Lecture notes: The Bandung spirit

The Bandung Spirit

In April 1955

the leaders of 29 Asian and African countries met in Bandung, Indonesia

Shared experiences:

Western imperialism but also of the challenges of independence
looking for a way to survive in the world that the West had created

Their own agenda, how they would govern the world

no Western powers present, the meeting took place on their own terms and the agenda was their own agenda
they may all have been poor and powerless

Strength in numbers:

since no single Asian or African country could stand up to the West, they had to stand up together

This was the spirit of Bandung

The Bandung Conference

Bandung

held in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia, from April 18 to 24, 1955
not in a Western capital, but in a provincial Indonesian town
Turkey was present
all participants

There had never been a meeting of this scale and importance.

the “Asian-African Conference” – known as the “A-A Conference”
taken together the leaders present in Bandung represented a majority of the world’s population

Main organizers:

Indonesia’s president Sukarno and India’s prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru

Other participants:

Chou Enlai, the foreign minister of China, where the Communists had come to power six years previously
Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptian colonel who, once the conference was over, would go on to nationalize the Suez Canal and to successfully defend his country against a combined Israeli, British and French invasion

The “Merdeka Walk”

The delegations walked from their respective hotels some hundred meters away to the Gedung Merdeka, the “Independence House,” the main conference venue

colorful native costumes and they were waving to the cheering crowds;
the mood was festive, but at the same time proud and defiant
the world was watching — Asia and Africa had come together and they now were on the move

American author Richard Wright:

“It was the first time in their downtrodden lives that they’d seen so many men of their color, race, and nationality arrayed in such aspects of power, … their Asia and their Africa in control of their destinies.”

Final declaration

Topics to be pursued for the coming decades

economic and cultural cooperation
the need to stabilize commodity prices
non-alignment, disarmament
end to nuclear weapons
the importance of self-determination

Western reactions

Colonial powers were apprehensive:

still plenty of European colonies in the world and in many cases there were no plans to grant them independence
countries with large populations of European settlers – Algeria, Kenya and South Africa, for example – the struggle was set to be particularly bloody
the Westerners had just imposed a new regime – Israel — on lands which rightfully belonged to the Palestinians — more Western imperialism

The United States

Officially supportive of the aims of the conference:

in favor of decolonization — not least since it provided access for US companies
worried that the conference would provide a platform where Communist could make their rebel-rousing speeches
China — the Communist regime was recognized by only a handful of countries — no seat in the United Nations
help China break out of its diplomatic isolation

Not as radical as Americans feared:

American diplomats had worked hard behind the scenes with friendly countries — Iraq, Turkey, Japan, Ceylon and the Philippines
“Communist countries can be imperialist too!”
Chou Enlai quite a civilized gentleman

The Non-Aligned Movement

as a sort of institutionalization of Bandung

Founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in September 1961

organized by Yugoslavia’s president Josip Broz Tito
Nehru, Nasser, Sukarno and many of the other leaders from Bandung were present
the representatives of many more, now independent, African countries

Non-aligned states were states that refused to sign up to either of the two alliances

but neutral countries, such as Sweden and Switzerland, which were not members
and members, such as Cuba, which clearly were very close to the Soviet Union

Again a lot of attention

the White House was “keenly observing” the proceedings
Kremlin responded immediately to the statements the delegates made

Eloquent speeches, but not much action

very similar to Bandung

Demands

disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons
all conflicts should be settled by means of negotiations
the enormous resources spent on war should be spent on development
decolonization
solidarity — there can indeed be mutual cooperation also among sovereign states
if a majority of the world’s population is given the power to decide, there will be no more racism, poverty or oppression

The United Nations

Another forum was the United Nations

discuss with the West, not away from it
potentially more powerful

Founded in 1945:

originally intended by the Americans as a way for them to govern the world — headquarters in New York
by the 1960s a majority of the members were non-Western and non-aligned

Security Council

here the former colonies had no permanent seat
this is where the power lie

The General Assembly provided a more amenable forum

here all members could raise issues and express their concerns
non-Western and non-aligned countries would often coordinate their positions and pool their votes
but mainly talking-shop, no actual power

Seems very unfair!

and it was
but the argument was that a Security Council with vetos for the most powerful states was the only way to maintain the relevance of the UN
lesson from the League of Nations
but, of course, power has shifted — what is France and the UK doing here?

