The Bandung Conference: A Mythical Moment of Global South Unity
The Bandung Conference, held in April 1955, stands as a monumental event in the history of the Global South. This gathering of Asian and African nations has since acquired a mythical status, symbolizing post-colonial unity and the aspirations of newly self-reliant states. While some accounts highlight its limitations, such as the underrepresentation of Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, and the intrusion of Cold War rivalries, the “Bandung Moment” continues to inspire political actors seeking to replicate its spirit of solidarity.
The conference proceedings may not have been perfect, but the pervasive spirit of post-colonial unity among the rising peoples of the Global South defined the Conference. This spirit of Bandung has been a constant spur to manny political actors to reproduce it in its imagined pristine form, leading to dissatisfaction with successive manifestations of Third World solidarity.
the Rise of Asian Solidarity: A Precursor to Bandung
the Bandung Conference was not an isolated event. It was the culmination of a growing sense of regional solidarity that accompanied anti-colonial nationalist movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The martyrdom of Jose Rizal in December 1896, executed by the Spaniards, served as a potent symbol of Asian resistance. According to Indian scholar Sugata Bose, Rizal’s death “posthumously elevated him to a pioneering figure in Asian resistance.”
The early 20th century witnessed the rise of national revolutionary movements across Asia, inspired by the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty and Sun Yat Sen’s establishment of the Republic of China. A cosmopolitan network of Asian revolutionaries emerged in coastal cities from Tokyo to Shanghai to Canton to Manila to Calcutta. The Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the establishment of the Communist International in 1919 further fueled these movements, with figures like Ho Chi Minh and Tan Malaka working to transcend colonial borders.
Japan’s Complex Role in Shaping Pan-Asian Consciousness
Japan played a significant, albeit complex, role in the development of Asian national and regional identity before World War II. Following its victory over Czarist Russia in 1905, Japan became a beacon of modernization and resistance to Western dominance. As noted, “all paths seemed to lead to Japan.” It offered a model of how a nation could reform itself and effectively challenge Western powers. Consequently,young people from across Asia flocked to Tokyo,where “Asian intellectuals frist came to know each other and to speak to each other.”
However, Japan’s ambitions were Janus-faced. While it challenged Western supremacy, it also sought to become an imperial power itself, annexing Korea and manchuria and launching a war against China in 1937.The Japanese elite envisioned a “Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere,” aiming to lead Asia out of colonial bondage.Yet, their brutality in occupied territories, particularly in China, Korea, and the Philippines, contradicted this vision. Bose observes that “Asian anti-imperialists experienced both high-minded idealism and high-handed arrogance of middle-tier Japanese military officers in Southeast Asia.”
Japan’s conflicting attitudes were evident in the Assembly of the Greater East Asiatic Nations on November 5-6, 1943. Facing a turning tide in the war, Japan sought to enlist the support of Asian nationalists. Ba Maw,who attended the Assembly,later recalled:
the first visual manifestation of the new spirit stirring in Asia,the spirit of Bandung as it was called twelve years later when it was reincarnated at the Bandung Conference of the Afro-Asian nations. That spirit had its first birth at the Tokyo Assembly in 1943. Even the Assembly’s joint declaration consisting of the five basic principles of a new order in Asia foreshadowed the Pancha Sila or Five Principles, of the Bandung Nations.
Ba Maw
Despite their ultimate defeat, the Japanese shattered the image of Western invincibility in the early months of the war, as British, American, and Dutch forces quickly fell to the Japanese military. The collapse of the British empire in Asia during those months, writes one of the foremost historians of the Pacific War, “did lasting damage to Britain’s reputation as a great power…It was a dignity never to be recovered.” This demonstrated that the Western powers could no longer reimpose the old colonial order. As Aung San perceptively noted, “Colonialism’s difficulty is freedom’s prospect.”
Building Towards Bandung: Preceding Conferences
Three major conferences celebrating Asian unity preceded Bandung,fostering the regional solidarity that would culminate in the 1955 event. The first was the Asian Relations Conference, promoted by Jawaharlal Nehru in March 1947. sarojini Naidu delivered a memorable speech, surpassing Nehru’s eloquence. According to Bose,
In her grand perspective, “mountains and riverways” could not divide the “heat of Asia.” Nor had a “lack of vocabulary, a lack of dictionary knowledge of words, ever prevented the true understanding between hearts.” She made a compelling case for “the great diversity of Asian culture’ having ‘cemented the unity of the Asian people.”
Bose
The Asia pacific Peace Conference in Beijing from October 2 to 10, 1952, drew nearly 470 delegates, many from Southeast Asia, with women outnumbering male diplomats and politicians. The conference featured strong condemnations of the United Nations’ role in the Korean War, its tolerance of colonialism in Southeast Asia, and its non-recognition of the People’s Republic of China.
A notable moment was the handling of the Kashmir issue. Instead of allowing it to divide them, the Indian and Pakistani delegations staged “an emotional and sensational scene of Indian-Pakistan rapprochement,” where gifts were exchanged and a joint declaration was read, blaming “Anglo-American machinations and the ineptitude of the UN” for the Kashmir crisis.
The First Asian Socialist Conference, held in Rangoon from January 6 to 15, served as “a transnational hub for like-minded socialists from Indonesia, India, Burma, and Japan to engage in the work of socialist internationalism with an asian inflection.” Ram Manohar lohia, a key organizer, urged Asian socialists to steer clear of both major power blocs, advocating for “positive policies of freedom, social reconstruction, progress, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Asian unity and solidarity transcended post-colonial state boundaries and the Cold War divide. Bandung was not the beginning but a high point of a process that began late in the 19th century and continued afterward.
The Bandung Conference: Key Moments
The Bandung conference reached its climax with President Sukarno’s opening speech. His charisma resonated even through the printed text:
It is a new departure in the history of the world that leaders of Asian and African peoples can meet together in their own countries to discuss and purposeful upon matters of common concern. Only a few decades ago it was frequently necessary to travel to other countries and even other continents before the spokesmen of our peoples could confer.
Sukarno recalled the Conference of the “League Against Imperialism and Colonialism” in Brussels almost thirty years prior, where many delegates present at Bandung had met. He emphasized the contrast between that meeting, held ”thousands of miles away, amidst foreign people, in a foreign country,” and the present gathering of free, sovereign, and independent nations.
