“I recognize that we are gathered here today as a result of sacrifices. Sacrifices made by our forefathers and by the people of our own and younger generations…. Their struggle and sacrifice paved the way for this meeting of the highest representatives of independent and sovereign nations from two of the biggest continents of the globe.”
For Sukarno and national revolutionaries of his stamp, the present meeting was not merely a lucky stroke of politics, but a gathering whose foundations had been laid long before. He put his finger on the date in modern history when the real struggle against colonialism had begun in earnest:
“I recall in this connection the Conference of the ‘League Against Imperialism and Colonialism’ which was held in Brussels almost thirty years ago. At that Conference many distinguished delegates who are present here today met each other and found new strength in their fight for independence.”
It is hard for the Western world to realize how tenaciously these outsiders cling to and remember each link, each step in their life’s struggles; to most of the delegates to whom Sukarno spoke, this meeting was the logical outcome of past sacrificial efforts. And why had they now come together? Sukarno said:
“…we are living in a world of fear. The life of man today is corroded and made bitter by fear. Fear of the future, fear of the hydrogen bomb, fear of ideologies. Perhaps this fear is a greater danger than the danger itself, because it is fear which drives men to act foolishly, to act thoughtlessly, to act dangerously…. And do not think that the oceans and the seas will protect us. The food we eat, the water that we drink, yes, even the very air that we breathe can be contaminated by poisons originating from thousands of miles away. And it could be that, even if we ourselves escaped lightly, the unborn generations of our children would bear on their distorted bodies the marks of our failure to control the forces which have been released on the world.”
What strength had Sukarno and Asian and African leaders like him? He was frank about it. He said:
“For many generations our peoples have been the voiceless ones in the world. We have been the unregarded, the peoples for whom decisions were made by others whose interests were paramount, the peoples who lived in poverty and humiliation…. What can we do? The peoples of Asia and Africa wield little physical power. Even our economic strength is dispersed and slight. We cannot indulge in power politics…. Our statesmen, by and large, are not backed up with serried ranks of jet bombers.”
He then defined the strength of this gathering of the leaders of the poor and backward nations as:
“We, the peoples of Asia and Africa, 1,400,000,000 strong, far more than half of the population of the world, we can mobilize what I have called the Moral Violence of Nations in favor of peace….”
And where was this moral violence coming from? Sukarno knew to what he was appealing, for he said:
“Religion is of dominating importance particularly in this part of the world. There are perhaps more religions here than in other regions of the globe…. Our countries were the birthplace of religions.”
And what bound these diverse peoples together? Sukarno said:
“Almost all of us have ties to common experience, the experience of colonialism.”
Sukarno was appealing to race and religion; they were the only realities in the lives of the men before him that he could appeal to. And, as I sat listening, I began to sense a deep and organic relation here in Bandung between race and religion, two of the most powerful and irrational forces in human nature. Sukarno was not evoking these twin demons; he was not trying to create them; he was trying to organize them…. The reality of race and religion was there, swollen, sensitive, turbulent….
It was no accident that most of the delegates were deeply religious men representing governments and vast populations steeped in mystical visions of life. Asian and African populations had been subjugated on the assumption that they were in some way biologically inferior and unfit to govern themselves, and the white Western world that had shackled them had either given them a Christian religion or else had made them agonizingly conscious of their old, traditional religions to which they had had to cling under conditions of imperialist rule. Those of them who had been converted to Christianity had been taught to hope for a freedom and social justice which the white Western world had teasingly withheld. Thus, a racial consciousness, evoked by the attitudes and practices of the West, had slowly blended with a defensive religious feeling; here, in Bandung, the two had combined into one: a racial and religious system of identification manifesting itself in an emotional nationalism which was now leaping state boundaries and melting and merging, one into the other.
But let us follow the speakers who spell out this new thing that has come upon the world scene. Ali Sastroamidjojo, Prime Minister of Indonesia and spiritual architect of the multinationed gathering, was elected unopposed as President of the Conference. In his address he continued the theme:
“Among the main causes of the present-day tensions here is colonialism, the old scourge under which Asia and Africa have suffered for ages, which will be a subject of our special interest. It may be true that the larger part of mankind accepts the obvious truth that colonialism has to be considered as a thing of the past, but the fact is there that colonialism is still very much alive. When we look at the map of Asia and Africa we find many spots, and even whole countries, which are still fettered by the chains of colonialism. Moreover, in the flesh of several of us are still sticking the thorns, small or large, of colonial rule.”
That the Asian-African Conference looked forward to convening again and broadening and deepening its scope was plainly stated:
“I hope that one day, and may it be soon, the opportunity will arise, or be created, to convene the representatives of independence movements in all colonial territories who are still struggling for the liquidation of colonial rule and for their national independence and sovereignty. We, the independent countries of Asia and Africa, have to do our utmost in supporting them in every peaceful effort which may achieve their freedom.”
The degree to which resentment of practices of racialism still lives in the hearts of men who felt it for most of their lives comes through clearly in these words of Prime Minister Sastroamidjojo:
“Next to colonialism we meet racialism as an important source of tension. Racialism in fact is often, if not always, an aspect of colonialism based on feelings of superiority of the dominating group. Discrimination, however, based on differences of color is contrary to fundamental human rights…. How often are the timid attempts to have done with color bars outweighed by measures of ruthless discrimination? Is not Apartheid policy a form of absolute intolerance more befitting the Dark Ages than this modern world?”
Samdach Upayuvareach Norodom Sihanouk, heading the Cambodian delegation, added his concurrence by explaining that the Conference put:
“…in concrete form, for the very first time, the solidarity of Asian and African peoples…it shatters the frontiers which separated two worlds: the Communist and the non-Communist…. I am proud of having had the privilege of leading my people in their struggle for independence and to have, after the Geneva Conference, determinedly steered our national policy towards…the community of neutral nations—among them: India and Burma.”
Then Sir John Kotelawala, Prime Minister of Ceylon, expected by many to defend the Western world, continued the same theme of fear, mental pain stemming from conditions of previous servitude and the dread of another war. Said he:
“When the great powers of the West talk peace, their chances of agreement are weakened by the fact that each suspects the other’s strength. We by contrast come to the conference table weak and relatively unarmed. We have no thermonuclear bombs in our pockets, no weapons of chemical or bacteriological warfare up our sleeves, no plans for armament factories or blueprints for ever more deadly methods of genocide in our brief cases.”
Remembering the cynicism pervading the atmosphere of power politics, Sir John said:
“The old heresy dies hard—that if you want peace you must prepare for war. As a result, nations have armed themselves to the teeth against neighbors and have increased their might to a point where the least dispute can trigger a conflagration sufficient to involve the whole world…. The pass to which humanity has been brought by the domination and doctrine of force is the most vivid demonstration of the bankruptcy of force. Of what advantage is it to hold sway over vast territories, to have at one’s command innumerable armies, to be able at the touch of a button to unleash the deadliest weapons science can invent, if, with all this, we are unable to rid ourselves of fear and hysteria and despair?”
And who is to stop this drift toward global destruction? Sir John has an answer. He says:
“We, the nations of the new Asia and Africa, whatever our language, whatever our faiths, whatever our form of government, whatever the color of our skins—black, brown, or yellow—have one thing in common: we are all poor and underdeveloped. Centuries of servitude and stagnation have left their mark, a dire heritage of poverty and ignorance, upon the masses of our peoples…. Where the wisdom of the West has failed, is it possible that the nations of Asia and Africa can hope to succeed? I think it is. Have the nations of this region in fact anything to offer? I think they have. Has the time come to offer it? I think it has. I say, then, in all seriousness and in all humility, that the peoples of this region have it in their power to apply to the problems of the present-day world, and for the first time in history, that traditional respect for the spiritual values of life and for the dignity of the human personality which is the distinguishing feature of all their great religions.”
Egypt added her voice, new and revolutionary, to the assembly of nations that hate war and colonialism and racialism. Said Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser:
“All over the world there is a growing sense of insecurity. The fear of war has been aggravated by the development of mass-destructive weapons capable of effecting total annihilation. The stakes are high in terms of the very survival of mankind.”
Nasser too stressed the common feeling of identity born of a common heritage imposed by Western domination. He said:
“In this conference, we are meeting as representatives of the Asiatic and African countries. There is a striking similarity between the conditions prevailing in our countries, a similarity that operates as a unifying force; we have emerged from a long period of foreign influence, political as well as economic…. It is not surprising therefore that we should feel close together….”
Nasser then struck at Israel as hard as he could:
“Under the eyes of the United Nations and with her help and sanction, the people of Palestine were uprooted from their fatherland, to be replaced by a completely imported populace. Never before in history has there been such a brutal and immoral violation of human principles. Is there any guarantee for the small nations that the big powers who took part in this tragedy would not allow themselves to repeat it again, against another innocent and helpless people?”
The Gold Coast, represented by Kojo Botsio, Minister of State, deepened the note of the new identification. Botsio said:
“It is, indeed, reassuring to us to be associated with the governments and peoples from whom we have drawn inspiration and guidance in our struggle for independence and whose experience of similar situations is recent and fresh enough to make them ‘feel the stir of fellowship.’ The struggles and sacrifices of these nations have in our day reestablished and fortified the right of the people of all races to govern themselves; they are a shining example to all those laboring under racial discrimination, political subjection, and economic exploitation…. Although in our present transitional stage toward nationhood we are not yet responsible for our external affairs, nevertheless we were, on receipt of your invitation, most anxious not to miss the unique opportunity of being represented at this epoch-making conference. Many of the questions which will be discussed here are matters in which we have a natural and legitimate interest….”
Prince Wan, representing Thailand, came before the assembly in a rather nervous attitude. Threatened with subversion at home and faced with hostile attitudes from its neighbors over the question of refugees and some three million Chinese owning dual nationality, Thailand put forward through Prince Wan a declaration of adherence qualified by reservations. Said Prince Wan:
“Truly in self-defense…and not for any aggressive or even provocative purposes whatsoever, Thailand has had to join with seven other powers in concluding a collective defense treaty…known as the Manila Pact.
“My Asian and African friends and colleagues will, no doubt, ask me how I justify the attitude of my government from the point of view of Righteousness or the Moral Law…?” Pleading self-defense, Prince Wan quoted Buddha: “…all warfare in which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, but he does not teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause, after having exhausted all means to preserve the peace, are blameworthy. He must be blamed who is the cause of war.”
(Prince Wan admitted “doubts in my mind,” and those doubts must have been rather grave for, on May 3, 1955, Pibul Songgram, Premier of Thailand, in a New York Times story, said that: “I try as forcibly as I can to lead my country to secure peace in the world. They will always be at your side—in any way—to create the peace of the world.”)
As though acting under the eye of the Almighty, Dr. Mohammed Fadhil al-Jamali of Iraq continued and deepened the theme of moral disapproval of the West and its ways. Said he:
“Unfortunately, colonialism is still well entrenched in many parts of the world. The people of North Africa, including those of Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, are still under the French yoke, and no amount of local sacrifices and world opinion seems to influence the French to move more rapidly in recognizing the rights of these people to independence and freedom.
“A typical example of outworn colonial policy is shown in South Africa where color prejudice and superiority of the white man have led to discrimination against Indians and natives, and to the segregation of the so-called colored people.
“It is our sincere hope that this Conference will prove in a very modest way to be a great moral force of ideological disarmament and moral rearmament…. May I conclude with the reading of a verse from the Holy Koran which I hope will be applicable to all of us here and to all those who are not with us but share our earnest desire for peace.
“‘Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change from within themselves.’”
The same theme of anxiety sounded from the Chairman of the Ethiopian Delegation. He declared:
“This struggle against colonialism, which has characterized the life of each nation represented here, stresses a problem which the agenda before us underlines at several points…. Ethiopia’s attitude toward theories of racialism is well known. We have opposed attempts to force these inhuman, scientifically discredited theories, to accomplish restrictive social, economic, and political ends in defiance of the provisions of the United Nations Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights.”
Sami Solh, Prime Minister of Lebanon, head of its delegation, spoke bitterly regarding Arab refugees. He said:
“Heading these problems is that of martyred Palestine. Would the universal conscience accept any longer that one million refugees, driven out of their country, their homes, and deprived of their property, should live dispersed on the roads of exile? Would it accept that the decisions relative to this region as taken by that most solemn of Assemblies should remain unimplemented? Should we sacrifice one million victims on the altar of political opportunism?”
Only when Mr. Tatsunosuke Takasaki, principal Japanese delegate, rose to speak did the tone sink to the level of the rational. But even he had to speak in a confessional tone. He said:
“…In World War II, Japan, I regret to say, inflicted damages upon her neighbor nations, but ended by bringing untold miseries upon herself. She has reestablished democra
cy, having learned her lesson at immense cost in lives and property. Chastened and free, she is today a nation completely dedicated to peace. As the only people who have experienced the horrors of the atomic bomb, we have no illusion whatever about the enormity of an attempt to solve international disputes by force.
“In the light of the foregoing statement, the Japanese delegation will submit to the Conference certain proposals on economic and cultural co-operation, together with a proposal for the maintenance of international peace.”
Long heralded as the chief spokesman for the ideas of the West, Carlos P. Romulo, member of the Philippine cabinet, and chairman of the Philippine delegation to the Conference, made the most race-conscious and stinging speech of all. Indeed, the main burden of his address was an indictment of Western racialism. Here was a man who knew and loved America, who had the American outlook and attitude of pragmatism; but he had suffered under colonialism and he had sympathy for those who were not free. He said:
“In one sense this conference suggests that for the peoples of Asia and Africa the United Nations has inadequately met the need for establishing common ground for peoples seeking peaceful change and development. But I think that we must say also that if the United Nations has been weak and limited in its progress toward these goals, it is because the United Nations is still much more a mirror of the world than an effective instrument for changing it. It has been in existence only nine years and through that time always subject to all the pressures and difficulties of national rivalries and power conflicts, large and small.”
This was straight, honest; then Romulo stated the mood of Asia:
“We do not have to be satisfied with the rate of progress being made.”
Describing the nations who had sent delegates to the Conference, Romulo said:
“The majority of the independent nations represented here won their independence only within the last decade. Who would have been bold enough, twenty years ago, to predict that this would be so? Who will be bold enough now to say how soon or how slowly those peoples in Africa strong enough to win it will acquire the right to face their own problems in their own way on their own responsibility? The handwriting of history is spread on the wall; but not everybody reads there.”
Black Power Page 51
