Emerging from an era reverberating with the roars of cannons and preceding one dominated by the chimes of economic ambition, the 1950s represented a revolutionary zeitgeist –  an age where nascent countries, previously shackled to imperial hegemony, ventured towards equitable global standing. In this endeavour, 29 Asian–African nations – representing two-thirds of the world’s population at the time – convened in Bandung, a city nestled among the volcanic highlands of West Java, with the objective of creating a decolonised world order. Various arguments and deliberations would ensue, yet the final communiqué adopted at Bandung would become a lodestar  for transformative independence, not just from political domination, but from the neocolonial levers of economic hegemony.

It is not surprising, then, that this ambitious reimagining of world politics would give rise to antithetical perspectives. In line with its unfulfilled promise, some stress the disappointments of Bandung, increasingly evidenced by the unabated strength of the current configuration of the international politico-economic system ^[1]. Others, however, focus on the various solidarity movements which develop the ideational foundations at Bandung. As Eslava et al argue, far from being a mere exercise of political consolidation among decolonised nations, Bandung  acts as a “trace”, prevailing across “disparate spaces” and “trajectories of time” with the ultimate aim of tackling “old and new forms of both resistance and oppression” ^[2].

Mirroring this latter  conception, which has been espoused by scholars such as Robert Cox and Richard Wright among others, Bandung’s true success lies in its role as the catalyst of the Bandung Era, evidenced materially by the founding of political initiatives such as the Non-Aligned Movement (“NAM”) and the New International Economic Order of 1974 (“NIEO”), and more intellectually by the foundational principles embodied by Bandung.

By exploring the temporal lineage of these revolutionary movements, as well as the ubiquitous spirit of Bandung permeating within them, the conference becomes tantamount to a timeless political framework, adept to inspire resistance against political and economic inequities permeating extant North-South dynamics.  

An Anti-Imperialist Ethic

It is undeniable that Bandung represented a seminal moment in the history of colonised peoples. Prior to the event, it was rarely envisioned that the variegated forms of independent states could unify under a single roof; in fact, it was so unimaginable that Richard Wright, the noted African-American writer who attended Bandung, writes in The Colour Curtain – his reflections on the conference –  that “it was the kind of meeting that no anthropologist, no sociologist, no political scientist would ever have dreamed of staging” ^[3].

From an unassuming power-centric conception of politics, a convergence of diverse nations with distinct cultures, histories, experiences, and indeed political agendas would seldom culminate in a homogenised outcome. The disparate colonial experiences of these nations, ranging from British and French colonialism in South Asia/Africa to Dutch and Japanese imperialism in South-East Asia, in principle should have precluded meaningful collaboration. Yet, Bandung transcended these narrow expectations of realpolitik. In its era, and with its existing spirit, Bandung functions as a concerted undertaking to dismantle structures of global politico-economic subordination orchestrated by regimes with imperialist legacies. In this light, as Chakrabarty aptly describes, Bandung was the founding of a “shared anti-imperialist ethic” ^[4]: a collective consciousness of self-determination focused as much on political worth as on deep emotional connection.  

This emotional rationality underpinning the conference arose from centuries of subjugation. The colonial project, although differentiated by its perpetrators, was universal in its extractive impact. It stripped nations of their political agency, resources, and the dignity of their populace. More importantly, it sustained a precedent which, though diminished in its expansiveness, has been “transmuted into the structures of the current world order” ^[5], heightening the relevance of Bandung. Notwithstanding the advancements made through the enterprise of globalisation and the expansion of neoliberalism, which the Global North has offered, the ability for a select few nations to continue to decree economic and policy decisions for nations of the Global South increasingly renders the international community obsolete.  

In this light, Bandung stands as an unshakeable symbol of in-subordination, urging us to envisage international relations not as a hierarchy but as a multiplex system of universal dignity and justice. This insubordination found its most robust manifestation in both political and economic domains: the former via the foundation of NAM, a coalition of nations committed to charting a path independent of enveloping Cold War blocs, and the latter via the critique of the Bretton Woods System, the economic and financial
architecture established by the Global North in the aftermath of World War II. Both political and economic instances fomented a profound epoch of defiance in global politics: the Bandung Era.

