Does the Third World Really Exist (Essay Sample)

Does the Third World Truly Exist Introduction Immanuel Wallerstein wrote that the civilized world’s way of labeling the different nations was incorrect. He felt that it was unrealistic to divide the nations of the earth into first, second and third world categories. In his mind, there was only one world which was linked together by economic strategies (Cosma, 2010). This thinking was in contrast to the thinking of the time. The leaders of many countries, their intellectuals, their economic advisors and others held that there were actually three worlds. They were not geographical locations per se, instead they were the different nations on this current planet divided up as those leaders saw fit. The division came just after the establishment of the United Nations and was meant to describe the economic capability and leadership style of all nations (Alexandria, 2014). What this paper intends to do is explore the question, does the third world really exist? This question will be addressed through the history of the divisions, then a look at the poverty criteria as well as look at the global village mentality that has arisen over the past few decades. A look at other names to replace these labels will be done as well It is the theory of this paper that the idea of the third world exists only in the minds of those leaders who have some sort of ulterior motive for supporting such classifications. There seems to be no other reason for why these classifications exist or are supported by the different nations of the world. The History of the Classifications The idea for dividing the nations up into first, second, third and even fourth world levels began when the Cold War was just beginning. In 1952 Albert Sauvy wrote a paper entitled Three Worlds, One Planet. His thinking how sparked the classification of the earth into different worlds. With the Cold War in progress, it was not hard for some nations to draw the lines between each group. The western allies were made the first world while the Soviet and Communist nations were listed as the second world. The rest were put into the third world category (Silver, 2015). The forth world category did not come into use till much later. This label was applied to certain indigenous people living within the borders of the other nations yet did not fall into any of those upper classifications. An example of these people would be the native American tribes in North America and the Aborigines of Australia. When the Cold War ended, so did the political purpose for these labels ended (Alexandria, 2010). No Hard and Fast Boundaries This fact is what leads us to our theory. The lines between these categories were not set in stone and there were no real guidelines or criteria set out to define the classifications or its members. As BR Tomlinson wrote, these labels reflected a convenient categorization of a collection of states (Tomlinson, 2003). While political alignments were considered, those outside those political alignments did not have any real say or even any control over their classification. To place these nations in a specific category their lack or resources was used to measure their worthiness of membership n the first and second world classification. Usually, these nations who did not align with the Democratic or Communist ideology were found lacking economically and sentenced to the Third World (Tomlinson, 2003). These guidelines could change as when the United Nations was formed, China was not yet a communist nation. In its current status, the country could qualify as both a First and Second World entity. The same for many nations located n South America, Greenland and Saudi Arabia. These countries and protectorates were labeled Third world not based on any economic reason but because they did not take sides during the Cold War (Alexandria, 2010). Besides politics and economics, as the 20th century continued other criteria were created to help classify those countries that were not as wealthy as Western nations. These criteria included civil liberties, how many national rights a population enjoyed, the gross national income, human development, and even freedom of information. The criteria were as fluid as water and could easily be changed on a whim (Pickle, 2015). A more specific criteria for classification looked at how dependent a Third World nation’s economy was on the success of the economy of more developed nations who occupied the first two classifications. These Third World nations had a large foreign debt, no middle class and a very small upper class who controlled just about everything the country possessed. Illiteracy, poverty, disease, and a very active population growth contributed to the Third World status assigned to a poorer nation. The problem with these classifications is that they do not allow for promotion from one class to another. As stated earlier, Saudi Arabia is far from any of those new criteria. They are wealthy, do not suffer from disease, their citizens, for the most part, are not illiterate, yet they remain classified as a Third World nation. Other nations that are actually moving away from the situation described in those new criteria also have a very difficult time in changing their status. Brazil and India are two such nations (Pickle, 2015). If Poverty is a Criteria Then what about those First World nations who have large amounts of their population below the accepted poverty line? Many of these people are illiterate as well as they cannot afford to send their children to school. Doesn’t the presence of these populations undermine the classification of some nations as First and Second World nations? Obviously if the classifications were based on an accurate set of standards, there may be a chance to reclassify those nations, as well as those enations transitioning out of their poverty states into educated, wealthy, nations. But as can be seen, there are no strict standards governing how the classifications work and there are no guidelines to reclassify those nations which either suffer an economic decline or economic prosperity (Tomlinson, 2003). It seems that these classifications were designed to protect powerful and wealthy western and communist nations from any backlash that may arise if their economies fail or if they fail to eliminate poverty, illiteracy, and other issues from their borders. Because poverty and illiteracy exist in the First and Second world nations, it is clear that these terms are now out of date and cannot be used to accurately describe the situation found in different nations around the world. The idea of poverty existing in the First and Second world nations does not matter. Their positives outweigh the presence of those negatives. They are wealthy, they have a middle class, they do not suffer from out of control diseases, for the most part, and they do not technically have the elite owning and governing all the resources found within the nations’ borders. Throughout the 20th century and to the present, the term Third World clearly came to mean those nations that were truly impoverished at the time the labels were attached to their countries (Silver, 2015). Poverty then is a fluid criterion like any other criteria created to justify the labeling the different nations into the First, Second and Third world categories. It only applies to those nations that are not seen as developed, wealthy or from the democratic and communist blocs. Convenient labels This paper stated that these labels may be used as a way to enable ulterior motives to be used to take advantage of a less fortunate nation. Or these labels are a way for the leaders of those impoverished nations to illegitimately depress their economies and keep their people poor. While the labels originated during the early part of the Cold War, these terms are applied to those nations seen as developing nations. These nations are found in regions like Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. But that is not the only evidence to support the statement made by this paper. The leaders of many of the impoverished nations attach the Third World label to their countries. The exact reason or reasons why they do this are not fully known. Given that these nations rarely start to develop and remain impoverished, one could conclude that the term is used by these leaders to further employ ulterior motives which gain them more private wealth (OWN), 2017). The leaders of these countries consistently keep their nations in the bottom of the categories discussed above. The elite control most if not all the resources; the human development levels are next to none; poverty and disease are rampant; and their economies are among the lowest. Some of these countries are very dependent on First and Second world nations’ economies if they hope to survive. One example is North Korea. It was dependent on both the former USSR and China if the Kim family and their elite partners hoped to continue to rule their hermit kingdom. With the political change in Russia, North Korea depends solely on China and its economy to keep the government in power and viable. There is no real attempt by the Kim family to change their status except in nuclear ambition. That ambition is not to help the nation develop and bring its people out of poverty, illiteracy and protect them from disease and a lack of food. Instead, that ambition is merely done to keep the Kim family in power and the elite safe from repercussion (OWNO, 2017 & Tee, 2018). This situation then allows people to draw different conclusions about the nature of the labels. They probably were not designed to help any nation develop or recover from their impoverished nature. Instead, they seem to exist to keep weak nations weak and strong nations strong. They also seem to allow a nation to be vulnerable to different types of political systems which rape the nation while the elite gather wealth. Can other names be ...