Sukarno also highlighted India’s solidarity with Indonesia during its struggle for independence:
As I survey this hall, my thoughts go back to another Conference of Asian peoples.In the beginning of 1949 –historically speaking only a moment ago–my country was for the second time as our Proclamation of Independence engaged in a life and death struggle… It was at that sad but glorious moment in our national history that our good neighbor India convened a Conference of asian and African Nations in new Delhi, to protest against the injustice committed against Indonesia and to give support to our struggle.
With this gesture of gratitude, Sukarno effectively made Jawaharlal Nehru the co-chair of the meeting.
Sukarno also drew a parallel between the Bandung Conference and the American Revolution, noting that it was taking place on the 180th anniversary of paul Revere’s ride. This was a strategic move to reassure the United States that the meeting was not a threat to its interests, especially given the presence of Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai.
Zhou Enlai, in fact, became a central figure at the conference. Rather of the fire-breathing Communist expected by many, Zhou presented himself as reasonable and affable. A.Doak Barnet,an american scholar,observed:
Chou’s performance at Bandung was extremely skillful. During the early days of the conference, he played a patient, conciliatory, and one might say even defensive role. When attacks were made against the Communists, he kept his temper. He refrained from any of the propaganda blasts wich typify Chinese Communist pronouncements from Peking… then, on the last three days, he emerged as the main performer, and in a series of fairly dramatic diplomatic moves he assumed the role of the reasonable man of peace, the conciliator who was willing to make promises and concessions in the name of harmony and good will.
Barnet concluded that Zhou’s influence on the delegates could have “subtle long-range effects.”
Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of Bandung
The Bandung Conference of 1955 remains a powerful symbol of unity, solidarity, and the aspirations of the Global south.Despite its imperfections and the challenges that followed, the “Bandung Moment” continues to inspire movements for a more just and equitable world order. The conference not only marked a pivotal moment in history but also laid the groundwork for future collaborations and dialogues among nations striving for self-determination and mutual respect.
bandung Conference: A Turning Point for Afro-Asian Solidarity and the Non-Aligned Movement
The 1955 Asian-African Conference, held in Bandung, Indonesia, stands as a monumental event in the history of decolonization and the rise of the Non-Aligned Movement. From April 18 to April 24, representatives from 29 newly independent nations across Asia and Africa gathered to forge a path independent of the influence of the major Cold War powers. The conference aimed to promote Afro-Asian economic and cultural cooperation and to oppose colonialism and neocolonialism. Key figures like Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Zhou Enlai of China played pivotal roles, though their approaches and influence differed significantly.
the genesis of Bandung
The Bandung Conference emerged from a desire among newly independent nations to assert their sovereignty and chart their own course in international affairs. The five “Colombo Powers” – Burma,India,Indonesia,Pakistan,and Sri Lanka – convened the conference,driven by a shared vision of Afro-Asian solidarity. These nations sought to create a platform for cooperation and mutual support, free from the dictates of the United States and the Soviet Union. The conference was not without its challenges, including navigating the diverse political ideologies and national interests of the participating countries.
Nehru’s Leadership and Challenges
Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, arrived at the bandung Conference with the ambition of establishing himself as a leader of the emerging Afro-asian bloc. However, his efforts to assert dominance were met with resistance. According to a first-hand report,Nehru’s ”obvious effort to assert leadership,his intemperate and tactless criticism of those who opposed him,and his transparent pique when things did not go his way antagonized many delegates at the conference and irritated most,including some of his friends.” This assessment suggests that Nehru’s personal diplomacy skills may have hindered his broader goals for the conference.
Despite these challenges, Nehru played a crucial role in shaping the conference’s final declaration, which laid the groundwork for neutralism and non-alignment.
The Ten Principles of Bandung
The Bandung Conference culminated in a declaration outlining ten key principles, which became a guiding framework for the Non-Aligned Movement. These principles emphasized:
- Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and the 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.
- Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defense to serve the particular interests of any of the big powers, abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries.
- 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 obligation.
These principles underscored the commitment of the participating nations to peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
Condemnation of Colonialism and Support for Palestine
A significant outcome of the Bandung Conference was the strong condemnation of colonialism “in all its manifestations,” with specific calls for the self-determination and independence of Algeria, morocco, and Tunisia from French rule.The conference also voiced “unqualified support for Palestine,” urging the implementation of UN resolutions and a peaceful settlement to the Palestine question, reflecting the solidarity among Afro-Asian nations on issues of self-determination and justice.
Zhou Enlai’s Diplomatic Success
While Nehru faced challenges in asserting his leadership, zhou Enlai, the Premier of China, skillfully navigated the conference’s complexities. Carlos P. Romulo, a Filipino statesman close to the U.S., described Zhou as “‘affable of manner, moderate of speech’ by contrast with Nehru’s ‘pedantry.’” Zhou’s diplomatic approach and his emphasis on peaceful coexistence resonated with many delegates, contributing to the conference’s spirit of compromise and unity.
Omissions and Underlying Tensions
Despite its successes, the Bandung Conference also revealed certain omissions and underlying tensions. The limited portrayal of women and the absence of any mention of women’s rights in the final declaration was a notable oversight. Additionally, Africa was described as “very much a junior partner” in the Afro-Asia solidarity movement, with only four African countries present, predominantly from North Africa. The non-participation of regional or continental movements, such as the Pan-African movement, further highlighted the limitations of the conference’s focus on nation-states.
The Legacy of Bandung: Positives
The spirit of Bandung continued to resonate in the years following the conference. The Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference in Cairo in 1957, spearheaded by Gamal Abdel Nasser, further solidified the movement. Kwame nkrumah of Ghana also played a significant role, hosting the Conference of Independent African States in Accra in 1958. These events paved the way for the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Belgrade in 1961, with key figures like Sukarno, Nkrumah, Nehru, Nasser, and Tito serving as its founders. The Group of 77, formed during the first meeting of the United Nations Conference on trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964, further amplified the voice of developing countries on the global stage.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), established in 1967, can also be seen as a regional manifestation of the Bandung spirit. As Amitav Acharya notes:
One might argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that the real winner at Bandung was neither China nor India, but the future ASEAN. The suspicion of both India and china,the big powers of Asia,generated at Bandung paved the way for a regionalism of smaller nations to emerge in Asia—one that is led by none of the big powers.
Amitav Acharya
The Legacy of Bandung: Negatives
Though, the aftermath of Bandung was not without its setbacks. The Sino-Indian border conflict in 1962, triggered by unresolved colonial-era border disputes, strained relations between two of the conference’s key participants. The counterrevolution in Indonesia in 1965-66 also marked a significant reversal, undermining the spirit of solidarity and cooperation that Bandung had sought to foster.
