Nationalism in the Third World - Essay Example

Nationalism in the Third World 2007 Taking lead from the Cold War, the U.S linked its economic relationships with other countries along with arms. The US – NATO, in addition to the US-Japan Defense Deal, guaranteed loyalty to the US political leadership on all key issues in the world. In any case, countries like China (1945-48), Vietnam, Algeria, Hungary (1956), Cuba, southern Africa in the Third World that were excluded from these gains resented this, vigorously at times, causing problems to the US-led world order and definitely to the Soviet Union, with the exception of the Vietnam war, that bled the United States in terms of money, life and morale of the nation. Those who were not part of the hegemonies of the US-led new world order were fueled by the idea of the 1968 world revolution, the unrest that rocked the world. The cultural revolution in China in 1966 and "socialism with a human face" in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the uprisings in Mexico, Senegal, Tunisia, India and many other countries of the Third World defended their countries against U.S. domination just as they were up against Soviet connivance theme (Wallerstein). Nationalist movements emerged between 1945 - 1970's in countries comprising to what was known as the Third World, that is a group of underdeveloped, once colonized regions branded as weak or new and still struggling to become equal to the First World. The latter comprised the modern countries, typically in Western/ Central Europe, the US and Canada, which took control over the remaining parts of the world using their early manufacturing power. The Third World countries were mostly in the Southern hemisphere - in Latin America, Africa and Asian. Over 60 new countries appeared on the world stage in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Near East while in Asia, independence of India from the British colony was achieved in 1947, just as Burma finished British regime in 1948. The British clung firmly on Indochina while the French fought an expensive war with the Vietnamese freedom fighters, reaching to a deadly end as late as 1975. Laos and Cambodia obtained freedom after 1954 while the Netherlands handed over rule of the Dutch East Indies/Indonesia not before 1949. The regions that created Malaysia attained independence in 1957. The Philippines became a free state by 1946. Most of Pacific Island started getting trust or commonwealth standing previous colonial rulers acting as protectorate or absolutely free independence by 1970. The regions in South Asia did not become free before 1940. In Africa, one of the last regions to be taken over by western powers, the process started seriously after 1957, Ghana coming first as the African state to end European colonial regime, with another 40 new countries trailing behind it over the last quarter of a century. Every story of independence, certainly, was exclusive in its own way meriting separate treatment, yet for lack of space we can only talk about decolonization broadly and accepting that while some previous colonies attained freedom with only a limited killing and violence, for example Ghana and India, there were others who endured an arduous, atrocious war with a colonial power frantically trying to keep hold of its colonies – like the hideous Algerian war of independence that demanded the lives of hundreds of thousands of on both sides previous to French loss in 1962. Vietnam, the Belgian Congo, Angola were other examples of such lingeringly hard and awfully harsh fights. Even after its conquering days during1945 – 1970, some regions still lingered under colonial rule until lately, the Pacific islands and Caribbean terrain that attaining only quasi-independence ( Decolonization,hcc.hawaii.edu). Countries of the new world are depicted with the simple tag of the ‘third world’, as if all emmergent countries are similar, when we know that there are very little things in common between a new country from Asia and another from Africa. Possibly, we were at odds about the third world (also called the developing world) not because we basically differ but more particularly as we had been debating over two to completely different ideas of the "third world", with media often mentioning the "third world" or "developing world" as if it were a group and as if there were no difference of the issues confronted by those countries which to some extent, could be true also — especially in contexts related to sleaze and fraud, insufficient institutions, inadequate legal systems, and the irregular armed coup or popular revolts that are all traits typical of most developing countries. But it is absurd to associate Thirld World countries only on that common background, the basic variables in each country being not necessarily the same. In some other senses, a key problem in one country could be of little or no importance in some other country. Geograhical frontiers seem to be better alternative albeit not always politically pertinent since much do the countries of Asia, South America and Africa share within common with the other countries on their continent, and how much do they have in common with er each other? From a historical viewpoint, many Asian countries were not critically taken over (implying complete subjugation of their land and resources by a atrocious incursion of raiders with utter disregard for local interests). China and Japan never colonized and operated in a legal and administrative system that functioned relatively well compared to others broken apart. British