An assembly to NATO or SEATO and the Third World membership appears an irony given that the Non-Aligned Movement might have been seeking to be independent from the domination of Cold War superpowers’ alliances. Nevertheless, the following factors account for the alignments without compromising the third world order.

1. Strategic Survival: Some of these emerging nations had domestic problems, some had border issues or even had to confront neighboring nations. Becoming a member of SEATO or CENTO ensured military security as well as defense, which was the basic need in that era.

2. Economic Incentives: Aid was provided accordingly to the beautiful envelopes of the alliances of the superpowers. Poorest of the countries got involved in either of the two camps for money, developing infrastructures or military backup.

3. Pragmatic Non-Alignment: Therefore some of the Third World countries did not fully adhere to the principles of NAM. Most followed a policy of ‘operative non-alignment,’ regularly participating in the affairs of super(power) blocs but at the same time insisting on an independent policy in other respects.

4. Internal Political Pressures: In the domestic political arrangements, leaderships would tend to group based on their ideological valuess or in order to wield power within the home country to the detriment of the principles of NAM.

5. Limited Global Influence: The Third World order did not accumulate enough coherent institutional support. Thus, the decision to join treatises was not altering, at the individual country level, with the spirit of non-alignment, which provided the common framework.

These treaties were a result of a cold war diplomacy and the catch 22 situation that the Third World nations had to contend with, between the withering away of imperialism and the need for vote banks amidst crushing economic realities. Though affiliation to such alliances raised eyebrows, it did not practically undo the general agenda of the NAM.