Conclusion
The Bandung Conference remains a landmark event in the history of the 20th century. It marked a pivotal moment in the struggle for decolonization,the rise of the Non-Aligned Movement,and the assertion of Afro-Asian agency in international affairs. while the conference faced challenges and its legacy is not without its complexities, its impact on shaping a more equitable and multipolar world is undeniable. The principles of Bandung continue to inspire efforts to promote South-South cooperation, mutual respect, and a more just global order.
From Bandung to Backlash: The Rise and Fall of the Global South’s Economic Ambitions
The spirit of solidarity forged at the Bandung Conference faced significant challenges in the decades that followed, particularly concerning economic development and international trade. The late 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of the New International Economic Order (NIEO), championed by the Global South, aiming to restructure the global trading system. however, this push faced a strong backlash from the Global North, marking a turning point in international relations and the economic fortunes of developing nations. This article explores the key events, figures, and economic theories that shaped this era, from the optimism of Bandung to the realities of neoliberal counterrevolution.
The Cracks in Solidarity: Indonesia’s Shift
While the Bandung Conference aimed to foster unity, internal conflicts and political shifts soon tested this solidarity. In 1965, Indonesia experienced a failed coup, which triggered a genocide resulting in over a million deaths. Communists and alleged communists were targeted, including Indonesians of chinese descent, who were viewed with suspicion. This event dramatically altered Indonesia’s relationship with China.The close ties between China and Sukarno,fostered in Bandung,were replaced by an anti-Chinese,anti-communist government.
The Passing of the Bandung Generation
By 1970, many of the key leaders associated with the Bandung Conference had passed away or experienced a decline in their political influence. Nehru of India, Nasser of Egypt, and Sukarno of Indonesia all faced challenges in their later years. Nehru struggled with the aftermath of India’s defeat in its border war with China. Nasser’s reputation suffered following Egypt’s defeat by Israel in the 1967 war. Sukarno spent his final years with limited power,effectively a prisoner of General Suharto. Zhou Enlai of china remained, but faced political pressure from Mao Zedong’s allies, the “Gang of Four.”
despite the loss of these leaders,the spirit of the Global South continued through the Group of 77,which operated within the united Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
The Tricontinental Alliance: Latin America Joins the Fray
Latin America was not represented at the Bandung Conference, primarily an Afro-Asian event. This absence was due to the earlier decolonization of many Latin American nations in the 19th century and their lack of involvement in world War II. However, the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s sparked solidarity between Latin America, Africa, and asia. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara emphasized the shared subordination of these regions to the West. This led to the Cairo Conference in 1962, where Latin American, Asian, and African blocs jointly addressed development challenges.
This unity was further strengthened by the development of economic theories that highlighted the structural subordination of Africa, Asia, and latin America to the global North. Raul Prebisch, an Argentine economist, developed a paradigm that became highly influential.
prebisch and the Unequal Terms of Trade
Prebisch observed that the terms of trade consistently favored industrialized countries over those exporting agricultural products and minerals. He termed the developing world the “periphery” and the industrialized world the “center.” Prebisch argued that developing countries experienced a decline of 30 percent in their terms of trade, requiring them to export more agricultural products to purchase fewer manufactured goods. He believed this trend would worsen as northern producers developed substitutes for raw materials and Northern consumers spent less on agricultural products. This perspective, known as “structuralism,” viewed the developing world as trapped in an unequal global trading system inherited from colonialism.
Hans Singer, another UN economist, independently reached similar conclusions, leading to the theory being known as the Prebisch-Singer Theory.
Prebisch’s influence extended beyond theory. As Ali Allawi noted, he “set to work to attract a number of brilliant economists and policy experts who single-handedly created a development discourse that stood in marked contrast to that from the multilateral institutions and Western capitals. Studies poured out of CEPAL (or Economic Commission for Latin America, in english), each one adding to the growing edifice of the structuralist school.”
The appeal of Prebisch’s theory lay in its description of the “bloodless but inexorable exploitation” of the non-industrial world by the industrialized world, irrespective of internal social and economic structures. This offered the potential for a united economic front among diverse regimes.
However,some economists,like Celso Furtado,Theotonio dos Santos,and Fernando henrique Cardoso,expressed concerns about the lack of internal differentiation in Prebisch’s model,arguing that certain classes within developing countries benefited from the unequal integration into the global economy.
These differing views led to clashes within CEPAL, particularly between Prebisch and Furtado. according to Allawi, “Furtado’s historical orientation and his emphasis on the unequal status of classes and the moulding of institutions to favour the ruling elites…had the whiff of an underlying Marxist bias. They were all anathema to Cold War Washington, irrespective of the dry, scholarly jargon of CEPAL.”
Prebisch’s primary goal was to strengthen the Global South’s position in its dealings with the Global North. This led to the establishment of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964, which became a key vehicle for restructuring the world economy.
from UNCTAD to the New International Economic Order
under Prebisch’s leadership, UNCTAD focused on restructuring the global trading system rather than relying on aid. This strategy had four main components: commodity price stabilization, preferential tariffs for Third World exports, support for protectionist trade policies for industrialization, and accelerated technology transfer to the South. while prioritizing trade reform, UNCTAD also advocated for aid as “compensation, a rebate to the Third World for the years of declining commodity purchasing power.”
The UNCTAD strategy formed the basis of the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (NIEO), adopted by the General Assembly on May 1, 1974. The main points included:
- Just and equitable relationship between the prices of raw materials, primary commodities, manufactured and semi-manufactured goods exported by developing countries and the prices of raw materials, primary commodities, manufactures, capital goods and equipment imported by them.
- Extension of active assistance to developing countries by the whole international community, free of any political or military conditions.
- Ensuring that one of the main aims of the reformed international monetary system shall be the promotion of the development of the developing countries.
- Improving the competitiveness of natural materials facing competition from synthetic substitutes.
- Preferential and non-reciprocal treatment for developing countries, wherever feasible, in all fields of international economic co-operation whenever possible.
- Securing favourable conditions for the transfer of financial resources to developing countries.
- Giving to the developing countries access to the achievements of modern science and technology.
- The need for all states to put an end to the waste of natural resources.
- The strengthening, through individual and collective actions, of mutual economic, trade, financial and technical cooperation among the developing countries.
