Emergence of The Third World
Emergence of The Third World
Introduction
Emergence of the 'Third World': Historical Reflection
Subsequent Spread of Independence in Asia and Africa, 1945–1960
The Islamic World
The Suez Crisis
New Hope for the Third World
The Non-Aligned Nations of Asia and Africa: As the Beginning of a ‘Third
World’
The 1955 Bandung Conference: Third World Aversion to Cold War Alignment
Waning of the Concept ‘The Three-World Order’
Relevance of the Concept ‘The Third World’
Conclusion
Source;http://www.opinionatedbastard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/RNGtsNe.jpg
accessed on 15 October 2015
The term ‗Third World‘ does not appear on a map. The years since World War II have
seen new nation states. The independence movement led to the emergence of a number of
countries. As colonies were given their independence by the former colonial powers. These
countries shared various features, including common history as had been subjected to
European and North American domination, underdevelopment, rapid demographic growth
etc., and they were called as the ‗Third World‘. The term ‗Third World‘ referred to the one-
third of the world that was not aligned with the Cold War superpowers i.e., the United
States and the Soviet Union. Third World, not a homogenous group, has different political
system and level of economic development. The Third World countries are also called
developing countries because they are facing the economic, social and political problems like
poverty, starvation, illiteracy and ethnic conflicts. Thus, the Third World is primarily defined
by poverty. They have opposed imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, foreign intervention and
have supported peaceful coexistence, right of self-determination, disarmament and world
peace. Since, they have similar problems and aspirations; they call themselves as non-
aligned countries. The concept emerged during the period of Cold War and used as an
The term ‗Third World’ was first employed in 1952 by French demographer Alfred
Sauvy in an article entitled, ‗Three Worlds, One Planet’. He argued for the fact that the
presence of the third world is in fact overlooked due to the overemphasis on the
confrontation of the two super powers which in fact should have been credited with the first
world title going by the historical facts (Stevens 2006: 756). The term was apparently
coined by French intellectual in a conscious reminiscence of the legally underprivileged
French ‗Third Estate‘ of 1789 which has provided much of the driving force of the French
Revolution. It reflected their exclusion and disregard by the super powers in terms of
economic privileges by the developed countries. The expression ‗Third World‘ actually
marked important differences between the members of that group in their individual
relations with the developed world. By the early 1960s, the term has been used as a
―synonym for such phrases as ‗underdeveloped world‘, ‗developing countries‘, ‗less
developed countries‘, ‗former colonies‘, ‗Afro-Asian and Latin American countries‘, ‗the
South‘ (North-South division) and so on‖ (Muni 1979: 121). Mark T. Berger suggests the
beginning of Third Worldism to the ―complex milieu of colonialism and anti-colonial
nationalism in the early 20th century, and indicates the overall consolidation of Third
Worldism‖ as grounded in the post-1945 period of national liberation movement (Berger
2004: 11).
Value addition- Did you Know
The First World
Throughout this period, the United States has led the great powers in promoting democracy
in the newly independent nations. The newly independent countries wanted to have friendly
relations with all without joining capitalist or communist blocs.
In this context, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru had assimilated the liberal democratic values of the
West as well as the automatic industrialization of the Soviet Union. Efforts for forging unity
among Asians and Africans started early in 1947. In the decade of 1950, five newly
independent countries namely, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma and Indonesia took the
initiative to unite the developing countries against colonisation. In Bandung, the first Afro–
Asian conference was held by Third-World countries to strengthen their position on 17 April
1955. Caroline Thomas is of the view that Third World states were differentiated by two
significant attributes which also served as a meeting point to mobilize. Firstly, ―based on
their position in the global economy, these states perceive themselves as vulnerable to
external factors beyond their control, and to decisions and policies‖– predominantly
economic – in which they shared no ownership. Secondly, ―Third World states were home to
the majority of the world‘s poor who endured every day survival risks associated with grave
social problems‖ (Thomas 1999: 226).
Eradication of colonialism after World War-II brought an upheaval in international
relations. Morton Kaplan has called the third world a loose bipolar system because it stands
between the world divided into two blocs, one led by America and other by Soviet Union.
The former was variously known as capitalists and later as socialist totalitarian bloc. The
newly independent countries of Asia and Africa were anxious to preserve their political
independence and did not like to join any of these blocs. They were called the third world.
