• The Bandung Conference

• Malcolm X on The Bandung Conference

• Malik Bennabi on The Bandung Conference

• Some Critical Reflections on The Bandung Conference

The Bandung Conference

In 1955, leaders of 29 African and Asian nations gathered together to consider how they could help one another in achieving social and economic well-being for their large and impoverished populations. Their agenda addressed race, religion, colonialism, national sovereignty, and the promotion of world peace. Despite the pragmatic premises of the meeting, it would take on monumental importance for the shaping of future Cold War and identity politics, bearing important lessons for political struggle today.

The Bandung Conference was sponsored by the Asian nationalist leadership of Indonesia, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Burma (now Myanmar), and the Philippines. The foremost figure of these nations was Ahmed Sukarno, president of Indonesia, and other prominent personalities included Jawaharlal Nehru, prime minister of India, Kwame Nkrumah, prime minister of the Gold Coast (later Ghana), Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of Egypt, Chou En Lai, premier of China, Ho Chi Minh, prime minister of Vietnam, and Congressman Adam Clayton Powell of Harlem, USA; lesser-known representatives of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, Japan, the Philippines and others also made interesting contributions.

As stated previously, twenty-nine countries, representing over half the world's population, sent delegates. The conference reflected what they regarded as a reluctance by the Western powers to consult with them on decisions affecting Asia in a setting of Cold War tensions; their concern over tension between the People's Republic of China and the United States; their desire to lay firmer foundations for China's peaceful relations with themselves and the West; their opposition to colonialism, especially French influence in North Africa and French colonial rule in Algeria; and Indonesia's desire to promote its case in the dispute with The Netherlands over Western New Guinea.

Major debate centred on the question of whether Soviet policies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia should be censured along with Western colonialism. A consensus was reached in which “colonialism in all of its manifestations” was condemned, implicitly censuring the Soviet Union, as well as the West. China played an important role in the conference and strengthened its relations with other Asian nations. The Chinese prime-minister, Chou En-Lai, displayed a moderate and conciliatory attitude that tended to quiet fears of some anti-communist delegates concerning China's intentions.

A 10-point “declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation”, incorporating the principles of the United Nations Charter and Jawaharlal Nehru's principles, was adopted unanimously. The Final Communique of the Conference underscored the need for developing countries to loosen their economic dependence on the leading industrialized nations by providing technical assistance to one another through the exchange of experts and technical assistance for developmental projects, as well as the exchange of technological know-how and the establishment of regional training and research institutes.

The strategy of militant Afro-Asian states was to strengthen their independence from Western imperialism (colonialism and neo-colonialism) while keeping the Soviet bloc at a comfortable distance. This strategic bloc, which was supposed to be independent from the superpowers, was the beginning of what later came to be known as the Non-Aligned movement and the “Third World”. However, conflicts between the non-aligned nations eroded the solidarity expressed at Bandung and the Non-Aligned Movement, which was established in 1961, has struggled to find relevance since the end of the Cold War.

Malcolm X on The Bandung Conference

In Bandung back in, I think, 1954, was the first unity meeting in centuries of black people. And once you study what happened at the Bandung conference, and the results of the Bandung conference, it actually serves as a model for the same procedure you and I can use to get our problems solved. At Bandung all the nations came together. There were dark nations from Africa and Asia. Some of them were Buddhists. Some of them were Muslim. Some of them were Christians. Some of them were Confucianists. Some were atheists. Despite their religious differences, they came together. Some were communists; some were socialists; some were capitalists. Despite their economic and political differences, they came together. All of them were black, brown, red, or yellow.

The number-one thing that was not allowed to attend the Bandung conference was the white man. He couldn't come. Once they excluded the white man, they found that they could get together. Once they kept him out, everybody else fell right in and fell in line. This is the thing that you and I have to understand. And these people who came together didn't have nuclear weapons; they didn't have jet planes; they didn't have all of the heavy armaments that the white man has. But they had unity.

They were able to submerge their little petty differences and agree on one thing: That though one African came from Kenya and was being colonized by the Englishman, and another African came from the Congo and was being colonized by the Belgian, and another African came from Guinea and was being colonized by the French, and another came from Angola and was being colonized by the Portuguese, when they came to the Bandung conference, they looked at the Portuguese, and at the Frenchman, and at the Englishman, and at the other - Dutchman - and learned or realized that the one thing that all of them had in common: they were all from Europe, they were all Europeans, blond, blue-eyed and white-skinned. They began to recognize who their enemy was. The same man that was colonizing our people in Kenya was colonizing our people in the Congo. The same one in the Congo was colonizing our people in South Africa, and in Southern Rhodesia, and in Burma, and in India, and in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan. They realized all over the world where the dark man was being oppressed, he was being oppressed by the white man; where the dark man was being exploited, he was being exploited by the white man. So they got together under this basis - that they had a common enemy."

