In a world dominated by US commerce, culture and values, there is always a need for a balancing viewpoint. Providing that equilibrium should be a key objective of the Non-Aligned Movement of nations; however, the 118-member organisation seems to be headed down the less constructive route of anti-Americanism. For an organisation representing more than two-thirds of the world's countries and 55 per cent of its people, many of them the poorest and most vulnerable, there is surely a more worthwhile approach. Poverty alleviation, resource sharing and helping provide education spring readily to mind. The group's just-ended summit in Cuba adopted a wide-ranging declaration supporting Iran's right to nuclear energy, opposing terrorism, calling for reform of the United Nations to better represent poorer nations and greater unity among member states to counter what was perceived as overwhelming US influence. During the meeting, several leaders issued statements full of vitriolic criticism of the US. While those same nations - Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela among them - have on numerous occasions been the target of just-as-blunt US rhetoric, Washington-bashing should not be their aim. Rather, they should be offering viable policy alternatives with the objective of bringing the world closer instead of making it more polarised. One calm voice at the summit was Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who called for 'moderation, harmony and reason'. He was espousing the ideals of his country's first prime minister and the non-aligned movement's founding father, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had been among leaders during the early days of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the US who perceived the need for an organisation not involved in the ideological confrontation. Later, in 1979, with key members of the grouping criticised for siding with the Soviets, the movement's purpose was defined as ensuring 'the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries in their struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, racism, Zionism and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics'. This should have given the movement an opportunity to be an organisation representing powerful ideals and working for global good. Instead, it lost its way, particularly with the end of the cold war in 1991, falling prey to nations searching for unity against claimed US domination. The US is the world's most influential country and although fault can sometimes be found with the manner in which it uses its power, little is to be achieved by starting another cold war based on unreasoned rhetoric. Instead, a logical counter-balancing viewpoint should be presented by the movement's members based not on animosity for the US, but the aim of making the world a better place.