Source:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Marsigli_Filippo_-
_The_Death_of_Markos_Botsaris_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/800px-Marsigli_Filippo_-
Most Third World nations are former colonies of industrialized European countries and
were dependent on the North for governance and economic assistance. In the mid to late
nineteenth century, the European powers colonized much of Africa and Southeast Asia.
Although Great Britain was the largest colonial power, it was not the only one. At the onset
of World War II, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Italy all had colonies, and even the
United States had possessions, the largest of which was in the Philippine Islands.During the
period of imperialism, the European powers viewed the African and Asian continents as
reservoirs of raw materials, manpower and territory. The colonies were exploited for natural
and labor resources. In addition, the introduction of colonial rule drew arbitrary natural
boundaries, dividing ethnic and linguistic groups, and laying the foundation for the creation
of numerous states lacking geographic, linguistic, ethnic, or political affinity. World War II
dealt a serious blow to the colonial powers, depriving them of their former power and
prestige. The widespread uprisings of native people in the British empire gave
encouragement to those in other colonies. The effects of World War II and growing
demands for independence in Europe‘s remaining colonies led to significant changes in the
world map by 1950.
The process of decolonization and nation building followed three broad patterns:
1. Civil war
3. Incomplete decolonization
Nothing remained of the huge empires carved out by conquest by Germany in Europe,
North Africa, and the USSR and by Japan in China, Southeast Asia and the pacific. France
was clinging to its colonies in Africa and Southeast Asia. Other European colonial empires
were shrinking. The Netherlands surrendered control of most of its Southeast Asian
empires. When these colonies were given independence in the 19 th and 20th centuries, they
had poor infrastructures, little technology, and few trained leaders. Thus, they maintained
close ties with the former rulers, bargaining resources for manufactured goods. Eventually
they failed behind the developed world.
The United States and the Soviet Union encouraged the colonies to make a bid for
independence. Decolonization unfolded in two phases.
(A) The first lasted from 1945 to 1955, mainly affecting countries in the Near and Middle
East, and South-East Asia. While the capitalist and communist blocs embarked on a cold
war, in the Third World the conflicts got very hot. In Asia and Africa, anti-colonial leaders
capitalized on European weakness and Japanese defeat to intensify their campaigns for
independence
(B) The second phase started in 1955 and mainly concerned North Africa and sub-Saharan
Africa. Whether their transition to independence had been peaceful or violent, Europe‘s
former territories faced formidable difficulties. This may be because both the Soviet Union
and the US saw them as pawns in the Cold War struggle. The major battlegrounds between
the communist and capitalist ideologies were the former French colony of Vietnam and
Portugal‘s major African possessions: Angola and Mozambique. As its consequence,
countries such as Vietnam and Angola became focus of global conflict. Several newly
independent states soon found themselves engaged in disastrous wars. The frontiers of
many states in Africa, were created and imposed by their colonial rulers. The Congo and
Nigeria, were both wracked by vicious civil wars in which dominant ethnic groups tried to
suppress challenges by smaller tribal peoples. Overall, the result was the emergence of the
Third World.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the Cold War was increasingly fought
ideologically. It was increasingly conceived in America in terms not so much of "American
Source:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/HF_Verwoerd_Tran
svaler.jpg/215px-HF_Verwoerd_Transvaler.jpg accessed on 21 October 2015
The colonized peoples of South-East Asia were the first to demand independence.
The partition of Korea by the US and USSR in 1945 into a Soviet-backed communist North
and US backed capitalist South sowed the seeds of the first major Cold War confrontation in
Southeast Asia. The age of British empire was coming to an end. In February 1947 the
British decided to leave India but not without violent clashes between the Hindu and
Muslim communities. On 15 August 1947 this situation led to the partition of the
subcontinent into two separate states: Hindustan and Pakistan. However, the disaster of
partition could not prevent Britain‘s withdrawal having an enormous impact elsewhere.
Every year saw at least one or four to five former colonies granted independence. In 1948
the United Kingdom also granted independence to Burma and Ceylon, but Malaya had to
wait till 1957 to gain the independence.
Kwame Nkrumah - outspoken anti-colonialist - lead Ghana from its status as the
British colony of the Gold Coast
Source:http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/73096000/jpg/_73096387_kwame
_getty.jpg Accessed on 21 October 2015
On 6 March 1957 Ghana, a former British colony, became the first country in sub-Saharan
Africa to proclaim its independence. Zanzibar and Tanganyika merged to form Tanzania.
