AHC: Cold War won by Non-Aligned Movement

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is for the Non-Aligned Movement to win the Cold War in a manner decisive enough to be comparable to how the USA is seen to have won the Cold War in OTL. This is to be done without nuclear war.
 
ASB. The Non-Aligned Movement wasn't really much of a movement, nor were many of the countries particularly non-aligned. The NAM generally leans Soviet, with some members leaning American over time. The only countries in the movement that could legitimately claim to be non-aligned in the long term were Yugoslavia and India.
 

whitecrow

Banned
Interesting challenge. We have a few threads here speculating on a "stronger" NAM. This is the 1st thread I've seen about NAM where "wins" the Cold War.

First things first -- you need a more unified NAM (e.g.: OTL it included the bitter enemies like Iraq & Iran, Pakistan and India, etc. Not much unity between them). I suggest looking up past threads on how to achieve this.
 
Need a less hard-line communist China, and a greater willingness to move to more capitalist and exporting-to-the-first-world economics by the 80s. A non-aligned movement with China and India as genuine allies and leaders has some genuine moxie. And you need to extend the Cold War a couple decades, so to give non-aligned nations time to grow their economies (which, again, will be a bit tricky if they continue to lean socialist). If the Soviet Union undergoes a messy implosion around, say, 2010 after holding together in spite of a failing economy by keeping on the screws, and the US is depression-ravaged and suffering from sharp internal divisions, while the Sino-Indian-Indonesian-whatever block is the world's largest (and fastest growing) economic block, in total GDP if still low in standard of living, you could make a case that the non-aligned nations win the cold war.

Bruce
 
The NAM wasn't really an alliance or even a movement like NATO or the Warsaw Pact. On the one hand, you have Mexico and other pro-American nations. On the other, you have China and other pro-Soviet nations. An you also have arch enemies India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. The only way this could work is if the NAM acted as a unified force and was determined to maintain peace. The Americans were pro-freedom, the Soviets pro-equality and a third, "good" force could be peace
 
An stronger NAM would have to have a large enough economic power bloc and some sort of military alliance
 
What's their win condition? NATO and co. win if the Soviet Union stands down, lets Eastern Europe go, stops financing proxy wars and threatening Western Europe with a tank blitz. The Soviets win in the West collapses economically and accept Soviet communism.

How does the NAM 'win' in this context? Simultaneous Soviet and Western economic collapse and political reorganization?
 

Zeldar155

Banned
The NAM wasn't really an alliance or even a movement like NATO or the Warsaw Pact. On the one hand, you have Mexico and other pro-American nations. On the other, you have China and other pro-Soviet nations. An you also have arch enemies India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. The only way this could work is if the NAM acted as a unified force and was determined to maintain peace. The Americans were pro-freedom, the Soviets pro-equality and a third, "good" force could be peace

Your definition of freedom is strange.

Do you mean freedom to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with brutal but US-friendly dictators?

Anyways, a Non-aligned movement "winning" the Cold War would be impossibly-hard to achieve, as others have said due to the fact that it's so diverse, it was split by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because they couldn't decide wether to condemn it or support it.
 
Winning could mean the end of both military alliances and the cold war nuclear threat to each other. Lets say France decides that it no longer is willing to bear the costs for a nuclear force and leaves NATO for NAM in which case its a NAM "victory".
 
Your definition of freedom is strange.

Do you mean freedom to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with brutal but US-friendly dictators?

Anyways, a Non-aligned movement "winning" the Cold War would be impossibly-hard to achieve, as others have said due to the fact that it's so diverse, it was split by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because they couldn't decide wether to condemn it or support it.
Well, I did use the overall "good" ideals that each side was fighting for. Not all American allies were free, but America promoted freedom. Not all Soviet allies, and certainly not the Soviet Union itself, were "equal", yet that's what they championed
 
China could bleed a (de facto) joint invasion by the USA and USSR dry. Maybe they get caught giving North Korea nuclear secrets, or there is funny business over Taiwan, or a series of crises combine to trigger it. Then the Non-Aligned Movement comes out ahead by staying on the sidelines and playing both sides. Maybe a technical victory, it doesn't have nuclear war, but it does have a World War. At least I didn't include neutral Europe in the NAM!

China probably would go nuclear, though. Would it count if it was a limited nuclear war with only a few impacts on the superpowers, and that plus change in China?
 
Top