Emergence of Third World and Non-alignment

Emergence of Third World and Non-alignment

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹1,180 →

The end of the Second World War left the international order split between two rival power blocs — the American-led NATO alliance and the Soviet-led Communist Bloc. Outside this Cold War rivalry stood a large group of newly decolonised nations across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which came to be described as the Third World. Unwilling to be drawn into either bloc, these states gave shape to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) — a political platform built on independent foreign policy, anti-colonialism, and peaceful coexistence. This article traces the origin of the term “Third World,” the philosophy of non-alignment, and the evolution, achievements, and criticisms of NAM from the Cold War era to the present.

Third World

The term Third World arose during the Cold War to describe countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc.

First Use of the Term “Third World”

• French demographer and historian Alfred Sauvy coined the term Third World in 1952, using it for countries unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War.
• The term was inspired by the Third Estate of pre-revolutionary France — the commoners who, before and during the French Revolution, stood opposed to the clergy (First Estate) and the nobility (Second Estate).
• Sauvy captured this parallel in his well-known remark: “This third world ignored, exploited, despised — like the third estate — also wants to be something.”

The Three-World Classification

This terminology offered a broad way of categorising the nations of the world into three groups based on social, political, cultural, and economic divisions.

• First World: The United States, Western European nations, and their allies.
  • As of 1983, this group held 15% of the world’s population but accounted for 63% of world GDP.
• Second World: The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies.
  • As of 1983, it comprised 33% of world population and 19% of world GDP.
• Third World: Countries with colonial pasts across Africa, Latin America, Oceania, and Asia — often treated as synonymous with the Non-Aligned Movement.
  • As of 1983, it held 52% of world population but only 18% of world GDP.

Ambiguity in Defining the Third World

Because the term’s meaning evolved considerably over time, no single, universally agreed definition of the Third World exists.

• Some Communist Bloc countries, such as Cuba, were at times also classified as “Third World.”
• Since most Third World countries were poor and non-industrialised, the term became a loose stereotype for poverty — even though it is also used to include newly industrialised countries like Brazil.
• A few European countries that were part of the non-aligned movement, such as Austria, Ireland, and Switzerland, were and remain highly prosperous, further complicating the category.

Recent Use of the Term

• Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, “Third World” has increasingly been used interchangeably with terms like Least Developed Countries, Global South, and developing countries — a usage that often folds in former “Second World” states such as Laos and Cuba.
• Under dependency theory, the Third World is understood as the “periphery” of the world economic system, dominated by “core” developed nations.

Third Worldism

• Third Worldism is a political movement advocating unity among Third World nations against First World influence, built on the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states.
• The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the G-77 are its most prominent expressions, serving as platforms for diplomacy both among Third World countries and between the Third World and the First and Second Worlds.

Diverse Nature of the Third World

• Most Third World countries were former colonies that, upon gaining independence, faced the twin challenges of nation-building and institution-building for the first time.
  • This shared colonial background meant many of these nations remained “developing” economically through much of the 20th century — a status that persists for several even today.
• The category nevertheless covered an extremely diverse set of countries, from Indonesia to Afghanistan, ranging from economically primitive to relatively advanced, and from strictly non-aligned to states leaning towards the Soviet or Western bloc.
• This lack of a consistent, collective identity meant the term “Third World” was criticised as misleading even during the Cold War itself.

Foreign Aid and Development

• During the Cold War, the unaligned countries of the Third World were courted as potential allies by both the First and Second Worlds.
  • The United States and the Soviet Union offered economic and military support to secure strategically located allies, often leaving smaller nations with little real independence of judgment once they accepted such support.
• By the end of the 1960s, “Third World” had come to denote countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America seen by the West as underdeveloped — marked by low economic development, low life expectancy, and high rates of poverty and disease — making them targets for aid from wealthier governments, NGOs, and individuals.
  • Development, in this framework, was expected to progress through five stages: Traditional Society → Pre-conditions for Take-off → Take-off → Drive to Maturity → Age of High Mass Consumption.
• Despite decades of aid, many Third World economies remained dependent on developed countries and deep in debt, fuelling an ongoing debate on why these nations remain underdeveloped.
  • Many scholars argue that conventional aid mechanisms have failed and call instead for reduced dependency and the application of alternative, non-Western economic theories, including socio-economic explanations for the persistence of underdevelopment.

Features of the Third World

• A distinct political grouping, largely non-aligned in orientation.
• Economically categorised as the “developing” or “under-developed” world.
• Geographically referred to as the “South,” owing to its concentration in the Southern Hemisphere.
• During the Cold War, also known by the French term “Tiers-Monde.”
• In many cases, these countries emerged as states before they consolidated as nations — that is, statehood preceded a shared national identity.
• Typically featured a highly centralised state system, with state machinery imposed from above rather than emerging organically from internal social dynamics.
  • There was often an absence of a well-formed dominant class; instead, a loose alliance of various classes held power.
  • According to the liberal perspective, Western-educated elites controlled the state apparatus and used it as a tool to transform traditional agrarian societies into modern industrial ones.
• Many Third World states exhibited an “artificiality” as political units — for example, several African states, as well as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh — a legacy of colonial boundary-making.
• Functioned as an “adjunct of the core”: even after independence, the core (metropolitan) powers continued to influence the periphery, a phenomenon termed “New Colonialism.”
• Highly heterogeneous in composition — ranging from wealthy Arab states to very poor nations like Bangladesh, and encompassing monarchies, democracies, military regimes, and states that were capitalist, secular, or built around a state religion.
• Marked by wide variation in geographical extent, cultural composition, and rate of population growth.

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a grouping of states formally unaligned with or against any major power bloc.

• It was founded in Belgrade in 1961, largely conceived by five leaders:
  • Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister
  • Sukarno, Indonesia’s first President
  • Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s second President
  • Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first President
  • Josip Broz Tito, President of Yugoslavia
  • All five championed a middle course for developing nations between the Western and Eastern blocs during the Cold War.
• Although many NAM members were, in practice, closely aligned with one superpower or another, the movement still maintained cohesion throughout the Cold War.
• Today, NAM has 125 members, representing nearly two-thirds of the United Nations’ membership and 55% of the world’s population, with membership concentrated among Third World countries.

Origins of Non-Alignment

• The term “non-alignment” was coined by V.K. Krishna Menon in his 1953 remarks at the United Nations.
• Nehru’s Panchsheel (the “five restraints”), originally formulated as a guide for Sino-Indian relations, later became a foundational basis for NAM. The five principles were:
  • Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty
  • Mutual non-aggression
  • Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
  • Equality and mutual benefit
  • Peaceful co-existence
• A series of conferences progressively strengthened Third World unity:
  • Asian Relations Conference, New Delhi, March–April 1947 (hosted by Nehru)
  • Asian Conference, New Delhi, 1949
  • Bandung Conference / Afro-Asian Conference (1955):
    • A landmark event in NAM’s development, hosted by Indonesian President Sukarno, bringing together Sukarno, Nasser, Nehru, Tito, and Nkrumah alongside leaders such as U Nu, Ho Chi Minh, Zhou Enlai, Norodom Sihanouk, and U Thant.
    • The conference adopted a “Declaration on the Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation,” incorporating Nehru’s five principles and a collective pledge of neutrality in the Cold War.
  • Belgrade Conference (1961):
    • On the initiative of Yugoslav President Tito, the first Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries was held in September 1961 in Belgrade.
    • NAM was never established as a formal organisation; the name simply came to refer to the participants of this Belgrade conference.
    • The first summit formulated founding principles: pursuit of an independent policy, anti-colonialism, no alliance with blocs or superpowers, and refusal to provide military bases to superpowers.
  • Lusaka Conference (Third Conference, September 1970):
    • Added the peaceful resolution of disputes, abstention from big-power military alliances and pacts, and opposition to foreign military bases as movement objectives.
  • The term “Non-Aligned Movement” was used explicitly for the first time at the fifth conference in Colombo (1976), where participants were formally denoted as members.
  • Havana Declaration (1979):
    • Fidel Castro described the movement’s purpose as securing “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign domination or hegemony.

Requirements for Membership

Membership criteria align with the core beliefs of the United Nations, requiring candidate countries to demonstrate practices consistent with the ten “Bandung Principles” of 1955:

• Respect for fundamental human rights and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter
• Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
• Recognition of movements for national independence
• Recognition of the equality of all races and nations, large and small
• Abstention from intervention or interference in another country’s internal affairs
• Respect for each nation’s right to defend itself, singly or collectively, in conformity with the UN Charter
• Refraining from acts or threats of aggression against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country
• Settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, in conformity with the UN Charter
• Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
• Respect for justice and international obligations

