THIS year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. It also marks the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference and the 64th anniversary of the formal founding of the Non-Aligned Movement. In the intervening years, the world has experienced numerous and persistent bouts of disputes and warfare. Many of these conflicts have been instigated and agitated by US interventions, as described by Monica Duffy Toft and Sidita Kushi in their book Dying by the Sword: The Militarisation of US Foreign Policy. Between 1946 and 1989, the United States initiated on average 2.4 military interventions per year, and between 1990 and 2019, this increased to 3.7 interventions per year. While many mainstream Western commentators argue that the postwar period marked the development of a more stable and peaceful US-led liberal world order, which was subsequently consolidated after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, other scholars such as John Mearsheimer and Patrick Porter have demonstrated the gulf between US rhetoric and the reality of US practice. What are the principal observations we can make about the challenges to peace in the 21st century, based on the experiences of the past 80 years; and how can the principles that undergird the Non-Aligned Movement contribute to the realisation of multipolar peace in our times? The 80 years since the end of World War II, the 70 years since the Bandung Conference and the 64 years since the formal founding of the Non-Aligned Movement offer critical insights into the challenges the world faces in realising peace in the 21st century. These observations are particularly relevant in light of the persistent conflicts, power struggles and interventions that have characterised international relations during this period. Despite the establishment of international institutions such as the United Nations, power politics and interventionism by major powers, particularly those of the US, have continued to destabilise regions. The reality of US practice has consistently undermined the illusion of a liberal world order. Rather, the US and other Western powers have often acted in ways that contradict their stated principles, prioritising national interests over global stability and the sovereign security interests of others. As time has gone on, the legitimacy of international institutions has been eroded amid an emerging and growing distrust of Western-led initiatives. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the high water mark for the 30-year unipolar moment that followed. Now the world is becoming increasingly multipolar or multi-nodal in character with the re-emergence of centres such as China, India, Russia and other regional powers. In some ways, this shift has catalysed the intensification of geopolitical competition at the risk of destabilising regions and undermining collective efforts to address global challenges such as development, ecological protection and pandemics. At the same time, the 21st century has seen a rise in asymmetric warfare, with non-state actors, insurgent groups and terrorist organisations playing significant roles in conflicts. These actors often exploit power vacuums created by failed states or foreign interventions. The use of proxy wars by major powers has further complicated efforts to achieve peace and stability, as the situation in Ukraine tragically demonstrates. Yet, we are witnessing not just the re-emergence of great power rivalry per se. Arguably, the systemic changes that are unfolding are creating a different set of dynamics and orderings. It is in this emergent space that the experiences and perspectives of the Non-Aligned Movement can contribute to multipolar peace. The Non-Aligned Movement emerged during the Cold War as a coalition of states seeking to resist domination by either the US or the Soviet Union. Its core principles — respect for sovereignty, non-interference, peaceful coexistence and mutual cooperation — remain highly relevant in today’s emergent multipolar world. The Non-Aligned Movement adheres to some key principles. First, the Non-Aligned Movement’s emphasis on sovereignty and non-interference provides a counter-narrative to the interventionist policies of major powers. By upholding these principles, the movement can help protect weaker states from external interference and foster a more equitable international order. Published in Dawn, March 24th, 2025