Bechuanaland became Botswana. Northern Rhodesia became Zambia. By the mid-1960s,
the British empire had effectively been wound up. The transition from British rule after
1950 was orderly and peaceful. Other European powers surrendered less willingly.
North Borneo, and Sarawak joined Malaya in 1963 to become Malaysia. Papua New Guinea
became independent in 1975, and the British Solomon Islands became independent three
years later.
In China, civil war broke between nationalists and communists in 1946 and
continued until 1949. On 1 October 1949, China emerged as the world‘s most populous
communist state, the People‘s Republic of China. Mao‘s victory, coming so soon after the
British evacuation of India, added to the feeling in the colonies everywhere that imperialism
could be beaten.
Events followed a similar pattern in nearby French colonies and France had to cope
with demands for independence from its colonies. Stalemates developed as France faced
the humiliating challenges of a French empire everywhere.and in 1960 some 15 new
independent states emerged: Guinea (1958), Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Ivory Coast,
Dahomey, Gabon, Upper Volta, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Central African
Republic, Senegal, Chad and Togo. On 30 June 1960 Congo also proclaimed itself
independent. In 1946, France launched armed campaign against nationalists under Ho Chi
Minh in Indo-China. Syrian independence was agreed to by France. Facing nationalist
protest, France pulled out of Tunisia and Morocco in 1956. France was engulfed in two futile
wars to maintain its colonial rule in Indo-China and Algeria. By 1958, its increasingly vicious
war against separatists in Algeria had provoked its most serious political crisis since 1930s.
Another wave of decolonisation swept through the Near and Middle East
(LLebanon, Syria) and North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco). Decolonisation in Africa
was a slower process, gaining pace in the late 1950s. Only Portugal refused to accept the
Algerian Arabs celebrate independence from France after 132 years - March
1962
Source : http://www.kingsacademy.com/mhodges/03_The-World-since-1900/10_The-
3rd-World/pictures/Algerian-independence_1962.jpg,accessed on 21 October 2015
To read more about the process of decolonization one may read from;
Rethinking Decolonization
A. G. Hopkins
Past & Present, No. 200 (Aug., 2008), pp. 211-24
In the Middle East, nationalism collided with the economic interests of Western Europe
and the US. The legacy of colonialism contributed to strife in the Middle East. In 1979,
The Suez Crisis illustrated the new international power relationships, a military conflict
involving British, French, Israeli and Egyptian forces. It was caused by Egypt nationalising
the suez canal. In a combined operation, Israel invaded Sinaiand French and British troops
occupied the canal area. Under US pressure, invading forces withdrew and were replaced
by a UN peace keeping force. In Egypt, on 26 July 1956, President Gamal Abdel Nasser, a
champion of pan-Arabism, announced the nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company. The
Crisis directly threatened the interests of France, the United Kingdom and Israel, leading to
a trial of strength that culminated in a joint military operation by the three countries
against the former British protectorate in October 1956. The dogged efforts by France and
Britain to safeguard their economic and financial interests at the expense of a developing
country prompted the involvement of the international community. When on November 29,
1956, England, France and Israel made a bold move to reassert
European control of the Suez Canal recently seized by Egyptian President Nasser, America
was quick to denounce the intervention of its friends claiming that it was deeply
disappointed that they would undertake such an imperialist move at precisely the same
time the West was condemning the Soviets for a similar imperialist intrusion into
Hungary. The Suez crisis ended in a diplomatic fiasco and moral defeat for the two former
colonial powers — France and the United Kingdom — whilst Colonel Nasser emerged as the
champion of the Arab cause and decolonization.
The old imperialism of direct colonial rule finally came to an end in the last quarter
After the completion of decolonization in Asia and Africa, the newly independent
countries emerged as a significant player in the international arena. These nations attended
Bandung conference in Indonesia from 17 to 24 April 1955 and reaffirmed their decision to
be independent and non-aligned in the bipolar world. These third world nations changed the
balance of power within the United Nations as its membership increased every year. In
1946, there were 35 member states in the United Nations and by 1970, the membership
had increased up to 127. These countries advocated the independence of colonial states.
The Non-Aligned Nations of Asia and Africa: As the Beginning of a ‘Third World’
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Gedung.Merdeka.jpg accessed on
21 October 2015
The term ―non- alignment‖ originated in the post-1945 period. It is commonly used to
describe newly independent countries of Asia and Africa which were keen to maintain their
independence and protect their separate identities in the era of bipolarization. The newly
independent countries of Asia and Africa did not like to join any of the two blocs, one led by
The Western Scholars like Hans. J. Morgenthau, George Liska and Lawrence W.
