sion sion -SOlidanty Con%,rente '11. by. Hønier A. Ja&.-

INTRODUCTION The Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Conference, held in Cairo, Egypt, beginning December 26, 1957, does not rate the worldwide attention rightfully given to the Asian-African Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia, beginning April 18, 1955. Yet symbolically Cairo is important as a marriage of convenience between President Nasser of Egypt and Asian communism. It could also be the beginning of communist penetration south of the Sahara. The road from Bandung to Cairo was built in 32 months. Cairo, if not Bandung, could conceivably be on Lenin's road from Moscow to Paris, London and Washington. In this light, the origins of the Cairo Conference ought carefully to be studied as well as reports of what actually occurred during the Conference. Finally, a contemplation of the political significance of Cairo is fascinating, if frightening to some. "LONG LIVE AFRO-ASIAN SOLIDARITY" The Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Conference opened on December 26th with a plenary session in the auditorium of the University of Cairo. As delegates arrived, the streets were lined with school children marching in uniform and displaying banners, olive branches, cardboard peace doves, and portraits of President Nasser. Inside the auditorium was a huge banner with the conference insignia showing a dark and a light hand clasped around a torch, with a backdrop of the continents of Africa, Asia, and apparently the European portion of the U.S.S.R. Thirty-five flags were also displayed, although some delegations represented colonies which do not yet have their own flags. Some 500 delegates and a number of observers sat on the main floor. Almost 100 journalists were also present, as were numbers of Egyptian and other African students. The latter waved banners and shouted these slogans: Long Live Afro- Asian Solidarity, Down with Imperialism, We Want Peace, and Down with the Eisenhower Doctrine. The delegates themselves had the choice of simultaneous translation of speeches into English, French, or Arabic.

A brief note of greetings was read from President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Among the other messages received were those from Marshall Voroshilov of the U.S.S.R. and Mao Tse-tung of China. Col. Anwar El Sadat, chief of the Egyptian delegation, was elected president of the Conference. In his inaugural speech he emphasized positive neutrality, asserting that "the neutralism in which we believe means that we keep aloof from international blocs and at the same time make positive efforts to bring about a rapprochement between these blocs." Speaking in Arabic, he affirmed that "gone forever is the time when the destinies of war and peace were decided in a few European capitals." He said that Egypt wished to repay the debt she owed for the support that Africans and Asians gave her in 1956 during the invasion of Suez. Youssef El Sebai, secretary-general of the Conference and also an Egyptian, gave a report at this opening session on how the Conference was organized. He revealed that the preparatory secretariat was not content to confine its activities to issuing invitations to attend the Conference. It sent out delegates to set forth to the peoples of Asia and Africa the aims of the Conference, publishing leaflets in Arabic and English and even using radio and the press. Heads of a number of delegations then made introductory speeches. These included Mrs. Rameshwari Nehru of India who spoke on peaceful coexistence, Ehsan El Gabry of on Arab nationalism, Hussein El Owein of Lebanon on Palestine, Chu Tu-nan of China on cultural exchanges, Prof. Kaoru Yasui of Japan on nuclear matters, and Dr. Anup Singh, who acted as secretary of the preparatory commission, on the international situation. "AS BROTHER HELPS BROTHER" On December 27th, the plenary session dissolved into five commissions on administration, political relations, economic relations, social relations, and cultural relations. Some of these commissions met behind closed doors, with the press absent. The Economic Commission, meeting in the Senate room of the Egyptian parliamentary building, heard Mr. Arzumanya A. Agofonovich of the U.S.S.R. give his widely-publicized speech offering economic aid to Asian- African countries. In part he said:

"We are ready to help you as brother helps brother. Tell us what you need, and we will help you and send, to the best of our capabilities, money in the form of loans or aid." He said that the Soviet bloc had nationalized industry and trade as the "most rapid and effective policy for industrial expansion and the least painful to the population. We remember the experience of Egypt in nationalizing the Suez Canal and using the profits for the benefits of Egypt." He also stated: "We can build for you institutions for industry, education, and hospitals. We can send economists to you or you can send economists to our country. Follow the route you consider best. We don't ask you to join any blocs or change governments or change your internal or foreign policies." He charged that, by contrast, American aid was always conditional upon "joining military aggressive pacts and spending most of American aid for military purposes. Now is time to break the unbalanced and unnatural economic relationships and substitute another relationship based on equality." Reportedly, these words were greeted with wild applause. Later the Soviet delegation held a news conference on economic aid in the Soviet legation, exclusively for Afro-Asian journalists. On December 28th, Sharaf R. Rashidov, head of the U.S. S.R. delegation, made news by offering in the Political Committee the backing of Russia to all independence movements. He said: "We hate imperialism and colonialism in all their wolfish manifestations. We consider violence, corruption, and exploitation inherent in imperialism and colonialism . . . The Soviet Union renders disinterested help to the peoples of Asia and Africa in developing their economy and particularly their industries. It establishes mutually advantageous economic relations, the aim of which is raising the peoples' living standards. The liberated peoples accept this help with satisfaction, for we do not attach to it any strings, political, military, or others. We do not interfere in the internal affairs of the countries that are getting our aid. We are guided by one feeling, one aspiration, one aim only, and that is peace and friendship between peoples." Then Mr. Rashidov referred to "the so-called 'Eisenhower Doctrine,'" by which American imperialism tried "under the guise of economic aid to underdeveloped countries, to enslave them, to hinder the development of their foreign policy." In concluding, Rashidov said: "Friends and brothers, raise your heads! The end of the slavery is near! The fresh wind of freedom and independence disperses the gloomy clouds of colonial slavery! The sun of freedom and independence is already shining over the road peoples have taken." On December 29th, delegates went to visit a spinning mill 60 miles north of Cairo in the Nile Delta and that evening the Soviet delegation gave a dinner for the Egyptian and Sudanese delegates. On December 31st, there was a final round of speeches by heads of delegations. The final plenary session, at which the Conference resolutions were approved, occurred on January first. Delegates from all colonial countries were called to the platform amid tumultuous applause and the shouting of slogans. Farewell speeches were made by Mrs. Nehru and Col. El Sadat. The same evening President Nasser gave a reception for the delegates in the Abdine Palace. On January second, most delegates went to Ismailia and Port Said to examine the site of conflict during the invasion of Suez. A select group of 60 senior delegates flew that same day to El Ariah, in Sinai, to visit refugee camps on the Gaza strip. In Cairo, delegates were quartered during