What Is Sociability in Diplomacy?

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72

brill.com/dipl

What is Sociability in Diplomacy?

Naoko Shimazu Yale-nus College, Singapore [email protected]

Abstract

The Bandung Conference of 1955 illustrates several important points about the exer- cise of contemporary diplomacy, with its careful mixing of cultural symbolism, Cold War politics, anti-colonialism, and the cultivation of “sociability” among the diplomats and leaders present. Among those points is the difficulty in drawing a distinction between the informal and formal aspects of social engineering in this instance, with everyone – especially diplomatic wives – playing significant roles.

Keywords

Bandung – diplomatic conference – sociability – Afro-Asian movement – Cold War

What is sociability in diplomacy and why should it be important for us who work in the history of diplomacy? Until recently, diplomacy as a field of intellectual enquiry has largely ignored the cultural and social dimensions of diplomacy, primarily because the field had been dominated for decades by scholars with a particular set of methodological priorities. Although such methodological imperatives produced many ground breaking works and emi- nent scholars, at the same time, the orthodoxy made the field narrow, and spe- cialized, to the exclusion of alternative possibilities which could enrich and broaden the field of enquiry. As the cultural historian Peter Burke in his influ- ential What is Cultural History? remarked, New Cultural History and its adher- ents could turn its attention usefully to the cultural history of politics, and a potential for an ethnographical approach to the “modern diplomatic corps and its rituals.”1 Fortunately, this is no longer the case as we have started the process

1 Burke, Peter. What is Cultural History? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004), 106.

What Is Sociability In Diplomacy? 57 of a paradigmatic change in the way diplomacy is being conceived intellectu- ally. This movement to broadening diplomacy as an academic field of enquiry is not restricted to historians, but extends wider afield to political scientists, international relations, literary and theater scholars, sociologists, and anthro- pologists, as the latter have begun to develop a sub-field of the anthropology of diplomacy. The surge of interest emanating from a variety of disciplines makes diplomacy an ideal area for interdisciplinarity. As historiography embraces in- creasingly the intellectual agenda of interpreting the intangible, moving away from the positivist obsession of having to come up with the quantifiable, the concrete, the “results,” cultural historians of diplomacy are well positioned to offer thought-provoking interventions which aim to engage with internal meanings and emotions, for instance. In this study, I will argue that “sociability” can be usefully employed as a conceptual category to examine and to intellectualize informal diplomacy. It may be helpful to start with what Simmel had to say: “Sociability is the art or play form of association, related to the content and purposes of association in the same way as art is related to reality.”2 In the world of diplomacy, diplomats need to “practice” sociability in order to create a space of association with other diplomats, the kind of association which needs to be conducive to communication. This association is usually aimed at forging a cordial, and congenial, atmosphere. Hence, sociability is important to diplomats precisely because it lays out a “constructed space” which enables and, moreover, facili- tates, exchanges of information. What I propose here is broader than Simmel’s definition as he states that there should not be any sense of intentionality for achieving tangible interest or having any content to the association other than associating for associating’s sake. My proposition is that sociability in diplomacy does have an implicit underlying objective of creating a congenial association in order to exchange information. For much of the time, however, the association engineered operates as if it exists for the sake of association alone – hence, in this sense, superficially veering closer to Simmel’s notion. Moreover, sociability can be visible, that is, the association is seen by others. The fact of being seen is what gives a performative character to sociability, because it helps to make explicit the sense of group identity to those outside of the association. In the rest of the study, I will be referring to the Bandung Conference of 1955 to draw some examples from in elaborating my discussions of sociability in diplomacy. I have been working on the framework of “diplomacy as theater” in order to ruminate on the importance of the symbolic at the Bandung