(Extract from a speech entitled "Message to The Grassroots" delivered on November 10, 1963)

In this speech, Malcolm X refers repeatedly to ‘the white man’ and appears to identify the essence of ‘whiteness’ with a physical trait, more specifically, skin colour (“they were all from Europe, they were all Europeans, blond, blue-eyed and white-skinned”). However, it is crucial to appreciate that this speech was delivered prior to his performance of the pilgrimage to Makkah in 1964, during which period, and as a result of which experience, it appears that he modified his views on ‘whites’ to the effect that he now believed that it was possible for a person to be white-skinned (that is, physically ‘white’) and yet non-White (in a political sense). The principle evidence in support of this position is a letter, allegedly written during his trip to Saudi Arabia, the contents of which are reproduced in his autobiography (completed with the assistance of Alex Haley). The relevant extracts of this letter are as follows:

"During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same rug - while praying to the same God - with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the deeds of the white Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana.

"We were truly all the same (brothers) - because their belief in one God had removed the white from their minds, the white from their behaviour, and the white from their attitude.

"I could see from this, that perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then perhaps, too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man - and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their ‘differences’ in colour.

"With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called ‘Christian’ white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem. Perhaps it could be in time to save America from imminent disaster - the same destruction brought upon Germany by racism that eventually destroyed the Germans themselves.

"Each hour here in the Holy Land enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening in America between black and white. The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities - he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites. But as racism leads America up the suicide path, I do believe, from the experiences that I have had with them, that the whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, will see the handwriting on the walls and many of them will turn to the spiritual path of truth - the only way left to America to ward off the disaster that racism inevitably must lead to."

Thus, for Malcolm X – or Al-Hajj Malik Al-Shabazz, as he later came to refer to himself – ‘white’ refers to something mental, behavioural, attitudinal, in short, to a way of perceiving the world and acting on that world; in short, to a socio-political or ideological orientation. However, this apparent shift in his thinking – from a crude identification of the essence of ‘whiteness’ with a physical property (skin complexion or hue), to a refined understanding of the essence of ‘whiteness’ as a political construct that makes use of a physical property – did not lead him to modify his views regarding the nature of the dominant, contemporary system of oppression in the world – White Supremacy (Racism).

Malik Bennabi on The Bandung Conference

Malik Bennabi (1905-1973) is possibly the most eminent scholar and thinker of post-World War II Algeria and one of the foremost intellectuals of the modern Muslim world. Educated in Algiers and Paris, he graduated in electrical engineering from a polytechnic in Paris. In 1956, he wrote L’Afro-Asiatisme: Conclusions sur la Conférence de Bandoeng, which attempted to capture the global cultural and political significance of the conference that had taken place in the previous year.

According to Bennabi (2003), “those who went to Bandung in April 1955 did not go to define and solve a cultural problem. The events themselves defined the meaning of their attempt, and turned their mission into a realization of a certain cultural program within the frame of the Afro-Asian meetings.” In his view, “it is clear that people had a lesser influence on [the conference program] than events.” (p.69) On his view, what Bandung suggested as possible – yet appeared to have been unable to provide a program for – was the synthesis of the collective will and shared aspirations of different peoples. By ‘synthesis’ Bennabi means nothing more than cultural ‘co-existence’; he does not mean to imply by this term anything approaching ‘fabrication’, that is, the artificial conjoining of two distinct systems in order to produce a third system that contains elements belonging to each and which replaces the two previous systems. As he goes on to state, “there is no room for seeking cohesion and co-ordination in an artificial religious syncretism.” (p.75)

Significantly, Bennabi maintains that “despite [apparent] political tension between the two [capitalist and socialist] camps, cultural exchange is exercised within the same civilizational framework [emphasis added].” (p.71) On his view, the nations of the world belonged to two major civilizational spheres or blocks: The Washington-Moscow axis/pole which comprises the developed and industrialized nations, and the Tangier-Jakarta axis/pole which includes the underdeveloped and non-industrialized nations. While it might appear that such a categorization is almost equivalent to the North-South classification, it is important to appreciate that Bennabi’s categorization is not based on mere techno-economical and geographical considerations. Crucially, it emphasizes deep cultural and, indeed, spiritual affinities, whereby ‘spiritual’, Bennabi refers to the ideological and metaphysical outlook of a people. He maintains that “exchange … becomes almost useless or insignificant when it falls outside its frame of reference, which gives it its social value and cultural significance.” (p.72)