Nature and Character of NAM

• Rooted in the principle of non-alignment:
  • Non-alignment symbolised an independent vision, posture, and stand — implying the pursuit of an independent foreign policy and rejection of every form of external dominance.
  • It was a pragmatic move by newly independent nations to protect and promote their hard-won freedom and interests, including economic development.
  • NAM was not synonymous with non-commitment, neutrality, isolation, or non-involvement.
    • Non-alignment was a political concept, whereas neutralism is a legal concept enshrined in a country’s constitution — for instance, Austria and Switzerland followed neutralism and abstained from participation in any war (as Turkmenistan does today under permanent neutrality).
    • Unlike neutralism, non-alignment was never written into any constitution and was not treated as a permanent feature of state policy.
    • Rather than isolation, NAM stood for an active and assertive role in international relations, offering a new alternative built on cooperation and peace.
• NAM did not represent a “Third Bloc”:
  • A bloc requires a leading country around which the system revolves — as the USA led the capitalist bloc and the USSR led the communist bloc.
  • The combined military strength of Third World countries fell short of what a bloc system requires, and NAM members did not follow a uniform military policy — another prerequisite for a bloc.
• NAM was not opportunism: its objective was not to gain advantage by playing one power against the other or extracting benefits from both — a fact reflected in the ideological diversity of its Secretaries-General, ranging from the authoritarian anti-communist Suharto to the democratic socialist Nelson Mandela.
• New International Economic Order (NIEO) and NWICO:
  • During the 1970s and early 1980s, NAM sponsored campaigns to restructure commercial relations between developed and developing nations through the New International Economic Order (NIEO), proposed in the 1960s to promote and protect Third World economic interests through export promotion and a greater share in international economic decision-making.
    • The UNGA passed a resolution on NIEO in 1974 and called for a North-South Dialogue (North referring to developed nations, South to underdeveloped ones). When this dialogue failed to produce results, the idea of South-South Cooperation emerged in its place.
  • NAM also championed cultural freedom against the dominance of the Western communication system, which it viewed as subverting Third World political sovereignty and traditional values while presenting distorted narratives about these nations.
    • This led to the call for a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) and the establishment of a Non-Aligned News Pool in 1976.

Peace and Disarmament

• Despite vast ideological differences among member governments, NAM has remained unified by its commitment to world peace and security.
  • At the seventh summit (New Delhi, March 1983), the movement described itself as “history’s biggest peace movement.”
  • Equal emphasis was placed on disarmament, with NAM’s commitment to peace predating its formal institutionalisation in 1961.
  • The Brioni meeting (1956) between the heads of government of India, Egypt, and Yugoslavia recognised the vital link between the struggle for peace and the pursuit of disarmament.

Role of NAM and the Third World during the Cold War

• Offered a new alternative in international relations centred on peace and cooperation.
• Contributed to the relaxation of Cold War tensions through its role in Détente.
• Served as a voice against imperialism, colonialism, racism, apartheid, and all forms of dominance.
• Helped soften conflict situations such as the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Vietnam War.
• Strengthened the United Nations, given that NAM countries constituted a majority of its membership.
• Fostered Third World groupings such as the G-77 (1964), G-24 (1971), and G-15 (1989).
• Promoted South-South cooperation and advanced the idea of the NIEO.
• Projected the national interests of Third World countries and contributed to the formation of UNCTAD.
• Played a role in disarmament initiatives such as the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), 1963, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1970.
• Contributed to efforts on environmental protection and human rights.

Activities and Achievements

• NAM’s successes in multilateral agreements have often been overlooked by the larger, Western and developed-nation-dominated UN system.
  • African concerns about apartheid were linked with Arab-Asian concerns about Palestine, and multilateral cooperation on these issues achieved moderate success.
• The movement played a major role in ideological conflicts, including opposition to apartheid governments and support for guerrilla movements in regions such as Rhodesia and South Africa.
• It has criticised aspects of US foreign policy as attempts to override the sovereignty of smaller nations.
• NAM has supported self-determination debates at the UN — for Puerto Rico since 1961 and for Western Sahara since 1973.
• The movement remains committed to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals, while arguing that the international community has not created conditions conducive to development and has infringed on each member state’s right to sovereign development.
  • Globalisation, the debt burden, unfair trade practices, declining foreign aid, donor conditionality, and the lack of democracy in international financial decision-making are cited as key obstacles.
• Reforms of the UN: NAM has criticised existing UN structures for being used by powerful states in ways that violate the movement’s principles, calling for greater representation, power, transparency, and democracy in UN decision-making — with the UN Security Council identified as the most distorted and undemocratic body requiring reshaping.
• South-South Cooperation: NAM has collaborated closely with the Group of 77, forming joint committees and issuing statements representing shared developing-world interests.
• Cultural Diversity and Human Rights: While accepting the universality of human rights and social justice, NAM resists cultural homogenisation, appealing for the protection of cultural diversity and tolerance of the religious, socio-cultural, and historical particularities that shape human rights in different regions.