- Facilitating the role which producers’ associations may play within the framework of international cooperation.
The Group of 77 believed they had momentum in the mid-1970s,fueled by the US’s struggles in Vietnam and the OPEC countries’ success in raising oil prices.
During the fourth conference of UNCTAD in Nairobi in 1976, an agreement was reached on the Integrated Program of Commodities (IPC), aiming to stabilize commodity prices.It was also agreed that a Common Fund would be established to regulate prices. UNCTAD also played a key role in the IMF’s creation of the Compensatory Financing Facility to assist Third World countries facing foreign exchange crises.
another achievement was the acceptance of preferential tariffs for developing countries by industrialized nations. by the early 1980s, 26 developed countries were involved in 16 separate “General System of Preferences” schemes.
However,these concessions were limited. In commodity price stabilization, rich countries adopted a strategy of frustrating concrete agreements. A decade after UNCTAD IV, only one new commodity stabilization agreement had been negotiated, and agreements on cocoa, tin, and sugar had collapsed.
Despite these challenges, “Prebischnomics” appeared to have gained global acceptance. Empirical data supported the theory of deteriorating terms of trade. In the 1990s, economists testing the theory using four centuries of trade data concluded that “the evidence they deduced for a large number of commodities showed a long-term decline in their relative price,” according to Allawi.
Though, the success of Prebisch’s ideas in providing a strategy for reforming the global trading system triggered a backlash from the Northern powers.
The End of the Bandung Era
The push for the NIEO occurred during a period of domestic dissent in the US over the Vietnam War and the phenomenon of ”stagflation.” This created an surroundings where the NIEO and the United Nations became targets of criticism.
Conservative think tanks, such as The Heritage foundation, accused the Global South of undermining the Global North. The Heritage Foundation stated:
At the Algiers non-aligned summit of 1973, the Group of 77 urged political unity to gain economic power. The participants demanded extensive economic concessions by Western nations. The following year they moved their campaign to the UN General Assembly, and approved the “Declaration on Establishment of a New International Economic Order” and the “Charter of Economic rights and Duties of States.” These resolutions were the philosophical framework for a decade-long assault on the West in pursuit of a New International Economic Order.
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation further outlined the perceived demands of the Global South:
A key element of NIEO’s demands is financial redistribution: international taxation, increased foreign assistance, the right to expropriate private foreign assets, commodity price protection, and commercial preferences regarding shipping and trade generally. Technological redistribution, through mandatory transfer of industrial, seabed, space, and pharmaceutical technology has been another NIEO tenet.
The Heritage Foundation
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) was viewed as an attempt by the Global south to control and distribute the planet’s natural resources. Concerns were also raised about efforts to regulate private business data flows and restrict multinational corporations.
The neoliberal, free-market counterrevolution gained momentum with Margaret Thatcher becoming prime minister of Britain in 1979 and Ronald Reagan being elected US president in 1980. Reagan famously stated, ”Government does not solve problems. It subsidizes them.” thatcher echoed this sentiment, saying, “Free enterprise works because, like democracy, it gives power to the people.”
The cancun Summit,held from October 22 to 30,1981,was intended to mark a new era of north-South relations. However, it instead signaled the end of the Bandung era and the beginning of four decades of economic counterrevolution.
Conclusion
The journey from the Bandung Conference to the cancun Summit reveals a complex interplay of solidarity, economic theory, and political power. The initial optimism and unity of the Global South, driven by figures like Raul Prebisch and institutions like UNCTAD, ultimately faced a strong backlash from the Global North. The rise of neoliberalism and free-market ideologies marked a significant shift in international economic relations, impacting the development strategies and economic fortunes of nations across the Global South. The legacy of this era continues to shape global debates on trade, development, and international cooperation.
Debt Crisis and the Global South: How the Volcker Shock Triggered a Conservative Counterrevolution
The campaign for the New international Economic Order (NIEO) faced a sudden halt in the early 1980s due to the “Volcker Shock.” This economic event, characterized by a steep rise in the federal funds interest rate pushed by US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, saw rates reaching as high as 19 percent. While intended to curb inflation in the US, the Volcker Shock triggered a “third World” debt crisis, significantly increasing interest payments for developing nations. This crisis became an opportunity for the US and other governments to reverse the gains made by the Global South.
The roots of the crisis can be traced back to the 1970s when OPEC countries deposited oil profits in Western banks. These banks then re-lent the funds at low interest rates to developing countries, leading to both careless lending and borrowing practices. In Latin America, total outstanding debt surged from $29 billion at the end of 1970 to $159 billion by the end of 1978. By 1982, the debt reached $327 billion. US banks were at the forefront of this lending spree; by 1982, the nine largest US money-center banks held Latin American debt amounting to 176 percent of their capital, with their total LDC debt nearing 290 percent of their capital.
The Spark of the Crisis
The crisis ignited in August 1982 when Mexican Finance Minister Jesús Silva Herzog informed key financial figures that Mexico could no longer service its $80 billion debt. Other countries quickly followed suit, leading sixteen latin American countries and eleven LDCs in other parts of the world to reschedule their debts.
Mexican finance Minister jesús Silva Herzog informed the Federal Reserve chairman, the US Treasury secretary, and the international Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director that mexico would no longer be able to service its debt, which at that point totaled $80 billion. Other countries quickly followed suit. Ultimately, sixteen Latin American countries rescheduled their debts, as well as eleven LDCs in other parts of the world.
In response, many banks ceased new overseas lending, focusing rather on collecting and restructuring existing loan portfolios. This abrupt halt in financing plunged developing countries into recession,forcing them to seek assistance from the IMF and the World Bank to service their debts and maintain functionality.
The Conservative Counterrevolution
economic historians John toye and Richard Toye characterized the 1980s as a “conservative counterrevolution” with three main components: structural adjustment (the washington Consensus), the weakening of the United Nations system, and the establishment of the World Trade Association (WTO).
conservative counterrevolution
Structural adjustment, imposed by the IMF and World Bank, involved radical privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization. By the mid-1990s,over seventy developing and post-socialist economies had submitted to this approach. while ostensibly aimed at enabling indebted countries to repay their debts, the strategic objective was to dismantle state-assisted capitalism. A 1988 UN Commission for Africa survey concluded that the essence of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) was the “reduction/removal of direct state intervention in the productive and redistributive sectors of the economy.” In Latin america, the US insisted on removing the government from the economy as a condition for credit.
reduction/removal of direct state intervention in the productive and redistributive sectors of the economy.
A 1992 Inter-American Bank retrospective viewed the remedy to Latin America’s economic crisis as “the withdrawal of the producer state and state-assisted capitalism, the limiting of the state’s responsibilities to its constitutional commitments, a return to the market for the supply of goods and services, and the removal of the obstacles to the emergence of an independent entrepreneurial class.” By 1992, the Global South had been transformed by structural adjustment.
Defanging the UN
The assault on the United Nations system included dismantling the UN Center on Transnational Corporations and abolishing the post of Director General for International Economic Cooperation and Development. The United States, funding 20 to 25 percent of the UN budget, moved to silence NIEO rhetoric in agencies like the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).The UNDP’s role in multilateral aid disbursement was reduced, with most aid channeled through the World Bank and regional development banks.
The focus was on weakening UNCTAD. After agreeing to the creation of the IPC during UNCTAD IV in Nairobi in 1976, the north refused the south’s program of debt forgiveness during UNCTAD V in Belgrade. The counteroffensive escalated during UNCTAD VIII in Cartagena in 1992,where the North successfully opposed linking UNCTAD discussions with the Uruguay Round negotiations of GATT,eroding UNCTAD’s negotiation functions. UNCTAD’s role was limited to “analysis, consensus building on some trade-related issues, and technical assistance.” The establishment of the WTO in 1994 further rendered UNCTAD impotent, though it continued to provide research questioning Northern trade policies.
The WTO: Climax of the Counterrevolution
Developing countries initially lacked enthusiasm for the Uruguay Round, preferring UNCTAD.However, with their economies dominated by the IMF and World Bank, and weakened by the debt crisis, they felt compelled to endorse the Marrakesh Accord of 1994, establishing the WTO. They were warned that isolation in global trade, like North korea, was the alternative.
Many developing countries signed onto the WTO without fully understanding the 700 pages of sub-agreements.They soon realized they had signed away policy space for development. The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) primarily aimed to open their agricultural markets to subsidized commodities from the US and EU. Their industrialization efforts were blocked by the Trade-Related Investment Measures Agreement (TRIMS) and the trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS).
TRIMs banned mechanisms like trade-balancing requirements and “local content” regulations used by countries like South Korea and malaysia. The TRIPs regime, described by UNCTAD as “a premature strengthening of the intellectual property system … that favors monopolistically controlled innovation over broad-based diffusion,” hindered industrialization by imitation.
a premature strengthening of the intellectual property system … that favors monopolistically controlled innovation over broad-based diffusion.
The policy space under GATT principles like “Special and Differential Treatment” was reduced in the WTO due to weak enforcement.
The South Fights Back: Seattle, Doha, Cancun
The big powers of the North sought further trade liberalization in Seattle in 1999, but developing countries resisted. The EU also wanted to expand the WTO’s remit to include investment regimes, competition policy, government procurement rules, and trade facilitation. Some 50,000 protesters converged on Seattle, alarmed by the WTO’s intrusions into agriculture, labor rights, environmental policy, and development space.
The consensus rule at the WTO became its “fatal flaw.” The synergy between developing country resistance and street protests in Seattle led to the collapse of the Third Ministerial Conference. This defeat had worldwide resonance, and the established media began to discuss the dark side of globalization.
In Doha, Qatar, in November 2001, developing countries faced pressure to launch a new round to “save” the global economy after the September 11 attacks.Threats of retaliation and offers of aid packages were used.The result was the “Doha Development Round,” focused on expanding developed-country access to developing country markets.
The experience in Doha led to the formation of alliances like the Group of 20 and the Group of 33. The stubborn push by the EU to bring in non-trade issues sparked the creation of the Group of 90, whose walkout triggered the collapse of the Fifth ministerial in Cancun in 2003. Effective coalition building enabled developing countries to outmaneuver developed countries in Cancun, with support from NGOs and social movements.
The Cancun collapse ended the US’s effort to use the WTO as the principal mechanism of global trade liberalization. The stalemate between the Global north and South persisted. This outcome resembled a strategy prescribed by Focus on the Global South in 1999: “Where structures are hopeless, the next best solution is to have non-functioning structures or no operative structures at all.”
Where structures are hopeless, the next best solution is to have non-functioning structures or no operative structures at all.
Such was the fate of what one WTO director general called “the jewel in the crown of multilateralism.”
farmers at the Center of Resistance
Global civil society organizations (CSOs), particularly farmers’ and peasant movements, played a vital role in the collapse of the ministerials. The threat of the AoA brought these movements into the political arena, pushing their governments to resist the crisis of agriculture. Peasant organizations, many affiliated with La Via Campesina (LVC), were active in the streets of Seattle, Geneva, Cancun, and Hong Kong.
Conclusion
The Volcker Shock and the subsequent debt crisis of the 1980s marked a turning point in the relationship between the Global North and South. The conservative counterrevolution, characterized by structural adjustment, the weakening of the UN, and the rise of the WTO, significantly altered the economic landscape for developing nations. However, resistance from the Global South, exemplified by events in Seattle, Doha, and Cancun, demonstrated a growing determination to challenge the dominance of the North and reclaim policy space for development.
Global South’s Rise: Challenging Western Dominance in Trade,Finance,and Geopolitics
the early 21st century witnessed a significant shift in global power dynamics as the Global South began to challenge the long-standing dominance of the West. Key events, including the collapse of the Third Ministerial in Cancun in September 2003, highlighted the growing resistance to Western-led institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). The suicide of Korean farmer Lee Kyung Hae at the barricades during the Cancun summit symbolized the widespread discontent with the WTO’s perceived threat to peasants worldwide.
The Global South pushes Back against the IMF: Argentina’s Defiance
Like the WTO,the International Monetary Fund (IMF) faced increasing resistance,particularly from Argentina. In the early 1990s, the IMF fervently supported radical financial liberalization in Argentina, including pegging the peso to the dollar. this approach ultimately led to the unraveling of the Argentine economy. By late 2001,the crisis escalated rapidly,forcing Argentina to seek financial assistance from the IMF to service its mounting debt. However, after initially agreeing to previous requests, the IMF refused, leading to the government’s $100 billion debt default.
The consequences were devastating. Businesses collapsed, jobs were lost, capital fled the country, and widespread unrest led to the downfall of successive governments. When Nestor Kirchner won the presidency in 2003, he inherited a country in ruins.He framed the situation as a choice between prioritizing debt repayment or economic recovery. Kirchner offered to settle Argentina’s debts at a steep discount, writing off 70-75 percent and repaying only 25-30 cents on the dollar.
