cold War tensions, was originally conceived as a path for Yugoslavia to resist Soviet influence and pursue an independent foreign policy. Its origins trace back to the 1955 Bandung Conference, where leaders from Asia and Africa gathered to promote anti-colonialism and collective security. This set the stage for the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement, with its first conference held in Belgrade in 1961. The movement’s early success was bolstered by Josip Broz Tito's vision of a viable alternative to both Western and Eastern blocs, allowing Yugoslavia to navigate the Cold War while maintaining sovereignty. The Non-Aligned Movement gained momentum through key figures such as Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who shared similar aspirations for independence and non-interference. The 1956 Brijunska Declaration, signed exactly 70 years ago, became a cornerstone of the movement’s ideology. It emphasized collective security over division, advocating for the expansion of freedom and the end of domination by one state over another. The declaration underscored the importance of mutual respect and cooperation among nations, principles that guided the movement throughout its history. The Non-Aligned Movement supported anti-colonial struggles worldwide, including Algeria’s fight for independence. It also backed the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt under Nasser, demonstrating its commitment to self-determination. Despite being largely composed of leftist states, the movement resisted Soviet attempts to dominate its policies. It consistently advocated for China rather than Taiwan within the United Nations Security Council and promoted a policy of peaceful coexistence. For a time, the movement played a moderate yet influential role on the global stage. However, this influence began to wane following the 1989 Belgrade Conference, best remembered for Muammar Gaddafi’s controversial appearance. As Yugoslavia disintegrated into wars, the Non-Aligned Movement lost much of its relevance. Today, the movement still exists, though its impact has diminished significantly. In contemporary politics, the legacy of the Non-Aligned Movement is often overlooked or misinterpreted. Modern Croatia, for instance, appears to distance itself from this heritage, despite numerous efforts to preserve it. Events such as tribunes featuring former leader Budimir Lončar, along with lectures by political scientist Tvrtko Jakovin, have failed to generate lasting recognition. Even two presidential mandates under Stipe Mesić, who sought to elevate the Non-Aligned Movement as part of Croatian political history, did little to change this trend. Similarly, Serbia has taken control of the movement’s narrative, emphasizing Belgrade’s role in its inception while downplaying Tito’s contributions. This was evident during the 2021 Belgrade conference, where the focus shifted toward Serbian leadership, and Lončar was excluded from participation despite his active promotion of his biography written by Jakovin. In recent years, some left-wing politicians in Croatia have revived calls for neutrality, invoking the Non-Aligned Movement as a model. However, this stance is increasingly viewed as supportive of Russian interests, particularly given Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. This interpretation underscores how historical movements can be repurposed to serve current geopolitical agendas, raising questions about the true meaning and intent behind their original ideals.