the Conference at the Semiramis Hotel on the banks of the Nile. It was reported that Egypt paid the cost of housing all official delegates as well as the travel of many delegates from their capitals to Cairo and return. "UNANIMOUS AGREEMENTS" The Conference passed what could be called the Cairo Declaration (Appendix I) and some thirteen other documents. The Declaration indicated that the seven days of discussion were "harmonious" and that the Conference reached "unanimous agreements on proposals for the solution of various problems." It reaffirmed the ten principles of cooperation amongst nations first adopted at the Bandung Conference. The Conference passed four separate resolutions on nuclear weapons: 1-It called upon the U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and the U.K. to stop nuclear weapons tests, urging the U.S. and U.K. to stop tests beginning January 1958 since Russia declared its readiness to do so; 2-it appealed to the scientists of the world to take every possible step to pressure concerned governments to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons and to destroy those in stock; 3- it supported three efforts toward prohibition of nuclear tests: A Fourth

World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs in August 1958, A World Congress of Peoples for Disarmament and Peaceful Coexistence in 1958, and common action by peoples in Asia and Africa on March 2, 1958, to prevent nuclear tests at Eniwetok by the U.S.A.; and 4-it urged that Asia and Africa be "a peace zone" where no nuclear and rocket weapons should exist. There were separate resolutions on three continuing issues: Palestine, Algeria, and South Africa. The conference adopted a curt resolution on Palestine (the word, , was seldom used) incorporating a longer report submitted by the delegation from Palestine (Gaza). The resolution confirmed Arab rights in Palestine and declared that Israel is a "base of imperialism which threatens the progress and security of the Middle East." The resolution on Algeria urged that the independence of the Algerian people be recognized "without delay" and suggested that France negotiate immediately with the Front of National Liberation which represents the Algerian people. It protested against the "tuse of Africans in the French army in Algeria and calls upon them to refuse to fight their brothers." It also recommended the formation of committees for the freedom of Algeria to help with money, food, medicine and recommended that a day in March, 1958, be observed as Algeria Solidarity Day all over Africa and Asia. The Conference also adopted a resolution against racial discrimination, particularly in South Africa, and asked that country to live up to her commitments to the U.N. Charter. There were four long resolutions reflecting discussions and papers within four Conference Commissions: politics (imperialism), economic and technical cooperation, social development, and cultural contacts. The resolution on imperialism endorsed the principles of Pancha Shila as well as the ten Bandung principles and drew "*the attention of the world" to colonial problems in the Cameroons, Kenya (urging U. N. to inquire into the crimes committed by the British and the release of political prisoners), Uganda, Chad, Togoland, Madagascar, Yeman, Arabian Gulf, West Irian, Okinawa, Cyprus, Goa, Korea ("withdrawal of all foreign armed troops from Korean soil"), Vietnam, Aqaba Gulf, Morocco, Somaliland, and the Arab Nation. The resolution condemned both the Baghdad Pact and the Eisenhower Doctrine.

The resolution on economic and technical cooperation affirmed that "nationalization is a lawful means and right possessed by every nation in accordance with the principles of national sovereignty." On the other hand, it indicated "no objection to investment of foreign capital nor does it object to obtaining foreign loans provided that such foreign capital investments and loans are not subject to political conditions nor are of such nature as to restrict or to direct the economy of the recipient country." It condemned the European Common Market as "limiting the economic field of the dependent countries by making them the property of six European countries." The final resolution dealt with the establishment of a permanent Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Council with headquarters in Cairo. "1.7 BILLION PEOPLE" Forty-four countries and territories were represented by delegates at Cairo. While most delegates were unofficial, it was said that they "represented" countries and territories containing 1.7 billion people or an estimated 70 percent of the world's population. Several free nations, notably the Philippines, , and Turkey, refused to have their nationals drawn into the Cairo Conference, no doubt for ideological reasons. Several exiles, however, from Jordan did attend. At least four African colonies (Tanganyika, Kenya, Nyasaland, and Zanzibar) also refused to allow their nationals to attend. For example, Sheikh Ali Muhsin, a member of the Zanzibar Legislative Council and five other members of the Zanzibar Nationalist Party, were stopped in Nairobi enroute to Cairo. Ultimately, however, both Zanzibar and Kenya managed to be represented at Cairo, perhaps by students or other nationals living in Egypt. Certain countries were not invited to send delegates, notably South Korea, Formosa, Israel, and apparently Sierra Leone. Two Formosans who asked for admission as observers were rejected, as were two Turkoman refugees from the U.S.S.R. It was also reported that Salah Ben Youssef, an exile from , was evicted from the Conference to placate the Tunisian delegation. A total of 508 individual delegates were registered at Cairo. While a majority of the delegates came to Cairo just for the

Conference, some were undoubtedly already in Egypt as students, diplomats, and otherwise stationed there. Other than the Egyptian delegation numbering 84 persons, the largest delegation was from Japan with 57 individuals. Except for the delegates from communist countries, only in rare instances did they consist of government officials. These included three cabinet ministers from the Sudan, several former prime ministers from Lebanon and Syria, and present or former members of parliaments of Indonesia, India, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and North Vietnam. Many delegates were professional men- physicians, lawyers, professors, businessmen, and politicians. A number of women attended, several being heads of delegations (India and Ethiopia). Some delegates were obviously exiled from independent regimes, such as some from Jordan, or expatriates from colonial regimes, such as others from the Cameroons. There was hardly a single statesman present who was known to the world generally. Even President Nasser was not a delegate. Nowhere were there men at the Conference of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, U Nu, or Chou En-lai. Among the better known persons in their own countries were Indian social worker Mrs. Rameshwari Nehru (a very distant relative of the Prime Minister of India) and Japanese banker Tokutaro Kitamura. A number of observers were present from outside Asia and Africa. They came from at least the United Kingdom (D. N. Pritt, British lawyer who conducted the defense of Jomo Kenyatta), Canada, Australia, Italy, East and West Germany, Yugoslavia, Roumania, France, , Albania, and Czechoslovakia. Of the many journalists in attendance, at least a dozen were Americans, either stationed in Cairo or present especially for the Conference. A greater number of African states and territories were represented at Cairo than at Bandung. This was partly because more territories in Africa had become independent states between Bandung and Cairo-Morocco, Tunisia, the Sudan, Ghana-and because Cairo invited unofficial representatives from still-colonial territories. Yet it is true that most of the delegations from south of the Sahara were of a token nature.

A SECOND BANDUNG? Was Cairo "a second Bandung?" The leadership of the Cairo Conference often tried to create the impression that Cairo was a second Asian-African conference. It used what has been called "the Bandung mistique" to the fullest. Dr. Anup Singh, secretary of the preparatory commission for Cairo, said, "Let Cairo be the Peoples' Bandung." Col. El Sadat of Egypt, president of the Conference, in his opening remarks stated: "Today this peoples' conference meets to salute and continue the Bandung spirit." The Cairo declaration adopted at the dose of the Conference endorsed the ten principles of international relations first enunciated at Bandung. Because of this identification with Bandung, many persons around the world considered Cairo to be indeed a second Bandung. Not only was the press in some countries confounded, but even some Asian and African leaders continued to be misinformed. One nationalist in West Africa wrote of Cairo a month after it had concluded as "the second Asian-African Conference." Cairo should not, however, be confused with Bandung. The Asian-African Conference held during the last week of April, 1955, in Bandung, Indonesia, was held on a governmental level and was officially initiated by the five Colombo powers: Ceylon, India, Pakistan, Burma, and Indonesia. Twenty-four additional Asian-African nations officially attended as well as non-governmental groups from Tunisia, Algeria, and the Union of South Africa. Many of the statesmen of Asia and Africa participated in the Bandung deliberations, including prime ministers Nehru, U Nu, Chou En-lai, President Nasser, and many others. The Bandung communique, a carefully-drawn, statesmanlike document, will live in history as being responsibly neutralist. The Conference did not set up a continuing secretariat, but agreed that the five convening powers could, at the proper time, call a second conference. Ever since the first Bandung Conference, there has been talk of a second conference, although some of the leaders of the Colombo powers were known not to be eager for a second one, however, feeling that the dangers outweighed the advantages. A second conference was tentatively scheduled for Egypt in 1956, but it was cancelled because of the invasion of Suez and the attendant tensions.

MOSCOW-PEIPING-CAIRO AXIS? Was the Cairo Conference a spontaneous response to the deepest urges of the Asian-African peoples, as one speaker said, ttmore liberal and more representative of the tendencies and interests of the people" even than Bandung? Or was Cairo a transparent ideological maneuver of the Moscow-Peiping axis of world communism with the close cooperation of President Nasser? There is a direct line between the Stockholm Congress of the pro-communist World Peace Council in June 1954 and the Cairo Conference. At the Stockholm Conference, it was proposed that an Asian Conference on the Relaxation of International Tension be convened. This was held on April 6-10, 1955, in New Delhi, just a few weeks before the Bandung Conference was to begin in Indonesia. The New Delhi Conference was belatedly advertised as a "people's Afro-Asian conference," but Prime Minister Nehru and others were embarrassed by its pro-communist nature. The New Delhi conference created an Asian Solidarity Committee with national committees in various Asian countries. Headquarters were established in New Delhi and national committees were organized in India and Japan (Oct. 1955), China (Feb. 1956), Russia and North Korea (May 1956) and North Vietnam (Oct. 1956). In December 1956, the first Asian Solidarity Conference was held in New Delhi, with delegates present from Burma, Pakistan, Vietnam, Mongolia, Japan, North Korea, Nepal, Egypt, India, and Russia. It was agreed to broaden the scope of the Conference to include Africa and to call a second Solidarity Conference, perhaps in Cairo. In February 1957, a mission headed by Dr. Anup Singh of India (and containing delegates from China, Japan, and Russia) arrived in Cairo to persuade President Nasser to sponsor the second Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Conference. President Nasser agreed and a Preparatory Commission was formed. This met in October 1957 and consisted of delegates from Algeria, India, Cameroons, Egypt, Libya, and the Sudan. Nigeria, Somaliland, Tunisia, Liberia, Ghana, and Uganda were invited to send delegates, but for one reason or another they failed to arrive. Dr. Anup Singh was appointed secretary of the Preparatory Commission which promptly sent invitations to groups in 53 Afro-Asian countries to attend the Cairo Conference.

