Chapter 70 Chapter 12 The Third World 4

4 Dozens of new countries transformed from former colonies after World War II, together with the vast majority of Latin American countries that had also been dependent on the old imperialist industrial world, soon found themselves grouped together in what is collectively known as the "Third World." It is not surprising that under the title of the Third World—some people think that this title was born in 1952 (Harris, 1987, p. 18)—compared with the Third World, there is the "Ci Yi World" composed of developed industrial countries. , the "Second World" with communist countries as members.Although this way of classifying Egypt and Gabon, India and Papua New Guinea as the same kind of society is extremely ridiculous, it is not completely unreasonable in logic.Because these countries are poor and white (compared to the "developed" world); and have no independent viability, and are economically dependent.Their governments are also obsessed with "development" while distrusting the capitalist world market outside (that is, what economists call the "comparative interest" structure) or the domestic policy of allowing private enterprise to develop on its own , can help them achieve their development goals.Looking at the historical lessons of the Great Depression before World War II and the war itself, it is worth their vigilance as a guide for the future.Coupled with the ruthless iron fist of the Cold War that gripped the world, as long as there are any countries that are free to control their own pace of action, they will naturally be careful not to join either side of the two major alliances.All in all, it is trying to avoid the Third World War that everyone will change their faces.

However, not leaning to one side does not mean that the "non-aligned" countries have exactly the same opposition to both sides of the Cold War. Proponents of the "Non-Aligned Movement"—a name adopted after its first international conference in Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955—often belonged to pre-colonial radical revolutionaries such as Nehru in India, Nehru in Indonesia, Sukarno, Nasser of Egypt, and Yugoslav President Tito who broke away from the Communist camp.These individuals, like many others in the new regimes that emerged from the former colonies, have positioned themselves as socialists with their own characteristics (that is, non-Soviet-style socialism), including the Royal Buddhist Socialism in Cambodia (Royal Buddhist Socialism). Buddhist socialism) included.Therefore, they all have some sympathy for the Soviet Union and are at least willing to accept economic and military assistance from the Soviet side.This is not surprising, because at the beginning of the Cold War, the moment the East and West worlds separated, the United States hastily abandoned its past anti-colonial traditions and began to seek the support of the most conservative regimes in the Third World, which was extremely obvious.The objects that the United States pursues include (before the 1958 revolution) Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran under the Shah of Iran-these four countries form the "Central Treaty Organization" (CENTO)-plus the "Southeast Asia Treaty Organization" The Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan in the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).The purpose of the establishment of the two organizations is to complete the military system with the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" as the backbone to prevent the Soviet Union's forces (however, the first two organizations have never played an important role). After the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Non-Aligned Circle, originally dominated by Africa and Asia, has now formed a three-continent common force. Its members in Latin America naturally come from the countries in the Western Hemisphere that are least happy with the Big Brother in the Northern Hemisphere.However, the non-Communist countries in the Bandung series, like the third world pro-American countries that actually joined the Western Alliance camp, did not have any real pro-Soviet actions.They do not want to wade into the murky waters of global superpower confrontation, because they will always be on the front line of the flames in the event of a conflict, as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis have shown.The more stable the border between the two camps (that is, in Europe), the more likely it is that, should a gun go off, the bullet will land on a hilltop somewhere in Asia, or in a jungle somewhere in Africa.

However, although the confrontation between superpowers dominates the relations between countries around the world, and sometimes even helps to stabilize the international situation, it still cannot completely control the overall situation.There are two regions in the Third World where inherent tensions, largely irrelevant to the Cold War itself, have led to tensions that have not only turned into protracted conflicts but also led to intermittent fighting there.These two areas are the Middle East and the northern part of the Indian subcontinent (both conflicts are not accidental, and both stem from the deliberate arrangement of imperialists to divide the area before their departure).The conflict situation in northern India is relatively easy to be independent of the global cold war. Although Pakistan wholeheartedly wants to involve the United States-but until the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Pakistan’s attempt has never succeeded (see eighth and Chapter XVI).As a result, the West has little knowledge and even less memory of the three regional wars that broke out in the region: the 1962 war between China and India over an undetermined border (China won), the 1965 India-Pakistan war (India easily victory), and a renewed conflict between India and Pakistan in 1971 - the cause of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) being independent with Indian support.In these wars, both the United States and the Soviet Union played benign neutral mediation roles.However, the situation in the Middle East cannot be isolated in this way, because many of the US allies are directly related to it: Israel, Turkey, and Iran under the Shah.And the successive revolutions there—Egypt in 1952, Iraq and Syria in the 1950s and 1960s, southern Arabia in the 1960s and 1970s, and the overthrow of Shah Pahlavi’s regime in Iran in 1979—whether military or civilian coups , both testify to the instability of the social conditions in the region.

