Bandung: Unity in a Common Enemy
The following paper does not aim to discredit the positive effects of the Bandung Conference on the Third World. Granted, it united nations from across the globe to unify in once common goal: to find a common, unbiased, First World-free voice. That being said, it also was arguably the other half of creating the world’s negative perception of the capitalist system, the hated bourgeoisie. The author of The Darker Nations a People’s History of the Third World, Vijay Prashad, argues in his “Bandung” chapter that the Bandung Conference gave people hope for an optimistic future free of colonialism. Prashad however has a Marxist/communist bias. Prashad says that the Bandung Conference was the unity of the Third World via anti-colonialism, but this is really a guise for pushing a pro-communist agenda. Vijay Prashad's love of communism and unity in Bandung blinds him from realizing the social damage that anti-colonialism sentiment and the conception of the First World as a common enemy has done to the world.
The Bandung Conference was driven primarily by the optimistic Indonesian president, Sukarno. He fervently said,
Irresistible forces have swept the two continents. The mental, spiritual and political face of the whole world has been changed and the process is still not complete. There are new conditions, new concepts, new problems, new ideals abroad in the world. Hurricanes of national awakening and reawakening have swept over the land, shaking it, changing it, changing it for the better (Sukarno 33).
Sukarno’s driven voice resonated with the rest of the Third World’s universal contempt of impact of American and European colonialism and imperialism. Prashad says that even though the countries in the Third World each had separate situations, this “common platform” of unity could undermine the social differences to create a more amalgamated world (Prashad 34). This all seemed like it would lead the world into a new era of peace, but it really brought upon a new layer of prejudice. Sakurno urged all countries attending the conference to stand up against imperialism, not to stand up against prejudices (34). Although Sakurno succeeded in uniting a divided part of the world, he did so by finding a common enemy: the First World. Prashad presents the two sides as the classic David and Goliath tale. Sakurno formed the PNI (Partai Nasional Indonesia) to further the goals of the middle class. Even though he was arrested for extremist actions, his followers, to Prashads own admission, “…backed him despite their shallow knowledge of his program, and he won” (36). This shows that the country was so fueled by disdain, that it back up its leader for the sake of winning an argument.
On a general scale, the Bandung conference, to its credit, created a model that U.N. stove to emulate (49). It was, after all, the first meeting to unite various regions peacefully in one room. However, Bandung specifically united under the post WWII era where the world needed restructure, and there was a certain amount of resistance from the nations that attended the conference. Philipeno Carlos Romulo expressed contempt for the U.S. Marshall Plan after attending this peace conference. Prashad says, “…He used [various] forums to offer a stern rebuke of U.S. economic policy. There is a Marshall Plan for Europe, he told his audience…, but only ‘chicken feed’ for Asia” (39). Romulo said, “What is worse…it comes with the accompaniment of senatorial lectures on how we must be grateful and how imperative it is for us to realize the advantages of the American way of life. And so on. Must Asia and Africa be content with crumbs and must we be told what a great favor is being conferred on us?” (Romulo 39). The Bandung Conference instilled a hatred of the United States in this man as opposed to the message of peace that it aimed to impart. The odd root of Romulo’s hatred for wanting to help needy countries can only be traced back to the negative sentiment of the Bandung Conference.
The U.S. should not be exonerated for their allegedly terrible deeds—after all, two halves make a whole of a problem. After the conference, the U.S. tried to take a new stance of “neutralism” of maintain a somewhat of a calm (48). Prashad says, “The U.S. government, it noted, should ‘respect each country’s choice of national policy for preserving its independence, but make every effort to demonstrate the advantages of greater cooperation and closer alignment with the Free World, as well as the dangers of alignment with the Communist bloc’” (48). The nations that attended the Bandung conference were quite hostile towards U.S. congressperson Adam Clayton Powell Jr. The State department predicted that the close-mindedness of the conference. Powell, an African American, explained, “This conference is not anti-white…but it was anti-American policy and it become an anti-white movement” (Powell 47). Powell was part of a minority, and his timely comments about reverse-racism captured the unwillingness for the nations at the Bandung Conference to change their ways. Prashad defends the nations and says that U.S. was the hostile party, yet does not back up his statement throughout the rest of the chapter (Prashad 47).
Prashad pushes that the Bandung conference impacted the world because of its peace message and wanting to stand against colonialism. In the unstable time post-WWII, the sentiment appears as anti-American, anti-American people, anti-European, and anti-colonial. The conference was counter productive: The U.S. Marshall plan was build to allocate funds to needy countries like the ones in the conference’s attendance, yet they resisted due to negative preconceived notions. Prashad’s pro-communist beliefs blind him to see the negative sentiment from that conference as a peace session.
No comments:
Post a Comment