Zakaria Lufti Guma, an Egyptian journalist for the government newspaper, Al Gouhouria, went on a two-month tour of Africa soliciting interest and delegates and apparently other envoys toured these continents seeking representation. The degree of communist control of the Conference, quite apart from its origins, is difficult to determine. It is estimated that 70 of the 500 delegates were from five communist countries: U.S.S.R., China, Mongolia, North Korea, and North Vietnam. Undoubtedly there were communists in other delegations, especially from Asia. There were certainly many non-communists present, especially from Africa. Cedric Belfridge in the pro-communist National Guardian reported that "conversations with members of most delegations indicated that alarm about 'communist domination' of the Conference was limited to a trifling minority." He added that "Western Lobby stooges were vainly trying to stir up a fire against 'Soviet and Chinese imperialism.' "-Belfridge inadvertently reported that the Russians and Chinese "were generally complimented for staying well in the background." The tone of the Conference on the opening days made several delegates pause. On December 30th, the Moroccan government disassociated itself from the Conference as follows: "The persons participating in the Afro-Asian Conference in the name of Morocco represent only their own viewpoint or their groups." Ethiopia likewise disavowed governmental support and two Lebanese delegates withdrew during the Conference. It was reported that President Nasser himself was taken aback by the pro-communist nature of the Conference. At the last moment it is said that he refused to attend the opening session and sent only a terse message of greeting. During the Conference, his aides tried to modify or soften resolutions and even to keep Conference news out of the top headlines of Cairo newspapers. He also refused to allow Russia to finance the continuing organization. Other delegations made efforts to swerve the Conference from its pro-communist course. The Tunisians, for example, moved to strike a condemnation of the Eisenhower Doctrine, at least by name. Both Anup Singh of India and Anwar El Sadat of Egypt supported this move, but a former member of the Jordan cabinet urged that this condemnation be retained and it was overwhelmingly voted to do so. When delegates from Jordan and French West Africa wanted a resolution specifically condemning the U.S. for the Little Rock incident and other discrimination, Mr. Singh and others in the Political Committee successfully overrode this attempt, partly on the grounds that the Conference was already being branded enough as anti-Western and communist- inspired! Also deleted from a preliminary draft was an accusation that the U.S. Forces in South Korea were committing inhuman atrocities. A.A.P.S.C. The most immediate result of the Cairo Conference--other than the creation of personal, business, and cultural contactswas the establishment of the permanent Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Council (A.A.P.S.C.) with headquarters in Cairo. The Conference voted that the A.A.P.S.C. should devote itself to the following tasks: 1-implement and put into practice the resolutions and recommendations of the Conference; 2-promote and strengthen Afro-Asian solidarity movements in all the countries of the two continents; and 3--act as a permanent liaison office between the solidarity movements in various countries. Egypt agreed to furnish a permanent headquarters and an equivalent of almost $30,000 annually. A national solidarity committee in every Asian and African country where one is organized will have the right to nominate one representative to the A.A.P.S.C. This Council shall meet at least once a year. The permanent secretariat will consist of one secretary-general, nominated by Egypt, several deputy secretarygenerals, and ten secretaries from the Cameroons, China, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, the Sudan, Syria, the U.S.S.R. and Ghana. The Secretariat will publish a "Journal." The first meeting of the new Council was held in Cairo on January 4th. Youssef El Sebai, secretary-general of the Cairo Conference, was elected president for a period of two years. Deputy secretary-generals were elected from India, Algeria, the Sudan, and Russia. The latter election was protested by a delegate from Thailand. A second meeting of the Council was scheduled for March. Other continuing activities voted at the Conference included demonstrations in Africa and Asia to ban nuclear weapons tests and to support Algeria. At the first meeting of the A.A.P.S.C. the second of March was fixed as the day for demonstrations against nuclear tests. March 30th was selected as Algeria Dayto raise funds and otherwise support the Algerian revolution. One activity not specifically initiated at the Conference but by implication endorsed and stimulated by it is the new Voice of Africa from Radio Cairo. This is a two-hour daily short-wave broadcast. Much of it is an attack on French and British colonialism, but the U.S. has come in for some criticism. The broadcast is given in Swahili, understood in much of East and Central Africa, Amharic-the language of Ethiopia-Arabic, English, and French. While President Nasser for two years has broadcast the Voice of the Arabs, he apparently began in a modest way to beam broadcasts to Africa south of the Sahara in the summer of 1957. The Broadcasts are under the auspices of the Minister of National Guidance, using the slogan "Africa for the Africans." A new magazine in Arabic has also been issued, called "African Renaissance." Also the Voice of Free Algeria comes from Radio Cairo. PRESS REACTIONS The Cairo Conference was generally hailed in Moscow. Pravda printed the entire set of resolutions on January 2-3. The weekly New Times of Moscow, with identical editions in a number of languages, devoted a whole supplement to the resolutions. This periodical also affirmed that "the Bandung spirit has proved invincible." It reported that the Conference "was received by U. S. monopolists with the utmost hostility, and the reason is clear: its anti-war and anti-colonialist decisions expose the Big Business-inspired aggressive imperialist policies of Washington." Moscow News on January 4th said: "The attempts of the ruling circles and the press of some Western countries to hush up the Cairo Conference, to minimize its importance and to describe it as another manoeuvre of 'international communism' are simply ludicrous." The Arabic press also generally praised the Conference. Al Ayam Al Sudania on December 23rd asserted that "the peoples of Asia and Africa entertain vast hopes of this conference and wish it to become their far-reaching organ." The Sudanese Nile asserted that the task of the conference is "a great and noble one." The moderate El Akhbar of Cairo on December 27th said that the "sole aim" of the Conference is "to further the welfare of its peoples and the welfare of the whole world, not to promote the interests of any particular people or any particular ideology." El Ahram, also in Egypt, asserted on December 29th: "Those who watch the Cairo Conference with bitterness are hoping the unity of the Afro- Asian people might be broken." The more leftist El Shaab of Cairo on January 2nd stated: "The resolutions passed by the Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference should be supported by all peoples of the world because they support world peace and strongly oppose domination, exploitation and war." The International Edition of the Egyptian Economic and Political Review (Feb. 1958) editorialized: "As long as Russia is ready to collaborate in the cultural and economic development of the (AfroAsian) area, she will find the friendship and collaboration of its peoples; if she commits the error of interfering in the internal affairs of these countries, she will place herself in the same position as that occupied by the Western colonialist... It was a pity that Western influence prevented certain delegations from attending, for it was left to Egypt and India to defend some at least of their points of view. The boycott of the Conference by the West is another error in a long list." The British press generally criticized the Conference. The Economist, London, wrote: "The Soviet delegates were resolved to show that they were all Asian brothers under their carefully selected darkish skins . . . The overwhelming economic problem in underdeveloped countries is the lack of outside money; the Afro-Asian states would do well to nail down Russia's airy promises." The London Times (Jan. 2, 1958): "When a political jamboree of this sort is over there is a temptation either to take its published results too solemnly or to take the emotion which brought the people together too lightly ... A serious effort will be made to exploit the spirit behind the Conference." The Rhodesia Herald (Dec. 30, 1957) of Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, editorialized: "There is a shrewd suspicion that (the Conference's) main purpose, far from being to demonstrate AfroAsian solidarity against colonialism, is to further communism's designs to use Africa nationalism for its own purposes." In America, on December 27th called Cairo "nothing but a communist propaganda stunt." Time called

Cairo a "communist propaganda show.. a weeklong hymn of hatred for the West," with the moving spirits representing "world communism and its sympathizers." The New York Times editorially called the permanent organization established by the Conference a "little Cominform." It concluded that "all the resolutions bear such a plain 'made-in-Moscow' stamp." The Christian Science Monitor (January 3, 1958) asserted: "The Conference, no matter how unofficial it may have been or how questionable the credentials of some of its delegates, has shown how great is the challenge which the West is facing from the rising tide of nationalism in Africa and Asia. The Soviet Union is assiduously and skillfully pursuing its campaign to establish itself as exclusive patron and friend of Afro-Asian nationalist movements." AFRICAN COMMENTS A nationalist leader in East Africa wrote privately of Cairo: "I personally declined to attend when I heard of the nature of the Conference, but this does not mean that I did not approve of anyone's going. No doubt the Cairo organization shall gradually have influence in Africa unless there is something else to fill the vacuum." A nationalist leader in West Africa wrote: "The second Asian-African Conference (sic) will go a long way toward helping the nationalist movements in various parts of Africa. Its major contribution is the feeling of solidarity which it gives, particularly to smaller nations. None of the African nationalist movements now accept Nasser as an African leader. Egypt was only the host country. Although Russia is no doubt giving full support and encouragement to the new secretariat, this does not mean communist control." A third well-known leader of African independence felt that "it is a mistake to imagine that the only significant thing about Cairo was that it was communist inspired and still more to base policy toward it on that assumption. If African nations are forced to accept economic and political assistance from Moscow and even Cairo, it will be largely due to the ineptitude of Western statesmanship." A leading opponent of apartheid in South Africa felt that "Russia and Egypt have overreached themselves and will harm their plans for increasing their influence in Africa by having so obviously a conference of stooges."

On returning to Ghana, one member of the delegation told the press that Cairo was "a continuation of the Bandung Conference held in 1955 which was at a government level. I wish to condemn any belief of communist attachment." (Significantly the two representatives from the Gold Coast to Bandung, one a minister today in Nkrumah's government, did not attend the Cairo Conference). The Ghana Evening News (Jan. 9, 1958) ran this headline: "Soviet Imperialism Ignored at Cairo Conference." This newspaper reprinted a story about the Conference from the daily Civil and Military Gazette published in Pakistan. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CAIRO While the Bandung Conference was felt more in Asia than in Africa, the Cairo Conference will undoubtedly have more significance for Africa--and Russia-than for Asia. Some of the leaders of Asia, such as Prime Minister Nehru, will--as a result of Cairo--be even more wary of the Asian solidarity committees within their borders. They may also be more skeptical of the leadership and "positive neutrality" of President Nasser. In some ways, Cairo may make the convening of a second Bandung Conference even more remote, since a second official conference could, after Cairo, get more easily "out of (neutralist) control," doubly so since it would be harder now to exclude Russia. On the other hand, perhaps a second Bandung is more necessary, if only to refurbish in the eyes of the world the good name of Bandung and to reemphasize to the world that the nonaligned, uncommitted nations of Asia are officially much more responsible than Cairo would lead the world to believe. The Cairo Conference no doubt enhanced President Nasser's prestige in his own country, in friendly parts of the Arab world, and in portions of the entire Afro- Asian world. The Conference was the result of a temporary arrangement between President Nasser and the communist leaders of Asia. Each thought he could use the other-and each did, for their aims for the time ran parallel. The Russians and the other communists at Cairo may not have had their way in every detail, but the Conference was surely a magnificent success from their ideological viewpoint. However, the Conference may have convinced Nasser of the dangers of close political cooperation with the communists. There are several evidences that he became more disenchanted with the communists than they became annoyed with him. Yet if Nasser were greatly disillusioned with the communists, he did not show it very openly during the Conference. The Cairo Conference gave Soviet Russia, and communism generally, the opportunity for political and economic penetration of Africa south of the Sahara. While Russia, previously to Cairo, had made inroads, politically and economically, in much of Asia and Egypt, she had made few official contacts below the Arab world. These were limited to diplomatic missions in Ethiopia and South Africa (now closed) and delegations to celebrations in Liberia and Ghana. Cairo was, for Russia, a coming-out party (as Bandung served a similar purpose for China), and Russia used the occasion well. Her