2 Simmel, Georg. “The Sociology of Sociability.” American Journal of Sociology 55 (3) (1949), 254.

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:39:02PM via free access

58 Shimazu

Conference.3 Very briefly, the Bandung Conference was a major international conference convened for one week in April 1955 in the West Javanese city of Bandung. It was sponsored by the Colombo Powers (namely Ceylon, India, Pakistan, Burma, and Indonesia) who had invited twenty-five newly independent Asian and African states, representing in all some 1.4 billion people worldwide. It was a global media event as hundreds of journalists gathered in Bandung, leaving out the uninvited Western states, which anxiously watched the unfolding of events. It had a particular hold on the global imagination, mainly due to the charismatic leaders who attended the conference, such as Sukarno, Nehru, Zhou Enlai, and Nasser. It put the configuration of newly independent states, known collectively as “Afro-Asia” on the map – and made post-colonial Asian-African diplomacy “sexy.”4 Why was sociability so important at Bandung? What made the Bandung experience so poignant was the novelty of being on the stage of international diplomacy for some of the Asian and African statesmen, as new diplomatic actors. Granted some of them were highly experienced in international net- working already as part of anti-colonial networks that operated under the age of empires, such as the League against Imperialism which was notable for its meeting in Brussels in 1927.5 Zhou Enlai, Nehru, and Ali Sastroamijoyo (the prime minister of Indonesia) had lived respectively in Tokyo, Paris, London, and Leiden, and came across each other as young revolutionaries and nation- alists. However, Sukarno did not have his first chance for a substantial foreign visit till November 1943 when he turned up in Tokyo with fellow Indonesian leaders under the Japanese wartime occupation, miffed at their exclusion from the Greater East Asia Conference which had just taken place a day or two before. Similarly, Nasser was a homegrown revolutionary and his successful performance at Bandung marked his first overseas venture. This made Bandung an intriguing space of sociability: on the one hand, there were those who felt comfortable in their role as international statesmen at these international gatherings; whilst on the other hand, there were those who possessed charismatic aura from their nationally-based revolutionary credentials, but

3 Shimazu, Naoko.“Diplomacy as Theatre: Staging the Bandung Conference of 1955.” Modern Asian Studies 48 (1) (2014), 225–52. 4 For instance, Lee, Christopher J., ed. Making a World After Empire: The Bandung Moment and its Political Afterlives (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2010); Tan, Seng and Amitav Acharya, eds. Bandung Revisited: The Legacy of the 1955 Asian-African Conference for Interna- tional Order (Singapore: nus Press, 2008). 5 See Goebel, Michael. Anti-Imperial Metropolis: Interwar Paris and the Seeds of Third World Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 56-72 05:39:02PM via free access

What Is Sociability In Diplomacy? 59 who were not necessarily well practiced in the art of international diplomacy, particularly in the role as a significant diplomatic actor. Needless to say, there were a myriad of others, be they delegates, journalists, or local townspeople, who were present at the conference either officially or unofficially. In this com- plex multi-layered conference space, “sociability” worked like a social glue that brought people together and generated a semblance of a collective identity. A timely revival of scholarly interest in the anthropological literature on hospitality can provide historians with some useful conceptual tools for our investigation on sociability.6 In particular, the literature on how social interac- tion can generate certain moods – “social heat” – between hosts and guest, is helpful.7 In this light, hospitality is a powerful instrument which can set the “tone” in which favorable social contexts can be created.8 In any case, one of the most fruitful ideas to be gleaned for our purpose is that “The creation of mood or the affective component of hospitality” can turn “hospitality an area for social dramas.”9 Moreover, Herzfeld notes that hospitality possesses “pe- culiar scalar properties” – that is hospitality extended at a micro-level is often scaled up to imply national characteristics of the host country.10 Let us sup- pose that Nehru’s hospitality extended over an intimate dinner to a handful of top statesmen at Bandung might be taken to represent the character of “In- dian hospitality” as though it were a reified national form, in much the same way as the statesman would often be regarded as the personification of the state which s/he represented. In other words, Nehru’s hospitality personified Indian hospitality generally. Seeing from this light, hospitality is a powerful instrument for the host, as a means of creating favorable impressions of their country. Moreover, in many cases, women play a prominent role in hospitality, and this is also reflected in the gender-specific nature of the way diplomatic wives and consorts are considered to play an integral part of diplomacy, also at Bandung. What is striking is that sociability at Bandung was consciously worked upon by those present, largely on two different levels. At the macro-level or what I call “inclusive sociability,” a general sense of “association” emerged out

6 See, for instance, Candea, Matei, and Giovanni da Col, eds. “The Return to Hospitality: Strangers, Guests, and Ambiguous Encounters. Special Issue of Journal of the Royal An- thropological Institute 18 (1) (2012). 7 Ibid., 14. 8 Humphrey, Caroline. “Hospitality and Tone: Holding Patterns for Strangeness in Rural Mongolia.” In eds. Candea and da Col, 63–75. 9 Candea and da Col, “The Return to Hospitality,” 11. 10 Herzfeld, Michael. “Reciprocating the Hospitality of These Pages.” In eds. Candea and da Col, 210–17.

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:39:02PM via free access

60 Shimazu of the shared space and experiences engendered during the conference. In large part, the greater sense of sociability was propelled/helped by the conscious promotion of the social dimensions of the conference on the part of the organizers, but also of many delegations, to create a festive atmosphere for everyone present. Primarily, this was orchestrated through a full program of social events planned throughout the week of the conference. The overarching sense of inclusiveness which seemed to have developed helped to create the sense of belonging to the communal experience, whether as a delegate, as a media person, as a non-official representative, or even as an ordinary spectator in Bandung. On the micro-level or “exclusive sociability,” there was an intense parallel universe of small-scale social gatherings, namely breakfasts, luncheons, and dinners, organized, on the most part by the Colombo leaders (Indonesia, India, Burma, Ceylon, and Pakistan), with the intention of facilitating communication and generating camaraderie among the key leaders. Hence, it is the workings of the two levels of sociability that led to the engendering of a special atmosphere at Bandung which was noted by those present.

Exclusive Sociability

Let us begin with “exclusive sociability.” At Bandung, exclusive sociability worked to create a specially selected group of statesmen, designed to cut out the unnecessary drama of being situated in a multilateral forum, and focus instead on issues with a very small group of leaders. At the Bandung Confer- ence, exclusive sociability was used initially to foster friendly relations between the Colombo leaders and some of the key non-Colombo leaders, most notably Zhou Enlai, but also Nasser, Prince Wan Waithayakorn (chief of the Thai delegation), and General Carlos Romulo (chief of the Philippines delegation), mainly through intimate gatherings of leaders revolving around dining. We can see the workings of this style of diplomacy at play within the Arab League states, too, in order to coordinate collective views, as well as individual coordination of views bilaterally between some delegates. This was a highly instrumental use of hospitality to engender feelings of goodwill, or at the very minimum, to remove suspicious feelings or misgivings about each other. Clearly, a major source of potential tension and conflict at the conference resulted from the Colombo Powers’ invitation extended to the People’s Republic of China. The task of socializing Zhou with the conference and the conference with Zhou took place as soon as the leaders arrived in Band- ung. One of the most urgent tasks for the neutralist Colombo Powers was to

diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 56-72 05:39:02PM via free access

What Is Sociability In Diplomacy? 61

engineer “sociability” between Zhou and the non-neutralist Colombo Powers of Ceylon and Pakistan, as well as with the key hardliner pro-us states, namely the Philippines and Thailand. In order to accomplish the task, Nehru and Ali Sastroamijoyo set about introducing Zhou in intimate social settings. Accord- ing to Carlos Romulo, Nehru acted as a “mother hen” to Zhou, and arranged a number of private meetings to smooth Zhou’s “introduction” into the Asian- African community.11 According to an Indian source, “Panditji really used to take him around, as if he was his son-in-law; introducing him even to rather reluctant people like the Thais and the Turks. Prince Wan Waithayakorn was there, and I remember the way in which he was introduced to him.”12 The Colombo Powers engaged in a heavy round of “behind the scenes” diplomacy over breakfasts, lunches and dinners at the hillside bungalows of the select heads of delegations every day.13 No doubt, these occasions helped tre- mendously in engendering a more normalized image of Communist China, particularly through the presence of Zhou who personally, and single-handedly, contributed to creating a favorable international image of the prc. Zhou, who took up his temporary residence in Bandung,14 became known for his lavish entertaining, including “excellent cuisine.”15 Romulo wrote:

I had dinner with Chou last night at Nehru’s house. Just a few of us. We didn’t talk any politics, purely social. Nehru is introducing Chou like sub- deb coming out in society. A small different group every night. We had Indian food, candles and Indian servants. Nehru brought all his own servants with him from India. Not one word was said against the U.S […] Chou is adopting just the reverse, that’s more dangerous. Come to China Chou asked me, see the good and the bad we will show you both. We are neighbors and must know each other better.16

11 Romulo, Carlos P. The Meaning of Bandung (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1956), 10–11. 12 Tyabji, B.F.H.S. Acc. No. 312, Oral History Interview Transcript, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi (nmml), 71. 13 Abdulgani, Roeslan. The Bandung Connection: The Asia-Africa Conference in Bandung in 1955 (Singapore: Gunung Agung, 1981), 149. 14 Buku Peringatan Konperensi Asia-Afrika (Jakarta: Inhua, 1955), 76. This book was published by the Chinese Association for Indonesia to mark the Bandung Conference. 15 Romulo, 13. 16 “Visit with Carlos Romulo (Member of Cabinet without Portfolio, Philippines),” Series 4, Subseries 4.1 Papers, The Bandung Conference (April 1955), Lisa Larsen Collection, Inter- national Center of Photography, New York (hereafter icp).

