The movement was spawned by the Bandung Conference of 1955, when 29 Asian and African leaders discussed their fate in a world marked by the struggle between the Soviet Union and the US. The movement's membership expanded rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s in the wake of decolonisation.

Today, Yugoslavia - where the movement was founded - is no more. The former Yugoslavia is now five separate countries, none of which has shown interest in joining the NAM. Cyprus, whose Archbishop Makarios was a NAM co-founder, is about to join the European Union, and continued membership in NAM may be unlikely. The same is true of Malta. But the flow is not entirely one way. There were two new members in Kuala Lumpur - East Timor, St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Clearly, the NAM continues to have its attraction for certain countries - primarily the smaller, poorer and weaker ones. With 116 members, it accounts for almost two-thirds of the United Nations membership. Historically, the group, which includes communist Cuba and North Korea, was more non-aligned with the West than with the Soviet bloc.

This political predilection was evident in Kuala Lumpur. The leaders of the NAM, while calling on Iraq and the UN to 'intensify their search of a lasting, just and comprehensive solution to all outstanding issues', was noticeably hostile to the US.

Without mentioning the American threat to invade Iraq and overthrow President Saddam Hussein, the NAM leaders 'demanded respect for the independence, sovereignty, security, territorial integrity and non-interference into the internal affairs of Iraq'. As for North Korea, they merely 'noted' its withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, without expressing regret. They urged the resolution of all issues through dialogue and negotiations.

The leaders, realising the need for future relevance of their organisation, took pride in the past, saying that it 'had played an active, even central role, over the years, on the issues of concern and vital importance to its members, such as decolonisation, apartheid, the situation in Palestine and the Middle East, disarmament, poverty eradication and socio-economic development'.

That still leaves the question of the NAM's relevance today. The leaders decided, correctly, that the end of the Cold War did not necessarily mean that the movement had become irrelevant. But they agreed that it was 'timely and appropriate to comprehensively review [its] role, structure and work methods in keeping with the times and the new realities'.

Actually, so long as the world is divided between the haves and the have-nots, so long as wealth is concentrated in a few developed countries, with the bulk of humanity living amid poverty, illiteracy and disease, there will be room for NAM or some similar body.

What the NAM should aim for is to be the conscience of the world, to speak out against injustice on behalf of the underdog and to always occupy the moral high ground.

When more and more countries become wealthy, the movement's membership will decline. But that will be good news for the world. The NAM's goal should be to create a world where it will no longer be necessary for a body like the Non-Aligned Movement.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator