|
The Bandung of the fifties as reflected
in
the mirror of the new age
**************************
Today, after
fifty years of great changes, we remember the historic Bandung
Conference.
Despite the
nostalgia of the memory, both the remembrance and the nostalgia are
certainly not aimed at bringing back to life this great event, for this
would be outside of and against the march of history. Yet the spirit of
Bandung is what makes us remember the event today with interest, exactly
as we remember the spirit of the socialist October revolution that took
place almost ninety years ago, also as a great historic event, which
left its mark on an entire century.
What do we
mean by the spirit of Bandung?
The first
thing that comes to mind at the mere mention of the Bandung Conference,
is the movement that stemmed from it, the non-aligned movement, the
movement that played more than one important role during the long cold
war in the wake of the Second World War. The great diversity and number
of positions and stands of the ruling regimes in the countries that
formed the movements did not reduce the importance of that role. The
weight of states like India, China, Indonesia, Egypt, Yugoslavia, Burma
and Ceylon was, in itself, determining in making non-alignment to the
two contradicting and conflicting large world camps, the Socialist and
the Imperialist, a positive non-alignment, in the sense of a political
non-alignment and not an ideological one; one that struggled for peace
and in defense of the peoples’ right to self determination. In more
cases than one, it was an alignment against the imperialist camp
intersecting with the other camp in an almost objective alliance. It was
not possible for the non-aligned movement, especially at its beginnings,
not to adopt this historic stand, otherwise, it would have lost both the
significance and substance which gave birth to it and which makes us
remember it today with nostalgia because of the role it played, because
of the stand it adopted and because of the positive effect it had on the
issues of that age, as well as the resolutions it was able to impose on
the UN General Assembly with regard to those issues, particularly the
ones related to third world countries.
In the first
ten years of the movement that resulted from the Bandung Conference and
its resolutions, several names loomed in the foreground, such as: Nehru,
Chu Wen Lei, Sukarno, Tito, Nasser, Wen E Won and Banderanaika. They
were all great names in the world of politics during that era. A great
rift, however, began to take place in that movement and its role when
some of the pillars on which it was based at its beginning began to
collapse. In this context, we must mention the imbalance caused
basically by the Sino-Soviet conflict as well as the Sino-Indian
conflict of the early sixties. Mention must also be made of Sukarno’s
disappearance from the political scene after the military coup d’etat in
Indonesia in the second half of the sixties. There was also the failure
of Abdel Nasser’s project after the collapse of the Egyptian-Syrian
unity in 1961 and following the defeat of June 1967. They were all
tremendous events that took place at a time when the non-aligned
movement was endeavoring, with difficulty, to make headway and to
influence international politics. In fact that influence had begun to
gradually recede as a result of the continuing global changes.
During those
particular ten years, between 1955 and 1965, great transformations were
taking place in the African continent in particular, since most of the
countries of the black continent had broken away from direct colonial
domination and achieved their independence. New great names appeared
such as N’Kruma, Boumedien, Sekoutoure, Sengore, Nereire, Kenyata and
Mudeibukeita.
This took
place parallel to social revolutions in the three continents of Asia,
Africa and Latin America. The liberation movement of the clergy in Latin
America was the most outstanding and the one with the clearer political
vision and objective, whereas the social revolutions in Asia and Africa
suffered from a lot of confusion both in the way of thinking and in the
politics behind them despite the radical nature of several of them.
Moreover, those revolutions were also affected, in particular, by the
conflicts and rifts within the communist and national leftist currents.
Some of the confusion was partly due to the vast complex debate
regarding the means of development that the countries of those
continents had to resort to in order to achieve the necessary progress
following independence.
Some
ideological topics also became part of the debates, topics raised by
Soviet intellectuals under the influence of the changes expressed by the
Bandung Conference. Foremost amongst them were the two following topics:
One embodied by what was referred to as non-capitalist revolution. A
concept underscoring the role of “ the revolutionary democrats”, some
of whom came to power as a result of military coups, while others had
been historical leaders in their countries during their struggle for
independence and had played a role in the process of great changes in
those countries. This concentration on “ the revolutionary democrats”
took place at the expense of the opposing popular movements and at the
expense of the leftist, communist and national parties which were
growing and seeking their way by trial and error under the repression
perpetrated by some of those “ revolutionary democrats” in various
degrees and in their respective countries, against the revolutionary
movements and against their peoples in the name of social unity against
colonialism, in the process of development, or in opposition to imported
ideas and ideologies!
The second
topic was embodied in the over estimation of the role of the military in
the countries of the third world, their role in bringing about political
and social change. The over estimation was due to an over estimation of
the role of some of the leaders of certain military revolutionary coups
against imperialism, leaders who were bearers of different ideas for
economic and social change, as well as development programs, some of
which were dubbed as socialist orientation.
Those two
Western topics caused much debate within the national democratic
movement as well as great rifts among the parties involved therein. The
Sino-Soviet conflict with regard to peaceful co-existence and the
concept of each of them regarding the relation between the struggle for
world peace and the anti-imperialist national liberation struggle also
contributed to the conflicts and rifts within the national democratic
movements.
The reason why
I dwell on those conflicting issues is because they went hand-in-hand
with the non-aligned movement in the second stage of its development.
This is to indicate that the movement was beginning to lose its impetus
without, however, entirely losing its role, particularly during the
period when the Soviet Union also began to lose its impetus, i.e.
starting with the second half of the seventies of the last century. That
is when the lack of harmony in the political and social nature of the
ruling regimes in the countries of the non-aligned movements began to
have negative effect on its positive nature and up to the stage when the
movement lost much of its influence as a non-aligned movement and much
of its impact consequently. This took place parallel to the beginnings
of the rapid decline of the role of the Soviet Union, a decline that
ended in its collapse in the early part of the last two decades of the
twentieth century. It also took place at the time when the historic role
of the United Nations began to decline, a role for which it had been
created in the wake of the Second World War.
This
recollection of some of the events that took place along with the birth
and development of the non-aligned movements is necessary now, at a time
when we remember the conference of Bandung and the spirit of Bandung. It
is necessary in present times of changes witnessed by the entire world
and in view of the great transformations taking place in this twenty
first century, be they negative or positive.
Now, we need
to reformulate the projects aimed at changing the world on the basis of
new concepts, ideas, programs, alliances and objectives that take into
account and proceed from all those great revolutions and
transformations. Such an importance is also due to the fact that we are
also witnessing today, particularly in the region of the Middle East,
times of great changes, the directions of which are not yet clear.
However, they are changes that put an end to an entire era and open the
door to an entirely new era. It is indeed a paradox. One of the more
obvious indicators of such changes comes to us from Iraq despite the
American-British occupation that put an end to the regime of Saddam
Hussein. The other indicator comes from Palestine despite the savagery
of Israeli aggression and from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia from Sudan,
from Egypt, from Iran and even from Afghanistan.
It is not
surprising to witness much discussion and interpretation in different
directions at present regarding the phenomenon of capitalist
globalization, as if it were a new phenomenon.
In fact,
this phenomenon was taking shape long before the collapse of the Soviet
Union. In our time globalization is given many a name and this is bound
to continue in the future. Researchers will need much time before they
can come up with clearer and more precise conclusions concerning the
nature of the era the world is living in under such a capitalist
globalization and in view of the unruly behavior of its most outstanding
representative, the USA, in its endeavor to expand and extend its
hegemony. They will need time because of the unruliness of the large
groups of trans-national companies controlling the world’s latest
technologies to accumulate riches relentlessly and savagely. Mention
must also be made to organized crimes including traffic in human beings
as a new form of slavery and of the blatant attacks against the
interests of peoples, exploiting their riches, controlling their destiny
as well as destroying the social games achieved by the working forces in
their long and arduous struggle to bring about a world socialist regime
which bore great ideas, promising a great future for humanity where
peace, freedom, well-fare and social justice would prevail.
The old model
of non-alignment cannot be a model fit for a contemporary movement based
on the spirit of Bandung. Nor can the Soviet model and its international
proletariat be what we want to bring back in order to resurrect the
socialist project. Yet both the spirit of Bandung and the ideas of the
October revolution can play an important role in reformulating a new
kind of movement, one composed of several and even conflicting forces,
allied despite their contradictions in order to achieve a great task of
long term objectives: the task of putting an end to the unruliness of
the forces of capitalist globalization and to its attack against
humanity, against nature, against the environment and against outer
space, forces resorting to amazing scientific achievements in order to
achieve their savage aims. We are in need of such a new world movement,
a movement the political and social composition of which must indeed, be
, just as the tasks it is called upon to accomplish must also be new.
In my opinion,
it must be a historical world block composed of several blocks stemming
from all countries, all aimed at achieving the great objective of a more
harmonious and more just development in our contemporary world. Such a
development must be more respectful of the choices of the different
human groups, more protective of our planet and of its outer space. It
would be a great error to fall into the trap of two illusions: the first
being to imagine that such a vast alliance within the new block against
the savage globalized capitalism can change the nature of the powers
participating in the alliance, pushing them in one of two directions;
transforming the capitalists into forces calling for social justice or
bringing them closer to the labor force, nor can it transform the
workers into docile hired hands at the service of capitalism! The second
illusion is to consider that it is possible for such an alliance to
achieve its purposes in a short period of time by transforming savage
globalized capitalism into a toothless and harmless capitalism!
If I refer to
these two illusions when speaking of the formation of this hoped for
world movement it is because I note that the present anti globalization
movement has begun to wane because of the illusions it held when it
first started and because of the mechanism governing its activities.
This movement is beginning to wane as a group of forces aimed at
achieving its declared and undeclared objectives. Yet the experience of
that movement is important as a basis for the new movement and the
objectives for the coming stage. Calling to mind the spirit of Bandung
today and speaking of reformulating the great projects for change
connected to socialism are both indications of the necessity of
endeavoring to create such a new movement.
The issue as I
see it is a public one, one that concerns all the forces suffering from
the present word reality which, however the descriptions thereof may
differ, remains one that is iniquitous at all levels and in all
directions. In fact it is impossible not to endeavor to change it into
the right direction.
************************************
Karim Murrowa
|
