4 ms·
Hmmm, 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 t
by RedCondor 3y ago
Hmmm, 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago> some scary fourth thing Scary? Yeah, I think we've stepped into territory where we're not even talking about the same thing.