Marton and others referred the term ―neutralism‖ to ―non-alignment‖. Third Worldist
interpretation of nonalignment ―meant positive action for protecting the interests of the
weak and achieving positive aims, which included peace and public regulation of the
international regime, on the basis of active alliance and formation of ‗trans-border‘
solidarity‖ (Cho 2004: 498).
The 1955 Bandung Conference: Third World Aversion to Cold War Alignment
The Bandung conference of 1955 led to the emergence of the third world. India
played a major role in raising the voice of newly independent countries. As a result of
independence movement, the United Nations, was gradually transformed into a third world
forum. The Afro-Asian conference co-sponsored by Burma, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
Sri Lanka discussed peace, role of the Third World, economic development, and
decolonization process. They tried to chart out a diplomatic course as neutrals or ‗non-
Thus, the concept of the ‗Third World‘ was born. Communist China was one of the
countries participating as the Third World Country rather than the Russian Soviet orbit. The
1955 Bandung Conference was the first attempt at the creation and establishment of a third
force in global politics. The term Third World was adopted to refer to a self-defining group
of non-aligned states. The Bandung Conference played an important role in mobilizing the
counter-hegemonic forces to be known as the Third World. There were other priority areas
as well such as anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, non-violence and conflict resolution via
the United Nation .The conference also emphasis on the issues of increased cultural and
technical cooperation between African and Asian governments along with the establishment
for an economic development fund .It also raised its voice for the required support for
human rights and the self-determinations of peoples and nations by the world community
and negotiations to reduce the building and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. With this kind
of perspective the international politics marked the emergence of a non-aligned bloc from
the two superpowers after the Bandung conference. Hee-Yeon Cho opines that the
―Bandung spirit is not ‗detachment‘ from the powerful Western countries, but non-aligned
self-helped ‗organization against‘ the powerful countries‖ (Cho 2004: 498).
The early 1960s were years of optimism in the Third World. Ghanaian prime minister
Kwame Nkrumah trumpeted pan-Africanism. It was a way for the African continent to
place itself on a par with the rest of the world. Egyptian president Nasser boasted that his
democratic socialism was neither Western nor Soviet-inspired and that Egypt would retain
its neutrality in the cold war struggle. Indian prime minister Nehru blended democratic
politics and state planning to promote India‘s quest for political independence and economic
autonomy. The membership and aims of the ―Non-Aligned summits of the 1960s, 1970s
and 1980s‖ expanded and contracted as time progressed (Tomlinson 2003: 309-310). The
1961 Belgrade Non-Aligned Summit conference established an alternative platform for
negotiating the diplomatic solidarity of countries which saw an advantage in
advertising their autonomy from the rival superpower blocs. During the early 1960s,
primary focus was directed towards mitigating the effects of the Cold War, ―as represented
by the British and French invasion of the Suez, and the Russian invasion of Hungary in
1956, on states which were not part of any power bloc (Tomlinson 2003: 310).‖ Towards
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Leonid_Brezhnev_and_Ric
hard_Nixon_talks_in_1973.png/220px-
Leonid_Brezhnev_and_Richard_Nixon_talks_in_1973.png,accessed on 27 0ctober 2015
Brezhnev and Nixon talk while standing on the White House balcony during Brezhnev's
1973 visit to Washington – a high-water mark in détente between the United States and
the Soviet Union.
During the early stages of the 1970s, the G77 headed the ―demand for new
institutions of global economic management to remove the structural imbalances‖
(Tomlinson 2003: 312). These objectives were to be realised in ways that would guarantee
the states‘ economic sovereignty, ―including their right to control the exploitation of natural
resources, with the right to nationalize them of appropriate‖ (Tomlnson 2003: 312). The UN
resolutions passed in 1974 relating to the NIEO signaled the zenith of the diplomatic unity
of Third World regimes‖ (Tomlinson 2003: 312). The changes called for in the NIEO were
never implemented. By the start of the 1980s, the US-driven globalization project provided
a significant challenge to the importance allocated to the restructuring of the global
economy so as to ―address the North-South divide.‖ The third world received huge
impetus from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, along with Reagan
administration, Thatcher in the UK, and Chancellor Kohl in the former West Germany,
moved them towards the privatization of public sectors, charting the policy of liberalization
of the trade and the deregulation of financial sectors .On the other hand the international
happenings such as the renewal of hostilities of the Cold War further facilitated the reduced
clout of the NAM. The Third World nations discovered that they now confronted a new
series of ‗neo-colonial’ problems.