delegates spoke often and effectively and were warmly received. With the establishment of the permanent Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Council in Africa-including a Russian vice- chairman and Russian and Chinese secretaries (not to mention other pro- communists likely to be in positions of power) -Russia will have a political and economic base from which to work not only in the Arab world but south of the Sahara. This is surely one of the most significant, longrange results of the Conference. That the A.A.P.S.C. may be a jumping-off place further into equatorial Africa can be seen by a report from a Ghana delegate returning from Cairo that the second Afro-Asian conference will be held in Accra. This is highly unlikely, yet it is possible that a second or third conference will be held south of the Sahara. The Cairo Conference also gave Russia continued prestige in parts of Asia and new prestige in Africa. Russia was accepted by Cairo, as she was rejected by Bandung, as an Asian powera sharp reversal of a century-long reputation which Russia had in Asia as primarily a European power. Russia basked in this prestige, especially without a word uttered at the Conference against her own, huge, neo- colonial empire acquired since World War II. In speeches and otherwise at the Conference, the Russian delegates identified themselves unambiguously and enthusiastically with all the nationalist movements available, from Okinawa to Algeria. In addition, many elements of Russia's present foreign policy-from an atom free zone in Asia and Africa to a denunciation of the Eisenhower Doctrine and the Baghdad Pact-were endorsed by the Conference and thus accepted by many Asian and African delegates as their own solution to world tensions. If Cairo was a victory for Russia, it was a propaganda defeat for the United States as well as for the West generally. In addition to criticisms of the United States in Conference speeches, the resolutions made several direct attacks on American foreign policy, including the continued nuclear tests at Eniwetok (and, in one resolution, not a mention of continued tests in Russia or even by Britain). The U.S. was constantly coupled, by Russian and other delegates, with the white, imperialistic, European colonial regimes of Africa, despite the lack of American colonies in Africa and despite American opposition to the attack on Egypt in 1956. What the U. S. has done in West Asia and especially North Africa subsequent to the invasion of Suez eradicated apparently any prestige gained by opposing the original attack. Although Madison Avenue is in America, Pavlov worked in Russia and the Russians appear more clever in psychological warfare than Americans. As Vera Micheles Dean has said, the communists are ingenious "in discovering the basic motivations of Asians, Arabs, and Africans and then translating them into appealing propaganda." The Cairo Conference produced varied reactions in the European regimes still governing Africa. A few leaders must have surely realized more than previously that their colonial days are severely numbered. Other colonial leaders may have seen a second chance, if they use wisely the rising fear in the West of communist penetration in Africa. As an aftermath of Cairo, South Africa's Minister of External Affairs, Eric H. Louw, suggested that all European powers in Africa south of the Sahara come together to prevent Russian infiltration in Africa. He said that South Africa could serve "as a link between the Western nations and the peoples of Africa." More subtly, other African whites are asking the United States to take a more "constructive" interest in European colonialism. For example, The East African Standard of Nairobi in an editorial on January 21st urged that the U. S. State Department realign its policy so that less emphasis is placed on "carping along the outdated theme of 'colonialism' and more helpful support placed behind the sound intentions and constructive programmes of these Western Powers, with interests and responsibilities to carry, in Africa." This Kenya newspaper added, "A negative, a nagging, policy can only result in helping Russia by splintering Western concord over colonial affairs which the State Department seems to understand so crudely." It is conceivable that Cairo might bring the colonial powers closer together, tighten their immediate hold on their colonies, and-using the fear of communist penetration--even entice the U.S. to help them in this crusade. African leader Tom Mboya, however, replying to the Nairobi editorial, reminded the West that it has "blundered and fumbled blindly" in the Middle East, guided only by the fear of communism, and if it wants to save Africa from communism, it should apply the same standards of freedom it uses against Russia to the colonial and racist regimes in Africa. The Cairo Conference had a deep effect on many of the leaders of African nationalism. For varying reasons, few of their leaders chose to go to Cairo. Some of the more politically sophisticated African leaders analyzed Cairo for what it was even before it was held and they declined to participate. Some were sufficiently intrigued and open-minded to send secondary leaders. All followed the proceedings of the Conference as best they could from afar and spent many hours analyzing the Conference --and they are still doing so. Even before Cairo, many African nationalists realized that there existed throughout Africa a vacuum which any world power could fill with some political support, economic aid, and just fraternal encouragement and friendship. Now they realize more than previously that if they themselves don't devise a broad pan-African movement to fill this vacuum, the Russians and/or Egyptians will. The African members of the legislative councils of Kenya and Tanganyika are soon to meet. A broader confrontation of nationalist movements and their leaders throughout Africa is needed. A year ago Ghana indicated that unofficially its Convention Peoples Party would call together such a pan-African Congress. If Ghana is now too preoccupied with her own internal problems and with the meeting of independent African states, what other African nation south of the Sahara can give hospitality to such a pan-African Conference? Can a permanent base outside North Africa be developed for nationalist movements independent of both Russia and the West? Can, for example, the exiled leaders of the Union of the Populations of the Cameroons (U.P.C.) find a base closer to home than in Cairo and in the shadow of the A.A.P.S.C.? The Cairo Conference will inevitably create new ideological ferment in a continent which even in the second half of the twentieth century has been singularly free from modern ideological conflict. The cautious debates among Africans about capitalism versus socialism and democratic socialism versus "peoples' socialism" (communism) will be intensified. The leaders of the independent countries, because of urgent economic needs, will develop their own economic structures, partly by experimentation. The leaders of the nationalist movements of still-colonial countries, because of urgent political needs, may develop their own amalgam of ideology, which may or may not combine democratic socialism with western humanism. "An African solution to African problems" may be emerging. Communism will, however, be waiting in the wings, persuasively beckoning with evidences of swift industrialization and swifter scientific achievement in Russia, and with well-modulated slogans against racism and imperialism. Cairo should plainly tell all but the most insensitive persons of the West-and how often must its leaders be told?