More notes at http://tanguay.info/learntracker
C O U R S E 
The Modern World: Global History since 1760
Prof. Philip Zelikow, University of Virginia
C O U R S E   L E C T U R E 
The Emergence of the Third World
Notes taken on July 28, 2014 by Edward Tanguay
the Suez Canal background tension
how does the United States reconcile its anti-communist goals with the imperialist goals of the British and French
imperial interests are creating colonial rebellions that are playing into the hands of the communists
the United States wants to be on the side of aspiring nationalists for the sake of its anti-communist confederation
that puts it in conflict with the empires, yet these empires are their allies, that's the tension which came to a head in 1956 with the Suez Canal
1954: French lost Indochina
French were locked in an intense struggle to retain Algeria, it's North African department of France
Egypt under Nasser
Nasser overthrows 1952 government, cracked down on Muslim Brotherhood and ousted president
1956 nationalizes Suez Canal
obliges British to withdraw their forces from Egypt, forces that had been their since 1882, also because of a dispute over the Suez Canal
the French don't like Nasserian Egypt either since they think he is supporting Algerian rebels
British see Nasser's move on Suez Canal as a way to cut one of their historic imperial life lines
British and French secretly collude with the Israelis so that all three countries launch a joint military occupation which will seize the Suez Canal while the Israelis will attack Egypt in Sinai
Lester B. Pearson from Canada had proposed a UN peacekeeping force
U.S. supported this and put pressure on the British financially
unlike 1882, the British and the French had to take a humiliating withdrawal, Israelis forced to withdraw from Sinai
significance of the Suez Canal outcome
for the West: Americans had reaffirmed the centrality of the anti-communist confederation
British and France began looking toward the dismantling of their empires as something that was inevitable
the process of decolonization accelerated rapidly
as French and British gave up their colonial identity, they started focusing on European identity
and some of this European identity excluded the United States, as there was hostility toward the U.S. coming out of the Suez Canal crisis
for the East, it gave the Soviet Union more opportunity for taking sides in the Middle East, finding states who wanted Soviet arm supplies
to the Soviet Union, Nasser was a hero who stood up to the west and vindicated the cause of nationalism
Nasser symbolized the new power of the Third World
Third World
countries not included in NATO or Communist Bloc, the uncommitted middle
from the point of view of the superpowers
Third World countries were very important as objects
1. dependent patron/client relationships
not formal colonies but junior partners on one side or the other
2. development models
experimental laboratories for American or communist ideas about development
enormous infrastructure projects such as dams to generate electricity
3. geopolitical locations and strategic pivots
to control choke points to important areas of the world
4. examples of authenticity and liberation
striving against hierarchical oppression
idealized image of "the natural person", e.g. Che Guevara, who became a symbol of revolution against oppression
5. in all the Third World seemed important
from the point of view of Third World countries
a non-aligned movement
1955 president Sukarno in Indonesia
organized the Bandung Conference to unite developing Asian and African countries into a non-aligned movement to counter the competing superpowers at the time
interesting that China also attended
Jawaharlal Nehru
prime minister of India from 1947-1964
there was a notion that whichever way the Third World swung would determine future balance of power between the rival blocks
leaders felt pressured to be subjects
the shape of their countries had been shaped by and inherited from imperial rule
kind of government
property laws
court system
political vocabulary
shaped by the anti-imperialist struggle
they are simultaneously products of imperial rule and the hatred of imperial rule
decolonization was going on globally in the 1950s and 1960s, little countries getting their independence but with weighted dependence toward the superpowers
structure of some of these states are very small
e.g. one radio station, one newspaper, a small capital
loyal army units you can count on might be a few battalions
leaders were conscious of what it would take for someone to suddenly overthrow them and how foreigners might meddle in the affairs of your country
affected deals they made to buy goods, promises they made, relations they entered into
leaders were both worried by their fragility and tempted by it
want to feel more independent
leaders are trying to manipulate the foreigners to serve their interests
catching up
lifting their people out of poverty
this was a very strong notion for Third World countries
there were multiple meanings of modernization
who controls the modernized banks in my country?
who gets access to credit in credit?
key industries
what is the relationship of my government to key industries: tin, copper, etc.
are you satisfied by who owns land or do you need to redistribute it?
do you like the trading system that the imperial power left you with?
raise or lower tariffs?
wages and prices
do you let the market set the price for e.g. bread and gasoline?
guarantees property rights
will it be independent?
communist model
the government controls all of these issues
democratic socialism model
e.g. Nehru, Mexico
state would control quite a lot of these issues
key industries, e.g. oil
import-substitution industrialization (ISI)
e.g. Brazil
increase barriers to trade to develop your own industries
low trade and increased local industry
reducing local imports of foreign goods
export-oriented industrialization (EOI)
e.g. Japan, South Korea
barriers to imports might still be high
keep out foreign imports
high trade
depress wages
depress currency
rich countries will think: that stuff they are making is so cheap, we want to buy it
problem: you are keeping the wealth of your own people is lower
their buying power is being reduced to keep your exports high
your companies are happy but your workers are not
this define politics in Japan and South Korea in the 1970s
liberal stance along the 19th century lines
keep government out
only regulate capitalist system as much as necessary
old-fashioned predatory state
the choice of dictators who didn't want to fuss with all of these choices
like states that had been around for thousands of years
find out what in your country makes money, grab control of it, then squeeze out as much of it as you can for yourself
these pressures shaped Third World countries leaders
Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah
oversaw liberation from Britain in Ghana
saw himself as African Lenin
Vietnam's Ho Chi-Minh
Vietnamese Communist revolutionary, president of North Vietnam 1945-1969
Egypt's Nasser
Algeria's Ferhat Abbas (1899-1985)
involved in revoluationary struggle of Algeria
Kenya's Tom Mboya
spearheaded the negotiations for Kenya's independence from Britain
during this time was when Obama's father came to Hawaii on a scholarship sponsored by the United States
China's Mao Tse Tung
took land and food away from the rural peasants and redistributed it to the cities
this "Great Leap Forward" caused a famine as Stalin's similar attempt in the 1930s
probably caused between 20 and 30 million lives
Indonesia's Sukarno
1946 menacing insurgent figure
1958 weary, battled president of a country suffering from civil war
India's Nehru
split into India and Pakistan
Pakistan had divisions of its own
a part of Pakistan, East Bengal succeeded from Pakistan and became Bangladesh
pressured by China
Cuba's Castro
led 26th of July movement against Batista in 1959
then chose a communist model for his country
variety and similarities
even though these people indicate a wide variety of personalities, each of them had to deal with the same sorts of questions and issues in their countries
important to remember that super powers were using Third World countries for their purposes, just as Third World country leaders were using the superpowers for their purposes