ABSTRACT
At international assemblies nowadays talk of “interdependence” and “solidarity” is rife. The two terms, however, are not synonymous; nor do they always imply complementary postures. Although a few intellectuals and politicians in rich countries have long advocated greater reciprocity in dealings with poor nations, the habitual invocation of interdependence by the “developed” world is a recent phenomenon. Quite understandably, Third World leaders remain suspicious, or at least skeptical, in the face of such appeals.1 To many of them, “interdependence” seems to be a verbal tactic employed by rich countries, and their privileged counterparts in poor nations, to neutralize demands emanating from the underprivileged – nations, classes, and interest groups – for a basic revision of the ground rules governing international exchanges and resource transfers. On the other hand, appeals to greater “solidarity” emanating from Third World leaders are often perceived by the rich as threatening battle – cries inaugurating, or intensifying, economic and political warfare by the “less developed” against those whom they regard as their “exploiters.” What is one to make of this seemingly endless war of words? Is there no end in sight to sloganeering and mutual recrimination?