Decolonization

A demand successfully pursued in the UN setting

In December 1960, the General Assembly adopted by a “Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”

“all people everywhere must have the opportunity to determine their own destiny and form of government”

No country voted against this statement, but nine countries abstained

including all European countries which still maintained colonial possessions

UN is Resolution 3379

Adopted by the General Assembly in November 1975

and returned to every year after that
Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination” and compared Israel to the apartheid regime in South Africa
the US and 34 other, mainly Western and Central American countries, voted against it

Few practical consequences, but it highlighted how much the United Nations had changed since it was established

and it seems factually correct — Zionism is a form of racial discrimination

But adherence to the Western model

Often harsh criticism of the West

but it was premised on an unconditional acceptance of the world the West had created
references to “self-determination” and “sovereignty” were constant themes throughout the conference proceedings
this was the way to guarantee their independence
put power in the hands of the new leaders

The problem was not the Western model of the world

but rather the fact that the West had failed to honor it
it was the hypocrisy of the West that the delegates denounced

But a new version of the Western world — beyond anarchy

not only take their own interests into account, but their shared, collective, interests
independent states are not inevitably locked into a deadly competition
solidarity allows us to re-imagine the world
peace is possible, and justice and economic development

Western countries had failed

but non-Western countries would do better!

NIEO

a “new international economic order”

Use the United Nations as a tool for transforming the world economy

the international economy was not working for poor countries — something had to change

Demands

More favorable terms of trade:

developing countries sought better prices for their raw materials and more favorable terms of trade to improve their economic situation

Greater development assistance:

NIEO called for increased financial aid and better access to markets in developed countries, aiming to facilitate development and reduce poverty in the Global South

Sovereignty over natural resources:

A key demand was the right for countries to have full permanent sovereignty over their natural resources and economic activities, enabling them to regulate and control foreign investment within their bordersA commodity fund — stabilize prices and export earnings

Technology transfer:

NIEO emphasized the need for technology transfer from developed to developing countries under fair and most favorable terms, to help them build their industrial bases

Debt relief:

Many developing countries were burdened with external debt, so the NIEO included calls for debt relief and restructuring to manage their financial obligations better

Fairer regulation of multinational corporations:

NIEO sought to establish a code of conduct for multinational corporations to prevent exploitation and ensure that their activities contributed positively to the host countries

Reforms in the global institutional framework:

This included reforming international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank to better represent the interests of developing countries

Preferential treatment for developing countries:

The NIEO proposed preferential treatment in trade for developing countries, such as reduced tariffs and better market access to the markets of developed countries

Results

Not a total failure

some notable successes
but no wholesale restructuring of the world economy

Import substitution

as a way to decouple from the world economy

Raul Prebisch
UNCTAD, the UN’s Conference on Trade and Development

In contrast to Washington D.C. institutions

World Bank
IMF

The First Oil Crisis, October 1973

On October 6, a coalition of Arab states, led by Egypt and Syria, launched an attack on Israel

the US supported Israel
in retaliation the Arab oil producers imposed an embargo on oil exports to the United States and other Western countries

The price of oil increased by some 300 percent and remained high even after the war was concluded

Western countries complained about blackmail and oligopolistic practices
these actions were widely admired elsewhere
real power

The “Third World”

The West constituted the “first world”

the Communist countries the “second world”
all other countries the “third world”

Alfred Sauvy, a French historian and demographer, came up with the term

in an article in 1952
cf. the Third Estate was a social class completely without political power, but in the French Revolution of 1789, it was they who overthrew the monarchy

New revolutionary wave

the Non-Aligned Movement or the United Nations were not radical enough

getting involved with international organizations meant you had to do things their way
take the existing world-order for granted
too much talking, not enough action
too impatient — more radical — wanted immediate change

Can’t trust the domestic elites!

revolution must come from below
revolutionaries with a mandate from the people
all of the Third World would rise up
this was the new downtrodden class

Genuine discontent, national revolutions

capitalized on by the Soviet Union and China
where else could they turn for help?

The US reaction didn’t help

dismissed overtures from Ho Chih Min, Fidel Castro

Marxism

Seemed to explain their poverty

story of exploitation
about the future — a better world
a way to distance themselves from the West

Redistribution and justice

economic development that benefits everybody

Central planning:

more intelligent use of domestic, and very limited, resources

A slight problem:

Marx: you had to have a working-class
under feudal conditions, a move to capitalism is actually the right way to go

Third World revolutionaries

struggling with ways to rewrite Marx
Mao: peasants are more important than workers

Emphasis on the power of the state

very attractive to a lot of nationalist leaders
more power to them
stronger states, more independent

There were socialist experiments almost everywhere

Arab world
Southeast Asia
Africa

The Arusha Declaration, 1967

TANU’s Policy on Socialism and Self Reliance (1967)

Ujamaa (African Socialism):

The Declaration emphasized the concept of Ujamaa, which translates to “familyhood” in Swahili. It proposed a form of African socialism that was based on the traditional African concept of community and sharing. Ujamaa was seen as an alternative to both Western capitalism and Eastern communism, reflecting African values and social structures.

Self-Reliance:

The Declaration stressed the importance of self-reliance in economic development. It advocated for reducing dependence on foreign aid and imports, focusing instead on using local resources and promoting indigenous industries to meet the people’s needs.

Nationalization:

The Arusha Declaration led to the nationalization of key industries and services. Banks, major import and export corporations, and some large industries were nationalized to ensure that the benefits of economic activities were distributed more equitably among the population.

Rural Development and villagization:

A significant focus was placed on rural development, considering that the majority of Tanzania’s population lived in rural areas. The policy of villagization (Ujamaa villages) was introduced, aiming to collectivize agriculture and improve the delivery of social services in rural areas.

Education and Health:

The Declaration emphasized the need to develop education and health services that were accessible to all citizens. The aim was to eradicate illiteracy and improve the overall health and well-being of the population.

Leadership Code:

The Arusha Declaration introduced a Leadership Code that set standards for the conduct of party members and government officials. It aimed to prevent the accumulation of wealth and power among the political elite and to combat corruption and abuse of office.

Political Ideology and Party Supremacy:

The Declaration reinforced the supremacy of the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), the ruling party, in guiding the nation’s political and socio-economic policies. It solidified the one-party state system in Tanzania.

Frantz Fanon

Born in Martinique in the French West Indies in 1925

went to university in France, and found himself a job as a psychologist in Algeria
FLN, the national liberation movement, was steadily growing in strength
he quit his job and joined the resistance

Black Skin, White Mask, 1952, he analyzed the impact of colonialism on the mental health of the colonized. Colonized people are put in an impossible situation

they are told that their language and their heritage is no good and encouraged to master the language and culture of the colonizers
their black faces are forced to wear white masks
however, they will never be accepted as White. Somehow or another there is always something missing. As a result they are lost between identities

The Wretched of the Earth, 1961, he suggested how a revolution might happen

skeptical of the traditional cultures of Africa
too many disparate groups here, too many tribes and languages, and real unity could never be built on this basis
the revolutionary struggle against the colonial oppressors would create a new, national, culture around which everyone in the movement could unite

Che Guevara

Ernesto Guevara, always referred to as “Che”

very cool in his military fatigues and he smoked large Cuban cigars — he also discussed philosophy with Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir

Speech at the General Assembly of the United Nations as a representative of Cuba

“The wave will swell with every passing day” … “Those whose labor amasses the wealth and turns the wheels of history … are awakening from the long, brutalizing sleep to which they had been subjected.”

Thomas Sankara

Marxist leader in Bukina Faso in the 1980s

UN speech

Tricontinental Conference

In January, 1966, leaders of all the revolutionary movements got together in Cuba for a meeting

there were som 500 revolutionaries here, from some 82 different countries

The agenda was similar to that of Bandung – anti-colonialism, non-alignment and solidarity – but the delegates were not statesmen as much as military commanders

Bandung on revolutionary steroids
the delegates compared notes on the challenges of guerrilla warfare and sought ways to coordinate the armed struggle
the national revolutions in which they were engaged, they declared, were only the beginnings of a new internationalism
they all spoke out against capitalism and the US war in Vietnam

Youth rebellion

For many young people in the West, it was time to take sides. Should they support their own repressive governments or the revolutionaries in the Third World?

The new Realpolitik

During the 1950s, 60s and 70s next to all colonies became independent, but at the time no one knew what independence would mean. No one knew what the former colonies actually would be like and what they actually would do. The hope was that they would behave themselves according to the rules of the existing international order; that they would become competitive nation-states just like everyone else. In this way Western IR theory would come to apply to everybody in the same fashion. Whether this really would happen, however, was anyone’s guess.

This is why the Bandung Conference was so significant and why the proceedings were watched with rapt attention around the world. This was the first time that so many independent Asian and African countries got together and the first time they tried to speak with one voice. What emerged from the proceedings was not at all as worrying as they initially had feared. There was some anti-Western rhetoric to be sure, and some proposals for radical reform, but with the help of the carrots and sticks available to great powers the situation was clearly manageable. And if we take a look behind the rhetoric, we discover an unconditional commitment to the rules of the Western-run international system. Asians and Africans all stressed the importance of “sovereignty,” “self-determination,” “non-interference,” “territorial integrity,” and so on. And they have continued to invoke the same language at every opportunity ever since. This makes a lot of sense. Western IR theory could be turned against the West itself. The vocabulary of self-determination provided them with just the arguments they needed in order to defend themselves. Sovereignty meant that Western powers no longer could meddle in their affairs.

As they also made clear, however, international politics is going to work quite differently from now on. Western IR theory emphasizes anarchy; order is illusive and war is a constant threat. It’s a dog eat dog world. But the Non-Aligned states refused to accept these disheartening conclusions. They wanted disarmament, an end to nuclear weapons, and a world economy that worked for everyone. They believed in solidarity and international institutions. Instead of individual security there would be collective security; instead of exploitation there would be mutual support. This was the Bandung Spirit.

In April 2005, Asian and African countries reassembled in Bandung to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the original meeting. There were 106 countries represented this time around, and that number alone illustrates the extent of their success. With some minor exceptions, there are now no colonies left in the world. At the same time, it was perfectly clear that the original spirit of Bandung had dissipated. For one thing, non-alignment makes little sense in a world where there are no competing blocks to non-aligned with. And solidarity and disarmament were as illusive as ever. In fact, peace had been impossible to guarantee even between the Asian and African countries themselves. Just as Western IR theory had predicted, dogs had begun eating dogs. And even more strikingly perhaps, the participating countries had by now become very different from each other. In 1955, South Korea and Ghana had had the same GDP per capita, but 50 years later each Korean was almost ten times richer than each Ghanaian. The two countries no longer shared most experiences or saw the world in the same way.

As for the United Nations, it never provided a way to transform the world. The US lost interest in the organization once it was taken over by all those former colonies, and the former colonies vastly overestimated their own strength. International organizations are not where power resides in a world made up of sovereign nation-states, and you can’t change the rules of the game by means of majority decisions. The United Nations became a forum where hopes, dreams and frustrations were expressed – and expressing hopes, dreams and frustrations is important too — but radical change never happened.

The decline and fall of NIEO is a perfect illustration. By the 1980, the whole project had lost much of its intellectual rationale. As the success of many countries in East Asia had demonstrated, the world market is not necessarily biased against the poor. Poor countries too can export their way to economic success. There are not two kinds of economics after all, only one, and its logic applies equally to everybody. Development doesn’t happen as a result of state-made plans and import substitution only leads to inefficiency and corruption. And in the early 1980s the US started pushing a very different agenda. It came to be known as the “Washington Consensus.” The size and power of the state must be reduced, the Americans explained; social programs must be cut and state-owned companies must be privatized. Poor countries must open up to international investments and trade. While some objected to such draconian measures, most countries had no choice but to comply. American aid, loans and military assistance were all linked to the adoption of this package of reforms.

Today references to the “Third World” have disappeared too. The whole idea of a third world collapsed together with the Berlin Wall and it is now a term that belongs only to a certain historical era. If you want to be politically correct today, you can instead refer to the “Global South.” This term too denotes a sense of a shared perspective, and a measure of solidarity between states in similar predicaments, but it is mainly a label used by academics. That is, a term without material consequences. There is no international movement that backs it up.

And no one believes in a world revolution. There are no more guerrillas in the jungles. Fanon dies of leukemia in 1961 and Che Guevara was executed by the Bolivian military in 1967. Once President Nixon met with Chairman Mao in February, 1972, the Chinese stopped supporting revolutionary movements in South East Asia. The revolutionaries who did come to power, such as the ones in Vietnam or Cuba, soon established themselves as dictators in their own right. Siding with the Soviet Union, they became pawns in the Cold War game. In fact, the whole Marxist ideology was flawed. No matter how justified its critique of the capitalist system, the proposals for a better world just didn’t work. Socialist economies were corrupt and inefficient; they kept a majority of the people in poverty while the elites enriched themselves. The Western pilgrims who once traveled to China, Cuba and Vietnam don’t want to be reminded of this embarrassing stage in their lives.

So Realpolitik won the day. The logic of anarchy was too powerful to resist. Once the newly independent countries had agreed to independence on these terms, they just had to do what they had to do. This was the final victory of the Western view of international relations. This was Western IR theory in action. For decades the West had tried to impose their model of the world on everyone else, but it really only succeeded once everyone else started imposing it on themselves.