We do not see people as they are anymore. Instead, we see – or learn to believe that we see – those ghostly entities we call “relationships.” There’s me, there’s you – and, somewhere in the middle, there’s our relationship. And of all the relationships that there are, none is more problematic or contentious than that between the rich and the poor, the developed and the underdeveloped, the advanced and the backward, the “North” and the “South.” Or, to employ one of the most entrenched buzzwords of our time, there is no relationship more problematic or contentious than that posed by those hundreds of millions of human beings lumped together by the term “Third World.”

The idea of a Third World, despite its congenial simplicity, is too shadowy to be of any use

The idea of a Third World, despite its congenial simplicity, is too shadowy to be of any use

I have always had trouble with the concept. To be candid, I consider it distasteful. In search of guidance, I turned to my menagerie of up-to-date dictionaries. The notion being of comparatively recent coinage, there was no point in looking in any of the more traditional compilations. According to my American dictionary, the Third World is “a group of nations, especially in Africa and Asia, that are not aligned with either the communist or the non-communist blocs.” It further adds that the Third World can be construed as “the aggregate of the underdeveloped nations of the world.” My British dictionary, extending the geographical sweep, defined the Third World as comprising “the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America especially when viewed as underdeveloped and as neutral in the East-West alignment.” My Australian dictionary was even more expansive – to the point of being chatty. For it, the Third World signified the “developing countries especially in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia, which are not heavily industrialized, have a low standard of living and are usually not politically aligned with either the communist or the non-communist blocs.”

One, I suppose, gets the general drift of the idea intended to be conveyed. Yet, even in these elementary sketches, there are obvious discrepancies. Why the Americans should omit Latin America from their list and the Australians should point the finger at Southeast Asia is, to me at any rate, slightly puzzling. The South and Central American states are not, by all accounts, heavens on earth. Nicaragua is trying hard to be non-aligned but is experiencing some difficulty. Singapore, on the other hand, is a model of East Asian assiduity. I was there not long ago and marveled at the tall buildings, the troughs of flowers adorning the highway from the airport, the cleanliness of the streets, the traffic regulations. No one in his right mind would accuse Singapore of being a Third World country. You’d probably be deported if you had the boldness to imply anything of the kind. Alas, there is no doubt about Africa. From the desert shores of the Mediterranean to the jungly banks of the Limpopo, from Somalia to Sierra Leone, the continent is a showcase of despair. Indeed, if it weren’t for Africa, it’s just conceivable that the whole concept of a Third World reality might collapse into disrepute.

Harry is paying for his hubris

The charity shop cartel is coming to an end

The Floydification of Jason Arday’s death

And what about the other apparently essential attribute of Third Worldhood – non-alignment? It presents us with one of those dilemmas which, one imagines, would delight an Oxford linguistic philosopher. We could put the question this way: how many different varieties of alignment can you accommodate within the ideal of non-alignment without robbing it of meaning altogether? The answer hasn’t yet been found, and – perhaps – never will be. Non-alignment, in practice if not in theory, displays some truly remarkable properties. It is as puzzling as the nature of light which – so quantum mechanics tells us – sometimes behaves as though it were composed of discrete particles; and sometimes as though it were composed of waves. A similar bewilderment descends when we contemplate the non-aligned. Some are non-aligned toward Moscow, some are non-aligned toward Washington; some, fluctuating between wave and particle, smile at Washington, frown at Moscow, and gratefully accept pandas from Peking; some are unashamedly capitalist, some are quasi-Marxist; some offer hospitality to communist soldiery, some have American “advisers” – the Americans, since Vietnam, confining themselves to advice; some are socialist democracies, some are free-enterprise dictatorships; some interfere in the internal affairs of others and some don’t; some only surface at conference time. The possibilities are infinite. What I’ve just said only scratches the surface.

A quick sampling from the conference of the non-aligned held in Delhi in 1983 will help to illustrate the point. Venezuela, because of its border dispute with neighboring, non-aligned Guyana, held aloof. Burma too seemed to be displeased – though I am not sure why. Still, despite these defections, 99 countries were represented. Afghanistan was present, as was that other vocal champion of non-alignment, Cuba. A Cambodian delegation showed up, though whether it represented the non-aligned Vietnamese-backed faction or the non-aligned freedom-fighting faction I cannot say. Iran came – and Iraq came. Ethiopia, which used to be non-aligned with Washington but is now non-aligned with Moscow, turned up; Somalia, which used to be non-aligned with Moscow but is now........

© The Spectator