NAM: Birth of Neutralism 

After gaining independence from colonial powers, the nations at Bandung sought to distance themselves from the hegemonic blocs forming under the dictates of the US and the USSR ^[6]. While the NAM’s diverse composition of states, as well as emphasis on consensus-based decision making, prevented it from fully dismantling these political and economic structures of control, it established a precedent for the possibility of collective resistance against hegemonic power dynamics.

It did so primarily in relation to the status of periphery states within institutions such as the UN Security Council. With recent political events typifying an inimical disregard for the UN, returning to NAM’s Bandung-inspired salvo reinforces the modern-day infeasibility of the institution. By forcefully echoing the principles adopted at the conference,  NAM committed that “…states which were precluded from election [be] enabled to serve on the Security Council, so that they might make a more effective contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security” ^[7].

Thus, by articulating the grievances of newly independent states, NAM demonstrated the potential for emerging nations to challenge entrenched structures, utilising the very institutions enacted to exert influence upon the Global South against their instigators.

Crucially, the Bandung–NAM association was not simply one of chronology but, more importantly, one of dialectical progression. Bandung’s crucial role in advancing the narrative of reluctance towards the politico-economic systems of the Global North became inculcated in the very identity of the leaders of the NAM. Figures such as the Indian premier Jawaharlal Nehru, Yugoslavian president Josip Tito, and others such as Gamal Abdel Nasser, through their various meetings and speeches, repeatedly designated the neutralist political approach as the modus operandi of the Global South.

In particular, an extract from Nehru’s speech at Bandung referring to the rise in Cold War dynamics captures the essence of this staunch stance:

“If I join any of these big groups I lose my identity: [if] I have no identity left, I have no views left…It is an intolerable thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into freedom only to degrade themselves and humiliate themselves in this way. ^[8]”

Thus, the synergy between the neutralist political philosophy founded at Bandung, and the dynamics at play in the NAM itself,  commenced a trajectory of political events demarcating the Bandung Era. Though schisms and ruptures, characteristic of any amalgam of many nations, continue to reinforce the unfulfilled promises of both Bandung and NAM, their initial genesis underscores the possibility for collective agency among post-colonial states.

In the contemporary political climate, attempts from NAM and other Global South bodies to counteract neocolonial politico-economic dynamics (most pertinently under the auspices of BRICS) echo Bandung’s ethos of contesting colonial endurances via cooperation and solidarity. It is no
stretch – or romanticisation of Bandung – to claim that without it, the ideological and practical
framework for NAM and other expressions of resistance would not exist ^[9]. As Bandung’s spirit affirms, unanimity, in spite of varied political agendas, remains a viable political outcome. After all, it is this unification that is the foremost instrument to mount a meaningful challenge to deep-rooted global hierarchies.

Resisting Hegemony: The Bretton Woods System

The concretisation of this challenge was further amplified through Bandung’s critique of the Bretton Woods System – the economic and financial architecture established by the Global North under the direction of the United States and its allies. The institutions that arose from Bretton Woods – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – enshrined a global economic order that continues to prioritise the interests of the Global North, perpetuating dependency and exploitation in the Global South ^[10].

Although this exploitation no longer involves the physical violence of its colonial predecessor, it more latently shackles the aspirations and capabilities of nations through decades of economic leverage. These institutions have historically operated on a solidarity antithetical to Bandung’s – one rooted in empire and colonial permanencies. With the laissez-faire dictum permeating economic methodologies and the recourse to political engineering forming their modus operandi, this solidarity coalesces to produce aggregated extraction. As Moore-Sieray incisively notes in his analysis of Bretton Woods’ impact on Africa, the desire for an expansive monetary system fuelled the Comprador theory, which posits that the post-colonial state “exists mainly to facilitate the exploitative, neo-colonialist activities of foreign capital enterprise.” ^[11]

In order to counteract the inevitability of this Comprador fate for the Global South, the Bandung Conference continually admonishes nations of the 21^st century to inculcate an alternative solidarity – one that champions the reciprocity of South-South cooperation and targets shared issues of political and economic apathy.  