-that the peoples of Africa are sick of oppression, colonialism, poverty, and racism. They will, understandably, clutch at help and sympathy offered from any quarter, even communist. Yet because African nationalists attend a meeting in Cairo or even repeat slogans made in Moscow (but echoes of those originated in revolutionary America)-this does not mean that they are communists, fellow travelers, or in sympathy with communism. Finally, Cairo should make the West, and especially the United States, revise its policy toward Africa-and with much more urgency. Admittedly the U.S. cannot sponsor its own Asian-African Conference and it would not be wise to do so even if she had the ability. However, a denunciation of the Cairo Conference or of its threat of communism in Asia or Africa will have no appeal to Asians or Africans. As Osgood Caruthers, New York Times correspondent at the Cairo Conference, concluded, "A mere denunciation of communism will not do the job and the Cairo Conference has already amply demonstrated that warnings against Soviet trickery are ineffective among people 19 who feel they have been the victims of Western trickery and exploitation." America must give more substantial economic aid to the independent countries of Asia and Africa. America must contribute heavily to the new U.N. Economic Commission for Africa. America must offer generous bilateral economic support to all Asian-African countries, but increasingly without military or political strings and thus through the United Nations. Even more important, America must give bold political support to the nationalist movements in the remaining colonial areas of Asia and throughout Africa. America can be neutral politically or continue to pay weak lip-service to African independence only at her peril. American delegates at the U.N. must vote for or against independence as the roll is increasingly called. Russia's vote will more than ever be counted, since Cairo, in these same U.N. roll calls. The ultimate lesson of Cairo must be learned in Washington, London, and Paris. APPENDIX 1: THE CAIRO DECLARATION We, Afro-Asian peoples, who met in Cairo from December 26, 1957, to January 1, 1958, to discuss international problems that concern Afro-Asian peoples in particular, reviewed the political, economic, social and cultural problems which face our peoples. We have been animated with one feeling only--co-operation and unity among our peoples and close friendship with all the peoples of the world. After seven days of harmonious discussion our Conference has reached unanimous agreements on proposals for the solution of various problems. This proves that the Afro-Asian peoples in the task of supporting peace have reached unity on a higher level and have arrived at a common program of action. The Conference has unanimously agreed to set up a permanent organization in Cairo for the purpose of promoting the realization of its resolutions. We declare that the principles adopted by the Bandung Conference of April 1955 should remain the basis of international relations. We renew our absolute support for the following ten principles which have had the backing of our peoples during the past years: 1. Respect for the fundamental rights of man and the principles and objectives of the U. N. Charter. 2. Respect for the sovereignty of all peoples and the integrity of their territories. 3. Recognition of equality among all races and all nations, big and small. 4. Abstention from all intervention into the affairs of other countries. 5. Respect for the right of nations to defend themselves individually or collectively according to the U. N. Charter. 6. a) Abstention from the use of collective defense organizations for the private ends of any Great Power. b) Abstention of any Power from applying pressure on other countries. 20

7. Avoidance of aggressive actions and threats and of the use of force against the regional security or the political independence of any country. 8. Settling of all international disputes by peaceful methods, such as negotiations, conciliation, arbitration, judicial measures or any other peaceful methods chosen by the parties concerned according to the U.N. Charter. 9. Development of our common interests and mutual cooperation. 10. Respect for justice and international obligations. We are fully convinced that if these ten principles are accepted, the present world tension will definitely relax and the deadly fear of annihilation that now grips the hearts of the millions can be lifted. We declare that the foundations of peace cannot be firmly established until we dissipate this tension. We welcome every step taken in this direction. We call upon the peoples of the world to use every possible means for the creation of areas of agreement and understanding which will inevitably lead to disarmament, to the banning of the production of nuclear weapons, their experiments and use. We call upon the peoples of the world to direct their scientific efforts and the use of nuclear energy towards peaceful purposes and the service of humanity and for the realization of prosperity and complete cooperation among the peoples on the basis of equality and according to the U. N. Charter. The Afro-Asian peoples believe that imperialist domination, foreign exploitation and the other evils which result from the subjugation of peoples are a denial of the fundamental rights of man and a violation of the U.N. Charter apart from the other harmful effects on both the governments and the governed which impede the development of peace and international cooperation. The continued existence of imperialism is not compatible with the new era the world is now passing through. The Afro-Asian peoples firmly believe in the right of every people to their freedom and independence. The Afro-Asian peoples desire unity in working together, to help each other in the struggle for the welfare of the Afro-Asian peoples, as well as of the whole of mankind. We will devote our relentless efforts to the achievement of enduring peace in the world. Peace will surely be victorious. Humanity can face its future with hope and confidence. This is the New Year message of the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Conference in Cairo to the whole world. APPENDIX 11: DELEGATIONS TO THE CAIRO CONFERENCE FROM ASIA. Afghanistan, 1 (delegate), Abdel Rashid Latifi,* director of press bureau. Bahrein, 2, Youssef el Reweissi. Burma, 5, Uhla Gyaw, attorney. Ceylon, 6, V. Alagiyawanna, headmaster. China, 25, Kuo Mo-jo, Chairman, Asian Solidarity Committee of China, president, National Academy of Sciences, Peking; Chu Tu-nan. Cyprus, 6, Dr. Savas Luizides. India, 25, Mrs. Ramashewari Nehru, a distant relative of Prime Minister Nehru; Anup Singh, Harvard-educated 'M.P.; Saifuddin Kitchlon, President, India branch, World Peace Council and winner of Stalin Peace Prize. Indonesia, 5, Anwar Tjokrominoto, M.P.; Serajeddin Abbas. Iraq, 25, Mohamed Hadid, former cabinet minister, National Congress Party. *The first person named is chairman of the delegation.

Japan, 57, Tokutaro Kitamura, M.P. (Liberal-Democratic Party) and banker; Mrs. Yoko Nuita; Prof. Kaoku Yasui, director general, Japan Council Against A- and H-Bombs; Mrs. Aikichi Kuboyama, widow of fisherman on "The Lucky Dragon;" Mr. Sakata. Jordan, 15, Shafik Rachidat, lawyer, former cabinet minister; Abdallah Rimawy and Shafig Irshidat, both ministers in Nabulso cabinet, dismissed in April 1957 and sentenced in absentia to life terms for plotting to overthrow the King. Kuweit, 3, Ahmed El Khattib, physician. Laos, 1, Ouvoravong, M.P. Lebanon, 27, Hussein El Eweini, former prime minister and president of National Congress. Malaya, 4, Tucgky Indra. Mongolia, 5, Shrindyb, Prof. of History. Northern Korea, 4, Han Sul Ya. Oman, 3, El Sayed Moh. EI-Harisi. Pakistan, 4, Sherif Hidar Baba, Prof. of French. Palestine, 15, Mounir El Rais, President of Ghaza municipality. Syria, 17, Ehssan El Gabry, M.P.; Miss Amal Djazairy. Thailand, 4, Nai Dhep Jotinujit, politician; Kim Pong, businessman. USSR, 28, Sharaf R. Rachidov, Author, President of Presidium of Supreme Soviet of Uzbek Republic; Mr. Arzumanya A. Arzoumanian, Chairman, International Economic Institute at the Moscow Academy of Sciences; Mr. Mikhail Kotov. Vietnam 7, Uai Thuy, M.P. Yemen, 8, El Sayed Hassan Ibrahim, Minister; (also delegation from Southern Arabia or Aden Protectorate). APPENDIX 111: DELEGATIONS TO THE CAIRO CONFERENCE FROM AFRICA. Algeria, 18 (delegates), Dr. Lamine Debaghine,* physician. Cameroons, 6, Dr. Felix R. Moumie, president, Union of the Populations of Cameroons (U.P.C.); Ouandie Ernest. Egypt, 84, Col. Anwar El Sadat, Deputy Speaker, of the Egyptian National Assembly, former member of President Nasser's revolutionary junta; Youssef El Sebai, secretary-general of the Cairo Conference, author and former army officer; Khaled Mohieddin, former "red major" in Nasser regime; Dr. Aicha Abdel Rahman. Ethiopia, 6, Mrs. Luie Tesfaye, Secretary of the Woman's Association of Ethiopia. French Somaliland, 5, Zakaria Nimr Yussef. French West Africa, 5, Diallo Aliou, professor of Arabic. Ghana, 5, K. Amoa Awuah, Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Finance; Abongo Duncan; Miss Mabel Dove; D. D. Duncan; and Badiako Poku, secretary of the Convention Peoples Party. Italian Somaliland, 11, Hag Sherif Moh Hussein, president, Somaliland Youth Union. Kenya, 4, Hassan Wanis. Libya, 4, El Zaglaei, former M.P. Madagascar, 4, Rajaofera Maurice, professor. *The first person named is chairman of the delegation. Morocco, 5, Mohamed H. Wazani, General Secretary, Independence Party. Nigeria, 5, Gidi Kwadri. Somalia, 4, El Sayed Ahm, Shikh Musa, member, S.N.I. Party. The Sudan, 18, El Sheikh Aly Abdel Rahman, Minister of the Interior; Mohammed Ahmed Mahgoul. Togoland, 2, Abalo Joseph Fiermes, secretary-general of Jivento. Tunisia, 6, Eala El Balhawan, member, National Assembly. Uganda, 5, Aly Omar Aly. Zanzibar, 10, Ahmed Rashad. APPENDIX V: COUNTRIES REPRESENTED AT BANDUNG AND AT CAIRO. A. Countries represented both at Bandung and at Cairo: Asian: Afghanistan, Burma, Ceylon, China, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, Thailand, North Vietnam, and Yemen. African: Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Libya, and the Sudan. B. Countries represented at Bandung but not at Cairo: Asian: Cambodia, Iran, Nepal, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and South Vietnam. African: Liberia. C. Countries represented at Cairo but not at Bandung: Asian: Bahrein, Cyprus, Kuweit, Malaya, Mongolia, N. Korea, Oman, Palestine, and the U.S.S.R. African: Algeria, Cameroons, French Somaliland, French West Africa, Italian Somaliland, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, Somalia, Togoland, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zanzibar.

THE AUTHOR Dr. Homer A. Jack has studied Asian-African politics for the past decade. He was present as a journalist at the Asian-African Conference in Bandung in 1955 and has had access to many of the documents of the Cairo Conference. He has met many of the leaders of Asia and Africa during journalistic trips to Asia and Africa in 1952, 1955, and 1957, and at the United Nations. Dr. Jack is author of a study on the Bandung Conference for Toward Freedom and on the Cairo Conference for the American Committee on Africa. He has also edited anthologies on Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer. He writes regularly for The Hindustan Times (New Delhi), Peace News (London), Opinion (Durban), The Christian Century (Chicago), and other publications. A newsletter on colonial affairs edited by William B. Lloyd, Jr. Annual subscription, $3 (only $1 for students). This newsletter is in its 6th year. Toward Freedom Pamphlets 1. Colonialism and the United Nations; proposals for Charter Amendments, by William B. Lloyd, Jr. Oct. 1954. 25c each postpaid. 2. Bandung: an on-the-spot description of the Asian-African Conference, by Homer A. Jack. May 1955. 35c each postpaid. 3. Colonialism and Your Vote, by William B. Lloyd, Jr. June 1956. 35c each postpaid. 4. Cairo: The Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Conference, by Homer A. Jack. April 1958. 30c each postpaid. Quantity rates for all pamphlets on request. TOWARD FREEDOM ROOM 119 343 S. DEARBORN STREET, CHICAGO 4, ILLINOIS Printed in the United States of America