Bondholders protested and demanded that the IMF intervene. Kirchner stood firm, warning that this was a one-time offer. He stated he would not tax impoverished Argentines to pay off the debt and invited creditors to visit the country’s slums to “experience poverty first hand.” Faced with Kirchner’s resolve, the IMF remained on the sidelines, and a majority of bondholders reluctantly accepted his terms.
Kirchner also took a firm stance with the IMF itself. In early 2004, he declared that Argentina would not repay a $3.3 billion installment unless the IMF approved a similar amount of lending to Buenos Aires. The IMF conceded. In December 2005, Kirchner, with financial assistance from Venezuelan president Hugo chavez, fully paid off the country’s debt to the IMF and expelled the Fund from Argentina.
The Global South Pushes Back against the IMF: The Asian Financial Crisis
The IMF faced even greater challenges in the Asia-Pacific region during the Asian Financial crisis of 1997-98. The fund’s policy interventions were heavily criticized on several fronts. First, it had encouraged regional governments to eliminate capital controls, leading to uncontrolled capital flows. Second, the multi-billion dollar “rescue packages” were seen as benefiting foreign financial speculators rather than the people suffering from the crisis, encouraging “moral hazard” or irresponsible investing. Third, the IMF’s austerity measures intensified the crisis by cutting government spending, leading to a “procyclical” negative synergy and deep recession.
Within weeks, one million people in Thailand and 22 million in Indonesia fell below the poverty line.Malaysia was the only country that contained the crisis by refusing to follow the Fund’s dictates and imposing capital and currency controls.
The IMF eventually admitted that the ”thrust of [the recommended] fiscal policy…turned out to be substantially different…as the original assumptions for economic growth, capital flows, and exchange rates…were proved drastically wrong.” The crisis severely damaged the IMF’s reputation.Asian governments developed an “IMF-phobia,” vowing never again to seek the Fund’s assistance. In 2001, Thaksin Shinawatra came to power in Thailand promising to liberate the country from the IMF. Promoting expansionary policies, Thaksin oversaw Thailand’s recovery. Upon repaying the $17.2 billion emergency loan in 2004, Thaksin declared Thailand “liberated” from the IMF, considering it one of his proudest achievements.
The crisis also intensified the debate within the U.S. elite regarding the IMF’s role. The U.S. right criticized the Fund for promoting “moral hazard,” while liberals like Jeffrey Sachs and jagdish Bhagwati attacked it for threatening global macroeconomic stability. In late 1998, a rare conservative-liberal alliance in the U.S. Congress nearly denied the IMF a $14.5 billion contribution.
The World Bank’s Crisis of Legitimacy
The World Bank also faced a crisis of legitimacy. In the 1990s and 2000s, the Bank was criticized for the social consequences of its structural adjustment programs and the environmental impacts of its funding of fossil fuel projects and mega-dams. However, the most damaging critique came from a team of economists who accused the Bank of manipulating data and producing public relations material instead of serious research. The panel, led by nobel laureate Angus Deaton, stated:
bank researchers have…done extremely visible work on globalization, on aid effectiveness, and on growth and poverty. In many ways,they have been the leaders in these issues. But the panel had substantial criticisms of the way that the research was used to proselytize on behalf of Bank policy, often without taking a balanced view, and without expressing appropriate skepticism. Internal research that is favorable to Bank positions was given great prominence, and unfavorable research ignored. In these cases, we believe that ther was a serious failure of checks and balances that should have separated advocacy and research. The panel endorses the right of the Bank to strongly defend and advocate its own policies. But when the Bank leadership selectively appeals to relatively new and untested research as hard evidence that these preferred policies work, it lends unwarranted confidence to the Bank’s prescriptions. Placing fragile selected new research results on a pedestal invites later recrimination that undermines the credibility and usefulness of all Bank research.
Angus Deaton, Nobel Laureate
Paul Collier, head of the Bank’s Research Development Department from 1998 to 2003, admitted that the Bank’s refusal to acknowledge the real-world refutations of its pro-globalization advocacy led to the rejection of its advice:
The profession has been unprofessional, fearful that any criticism would strengthen populism, so that little work has been done on the downsides of these different processes [of globalization].Yet the downsides were apparent to ordinary citizens, and the effect of economists appearing to dismiss them has resulted in widespread refusal of people to listen to “experts.” For my profession to re-establish credibility we must provide a more balanced analysis, in which the downsides are acknowledged and properly evaluated with a view to designing policy responses that address them. The profession might potentially be better served by mea culpa than by further indignant defenses of globalization.
Paul Collier, Head of the World Bank’s Research Development Department (1998-2003)
Like the Asian Financial Crisis for the IMF, the panel’s judgment severely damaged the World Bank’s credibility. The Bank continued to operate, but its influence diminished, with questions raised about the value of the billions of dollars spent on implementing flawed policies.
A Southern Actor Inflicts Defeat on the North
In addition to the challenges to the WTO and IMF, the U.S. faced setbacks on the political and military front. Al Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11 led to a disastrous 20-year intervention in the Middle East, culminating in a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. While Al Qaeda was not a state actor, its actions weakened the domination of the South by the North, increasing the cost of maintaining empire for the U.S. population. As one CIA analyst noted, “Though the 9/11 attacks turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory for Al-Qaeda, Osama still changed the world and continued to influence global politics for nearly a decade after.”
The China Factor
The rise of China significantly altered the balance of power between the Global North and the Global south.After a period of conflict, the U.S. and China entered an era of accommodation and cooperation following President Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijing. Under Deng Xiaoping, China pursued rapid development by inviting foreign capital while maintaining a strong state capable of bargaining on equal terms with the West.
china’s strategy involved leveraging its labor force for foreign capital in exchange for advanced technology. This strategy,though costly in terms of value transfer (estimated at $19 trillion between 1960-2018) and environmental and social costs,enabled China to rapidly transform from an outsider to a central player in the global capitalist system. This resulted in becoming the world’s largest economy, reducing poverty to two percent of the population, and establishing a base for technological innovation.
by the 2010s, China became an alternative pole to the West, providing policy space for developing countries seeking aid and loans without the stringent conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank. China became the ”world’s largest development bank,” with its agencies providing nearly a trillion dollars in financing, mainly to countries in the Global South.
China also launched aspiring international projects like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), New Development Bank, and the Belt and Road initiative (BRI). The BRI, with a $1 billion commitment from President Xi Jinping, aims to influence developing countries and europe through infrastructure building across regions.
Despite facing crises of growth and concerns about its intentions, China’s state-assisted model of development has become increasingly attractive to the Global South. China has achieved a change in North-South relations without military conflict,using the West as a means of national resurrection. China’s rise represents a significant phase in the Global South’s struggle to end Western hegemony.
BRICS: Common Concerns and Contradictions
BRICS (Brazil, russia, India, China, and South Africa) emerged as a formation of rapidly developing countries with an ambivalent relationship to the conventional center economies of Europe and the United States. The term was coined by Goldman Sachs analyst Jim O’Neill to refer to promising emerging markets for finance capital.
BRICS consciousness was forged in the World Trade Organization. India and Brazil emerged as key actors in a defensive strategy that led to the formation of the Group of 20, which opposed unequal trade liberalization and contributed to the collapse of the fifth Ministerial Meeting of the WTO in Cancun in September 2003. The group, including China, played a decisive role in halting the Euro-American drive for greater liberalization in developing countries and stopping the North’s effort to expand the WTO’s authority.
While the BRICS countries had differing agendas,they subordinated their differences to a common anti-liberalization and pro-development agenda that brought the Doha Round of negotiations to a standstill.
Conclusion
the early 21st century marked a turning point in global power dynamics. The Global South, through resistance against institutions like the WTO and IMF, the rise of alternative economic models, and geopolitical shifts, began to challenge the long-standing dominance of the West. While challenges and contradictions remain, these developments signal a more multipolar world order.
BRICS Expansion Signals Shifting Global Order Amidst US-China Competition
The BRICS alliance, initially composed of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, is rapidly evolving into a significant force reshaping the global landscape. With the addition of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on January 1, 2025, the organization now boasts a substantial 28 percent share of the global economy, equivalent to $26.5 trillion. The BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, from October 22-24, 2024, underscored the group’s ambition to foster relations with the global South and shape an alternative multipolar world order, particularly in the global financial and trade system.
The expansion of BRICS comes at a time of increasing uncertainty in the US-dominated global multilateral system. As more countries queue up to join, it signals a growing realization within the Global South that the balance of power is steadily shifting away from the West.
The Rise of BRICS: A Challenge to Western Dominance
The BRICS nations have navigated a complex relationship with the traditional centers of global economic, political, and military power. while benefiting from globalization and foreign investment, they have also strategically leveraged foreign capital to develop their technological and management expertise. This has allowed them to gradually reduce their dependence on external powers and enhance their geopolitical and geoeconomic influence.
Complementarity and contradiction define the relationship between BRICS and dominant powers, most notably exemplified by China’s relationship with the United States. China has utilized American capital and the US market to fuel its emergence as a major global competitor.
Competition is particularly pronounced at the geopolitical level. During the second decade of the 21st century, China shifted from a policy of “peaceful rise” to overtly challenging the military power of the United States and Japan in the Western Pacific. Simultaneously, relations between Russia and Europe and the United States deteriorated as the Putin government resisted NATO’s expansion, a key factor in the ongoing war between russia and Ukraine.
Institutional development and Expansion
The BRICS nations have gradually developed their institutional framework.The New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA), established in 2015, were conceived to perform functions similar to the World Bank and the IMF, respectively. However, they initially maintained a relatively low profile.
As of the end of 2021, the cumulative lending of the NDB amounted to nearly $30 billion, a fraction of the World Bank’s lending during the same period. However, several factors have contributed to the growing appeal of BRICS, including the resistance of the US and Europe to reforms in the IMF and World Bank, the escalating debt problems of developing countries, and the perception of a vacuum in the North-South conflict.
With the inclusion of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, and the UAE on January 1, 2025, BRICS has significantly expanded its reach and influence. The organization now represents over 40 percent of the world’s population. Moreover, several current and prospective members possess substantial surplus funds that could potentially bolster the firepower of the CRA and the NDB. The UAE, for instance, has $2.3 trillion in its sovereign wealth fund, while Saudi Arabia, which is expected to join eventually, has $1.3 trillion.
The Kazan Summit: A Diplomatic Success
The BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024, was widely regarded as a success. As the European Parliament’s Think Tank noted:
Under Russia’s presidency, BRICS (acronym for the founding states – Brazil, Russia, India and China) held its first summit following the group’s expansion on 1 January 2024, from 22 to 24 October in Kazan (Russia). With more than 30 delegations, 22 heads of state or government and several representatives of international organisations including United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres attending, the summit was a diplomatic success for Russia: it offered President Vladimir putin the opportunity to demonstrate to the world that Russia is not isolated.For the first time, a NATO member, Türkiye, attended the summit, and applied to join BRICS. The meeting in Kazan underlined BRICS’s ambition to foster relations with the Global South, and its aim of shaping an alternative multipolar world order, particularly in the global financial and trade system.
Trump’s Influence and the Global South
The current period is marked by uncertainty for the Global South. The potential return of donald Trump to power in the US raises concerns about climate change, women’s rights, migration, and minority rights. Though, there are also indications that Trump might potentially be shifting away from liberal internationalism, focusing rather on strengthening the US grip on North America and Latin America.
This could lead to an era of geoeconomic competition,with a greater emphasis on cooperation between national capital and the state to limit foreign penetration of domestic markets and prevent the acquisition of advanced technology by rival actors. Unilateral economic actions and military strikes may become the preferred approach of the US under Trump.
Despite the complexities of the current moment,there is a growing sense that the balance of power is shifting in favor of the Global South. As economic historian Adam Tooze observed:
…{W}e’re already in a multipolar world. I think it’s anachronistic to cling to a different view. I think we exited the unipolar moment in the 2010s. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t still huge domains of US power and even US predominance. The three obvious ones are military power, global finance and certain areas of high tech.
Tooze further noted the fragmentation of American power and the rise of new centers of competence and power, including China, Indonesia, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Brazil.
Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities
The push for parity between the Global South and the Global North has experienced both advances and setbacks. While most of the world has been freed from direct colonial control, the legacy of settler-colonialism persists in various regions. the ongoing conflict in Israel and Palestine serves as a stark reminder of the unfinished anti-colonial mission.
Despite these challenges, the global South has made significant strides. The North-South divide has become more porous, and the US and Europe are increasingly diverging. As the world moves towards a multipolar order, BRICS is poised to play a central role.