Bennabi accurately identified the reactive/negative anti-imperialist agenda of the Bandung conference and the need to move beyond this in order to articulate a pro-active/positive program for the development of the ‘Third World’: “The internal cohesion given by Bandung … was inspired by a common ideological principle, represented basically in the anti-imperialist tendency among the Afro-Asian nations. But the development, which must come after the stage of imperialism, will definitely bypass the anti-imperialistic tendency. So, the Afro-Asian idea must base its moral program on a more positive principle, provided it is not essentially religious, to avoid making the idea sound like a ‘religious bias’.” (p.74) [It is important to point out here that Bennabi subscribed to the conventional and erroneous view that Al-Islam is a religion as opposed to a DEEN (that is, life-transaction and power relation between the created and The Creator).] He goes on to state that:

The anti-imperialist tendency was sufficient, in the beginning, to bring about the necessary cohesion among the elements presented in Bandung … It is clear that such a principle was not sufficient [in the long term], despite its temporary effect in inspiring occupied nations to make noble sacrifices during the period of liberation … When this emotional period is over, the anti-imperialistic tendency will no longer be sufficient as the noble incentive, energizing civilization, and providing it with its ideals and necessary thrust. Moreover, when this tendency becomes devoid of ‘positive feelings’ with time, what is left is only ‘negative feelings’ in the form of hatred towards the nations that have caused the occupied nations to suffer. The question is not to save the world from the contempt of the big powers so as to turn it over to the malice of the weak. (p.75)

Thus, while hate, as a powerful motivating force, certainly has its place in the grand scheme of things, it is crucial to appreciate that it is something that must be kept in close check since it is a negative force. In order for hate to become useful, it must be harnessed as a means in the pursuit of ends that are positive, these means being temporary and ends being permanent. What might such ends be? According to Bennabi,

Internal liberation … should complement political and national liberation … through a psychological and moral frame of reference. Imperialism affected not only the political concepts of the people under occupation, that is, their social relations, but it also reached the depth of their basic formation – their souls and conscience – and afflicted them with inertia and loss of creativity. (p.76)

He feels that “it is painful to see that people under occupation take the stand of the accuser or the accused in their writings. This negative attitude is harmful to the ‘self’, for it makes it tend to cover up its shortcomings, thus becoming incapable of starting a new life.” (p.76) Thus, Bennabi rejects externalist accounts of colonialism which lay the blame for colonization exclusively at the door of the colonialists. On his view, such accounts reinforce reactive/negative programs of action by identifying colonialism as a cause of oppression by ‘the Other’ – in this case, the Western world or White Supremacy (Racism) – rather than an effect of a prior cause – the colonisability that is a condition of oppression brought about by the ‘self’ through internal decay. It is important to appreciate that this type of analysis should not be understood as merely a case of ‘self-hate’ or of the victim ‘blaming the victim’ since Bennabi accepts that ‘the West’ has an aggressively exploitative agenda vis-à-vis the non-Western world. As he states, “the international context … shows two types of socially different peoples: a type that was or still is colonized, and another that has been and still is a colonizer. All major problems current in the world, psychological, political or economic are caused by this duality, humankind’s legacy from the nineteenth century.” (pp.86-87) According to him,

Next to the Africans [and other ‘Third World’ peoples] live those who are infatuated with a ‘domination culture’ [that is, White Supremacy (Racism)] and are reluctant to give newly liberated nations any opportunity to realize a ‘cultural program’, or even to preserve their non-culture in its virgin state, away from harmful contact.

There are films, records, pornographic magazines, books on sex, education, effeminate and other devious styles of behaviour, and various types of licentiousness which we see every day, including the philosophizing of sex to lead the youth to Freudianism. All these are obvious or hidden aspects of a beastly octopus, far-reaching, filthy and breathing poison into the atmosphere in which genuine cultural values are born. Its tentacles creep and twist like the coils of a serpent, sticky and slippery, clutching fiercely to suffocate and extinguish in our hearts and souls that basic wealth which is the starting point in the definition of a ‘cultural program’. (p.98)

What Bennabi was/is attempting to do was/is to get the “Third World” to develop a pro-active/positive program for development by realising that “there is no fate but what we make”, that the means for liberation and growth ultimately lie with the self. On his view, it is only by “cleaning house”, while simultaneously “knowing your enemy” – within and without – that liberation and development can take place. Importantly, this view is consistent with that presented in The Qur’an, viz. “God/Allah never changes the condition of a people until they change themselves.”

Although Bennabi made a number of important contributions in his reflections on the Bandung conference, he himself failed to define a positive program for Afro-Asian cultural synthesis.

Some Critical Reflections on The Bandung Conference

1.   The nation state idea – and, by implication, the ideology of nationalism - was not contested by conference delegates. However, nationalism has its origin and rationale in the Western/White Supremacist (Racist) historical experience – more specifically, in the Treaty of Westphalia - and is, therefore, an essentially Western/White Supremacist (Racist) political construct inappropriately applied to non-White peoples.

2.   Although delegates reached a consensus that Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe and Central Asia was a form of “colonialism”, they failed to appreciate that Western imperialism (or capitalism), and the Soviet bloc (or communism) were, in fact, merely apparent dialectical opposites within the reality of a single, global hegemonic system – White Supremacy (Racism).

3.   According to the Algerian thinker, Malik Bennabi, the spirit of unity demonstrated at Bandung was pragmatic and driven by external events, rather than cultural and driven by a desire to synthesise the collective will and shared aspirations of different peoples. In short, the premise and program of the Bandung conference was essentially ‘reactive’ (and hence, negative), rather than ‘pro-active’ (and hence, positive), motivated by the concerns of a non-White ‘self’ defined in terms of, and with reference to, a White ‘Other’ to which it was pragmatically responding.

4.   The so-called ‘Muslim’ delegates at the conference reinforced the widespread, yet erroneous, view that Al-Islam (The Self-Surrender to God/Allah) is a religion rather than a DEEN (that is, a life transaction and power relation between the created and The Creator). On this flawed basis, at least one of them was led to propose a synthesis of (some variant of) Islam and (some variant of) socialism as a possible means by which to prevent the spread of Marxism within so-called ‘Muslim’ countries. However, to paraphrase Malcolm X, mixing Al-Islam with socialism is like adding milk (which is white) to coffee (which is black), turning something that was once HOT and STRONG (Al-Islam) into something COLD and WEAK (“Islamic Socialism”). Al-Islam – as DEEN not religion – is sufficient in and of itself; it needs no support from White Supremacy (Racism), irrespective of the form that the latter may take.

5.   A number of ideologies based on religious, ‘ethnic’ and/or nationalist foundations were presented as post-colonial strategies for the “Third World” including Pan-Islamism, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Africanism. Each of these strategies was particular in nature, addressing the specific concerns of a section of humanity (for example, the so-called ‘Muslims’, Arabs and/or Africans). However, what was – and still is - needed was a universal strategy, yet one that made space for the relative, local autonomy of different peoples (such as so-called ‘Muslims’, Arabs and Africans), and supported the liberation struggles of the oppressed; a true pluralism, a diversity in unity and a unity in diversity - as opposed to the false pluralism of ‘multiculturalism’ under White Supremacy (Racism). Only Al-Islam (The Self-Surrender to God/Allah) as DEEN (that is, life transaction and power relation between the created and The Creator) could provide the basis for this strategy since only Al-Islam is inherently universal in outlook, while upholding the legitimacy of pluralism with respect to that which is consistent with DEEN. (The source of Al-Islam is God/Allah, who is neither ‘Western/White’ nor ‘Eastern/non-White’, but rather The Sustainer of The East and The West; hence, Al-Islam is for all people – white, black, brown, red, yellow.) Only a universal strategy and the corresponding globally operating system that it gives rise to can counter another universal strategy and its corresponding globally operating system. Only Al-Islam can provide the basis for uprooting the oppressive system of Western hegemony, that is, White Supremacy (Racism), in order to replace it with Justice and thereby ensure Peace.

6.   According to Bennabi (2003), “the spirit of Bandung, which was left to its fate by the very people who created it, died down like a fire in a temple deserted by its priests.” However, it is crucial to appreciate why this has happened. At least part of the explanation lies in the effects of colonialism on the minds, as well as the bodies (and resources), of colonised peoples. As Bennabi states, “one may say that Third World people, the Africans in particular, have not served the cause of peace [and justice], for they were made incapable of doing so [emphasis added].” (p.94)