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:39:02PM via free access

62 Shimazu

It is worth mentioning the effect of these intimate gatherings on Romulo, who was considered by the State Department to be the most reliable pro-us ally at the conference.17 By the end of the conference, Romulo felt that there was something larger and more important at stake at Bandung than the Cold War priorities, and that was the sense of Asian and African solidarity.18 Both Ne- hru and Zhou had considered entertaining as a key element to lubricating the diplomatic process, each bringing an entire retinue of chefs, servants, cutlery, and ingredients from back home.19 Even the U.S. State Department, which had been highly suspicious of Zhou’s intentions at Bandung, conceded that Zhou’s “personal approach” to win over other delegates was rather effective as “his personality […] oozed affability, reasonableness and ‘humaneness.’”20

At Zhou’s bungalow in Bandung, with Sir John Kotelawala, Carlos Romulo, Ali Sastroamijoyo, and Zhou Enlai. Buku Peringatan Konperensi Asia-Afrika (Jakarta, 1955).

17 Staats, Elmer B. “Secret: Memorandum for the Operations Coordinating Board: Bandung Conference of April 1955” 12 May 1955, Department of State, rg59 Subject and Special Files, 1953–1961, Box 35, A1 1586C, National Archives, College Park, Maryland, usa (hereafter nara). 18 Romulo, 35–36. 19 “Visit with Nehru (Prime Minister of India),” Series 4, Subseries 4.1 Papers, The Bandung Conference (April 1955), Lisa Larsen Collection, icp. 20 Staats, “Secret,” nara.

diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 56-72 05:39:02PM via free access

What Is Sociability In Diplomacy? 63

Exclusive sociability at Bandung had a noticeable performative effect, for it certainly gave the semblance that Zhou was successful in making important new friends at the conference. One photograph showed Zhou laughing heartily with Romulo and Ali Sastroamijoyo in the drawing room at Zhou’s temporary residence in Bandung.21 The friendship performed between Zhou and Nehru might have been genuine in part, and diplomatic expediency in part. Not surprisingly, their friendship represented the height of “Chini-Hindi Bhai-Bhai” (the Chinese and Indians as Brothers) in this period.22 What the performance of friendship amongst the select group of top leaders underlines is the importance of “friendship,” whether genuine or performed, as an aspect of sociability, betraying an underlying hierarchy of states at Bandung. In Chris- tian Goeschel’s most recently published monograph, Hitler and Mussolini: The Forging of the Fascist Alliance,23 he argued persuasively that the measure of the relationship between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in large part relied on the symbolic performance of “friendship” between the two dictators. Im- portantly, Goeschel demonstrated that this performative “friendship” came to assume increased importance over time as it became a symbol of how the alliance between the two regimes came to be expressed and understood.24 Goeschel’s approach enables us to think about the extent to which “friendship” as a theme in sociability could be centralized analytically to assume a major explanatory role in understanding international diplomacy. In this atmosphere of exclusiveness, it is important to note that women were scarcely present. Let us refer to the photograph of one of the many dinners hosted by Zhou, which represented a larger than usual number of guests, including two women, namely Indira Gandhi and the Chinese ambassador’s wife. Most probably, the latter was playing the role of the official hostess along- side Zhou as the host, in the absence of Zhou’s wife, Deng Yingchao. Indira Gandhi at the time assumed an unofficial role as the personal assistant to her father’s role as the prime minister. However, there is little doubt that she was invited to these dinners because she was the daughter of Nehru, since no other personal assistants to prime ministers, nor wives of invited statesmen, had been in attendance. Therefore, Indira Gandhi’s presence was highly anoma- lous – she combined the role of daughter, personal assistant, and dynastic heir to the leadership of India. Whilst Bandung might have been the first such

21 Buku Peringatan, 77. 22 Tyabji, B.F.H.S. Acc. No. 312, Oral History Interview Transcript, nmml, 71. 23 Goeschel, Christian. Hitler and Mussolini: The Forging of the Fascist Alliance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018). 24 Ibid.

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:39:02PM via free access

64 Shimazu

Nehru, Indira Gandhi, U Nu and the Chinese ambassador’s wife, and Zhou. Buku Peringatan Konperensi Asia-Afrika (Jakarta, 1955).

occasion when we begin to see the noticeable emergence of “diplomatic wives” in Asian and African diplomacy, the ambiguity of India Gandhi’s presence reminds us that using the category of gender alone to explain women’s place in diplomacy may not be sufficient.25 We should consider “role” as well. Exclusive sociability provided a “safe space” outside of the formal sphere of diplomacy, and enabled discussions of issues with controversial bilateral or localized regional diplomatic stakes (such as the Formosan question, Tibet and communism) which were better left out of the public realm in the interest of maintaining the image of overall harmony at the conference.26

25 I would like to thank Enseng Ho and Serkan Yolacan for their insightful comments in thinking about the anthropology of diplomacy. 26 “Note to Chief Ministers” 28 April 1955. In Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru Vol. 28 eds. Gopal S. et al. (New Delhi: Jawaharlal Memorial Fund, 1981-), 45.

diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 56-72 05:39:02PM via free access

What Is Sociability In Diplomacy? 65

Inclusive Sociability

Now we turn our attention to the more generalized sense of “sociability” which pervaded during the conference, separate from yet concomitant to the exclusive sociability examined above. Whilst the key statesmen huddled around discrete dinner parties, the rest of the conference gaily spilled out into the festive nights of Bandung, with most action centered on the conference axis of Asia Africa Road and Braga Road. Parties were hosted by almost every delegation, hence, every evening there would be at least five or six gatherings.27 Specially designated cars containing delegates would speed past the spectators in motorcades, followed by a fleet of taxis with journalists, and the people of Bandung moving together in waves between the different locations in the conference zone to watch the on-going show:

A large and distinguished roster of guests, which included heads of Del- egations and high officials, attended a party given by Crown Prince Amir Faisal Al Saud […] in the Savoy Homann Hotel at 9.00 p.m., April 22. The buffet supper was laid out the length and breadth of the lobby of the hotel, and was outstanding for its variety and elegance. After supper the party was enlivened by several spontaneous performances by the guests, the most striking of which was a dance of the Gold Coast, executed by one of its delegates in his national dress. Earlier the same evening the Delegation from China held a cocktail party for the press at the Chinese School […] where champagne and other wines manufactured in China were served. [...] A number of folders with originals and reproductions of artistic works were distributed, along with photographs, books and magazines. Thursday’s events also included three film shows for delegates and pressmen at the Conference. In the Press Bar at Gedung Merdeka [Free- dom Building] the Japanese Delegation showed four films: “Along Japan’s Highroads,” “Japan’s Heavy Industries,” “Kimono” and “Japan Today.” At the Preanger Hotel the Sudanese Delegation held a showing of two films, one black and white about the teak industry in the Sudan and a color film of places of interest around the Sudan. At Panti Budaja, Djalan Merdeka, the Ministry of Information of the Republic of Indonesia showed “Lewat Djam Malam” (an Indonesian film

27 Ibid., “Recollections of the Conference” 3 May 1955, 75.

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:39:02PM via free access

66 Shimazu

entitled, “The Passing Hour of the Night”) and a newsreel on conference activities, which was attended by the stars of the feature film.28

Even if most could not be part of the closed world of exclusive sociability, there existed enough open spaces of sociability, both formal and informal, for delegates, observers, and visitors alike, to mingle with each other, and feel the sense of belonging – and be part of the scene.29 Arguably, therefore, a defining characteristic of the Bandung Conference was the prevalence of these social occasions, and how centrally important these were to creating a special atmosphere of conviviality throughout the week of the conference. In this section, we consider how this type of sociability – let us refer to it in contrast as “inclusive sociability” – can be understood as a dimension of informal diplomacy which helped to create a distinct atmosphere and that provided a spatially bonded sense of togetherness throughout the conference. Was this atmosphere, which has been noted by many of those present, representing a spontaneous outburst of enthusiasm? Or was this cultivated – that is, did the organizers use social events instrumentally to create the impression of a week- long party? Did this contribute to making Bandung special and distinct from other international conferences – a gathering of Asian and African people with different cultural expectations? Most notably, the attitude of the Joint Secretariat of the Bandung Confer- ence, revealed through its official bulletin the Asian-African Conference Bul- letin, is telling. It captures the essence of the week by referring to the formal evening reception on the opening day at the Governor of West Java’s residence hosted by President and Mrs. Sukarno, Vice-President and Mrs. Hatta, as “the formal opening of the Conference ‘season.’”30 The suggestion that the week- long conference in which many newly independent states were “introduced” by the five sponsoring powers into diplomatic “society” was akin to the “season” of debutants arriving in society indicates that the Joint Secretariat was conscious of the unique opportunity for the socialization of the newly estab- lished Asian and African states created by the conference. To an extent, the Colombo leaders were consciously acting as “older brothers” to some of the less experienced newly post-colonial states – in helping them to acculturate in

28 Asian-African Conference Bulletin, 8 (23 April 1955), 7. This was the official conference bulletin published by the Joint Secretariat of the Bandung Conference which was officially known as the Asian-African Conference. It was published daily, and was notable for the inclusion of many photographs from the conference. 29 Asian-African Conference Bulletin, 8 (23 April 1955), 7. 30 Asian-African Conference Bulletin, 9 (24 April 1955), 17.

diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 56-72 05:39:02PM via free access

What Is Sociability In Diplomacy? 67 the newly found diplomatic environment. Roeslan Abdulgani, chairman of the Joint Secretariat, believed that social occasions acted as lubricants to creating a congenial atmosphere. Seeing that Cold War loyalties and tensions seemed to have influenced the way Bandung states perceived each other, especially when they first arrived at the conference, one can argue that it was a percep- tive strategy on the part of the Colombo Powers, in particular the Indonesians, to give considerable weight to socializing in order to break the ice, and engender congeniality amongst the delegates.31 The Burmese prime minister, U Nu, reflected afterwards that Bandung was an important opportunity for the newly independent states of Asia and Africa to “get to know each other.”32 This was echoed by an Indian delegate: “The main motif [underline in the original] of Bandung was a desire to live and let live in friendship.”33 The coming together in one location of so many new Asian and African states which shared compa- rable recent “birth-of-the-nation” experiences unsurprisingly produced “social heat.” Notably, the practice of eating was considered to be an important element of diplomacy, and the lubricant for sociability. The Accommodation Commit- tee recommended to the Joint Secretariat that as a sign of first-rate hospitality, “national food was to be provided to all delegates,” implying that each delegate would be served his national cuisine.34 What is interesting is that the Indo- nesians had considered the serving of respective national cuisines to be the hallmark of good hospitality at a major international conference, instead of serving the standard “world cuisine” of the French. Indeed, food played an important topic of “conversation” during the conference, according to a local Indonesian magazine:

[…] food is served every time, and a first-class cook has been brought in from Jakarta. Their job is to cook national and international cuisine, or even Egyptian cuisine or Arab cuisine, as well as Turkish, Pakistani, In- dian, Filipino, Chinese, Burma, etc. Tons of flowers have been flown into Bandung, as with hundreds of kilograms of first quality rice, and food- stuffs and fruit.35

31 Diah, Herawati. “Between You and Me.” Indonesian Observer, 22 April 1955. 32 Ambassador Ohta in Rangoon, to Shigemitsu, 3/5/55, Ajia-Afurika kaigi kankei no ikken, B’-0050, Shogaikoku no taido, B6.1.0.24–2, Diplomatic Record Office, Tokyo. 33 “Asian-African co-operation – retrospect and prospect” Subject File 86, Subimal Dutt Pa- pers, nmml, 5. 34 Minutes of the 7th Meeting of the Joint Secretariat, 15 February 1955, 1(18) aac/55, Asian African Conference Files, Ministry of External Affairs Documents, National Archives of India (hereafter nai). 35 Minggu Pagi (8), 17 April 1955, n.p.

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:39:02PM via free access

68 Shimazu

The buffet party hosted by the Saudi delegation. Asian-African Conference Bulletin (9) 24 April 1955.

The conference menus came under the responsibility of the hospitality committee (which included women), tasked to “examine the Menues [sic] and thus ensure that the same is not repeated during the ten days of the conference.”36 The list of imported food products in preparation for the conference was mind- boggling by contemporary Indonesian standards: according to Sunday Courier, an Indonesian magazine, “It’s obvious that the aac (Asia-Africa Conference) is not just about organizing political activities but also has to pay attention to the content of the belly.”37 It was Sukarno who stressed the potential of serving one’s own national food at international conferences, as a conscious expression of “Indonesian” identity.38 Disappointingly, Sukarno’s inspirational idea of opening an “Asia Afrika Ristoran” (The Asia Africa Restaurant) for the conference was vetoed by the Chairman of the Joint Secretariat due to the cost and the lack of time. In any case, the cuisine served at these conference buffets became the site of cultural diplomacy with a highly performative function – an opportunity to display Indonesian identity through food, whilst at the same time displaying