Criticism of NAM

• While NAM’s core responsibility was to preserve the neutrality of its member nations, many members failed to live up to this principle in practice.
  • At the Havana Conference (1970), NAM was revealed to be split into three camps:
    • One openly sympathetic to the Soviet Union (Cuba, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ethiopia, South Yemen)
    • A second leaning towards America (Somalia, Singapore, Zaire, Morocco)
    • A third — including India, Yugoslavia, and Sri Lanka — that tried to genuinely uphold NAM’s stated policy
• A recurring dichotomy between NAM’s preaching and practice emerged, with members often adopting UN positions at variance with the consensus developed within NAM itself.
• NAM’s credibility suffered as many members became embroiled in conflicts with one another:
  • The movement fractured internally when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 — Soviet allies supported the invasion, while other members, particularly Muslim-majority states, condemned it.
  • Bloody conflicts among NAM members included the Iran-Iraq War.
  • During the Indo-Pak War of 1965, Pakistan received support from Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia against India, despite Nehru’s earlier support for Indonesia’s anti-colonial struggle at the UN and his personal friendship with President Sukarno.
  • The Chinese attack on India in 1962 exposed the movement’s limits, as both nations were NAM members, yet no NAM country came to India’s aid.
  • NAM proved unable to influence lingering disputes such as the Middle East conflict and Cyprus, which strained relations between Turkey and Greece.
• NAM could not compel either Cold War bloc to alter policy despite repeated demands — for example, the USA crossed the 38th parallel in Korea, China tightened its hold on Tibet, American troops were air-dropped into Lebanon, and Soviet forces entered Hungary, all in defiance of NAM’s opposition. Similarly, NAM played little active role in resolving the repeated Arab-Israeli wars.
  • NAM’s role in the freedom struggles of countries like Algeria and Angola is also considered to have been negligible, with independence achieved primarily through internal struggle rather than NAM intervention.
• Institutional weakness: NAM has never had a permanent secretariat, functioning instead purely through periodic summits and conferences.
• Weakening after the Cold War:
  • The movement is seen by some as having outlived its utility once bloc politics ended.
    • In 2004, Malta and Cyprus left NAM to join the European Union, leaving Belarus as its sole European member.
  • NAM’s inability to meaningfully address crises involving its own members, such as the Gulf Crisis (Iraq-Kuwait) and the civil war in Yugoslavia, further weakened its standing.
  • Post-Cold War weaknesses include declining member interest, difficulty in convening summits, and the absence of a concrete, contemporary agenda.
  • Despite its size and potential influence, NAM has struggled to fulfil its stated objectives, with member states rarely using the platform to actively resolve disputes.
  • Agreement on basic principles has remained relatively easy, but the movement has rarely taken definitive action on specific international issues, preferring to express criticism or support rather than pass binding resolutions.
  • Critics argue that membership criteria, largely unchanged in the two decades since the Cold War’s end, reflect an organisation frozen in time.

Contemporary Relevance of NAM (Post-Cold War)

• The end of Cold War bipolarity sparked intense debate over NAM’s continued relevance.
  • Although NAM was conceived to navigate Cold War rivalry, its founding purpose — non-alignment, not neutrality — remains applicable, since non-aligned nations were always meant to be active in world politics while retaining autonomy of judgment based on their own national interest.
• Non-aligned nations were also driven by concerns that went beyond Cold War antagonisms, including building fledgling economies, forging a sense of national identity, and carving out an independent strategic space in international affairs — concerns that remain relevant today.
• Many of the conditions that originally necessitated NAM persist, including neo-colonial pressures on former colonies, visible in continuing US hegemony in forums such as the United Nations. If Cold War-era institutions are deemed obsolete, the argument extends equally to NATO, which was created to counter the same rivalry.
• Since the Cold War’s end, NAM has sought to redefine itself around multilateralism, equality, and mutual non-aggression, positioning itself as a stronger voice for the Global South and a means of strengthening developing nations’ leverage in negotiations with developed countries.
  • Its focus has shifted from opposing foreign occupation and interference toward addressing socio-economic challenges, particularly inequalities arising from globalisation and neo-liberal policies, identifying underdevelopment, poverty, and social injustice as growing threats to peace and security.
  • Alongside the G-77, NAM is seen as providing a buffer against the neo-colonialism of the twenty-first century, ensuring that the UN retains space for Third World concerns rather than being steered solely by the P5.
• NAM’s continued institutional weight was illustrated in 2012, when the USA protested and called for a boycott of the 16th NAM Summit hosted by Iran; the summit was nonetheless attended by nearly all 120 members, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, despite pressure to stay away.
• A key argument for NAM’s ongoing relevance lies in the shift from Cold War bipolarity, which paralysed the UN Security Council through superpower vetoes, to post-Cold War unipolarity, under which smaller and medium-sized states have even less room for independent action and thus greater need for coordinating platforms like NAM.
  • While multi-alignment has become increasingly common, with states participating simultaneously in forums like BRICS, BASIC, IBSA, and the G-20, this does not extinguish NAM’s continued importance.
• Though born out of rejection of Cold War bipolar rivalry, NAM has continued to function well beyond the end of Soviet-US confrontation, and the enduring need for better North-South and South-South relations suggests it retains scope for a resurgent role — one requiring renewed initiative from its member states.