Moreover, I would argue that it had laid out the fundamental role and position for Third World countries in the following era, and had set forward globalization into a new stage that the world had never reach since colonial age. The long lasting and priciest ever World War – had largely sapped those former colonial countries and impaired their power to hold firm control on their colonies. This had gave a rise to domestic revolutionaries and nationalists in those colonized countries to seek a way out for their countries. As a result, a mass of independence swept across the continents of Asia and Africa. New leaders were springing up from all corners of the world one after another, fights and revolutions were going on in every continent. However, revolutions were not concerned by Third World themselves alone but also the two super powers on the northern side of the globe----two iconic countries which seemed to be parallel at all level at that time point but representing distinct, even opposite ideals and developmental model to the global south.
With two streams parallel over the sphere, in Third World countries cases, different revolutionary perspectives struggled against each other and formed their own fronts to fight themselves through the end. Like said by Robert Bates in his article, "Despite the distance in time and space, independence was followed in each case by decades of political instability, violent conflict and economic stagnation. "1 US and USSR, at that stage defending their own ideologies and containing each other, had backed up respectively the domestic revolutionaries, who they regard as representatives of their ideologies, to fight a civil war in their countries.
Although both US and USSR may had viewed the Third World as a kind of "safety valve " against direct conflict, 2 their "act of concern " on those states seriously complicated the international political order and made ways harder for domestic revolutions in Southern States.