36 Minutes of the 11th Meeting of the Joint Secretariat, 14 March 1955, 1(18) aac/55, Asian African Conference Files, Ministry of External Affairs Documents, nai. 37 Sunday Courier (Indonesia) (7), 20 March 1955, n.p. 38 Abdulgani, 66.

diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 56-72 05:39:02PM via free access

What Is Sociability In Diplomacy? 69 the cosmopolitan-ness of the Indonesian hosts in offering a wide range of cuisines from around the world to please delegates from the far reaches of the Asian-African world. Iver Neumann reminds us that the performative dimension of “diplomatic food” is not only for external consumption but also for the consumption of the domestic taxpayers. In other words, Norwegian “diplomatic food” (such as the use of Norwegian salmon) displays national identity also for the benefit of the Norwegian citizens. In this sense, the Norwegian use of the national cuisine has a different inflection from what was suggested by Sukarno at Bandung. Sukarno’s approach reflected the post-colonial phase of the Bandung nations – the birth-of-the-nation narrative in which newly attained post-colonial inde- pendence was displayed and performed in every possible way, including via the conference cuisine. It doing so, a new diplomatic tradition was being created, in openly promoting the “Indonesian cuisine” (if one could summarily call it as such) – a local cuisine used as a global diplomatic cuisine.39 One of the most important points to make in discussing inclusive sociability is the prominent role of women as agents of informal diplomacy, as evidenced in many photographs of the social events. What is of note here is that we can only deduce this by prioritizing visual sources in understanding sociability in diplomacy. Women seemed to have compensated for their lack of presence in formal diplomacy, by playing a highly visible, performative role in sociability. A number of Indonesian journalists noted this fact in an article entitled, “Women’s Activities Behind the Scenes at the Asian-African Conference.”40 In fact, the prominence of women who were actively participating in the conference preparations (including running the press office) and cultural activities in Bandung was so striking that Nehru notes it in his “recollections of the conference.” He was convinced that it must have left an impression on Arab delegates.41 Within the range of official entertainment activities, women played a prin- cipal role both as hostesses and entertainers:42

39 Neumann, Iver B. Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry (London: Hurst and Company, 2013), 46, 71–72. 40 “Bandung that lovely city,” Wanita (7), 5 May 1955. 41 Letter from Nehru to Edwina Mountbatten, 30 April 1955. In eds. Gopal, S. et al., n/a. 42 “Kanprachum aechia-aefrika na mueang bandong prathet indonisia 18–29 mesayon 1955” (Asian-African Conference at Bandung, Indonesia, 18–29 April 1955), Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy (crma), Nakhon Nayok, Thailand. I thank Puli Fuwongcharoen for bringing this source to my attention.

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:39:02PM via free access

70 Shimazu

The evening’s entertaining was provided by a group of vivid and charm- ing Indonesian dances, preceded by a performance of the angklung, a Sundanese bamboo orchestra. The stage was floodlit by spotlights hidden in the trees. The first item was a four part dance interpreting the different stages of a young girl’s life. The second was a Butterfly dance followed by the Peacock dance. Some of the costumes of the dancers were especially designed for the occasion and some materials used were woven in Bandung.43

Women were everywhere – at the Javanese court dances, among the angklung musicians – and always wearing the traditional Javanese dress. Moreover, women were also noticeable in the role as “guests.” A special entertainments program had been set up for women by the Women’s Committee of the Asian-African Conference. There was a “clubhouse” for women during the conference where they can refresh themselves, take a rest, and meet others. The ladies’ program consisted of visits to “social institutions and a tea party at the West Javanese Governor’s Residence.”44 This famous tea party was hosted by the Governor’s wife, and was attended by Mrs. Ali Sastroamijoyo, Indira Gandhi, Mrs. Mohammed Ali, among others.45 An Indonesian women’s group capitalized on the conference to host the celebration of the anniversary of the birth of Raden Adjeng Kartini (1879–1904), who was “one of the pioneers of women’s struggle for emancipation in Indonesia.”46 Descriptions of entertainments are almost always supplied with photographs of the occasion. Visual sources show that women were largely in the company of other women, especially with regards to the specific women’s program organized for female guests.47 More generally, what emerges from the women’s program is that the Joint Secretariat had conceived their role at the conference partly as a traditionally gendered one – pertaining to entertainments (as hostesses and as entertainers) and social care (visiting orphanages, etc.) – both of which remain as universal staples of expected social roles for women. Significantly, the Joint Secretariat had considered that the success of the conference depended on a holistic success of both aspects of diplomacy – on the one hand, formal diplomacy consisting of official business through