The establishment of this Bandung solidarity – in opposition to Bretton Woods – relays the gravity of the Bandung Era, in which the Global South emerges as an autonomous actor in global politics and challenges an enveloping extractive global order.
Although this era chronologically  spans the decades following Bandung, its ideational worth extends beyond into the modern day, acting as a vital signpost for coordinated measures of resistance.

In this regard, by upholding the Bandung solidarity, the NIEO engages in a forceful critique of the North’s neoliberal consensus.

Bandung and the NIEO

Bandung’s Final Communiqué planted the seeds for various institutional initiatives.  Some, such as the NAM and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, have built upon the principles introduced at Bandung. Others, on the other hand, have pursued a more sweeping set of reforms. Foremost among this latter group was the NIEO of 1974: a transformative proposal to address the structural inequalities of the global economy and elevate the position of developing nations marginalised by the postwar political-economic architecture.

Robert Cox, an acclaimed theorist of the Critical Theory school in international relations, conceptualised the NIEO as both a “negotiation process” and a “challenge to the intellectual hegemony of liberal economics and its rationality” ^[12]. Examining both conceptions of the NIEO reveals the extent to which Bandung instilled its spirit within the rally for reforms by the NIEO.

As a “negotiation process,” the NIEO advanced a collective impetus for equitable representation in multilateral institutions. Just as Bandung brought together nations to forge South-South cooperation, the NIEO mobilised this solidarity within formal platforms like the United Nations ^[13]. It did so primarily by advocating to renegotiate the terms of international trade and finance via its foundational principles: fair access to markets for hitherto deprived nations and developmental assistance unattached to restrictive conditionalities often imposed by Western-dominated institutions. By focusing on these malignant issues at the heart of the Global South, the NIEO’s demands unveiled the monetary and social expenditures that continually shackle the budgets of emerging economies via outflows to the Global North.

Similarly, the NIEO functioned as a “challenge to the intellectual hegemony of liberal economics,” rejecting the universalism of free-markets, and emphasising that true development lies in localised frameworks as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach. In this regard, the NIEO created a system that asserted the rights of nations to pursue endogenous development paths, a principle initially articulated at Bandung ^[14]. As has been repeatedly evidenced by the interventions of institutions such as the IMF in the developing world, most notably in Latin American, African, and South Asian nations, the imposition of policy frameworks that seldom integrate the day-to-day capabilities of beneficiaries underscores the divide between the prescriptions of policymakers and the actual challenges plaguing nations of the Global South ^[15]. By targeting this divide, the NIEO serves to contest the method of politico-economic policymaking focused on viewing human beings as mere instruments of growth, as opposed to valuable ends in themselves. 

Both instances – relaying Cox’s dual conception of the NIEO –  validate the argument that while the ideological and practical framework created by the NIEO was revolutionary in its scale (with 94 member states backing the resolution), it was not in its intellectual foundations. As outlined by Bret Benjamin, “much of the basic argumentative framework of the NIEO Declaration can already be located in the Communiqué’’ ^[16]. Therefore, the NIEO channels the legacy of Bandung and amplifies it, acting as a critical thorn in the intellectual, political, and economic edifice of the Global North.

Conclusion

The Bandung Conference was a unique political-economic moment, with its spirit continuing to underpin the notion of progression in contemporary politics. Though this spirit’s nature and form continually fluctuate in response to the needs of the day, its foundational principles are unshakeable.

Demonstrating the profound and multifaceted impact of ideological political initiatives, Bandung shaped a discourse borne in the darkness of a colonial past with an eye toward the future of integration. The Bandung Era ushered in an epoch of unprecedented solidarity among decolonised nations, embodied by movements  such as the NAM and transformative proposals like the NIEO. By illuminating the structural barriers inherent in the global political-economic system – a theme amplified through various political dynamics today – Bandung set in motion a movement to ultimately envisage a decolonised world order.

Nevertheless, despite its ambitious vision, the continued monopoly of western politico-economic institutions acts as a reminder of Bandung’s unfulfilled promises. The political sphere continues to witness the dominance of the Global North at multilateral institutions, while the systemic marginalisation of developing nations within decision-making processes constrains the capacity for reform.

Similarly, the economic domain is rife with the unchecked power of the Bretton Woods institutions, designed to reflect and perpetuate the interests of advanced industrial economies. These imbalances punctuate the hierarchies of the global order which have historically neutralised initiatives embodying the Bandung spirit, limiting the revolutionary abilities required to reconfigure the international system.

Notwithstanding such realities, Bandung’s true significance lies beyond its immediate outcomes, with its extant ideological strength stirring the adoption of various countermovements. Examples such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS bloc, and regional development networks challenge the dominance of Western institutions and promote alternative frameworks for multilateral cooperation. The AIIB, focusing on developing infrastructure in line with the capabilities of nations in the Global South, offers a counterpoint to the homogenous development conditions imposed by Western-led financial institutions. Similarly, BRICS has emerged as a powerful platform for advancing the interests of emerging economies, promoting multipolarity, whilst advocating for crucial reform in global governance structures. These efforts, along with the ongoing relevance of the NIEO through its advocacy by Progressive International, relay the enduring impact of the Bandung Era.

Ultimately, as we grapple with the unfulfilled promises of Bandung within the context of our contemporary political-economic climate, we must continue to echo its vital refrain: the imperative to act decisively and shape the contours of history toward a more just and equitable future for all.

Works Cited

[1]      G. M. Kahin, “The Asian-African Conference,” Bandung, April 1955.

[2]      L. Eslava, M. Fakhri and V. Nesiah, “The Spirit of Bandung,” in Bandung, Global History, and International Law: Critical Pasts and Pending Futures , Cambridge University Press , 2017, pp. 12-14.

[3]      R. Wright, “The Colour Curtain: A Report on the Bandung Conference,” Dennis Dobson, London, 1956.

[4]      D. Chakrabarty, “Legacies of Bandung Decolonisation and the Politics of Culture,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 46, pp. 4812-4818, 2005.

[5]      L. Eslava, M. Fakhri and V. Nesiah, “The Spirit of Bandung,” in Bandung, Global History, and International Law: Critical Pasts and Pending Futures, Cambridge University Press, 2017, p. 3.

[6]      H. Strydom, “The Non-Aligned Movement and the Reform of International Relations,” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, vol. 11, pp. 2-4, 2007.

[7]      P. Mathur, “The Non-Aligned Movement And The United Nations,” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, pp. 13-16, 2016.

[8]      M. A. Vieira, “Understanding Resilience in International Relations: The Non-Aligned Movement and Ontological Security,” International Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 300, 2016.

[9]      A. J. Timossi, “Revisiting the 1955 Bandung Asian-African Conference and its legacy,” The South Centre, 2015.

[10]    W. Bello, “Revisiting & Reclaiming Deglobalization,” Focus on the Global South , Bangkok, 2009.

[11]    D. Moore-Sieray, “The Bretton Woods Institutions And The Self-Deceiving State In Africa: How International Finance Capital And Blunted Vision Have Underdeveloped Africa,” Journal of African Research & Development, p. 190, 1997/98.

[12]    R. Cox, “Ideologies and the New International Economic Order: Reflections on Some Recent Literature,” International Organization, pp. 257-260, 1979.

[13]    United Nations, “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3201 (S-Vi): Declaration On The Establishment Of A New International Economic Order,” 1974.

[14]    N. Gilman, “The New International Economic Order: A Reintroduction,” Humanity, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2015.

[15]    S. Babb, “The Social Consequences of Structural Adjustment: Recent Evidence and Current Debates,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 31, pp. 202-209, 2005.

[16]    B. Benjamin, “Bookend to Bandung: The New International Economic Order and the Antinomies of the Bandung Era,” Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, pp. 33-46, 2015.