colonies were better privileged than other countries since the British, took a greater interest making institutions and the regime to prevail in countries they commanded.1 The difference is apparent if one regards the countries settled by the Dutch, French or Portuguese as critically disturbed backwaters (Indonesia, Cambodia, Timor Leste). South Africa , an earlier British colony could be described as the only prosporous country in the continent. It is also placed as one among to the developed countries. The rest of Africa, which colonized by the French, Germans, Belgians, etc., has had a much more grimy fate, completely uneequipped for freedom. Stil keeping the hisorical points aside, the divide between African, South American and Asian emergent countries stays wide, the differences in cultures, traditinions and people that can't be disregarded, just as it would be absurd to club them together to call them collectively as "third world". Instead, it would be better to classify the Third World in terms of historical or geographical parameters (The Third World is Not a Collective, .infernalramblings.com). To end despotism of the left or right, revolt, resentment, and violence leaders all through Africa and Asia came to adopt liberal ideals, autocrats ruling within a decade or two, in most of those regions. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, most of the new states in Africa were formed on the basis of liberal ideologies. Yet, by the 1970's, nearly half of the continent's states were dictated by one man or one party rule, the number rising over the following decade giving the only possible option to remove a reviled dictator through military throw out –like coups, revolts and civil wars. In Africa alone, there were 33 coups between 1965-1978, in certain cases even many more coups. This kind of volatility very damaging to economic growth, gives rise to constant violence and carnage, and heart jerking distress. In the Vietnam War, a fight for Vietnamese independence from the French rulers, the drama of decolonization involved a superpower or, powers. It eventually prevailed as a fatal conflict that soared up in the middle Cold War2. It, of course did not begin when the nationalist leader, Ho Chi Minh, went to the Paris Peace Conference to request greater self-rule and thus was disconcerted to start shaping a nationalist movement for independence after his return from Paris , in line with one in India and other regions in these years. Ho Chi Minh under the assurance of Marxist-socialist solutions to the problems of paucity and bad economy formed the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1930 wishing wider social/economic changes, commanding party rule, and removal of class differences, getting aid from the Soviet Union and later China –and accepting that as decolonization through took place all over both of these powers made allies by financing anti-colonial movements and groups, particularly those with left leaning, his basis of support, however, came from the nationalist wish to discard French rule. During World War II, the Japanese took over Indochina, interrupting French control which after the surrender of Japan, they tried to restore nationalist leaders fighting back violently to oppose this return. In 1945, Ho Chi Minh announced the birth of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on Western political concepts of liberty and led a prolonged and painful war over 1946 - 1954 against the French. In 1950, the U.S. got involved into this war as part of its Cold War strategies. The US viewed the conflict as one led by a Communist party leader and hence feared that the Soviet power could influence it. So, it supported the French with resources to defeat Ho Chi Minh, as part of its increased presence in Asia after the “fall” of China. The French, however, renounced this fight in 1954, after a shocking setback in the battle of Dien Bien Phu, withdrawing from Vietnam, the country being divided into the North and the South, the former controlled by Ho Chi Minh and the latter led by an anti-communist government based in Saigo holding power backed by the French and the U.S.. Although elections were scheduled for 1956, Vietnam remaining bifurcated. The U.S. supported the South Vietnamese leaders while the Communist powers stood by North Vietnam. U.S. participation in this decolonization, leading to a “proxy war” over 1954 - 1971 contributed money, weapons, military advisors and getting ultimately in 1968 over 500,000 troops, added to the strength of modern armed power. It was a morally thorny war, the armed impasse and irresolute home support adding to the decision by the U.S. to settle a removal by 1973, within two years of which South Vietnam fell to Northern troops. In 1975, Vietnam was united under the Minh’s communist rule. The story of independence movements after 1945 is a blend of victory and tragedy. The end of colonies, some as old as two hundred plus years, obviously ushered in a hopeful dawn, saving people from exploitation and poverty, making them confident with their own rule over their lives confident (Decolonization , hcc.hawaii.edu). Works Cited Wallerstein , Immanuel , Globalization or The Age of Transition? A Long-Term View of the Trajectory of the World-System, retrieved fromhttp://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iwtrajws.htm Decolonization, http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/distance/hist/deco.htm The Third World is Not a Collective, http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Global_Socio-Politics/204/ Read More