3 ms·
> When the U.S. and Soviet superpowers were trying to build two different types of world empires, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that emerged in countries like
by yamtaddle 4y ago
> When the U.S. and Soviet superpowers were trying to build two different types of world empires, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that emerged in countries like India and China intended to create a more fair and rational international order. Today’s U.S.-China rivalry represents a struggle over these two world visions and the shared destiny of humanity.
Nitpick, but China's Maoist Communism was more like the fourth of four major axes of that arrangement, than it was part of the non-aligned/3rd-world movement. At times pals with the Soviets, at times not, but practically never pals with the US—like, at times they fought alongside the Soviets against US forces, hardly non-aligned, but also definitely not part of the Soviet bloc. They had their own alignment, rather, separate from worlds one through three.
- RedCondor 4y agoHmmm, I think it's an arguable point perhaps, but the history of the NAM is not ambiguous: >But it soon after became the name to refer to the participants of the Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries first held in 1961. The term "non-alignment" was established in 1953 at the United Nations. Nehru used the phrase in a 1954 speech in Colombo, Sri Lanka. In this speech, Zhou Enlai and Nehru described the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to be used as a guide for Sino-Indian relations called Panchsheel (five restraints); these principles would later serve as the basis of the Non-Aligned Movement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
- yamtaddle 4y agoChina was involved in meetings before the movement was formally declared, both because they were seen as important to others organizing the beginnings of the movement (they were seen as a kind of pivot-state by everyone—their strategic and negotiating strength was tied up with a kind of potential energy, should they throw their weight behind any other player) and (probably) because China was angling to steer the movement as their own bloc, but they weren't part of the actual founding conference in the quoted paragraph, and only obtained observer status in the group in '92.
- RedCondor 4y agoIf I'm honest, this comes off like an attempt to write off their inarguable and central role in the creation of the NAM in order to push a theory that they're some scary fourth thing. I don't agree with it but I also don't think I have more to say about it.
- yamtaddle 4y ago> some scary fourth thing Scary? Yeah, I think we've stepped into territory where we're not even talking about the same thing.
- pphysch 4y agoWhat a strangely inaccurate nitpick. China and the USSR were mortal enemies in the 70s, and the threat of Soviet invasion drove China and USA closer together and led to Nixon's visit. Your comment implies that China was closer to the USSR than USA, which is flagrantly false for a significant part of the century.
- yamtaddle 4y agoLast I checked, "China was its own thing" is pretty bog-standard for cold war analysis.