However, BRICS faces several challenges. It must avoid replicating the monopolistic hegemony of the Bretton Woods model and ensure that its most powerful members do not fall into a similar great power relationship with less advantaged nations. Additionally, BRICS must find ways to include peoples’ organizations, social movements, unions, and other civil society formations in its decision-making processes.
Ultimately,the best way to advance the spirit of Bandung is to go beyond its limitations and ensure that the voices of women,peasants,indigenous people,and the planet are heard and their interests are placed at the forefront of the agenda for change.
Bandung Conference: A Turning point for the Global South and the Rise of Non-Alignment
Published
The Asian-African Conference, held in Bandung, Indonesia, on April 24, 1955, stands as a watershed moment in the history of international relations. This landmark event, frequently enough referred to as the Bandung Conference, brought together leaders from newly independent nations across Asia and Africa.The “Final Communique of the Asian-African Conference of Bandung” articulated a vision for a world free from colonialism and centered on principles of self-determination and mutual respect. The conference’s impact resonated far beyond its immediate participants, laying the groundwork for the Non-Aligned Movement and shaping the discourse on global economic and political order for decades to come.
The genesis of Bandung: A Response to Colonialism and Cold War Tensions
In the mid-20th century, the world was undergoing a profound change. Colonial empires were crumbling, giving rise to a wave of newly independent nations eager to assert their sovereignty on the global stage.Simultaneously, the Cold War was intensifying, dividing the world into two opposing blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union. The Bandung Conference emerged as a direct response to these dual challenges,offering an alternative path for nations seeking to avoid entanglement in the superpower rivalry and chart their own course.
The conference aimed to foster solidarity and cooperation among Asian and African nations, promoting economic and cultural exchange while advocating for collective action on issues of common concern. It was a bold assertion of agency by countries that had long been marginalized and subjected to external domination.
The Ten Principles of Bandung: A Blueprint for a New World Order
The “final Communique of the Asian-African Conference of Bandung” outlined ten key principles that served as the foundation for a new vision of international relations. These principles, rooted in the ideals of peace, justice, and equality, included:
- 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 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.
- Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defense 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 their own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
- Promotion of mutual interest and cooperation.
- Respect for justice and international obligations.
These principles, collectively, represented a powerful challenge to the existing world order, which was perceived as being dominated by the interests of the major powers.
The Enduring Impact: From Bandung to the Non-Aligned Movement
The bandung Conference had a profound and lasting impact on the course of global politics. One of its most significant legacies was the impetus it provided for the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). NAM, formally established in 1961, provided a platform for nations to pursue their interests independently of the major power blocs. As Joseph Hongoh noted, the Bandung Conference presented “the Challenge of Reconciling Continental Solidarity with National Sovereignty.”
Gamal Abdel nasser, a key figure in the Non-Aligned Movement, embodied this spirit of independence. The conference also spurred discussions around economic development and the need for a more equitable global economic order.These discussions would later contribute to calls for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s, as articulated in the “Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order adopted by the General Assembly on May 1, 1974.”
While the NIEO ultimately fell short of its goals, the spirit of Bandung continued to inspire efforts to address global inequalities and promote South-South cooperation. As Amitav Acharya observed, studying the Bandung Conference offers valuable insights from “a Global IR Perspective.”
Economic Development and the Quest for a new International Economic Order
The Bandung Conference also served as a catalyst for discussions on economic development and the need for a more equitable global economic order. Leaders recognized that political independence alone was not sufficient to ensure true sovereignty; economic self-reliance was also essential. The conference spurred calls for increased trade and investment among developing countries, as well as for reforms to the international financial system.
The push for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s, though ultimately unsuccessful, reflected the aspirations of developing countries to reshape the global economic landscape in their favor.The “Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order adopted by the general Assembly on may 1, 1974″ encapsulated these aspirations, calling for greater control over natural resources, fairer terms of trade, and increased access to technology and finance.
Bandung’s Enduring Relevance in a Multipolar World
The Bandung Conference of 1955 remains a pivotal moment in the history of the 20th century. It marked the rise of the Global South as a force in international affairs and laid the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement. While the world has changed dramatically since Bandung, the conference’s core principles of self-determination, mutual respect, and South-South cooperation remain relevant in today’s multipolar world. As new challenges and opportunities emerge, the spirit of Bandung continues to inspire efforts to build a more just and equitable global order.
Both articles discuss the Bandung Conference of 1955, highlighting its significance as a pivotal moment in the history of the Global south and the Non-Aligned Movement. However,they offer slightly different perspectives and levels of detail.
Article 1: “The Bandung Conference: A Mythical Moment of Global South Unity” takes a broader historical approach, tracing the origins of the conference back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It emphasizes the growing sense of Asian solidarity fueled by anti-colonial movements and the complex role of Japan, both as a model of resistance to Western powers and as an imperial power itself. The article also details preceding conferences that built momentum towards Bandung,including the asian Relations Conference,the Asia Pacific Peace Conference,and the First Asian Socialist Conference. It highlights key moments and speeches at the Bandung Conference, focusing on the charisma of Sukarno and the diplomatic skills of Zhou Enlai. The article concludes by acknowledging the conference’s imperfections but emphasizing its enduring legacy as a symbol of unity and aspiration for a more just world order.
Article 2: “Bandung Conference: A Turning Point for Afro-Asian Solidarity and the Non-Aligned Movement” focuses more specifically on the conference itself and its immediate impact on the Non-Aligned Movement. It details the genesis of the conference, emphasizing the role of the five Colombo Powers in its institution. It provides a more critical assessment of Nehru’s leadership, suggesting his attempts to dominate the proceedings alienated some delegates. The article clearly outlines the Ten Principles of Bandung, the conference’s condemnation of colonialism, and its support for Palestine. It also contrasts Nehru’s approach with Zhou Enlai’s more successful diplomatic strategy. While acknowledging the conference’s achievements, it points out omissions, such as the underrepresentation of women and Africa’s junior partner status within the movement.
In summary: Both articles agree on the historical importance of the Bandung Conference. Article 1 provides a more comprehensive historical context, tracing the long-term advancement of Pan-Asian and Afro-Asian solidarity. Article 2 offers a more focused analysis of the conference itself, its successes, limitations, and lasting impact on the Non-Aligned Movement, notably highlighting the contrasting leadership styles of Nehru and Zhou Enlai. Together they provide a richer understanding of the event and its complex legacy.