Third World relations with other worlds

Contingency or, How Might Things Have Been Different
The WWII brought with it significant changes to the political and administrative structures and trends across the globe. Even as the world strong and influential nations realized the political changes and military supremacy over other, the third world, majorly the African nations also had a shift in the political trends internally. It was during this time that the African nations the vulnerability of the European nations even in war yet they are the ones that colonized them. What followed was a mass scramble for the emancipation and decolonization of the African nations in the 1960s. the mere fact that the European could stand scared under the gun fire as opposed to the usually seen commanding and towering colonialist was enough motivation for the African nations to start pushing for self-governance and self determination.
At this point, the different nations of the first world caliber adopted different policies towards the Third World nations. The White House (2012:Pp 6) in the policy statement indicated that the US has four key pillars in their relations with Africa, “(1) strengthen democratic institutions; (2) spur economic growth, trade, and investment; (3) advance peace and security; and (4) promote opportunity and development.” The USA policy promoted the establishment of democracy in the African nations, limiting the Soviet influence in Africa and other third world countries as much as possible and promoting market-oriented economies, also referred to as capitalism. The US has also included other issues that during the cold war were at the periphery of their considerations like the issue of human rights, global environment and international peacekeeping have all become central to the US foreign policy especially towards the third world nations.
On the other hand, the Soviet Union was deeply concerned with ensuring that as many nations as possible in the third world adopt the communist policies and socialism as a way of their governance. However, it was noted that the Soviet Union adopted a rather reluctant approach to engaging in direct military engagement in the Third World countries. This showed their limited power in engaging the US particularly in areas that appeared contested with eth US expressing interest. They hence opted for the provision of military assistance as well as advisory support to Third World clients and in some instances air defense support. Soviet Union also developed a policy to check the influence of the West and China in Africa and other strategic Third World states. In the recent times, Soviet Union has however shown lesser in using its own military power and that of the client nations to hold political positions. They have tended to give concessions and cooperate more with the US and other West nations.
Hypothetically, the first world and the second world collaboration with the Third World could have made the situation to be totally different. The collaboration could have lessened the gap that there is between these two blocks of the globe that acts to define the world according to the economic and political might that a region, some as large as continents, commands. This collaboration with the Third World nations cold have seen the faster stabilization of these nations in most aspects of their existence. Politically, there would be a uniform direction in terms of the system that was to be adopted by the Third World and the First World and Second World would encourage and help the Third World nations to inculcate in their governance system. This could have turned out move definite as compared to the mixed direction that the First and Second world were subjecting the Third World to. The economic stabilization could have been astronomical since there would be a uniform trading system and economic assistance and interdependence that would make it easy for the Third World nations to export their goods to both the First and Second world equally, without caring for the differing market trends and trade barriers as was the situation. This approach would also make it easier for the Third World to form its own trading blocs with uniformity not as was the situation where one nation had to consider the political and diplomatic leaning of the neighboring nation before they would enter into trade agreements, for fear of victimization by the First or Second world nation they are associated with. The trading blocs would give the Third World nations the economy of scale hence lowering the production costs, concentrating on what they produce the best and combine efforts to mass export the products and produces from the blocs.
Had the First and Second world collaborated in having a common approach to Third World, there would be no conflict of political and diplomatic influence over the Third World nations. This would in turn mean there would be no need to have military might contestations between these two worlds subsequently there would be no violent military actions and occupation as was witnessed and still continues to be witnessed. With lesser military activities in the Third World nations prompted by the conflict of the First and Second world, there would be better economic progress, better living standards, lesser cases of regression in the economies of the Third world and consequently lifting up the status of the Third world to those of the Second and even first world.
Reference
The White House (2012). U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa. Retrieved April 19, 2018 from https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/209377.pdf