Nevertheless, these regional conflicts basically had nothing to do with the Cold War: the Soviet Union was among the first countries to recognize the new state of Israel, but Israel was positioned to become the most important ally of the United States in the future.In the Arab world or other countries that believe in Islam, their international lines do not distinguish between left and right, and they are united in fighting the Communist Party internally.The reason for the division of the region is that Jewish immigrants from Israel have established a Jewish state there that is larger than the British blueprint design (the Israeli side’s move has forced 700,000 non-Jewish Palestinian residents to be displaced. This number, Probably larger than the Jewish population in 1948) (Calvocoressi, 1989, p. 215).In order to achieve the goal of expanding its territory, Israel fought a war every 10 years (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982).The closest precedent in history to Israel's forcible establishment of a state is Frederick II, king of Prussia in the 18th century.Frederick had wrested Silesia from Austria, and fought repeatedly to gain recognition of his claim to the land.After years of war, Israel has built itself into the most powerful military force in the Middle East, and has also achieved the status of a nuclear state.However, it has always been at odds with its neighbors. Not only has it been unable to establish a stable neighbor relationship, but the Palestinians living in its extended countries or in exile in various parts of the Middle East are even more angry and will never be able to repair it.The disintegration of the Soviet Union has made the Middle East no longer an outpost of the Cold War, but its explosive situation remains the same as before.

The other three sub-conflict centers have also kept the momentum of the conflict in the Middle East: the Eastern Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and the border areas of Turkey, Iran, Iran, and Syria.The source of conflict in the last of the three regions is the Kurds who have failed to seek independence several times. In 1918, President Wilson of the United States rashly proposed this proposal to encourage the Kurds to strive for national independence.However, for many years, the Kurds have been unable to find a strong ally to support them. As a result, they only messed up their relations with the countries in the region.The Kurds are brave and good at fighting, and have always been famous for their guerrilla combat capabilities in the mountains.Its neighbors have also tried every means to drive it out every chance they get, including poison gas attacks in the 1980s.As for the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, since Greece and Turkey are both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it is relatively quiet.However, Greece and Turkey also have conflicts, which led to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus (Cyprus), which was divided in 1974.However, as a result of the Western powers, Iran, and Iraq competing for hegemony in the Persian Gulf (Iran was already in power by a revolutionary regime at this time), it resulted in 8 years of brutal bloody battles (1980-1988).And after the end of the Cold War, it still set off a lightning war between the United States and its allies and Iraq in 1991.

In the Third World there was one territory, Latin America, which was far removed from international global and regional conflicts until the revolution in Cuba.Latin America, with the exception of a few small islands in the Caribbean Sea and a few pockets of the South American mainland—such as Guyana and Belize, then still called British Honduras—generally left colonization very early.In terms of culture and language, the inhabitants here belong to the Westerners.Even its poor people are mostly Roman Catholics.In addition to some areas in the Andes and Central America, its residents can also speak or understand a European language.From the conquerors of the Iberian Peninsula, Latin American society has inherited a complex and elaborate racial hierarchy; at the same time, because of its male-dominated history of conquest, it also began a tradition of racial promiscuity.On the land of Central and South America, there are few pure white blood, except in the southern tip of South America where the aborigines are scarce (Argentina, Uruguay, southern Brazil), because there are a large number of European immigrants, it is an exception.But regardless of mixed-race or pure-bred society, factors of personal achievement and social status make racial distinctions indistinct.As early as 1861, Mexico elected a Juarez, apparently of Zapotec Indian descent, as president.As the author writes this book, the presidents of Argentina and Peru, respectively, are Lebanese Islamic immigrants and Japanese immigrants.By contrast, such an option remains unimaginable in the United States.To this day, Latin America has been exempt from this vicious cycle, while other continents suffer from racial politics and ethnic nationalism.

What's more, although most of Latin America knows that they are in a so-called "neo-colonial" dependent position, the United States, the only imperial master they rely on, knows the current affairs after all, and has never used ships to deal with Latin America. Several big countries in the Americas—but against the small and weak countries in other countries, the American uncle did not hesitate to use force immediately, and he never pretended to say anything.From the Grant River on the southern border of the United States to Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America, the countries in Central and South America are also quite knowledgeable, and they are well aware of the true meaning of the best policy for building a country by aligning with Washington.Founded in 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) is headquartered in Washington, and has always obeyed the words of the United States.So when Cuba dared to make a revolution, the Organization of American States quickly swept it out.