43 Asian-African Conference Bulletin, 4 (19 April 1955), 9. 44 Asian-African Conference Bulletin, 4 (19 April 1955), 11. 45 Asian-African Conference Bulletin, 5 (20 April 1955), 11. 46 Ibid., 12. 47 “World Opinion: Statements by Visitors to the Conference.” Asian-African Conference Bul- letin, 7 (22 April 1955), 15–16.

diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 56-72 05:39:02PM via free access

What Is Sociability In Diplomacy? 71 committee meetings, and on the other, informal diplomacy which, as men- tioned above, consisted of two levels of sociability. In this scheme of things, Indonesian women were co-opted to play a definitive role during the conference, mostly in the informal sphere of diplomacy, but demonstrably integral nonetheless.48

Conclusion

One of the problems of attempting to emphasize the importance of “sociability” is that it is difficult to explain what is precisely being gained by these activities, in terms of how they usefully contributed to diplomacy. However, much of diplomacy is precisely about these occasions, which are usually de- fined as informal occasions, where much care is taken by the hosts to respect the sensibilities of the guests, and vice versa. This is where recent anthropological literature on hospitality becomes useful, as these occasions are seen to have the objective of creating desirable spaces of sociability, unobtrusively and humbly affecting the way the tone of the conference evolved in the course of an intense week. At Bandung, sociability was used in mutually inclusive ways: first, as a means of creating a closed network of a select group of delegates – “exclusive sociability” which underlined the existence of a hierarchy amongst the Bandung states; and second, as an open network of all delegates and observers (including journalists and others) in Bandung – “inclusive sociability.” At both these levels, there existed a notion of what one may call “spatial bonding,” that is, many special “spaces” were created by the participants involving shared activities engendered to promote camaraderie, congeniality, and conviviality. What we have discussed above is the instrumental use of sociability, which played a significant role, according to its practitioners, in scoring major diplomatic triumphs at Bandung.49 What transpires, also, is that traditional diplomatic sources based on textual materials, do not tell the whole story of how diplomacy operated at Bandung.

48 I agree with Jean Gelman Taylor that it matters whether or not women are in the photograph. See Taylor, “Official Photography, Costume and the Indonesian Revolution.” In Women Creating Indonesia: The First Fifty Years, ed. Jean Gelman Taylor (Clayton: Monash Asia Institute, 1997), 91. 49 Romulo, 18; Abdulgani, 150–152; Penders, C. L. M., ed. Milestones on My Journey: The Mem- oirs of Ali Sastroamijoyo, Indonesian Patriot and Political Leader (St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1979).

diplomatica 1 (2019) 56-72 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:39:02PM via free access

72 Shimazu

This study challenges the realist historiography (of the Cold War era) which generally tends to play down the significance of the conference, mainly due to the lack of tangible outcomes, be it in the form of a treaty or a new orga- nization, emerging out of Bandung.50 An over-reliance on diplomatic texts to examine diplomatic events have apparent disadvantages of constricting the range of themes to be explored in the study of diplomacy. Instead, the social dimension offers us an attractive alternative because it enables us to understand how diplomacy operated in society at large, and not only amongst the elite circle of traditional diplomatic actors and other such elites. By investigating an array of visual materials, one begins to gain a different perspective on the role of women in diplomacy. Moreover, visual evidence also opens up new themes for historical exploration, including the question of gauging popular reception of diplomacy. Contemporaries at Bandung are telling us that informal dimensions of the conference contributed substantially to creating the special atmosphere that ultimately turned Bandung into an iconic moment in the history of decolonization.

50 For instance, Pauker, Guy J. “The Rise and Fall of Afro-Asian Solidarity.” Asian Survey 5 (9) (1965), 425–32; Wilson, David A. “China, Thailand and the Spirit of Bandung Part ii.” China Quarterly 31 (1967), 96–127; Jansen, G. H. Nonalignment and Afro-Asian States (New York: Praeger, 1966); Jansen, G. H. “Postponement of the ‘Second Bandung.’” World Today 21 (9) (1965), 398–406.

diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 56-72 05:39:02PM via free access