In the 1990s, it was claimed that states were unimportant in the ‗new global economy‘.
The end of the Cold War marked a shift from a world of geo-strategy, to a new international
arrangement based on geo-economy. The world‘s wealthiest countries promoted
globalization by establishing economic and political relationships that transcended national
boundaries. Developing countries struggled to assert their national identity. There are
arguments speaking for the redundancy of the third world existence due to the collapse of
the Second World, namely the Soviet Union and its satellite states. The world is majorly
marked with a complex web of hierarchies in the post 1990 scenario with a glaring absence
of any kind of equality among them . In the general discourse the phrase North –south
Dichotomy has been getting huge acceptability after the end of cold war reflecting the
apathy to the presence of third world and its related dimensions and problems .in fact the
development model of states asserts that the development of states such as Taiwan, Hong
Kong, Singapore and South Korea, along with other countries such as Mexico and Brazil,
have served to disprove the Third Worldist claim that self-reinforcing and coherent
development in the Third World is not possible (Holm 1990: 1). The structure of the
international system is based on the size of states, the extent of their development and
their importance in key economic areas. Both the G77 and the NAM are currently
experiencing more division than in the past. A NAM member, Iraq, invaded another
member Kuwait. Yugoslavia was also disintegrated. Any form of common action or any
―common political platform‖ is lacking (Holm 1990: 2).
The criticism itself set the stage for the revival of Third Worldism, and its
continued relevance in the contemporary era.
Nevertheless, ten years after the end of the World War II, Bandung forced the great
powers to recognize that the weak had power if they could mobilize it. The end of the Cold
War, has dealt the ‗three world order‘ classification scheme a finishing stroke, and the
disintegration of the erstwhile Soviet Union diminished the relevance of the Third World.
However, the Third World maintains its relevance in the contemporary period. The
developing countries, squeezed by its inability to reduce poverty, on the one hand, and
The concept of the Third World is relevant in the post-Cold War era. The ten principles
articulated at the Bandung conference especially ―the five principles of peaceful
coexistence‖ grounded the ―cooperation among newly independent States stressing mutual
respect and mutual benefit.‖ The structure of the contemporary international political
economy is different from that which prevailed during the Cold War era. ―The current
international political economy has given rise to a situation in which all three segments are
found in both the North and the South, and where their difference lies only in their relative
proportion‖ (Mushakoji 2005: 515). It is as a result thereof that the counter-hegemonic
force that was created at the Bandung Conference by Third World states cannot remain
confined to Third World countries. This is a new brand of Third Worldism that should aim to
include non-state actors in the subaltern and the excluded segments of the Trilateral
regions (Mushakoji 2005: 515). Despite the political-economic eradication of the borders
dividing the North and the South, the North/South divide is not filled. Thus, there is need
for revival of the concept ‗Third Worldism‘.
Conclusion
Emerging in the period of bipolar world dominated by the two superpowers, the
concept of the Third World offered different path for the developing countries. At one point
of time, it acted as a mobilizing force for the completion of decolonization and on the other
hand, offered option for counter hegemonic alliance. The Cold War had enormous impact on
the developing countries - politically, socially and economically. However, the end of the
Cold War , the disintegration of the USSR and the disappearance of the Second World have
led to heated debate on the relevance of the Third World and the NAM. Yet, the Third
―To help developing countries help themselves, wealthy nations must begin to lift the
burdens they impose on the poor.‖ – Nancy Birdsall, Dani Rodrik, Arvind Subrmanian,
Foreign Affairs, July/August 2005
Glossary
Cold war : After World War II, rivalry between the Soviet Union and its allies on one side
and the United States and the democratic countries of the Western world on the other.
Developing Country :A country where the majority lives on less money and that is
seeking to Become more advanced economically and socially.
Imperialism: The policy of extending the authority of nation over foreign countries, or of
acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
Non-alignment: In order to maintain their sovereignty, new states of Asia and Africa
adopted this policy which is more than mere abstention from military alliances or
involvement in conflict between power blocs.
Third World: Term used after 1950s to describe former colonial and semi-colonial
countries.
Superpower: ery powerful and influential nation, used with reference to the United States
and the former Soviet Union.
1. Do you think that the term ‗Third World‘was an invented term from the Cold War phase.
Comment.
2. How useful is the term ‗Third World‘ in today‘s economic and political system?
3. What are some of the major problems faced by ‗Third World‘ countries today?
4. In your opinion, was the Cold War inevitable? If not, was the United States or the USSR
more to blame?
5. Why were Americans so terrified of communist infiltration after World War II?
6. In what cases and why did decolonization involve large-scale violence?
7. Why anti-colonial revolts occurred only in a minority of the colonies in Africa, and why
these territories were caught up in political violence?
MuMultiple-Choice Questions
4. Which of the following characteristics are most likely found in developing countries?
a. high population growth rates.
b. large number of people living in poverty.
c. very traditional methods of agricultural production.
d. all of the above
e. none of the above
Ans. d
5. Asian tigers or newly industrializing countries (NICs) of East and Southeast Asia include
the following except
a. South Korea.
b. China.
c. Taiwan.
d. Singapore.
Ans. b
9. Two countries that still rely on the Soviet communist model of development are
a. Ghana and Nigeria.
b. Poland and Germany.
c. Cuba and North Korea.
d. China and Hong Kong.
Ans. c
REFERENCES
Berger, Mark T. ―After the Third World? History, Destiny and the Fate of Third Worldism‖,
Cho, Hee-Yeon. ―Second Death, or Revival of the ‗Third World‘ in the Context of Neo-Liberal
Globalization‖, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 6 (2004: 498).
Holm, Hans-Henrik. ―The End of the Third World?‖, Journal of Peace Research 27 (1990): 1-
2.
Dirlik, Arif. (August 2003) ―Global Modernity?: Modernity in an age of Global Capitalism‖,
European Journal of Social Theory, vol.6, 3 pp. 275-292.
Stevens, Jacqueline. Recreating the State, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 5, Reshaping
Justice: International Law and the Third World (2006), pp. 755-766, Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4017776 . Accessed: 12/08/2015.
Carl, Pletsch. 'The three worlds, or the division of social scientific labor, circa 1950- 1975',
Comparative Studies in Social History, 23 (4), 1981, pp 565-590.
Mark, T. Berger. ―After the Third World? History, Destiny and the Fate of Third Worldism‖,
Third World Quarterly 25 (2004): 11.
Muni, S. D. ―The Third World: Concept and Controversy‖, Third World Quarterly 1 (1979):
121.
Kinhide, Mushakoji. ―Bandung Plus 50: A Call for Tri-Continental Dialogue on Global
Hegemony‖, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 6 (2005): 514.
Rao, P.V. Narasimha. Nehru and Non-Alignment, Mainstream, Vol XLVII No. 24, May 30,
2009
Retrieved from: http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1399.html Accesses
11/08/2015
Randall, Vicky. ―Using and Abusing the Concept of the Third World: Geopolitics and the
Comparative Political Study of Development and Underdevelopment‖, Third World Quarterly
Nancy Birdsall, Dani Rodrik, Arvind Subrmanian, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2005.
Sharma, Urmila & S.K. Sharma, (2000). International Relations Theory and History, Atlantic
Publishers and Distributors: New Delhi, p.78
Tomlinson, B. R. ―What Was the Third World?‖, Journal of Contemporary History 38 (2003):
309-310.
Caroline Thomas, ―Where is the Third World Now?‖, Review of International Studies 25
(1999): 226
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Abdulgani, Roeslan (1981). The Bandung Connection, translated by Molly Bondan.
Singapore: Gunung Agung.
Amin, Samir (1990). Delinking: Towards a Polycentric World. London.
Bell, P. M. H. (2001). The World since 1945: An International History. London: Arnold;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Burton, J. W, International Relations- a general theory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1967
Cespedes, Juan R. (2012). Lectures on Contemporary History Notes: The Third
World.
Chhabra, H. K., History of Modern World since 1945, Surjeet Publication, Delhi, 2005
Ghai, U. R, International Relations, New academic publishing co., Jalandhar, 2007
Golding, Peter, and Harris, Phil (ed.) (1997). "Reflections on the International
System." In Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Globalization, Communication, and the
New International Order.
Haynes, Jeffrey (1996). Third World Politics: A Concise Introduction. Oxford: