This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 11, April 24-30, 2005
The Spirit of Bandung
The spirit of Bandung remains
valid to this day. It provides not just an alternative viewpoint to the problems
of development and international security, especially of the Third World but a
model that is historically tested and proven viable versus the "there is no
alternative" claim of monopoly capitalism/imperialism.
By Carolina
Pagaduan-Araullo One day, when history shall
be written at last by those who make it -- the teeming billions of oppressed and
exploited world’s peoples -- the Bandung Asian-African Conference held in April
1955 shall be remembered as one of those glorious moments when the weak and
small gathered together in solidarity to speak as one against the big and
mighty. The current international
situation is a picture of intensified exploitation and oppression of the world’s
peoples especially those living in the Third World, a great majority in Asia and
Africa. In fact it constitutes no less than imperialist plunder and war
trampling on the independence and sovereignty of countries and peoples,
unleashing fascism and state terrorism, flouting all precepts of international
law and relations among sovereign nations and violating universally accepted
standards of human rights that is perpetrated by imperialist countries led by
the US, in the guise of "war vs terror". The Bandung Conference
shines as a historical precedent of small and weak nations uniting against
colonialism and all its vestiges and reincarnations post WWII, asserting their
unity and cooperation in charting their own way towards development, on the
basis of mutual interest and respect for national sovereignty, and refusing to
be boxed in by the black-and-white worldview of the Cold War and rejecting to be
dragged one way or another into exacerbating international tensions and
provoking another world war, likely nuclear and therefore devastating to
humankind. Any serious effort at
reviving the Spirit of Bandung, invoking its bold and visionary stance,
asserting its principles and reviving its concrete proposals including the
reinvigoration of the non-aligned movement, must tackle two major
questions. First, what was the Bandung Conference all about and what did it
achieve given the international situation at that time? Second, what is the
relevance of the Bandung Conference in the light of current conditions and how
can we harness its legacy to advance anti-imperialist unity and cooperation? What was
achieved at Bandung? The 1955 Afro-Asian Summit
in Bandung was a gathering of 29 Asian and African countries, representing more
than half of world?s population, most of them newly independent nations that
went through a bloody struggle for national liberation from their colonizers. It
included national liberation movements (NLMs) still in the throes of
revolutionary struggle to achieve freedom. Included were countries led by
nationalist and socialist governments such as India (Nehru), China (MZD),
Indonesia (Soekarno) and Egypt (Nasser). The Bandung Conference
convened at the start of a period of relative stability and rapid growth of
capitalism when imperialist countries welcomed the lead of US imperialism in
dealing with the communist specter and the rise of NLMs and newly independent
states assertive of their national sovereignty. It was held in the midst of the
post US Cold War geopolmil strategy of containment of the USSR, as well as
consolidation of neocolonial domination, with the US post war economic bonanza
and its monopoly of nuclear weapons. It was a gathering under
the shadow of the developing Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation
through an atomic world war. The Bandung Conference was
convened with a view to eradicating war and oppression. It became an opportunity
for Asian and African people to openly denounce colonial and neo-colonial rule
and to enter the international political arena on their own right. The spirit of Bandung was
able to bring together all the great Asian and African leaders of that time and
to unite them in the defense of political freedom and national independence. The
participating governments were one in saying that "Asia and Africa urgently
require social programs and better standards of life in larger freedom." In its Conference
Communique the participating countries affirmed the following: 1) "The urgency
of promoting economic cooperation in Afro-Asian region on the basis of mutual
interest and respect for national sovereignty." The Bandung summit
underscored the need for developing countries to loosen their economic
dependence on the leading industrialized nations by providing technical
assistance to one another through the exchange of experts and technical
assistance for developmental projects, as well as the exchange of technological
know-how and the establishment of regional training and research institutes. Specifically, the
participants called for the establishment of a Special UN Fund for Economic
Development; the allocation by the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development of a greater part of its resources to Afro-Asian countries; the
promotion of joint ventures among Afro-Asian countries in so far as this will
promote their common interest; recommended collective action for stabilizing
commodity trade; recommended Afro-Asian countries to diversify their export
trade by processing their raw materials and by encouraging intra-regional trade;
encouraged the establishment of national and regional banks and insurance
companies; encouraged exchange of information on matters relating to oil towards
formulation of common policies; emphasized the development of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes; batted for adequate representation of Afro-Asian countries in
the executive authority of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and
recommended prior consultation of participating countries in international
forums with a view to furthering mutual economic interest. 2) "The development of
cultural cooperation, especially among Afro-Asian countries (that) would enrich
their own culture and would also help in the promotion of world peace and
understanding;" 3) "Full support of the
fundamental principles of Human Rights as set forth in the UN Charter and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard for achievement of
all peoples and all nations" full support of the principle of self-determination
of peoples and nations a prerequisite of the full enjoyment of all fundamental
human rights" and deplored racial segregation and discrimination; 4) "Colonialism in all its
manifestations is an evil which should be speedily brought to a end"; that the
"subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation
constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the UN Charter
and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation." 5) "Support of the rights
of the Arab people of Palestine and called for the implementation of UN
resolutions on Palestine and achievement of a peaceful settlement of the
Palestine question; 6) "Recognized the
dangerous situation of international tension existing and the risks confronting
the whole human race from outbreak of global war in which the destructive power
of all types of armaments, including nuclear and thermonuclear weapons would be
employed"; therefore called for "disarmament and the prohibition of the
production, experimentation and use of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons of war
as an absolute necessity for the preservation of peace and called on the UN to
establish effective international controls to this end;" 7) "Freedom and peace are
interdependent." "?(T)he right of self-determination must be enjoyed by all
peoples". "(A)ll nations should have the right to freely choose their own
political and economic systems and their own way f life, in conformity with
purposes and principles of UN". "(N)ations should practice tolerance and live
together in peace and develop friendly cooperation on the basis of the 10
Principles of Bandung, to wit:
Respect for fundamental human rights and for
the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Respect for the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of all nations.
Recognition of the equality of all races and
of the equality of all nations large and small.
Abstention from intervention or interference
in the internal affairs of another country.
Respect for the right of each nation to defend
itself singly or collectively, in conformity with the Charter of the United
Nations.
(a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of
collective defence to serve the particular interests of any of the big powers.
Refraining from acts or threats of aggression
or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any country.
Settlement of all international disputes by
peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial
settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties' own choice, in
conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation.
Respect for justice and international
obligations. The Bandung Summit
ultimately led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961.
The term "non-alignment" itself was coined by Jewaharlal Nehru, the then Prime
Minister of India. Nehru founded the five principles which formed the basis of
all international relations:
Respect for territorial integrity
Mutual non-aggression
Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
Equality and mutual benefit
Peaceful Coexistence. The world's "non-aligned"
nations declared their desire not to become involved in the East-West
ideological confrontation of the Cold War. Rather, they would focus on national
struggles for independence, eradication of poverty, and economic development.
Bandung marked a significant milestone for the development of NAM as a political
movement. It adopted the Ten Principles of Bandung, which further extended and
entrenched the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. What is the relevance of
Bandung to the continuing struggle for independence against imperialist
globalization and war? "Globalization" was touted
as an inevitable stage in the development of the world economy, primarily
brought about by astounding progress in science and technology, when national
barriers and boundaries ? such as protectionist tariffs and subsidies -- were
being torn down so that trade in goods, services as well as capital -- could
flow freely in a truly global market economy. Subsequently benefits would
automatically accrue to backward and developing countries from the modern
economies of the advanced capitalist countries such as allowing these countries
to develop their "niche" in the global economy according to their particular
conditions and reaping the benefits for consumers in these countries in terms of
accessible and affordable goods. Global trade and investment would be unhampered
thus stimulating the entire world economy and helping to keep stagflation in
check. It was said that removing protective barriers to national economies would
remove "inefficiencies" and bring national industries and other enterprises to
world-class competitiveness Thus in the realm of
economics, politics and culture, "globalization" slowly rendered irrelevant,
anachronistic and pass -- nationalism -- that had come about as a powerful idea
and a material weapon of the bourgeois revolution against feudalism, and then of
independent nation states against neocolonialism and imperialist domination in
all spheres of a newly independent nations and a decolonized people’s life. Neoliberal economic policy
had its heyday. The export of labor became institutionalized as a substitute for
jobs generation from an industrializing economy, its negative impact papered
over. "Globalists" reigned supreme over nationalists so that government
officials with responsibility for looking after the national interest in the
areas of trade, investment and other aspects of international relations thought
and acted no differently from bureaucrats of the IMF/WB and WTO. Governments
sworn to uphold national sovereignty compromise and surrender it in the name of
"development" and facing up to the "realities" of globalization. In the academe and popular
media, "globalization" meant a gradual erosion and even frontal attacks against
the study of national history and its application to the shaping of a nation’s
present and future. There was an even stronger impetus for the educational
system to churn out skilled manpower for TNCs and job openings abroad. It was claimed that the
concept and even the reality of the "nation-state" was on the way out if not yet
completely overtaken by world developments. This was extended to the notion that
imperialist states had been overtaken by TNCs as global "governments". In culture, it became
fashionable to entertain the illusion of being a "citizen of the world" or
aspiring to be one while maintaining the quaint and quirky cultural
characteristics of one’s slowly evaporating nationality. But the reality of
imperialist globalization disproves the notion of the erosion of "nation
states". Imperialism foists "neoliberal globalization" through the domination by
imperialist states in international multilateral agencies. Governments, not TNCs,
enter into international agreements and zealously guard their implementation. "Free market globalization"
failed to deliver its promises of a bonanza in international trade especially
when the terms of trade clearly were skewed in favor of the developed countries.
The latter dumped their overproduced goods, services and capital into the
developing world and profiteered from cheap raw materials, labor and speculative
and some new investments in erstwhile protected areas of the economy while
continuing to protect its own national markets, the exports of big business and
lucrative fields of investment from foreign competition. Thus, there resulted a
global net flow of capital towards a few imperialist countries and reign of
fewer and fewer monopoly firms in international trade and finance. No NIChood took place. No
substantial generation of new jobs as a result of inflow of FDIs to develop
sectors of the national economy previously untapped or underdeveloped for one
reason or another. Neoliberal policies of
liberalization, deregulation and privatization only brought about the faster
pace of denationalization of major sectors of the economy; de-industrialization
as such policies further entrenched and deepened the colonial pattern of trade;
reinforced the bias for comprador-type businesses; opened up vital areas of
economy such as natural resources, public utilities and government mega-projects
funded by "development aid" monies to TNC plunder; pushed indebted countries of
the TW to further debt bondage to the international usurers of finance capital
leading to heavier burdens in terms of regressive taxation, cutbacks in public
funding for essential social services and economic activities and greater
pliability in terms of dictates on macro economic policies detrimental to the
general population especially mass of producers such as toiling people as well
as middle forces. In a word "globalization"
wrought further widespread immiseration to the vast majority of the world’s
peoples and deepened poverty and backwardness most especially in the Third
World. This international
state-of-affairs engendered the anti-globalization backlash on a global scale
and the revitalization of nationalist/anti-imperialist movements as well as
armed and unarmed struggles in specific countries both advanced capitalist and
backward, neocolonial, dependent ones. In the meantime, 9/11 took
place justifying the unleashing of the borderless "war vs terror" against
revolutionary movements, NLMs, nationalist regimes, recalcitrant former client
states which were branded as "terrorists". Wars of aggression and military
intervention were unleashed by the imperialists led by the neoconservative
regime of US Pres. Bush in order to rev up the military-industrial complex
("military Keynsianism") as a means of solving the acutely worsening recession
in the foremost imperialist country and other imperialist countries and the
contraction of the market for global capitalism as a whole. All the jingoism was
devised as a means to tactically and strategically extend the reach of
imperialism, especially US imperialism’s hegemony over the entire globe in terms
of control over vital energy sources, domination of markets and fields of
investment, spheres of influence through the use of USI’s overwhelming military
supremacy in high-tech weaponry and global military infrastructure: bases,
access agreements, war games/training exercises, permanent and semi-permanent
troops deployment. The "war on terror" is
being unmasked as an affront on national independence, territorial integrity and
right to self-determination of sovereign nations. The point is brought home
pointedly by the brazenness of imperialist aggression and colonial occupation,
military intervention and political interference, disregard and contravention of
international law and universal standards of human rights and international
humanitarian law. It becomes starkly clear
that the erosion of nation’s economic independence and sovereignty by
imperialist globalization through unrelenting impositions by imperialist
dominated instruments such as multilateral financial institutions, WTO, MNCs/MNBs
and imperialist governments (precisely, the impositions are being executed
through the national governments in which the MNCs are based) has its
counterpart in the politico-military realm. Imperialist-owned and
controlled international mass media outlets are critical in beaming the
imperialist line on globalization, war vs terror, etc.
Conclusion Resistance to imperialist
globalization must be concretized in countries and by peoples experiencing the
brunt of imperialist plunder and war. That is why democratic mass movements that
are anti-globalization, anti-war, anti-imperialist and nationalist,
anti-fascist, anti-state terrorism as well as armed struggles along the same
line for genuine national independence, democracy and socialism need to be waged
in specific countries by their oppressed peoples. This means targeting
imperialism and imperialists’ client states and collaborative ruling classes. It
means waging the struggles for genuine independence, sovereignty and
self-determination. Such national
anti-imperialist struggles and movements are the building blocks to a formidable
anti-imperialist front that will defeat imperialism in every oppressed country
and will thus contribute to weakening its hold internationally and in the home
countries of imperialism themselves. THAT’S WHY SPIRIT OF
BANDUNG - its precepts and principles and even its proposed forms of
anti-colonial, anti-imperialist solidarity --remains valid to this day. And it
provides not just an alternative viewpoint to the problems of development and
international security, especially of the Third World but a model, historically
tested and proven viable versus the "there is no alternative" claim of monopoly
capitalism/imperialism. Posted by Bulatlat
© 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
The Relevance of the 1955 Afro-Asian Summit in Bandung
Bandung, Indonesia
Posted by Bulatlat
b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries.