Rethinking the Legacies of Bandung Conference

Corresponding author mail id: [email protected]

Rethinking the Legacies of Bandung Conference:

Global Decolonization and the Making of Modern International Order

ABSTRACT

This article aims to investigate the extent to which the Bandung Conference affected the international order after the Second World War. By locating the Bandung Conference in the international order transition between 1945 until 1970, I argue that the Bandung Conference should not be treated as merely a milestone of historic anti-colonial struggles but also a site for the emergence of a modern international order. The Bandung Conference played a key role in shaping the Westphalian interstate system that acknowledges equal sovereignty among states in world politics. From this viewpoint, this article argues that the legacy of the Bandung Conference lies in its role to mediate the transition from colonial order before the Second World War to the modern international order, which is based on sovereignty and equal status among states as the primary members. It does so by putting forward an agenda for global decolonization and delegitimizes the practices of colonialism. The diplomatic struggle after the Bandung Conference continued until the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 that called for decolonization in world politics, which locates the contribution of the Bandung Conference to the making of the modern international order as we know it in the present day.

Keywords: Bandung Conference, Decolonization, International Order, Self- Determination, Transition

This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not beenAuthor Manuscript through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/ASPP.12473

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 5th Symposium of Southeast Asian Studies, University of Oxford, in April 2016. I would like to thank Jonathan Joseph, Simon Rushton, Kevin W. Fogg, Henk Schulte Nordholt, Wildan Sena Utama, Jacinta O’Hagan, Rajni Gamage, Christian Reus-Smit and Oxford Conference participants for helpful discussions, questions, and feedback.

AUTHOR BIO

Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar is a PhD student at the School of Political Sciences and International Studies, University of Queensland, Australia. He was previously the Executive Secretary of ASEAN Studies Center, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia (2016-2017). His current research focuses on the rise of Asia in world politics.

1. Introduction

The significance of the the 1955 Asian And African Conference (referred to in the article as “ the Bandung Conference”) in International Relations has been discussed by many International Relations scholars (see, for example, Acharya & Tan, 2008; Acharya & Buzan, 2010; Phillips, 2016; Acharya, 2016; Pham & Shilliam, 2016; Eslava, Fakhri, & Nesiah, 2017; Lay, 2016). The conference was held in Bandung, Indonesia, from 18-24 April 2019 and was attended by 29 countries from Asia and Africa. It was organised by five countries –Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Ceylon/Sri Lanka, and Burma, as a result of a series of prior meetings in Colombo and Bogor.

Recent literature in International Relations and Global History has appreciated the importance of Bandung Conference in shaping the current international order. However,

despite some referenceAuthor Manuscript to Bandung as the precursor of Asian internationalism (Amrith, 2005) or its contribution to regionalism (Reid, 2008), scholars appear to be skeptical on the question of what the legacy of Bandung is in the contemporary international order.

2 The Bandung Legacy

For example, the study of Bandung has been trapped in an impulse of post-coloniality, which constrained the fulfilment of its emancipatory premises (Pasha, 2013). From a more critical perspective, Guan (2008: 42), albeit acknowledging its emancipatory spirit, argues that “the success of Bandung was more apparent than real”, referring to some limitations that the aftermath of the Bandung Conference brought. Another group of scholars argues that even though Bandung failed to establish concrete and long- lasting global governance institutions to continue the project, it undoubtedly transformed how states in the “Third World” interact with each other, particularly when the wave of decolonization occurred in the region after the 1960s. (Tan & Acharya, 2008; Weatherbee, 2014). For example, in 1960 Bandung inspired the United Nations to issue The Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples through the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (Al-Ayouty, 1972). It also inspired the introduction of the G-77 grouping and the subsequent calls for a New International Economic Order (Gilman, 2015; Geldart & Lyon, 1989).

Against this backdrop, this article aims to understand how the basic ideas discussed in the Bandung Conference, namely sovereignty and ‘self-determination’, affected the international order in the 1950s and the 1960s, and why the international order was transformed during the political changes in the late 1960s and early 1970s. My central argument is that the Bandung Conference was successful in bringing about the transition from the international colonial order—which was in decline but did not totally disappear since the end of Second World War — to a modern international order based on equal sovereignty among nations. Drawing upon recent literature and a postcolonial analysis of international order , I argue that the Bandung Conference produced a decolonial vision to transform the international order. This vision challenged not only the remaining colonial world order after the Second World War, but also the new postcolonial order that pushed third world countries into the Cold War. In this regard, I argue that Bandung Conference attempted to challenge the primacy of colonial order in the region, where remaining British and French colonies were seeking to declare their independence after the Second World War However, in the 1960s, it was also evident Author Manuscript that the ‘Bandung spirit’ had declined along with domestic political changes, especially in Indonesia and Burma, resulting in the formation of a new regional order through the

3 The Bandung Legacy

establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In this context, even though the Bandung Conference had not continued as a more rigid institutional platform in world politics and was ‘bookended’ with the calls for a New International Economic Order in the region (Benjamin, 2015; Guan, 2008), it contributed in delivering order-transition after the second World War

The argument proceeds in four parts. The first part will situate the Bandung Conference in the study of international order and the study of decolonization in world politics. The second part will trace the historical roots of the Bandung Conference and its relevance to the formation of the global decolonization movement in the early 20th century, particularly the League Against Imperialism (1927-1933) and the Pan-Asian movement, both in Japan and -- in a different form -- India. This era paved the way for further consolidation of newly-independent countries after the Second Worlld War, with several new states declaring independence. The third part will look closer at how the Bandung Conference played an important role in the international order transition from 1945 until 1970. Moreover, this part will investigate how domestic political changes, as well as the beginnings of the Cold War, constrained the global reach of Bandung Conference and its legacies in world politics, . It is within this context that Bandung finds its relevance in the making of modern international order. The final part will provide a new understanding of the Bandung Conference in the study of International Relations.

2. Reconceptualizing the Legacies of Bandung Conference in the Study of International Relations

Revisiting Bandung Legacies: Contending Perspectives

There has been an emerging scholarly interest in the study of International Relations to re-examine the Bandung Conference and its impacts for world politics (see Tan &

Acharya, 2008;Author Manuscript Hardt, 2002; Pasha, 2013; Chakrabarty, 2005; Gettig, 2015; Utama, 2017; Phillips, 2016; Shilliam, 2016; Pham & Shilliam, 2016; Shimazu, 2014). While historians are interested to see how Bandung shaped the formation of ‘newly- This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

4 The Bandung Legacy

independent’ states after the Second World War, many international relations scholars were interested in understanding how the it shaped the present global order. A number of scholars argued that the Bandung Conference served as a constitutive moment to the formation of the ‘Third World’ in world politics, seeing the conference as a successful one (Tan & Acharya, 2008; Hardt, 2002; Phillips, 2016; Acharya, 2016). Another strand of scholars appears to be more skeptical about the continuing legacies of Bandung Conference and counter-argue that there are still some gaps related to the process of decolonization in world politics (Patel & McMichael, 2004; Chakrabarty, 2005; Guan, 2008; Pasha, 2013; Shilliam, 2016).

Two contending explanations aim to make sense the legacy of Bandung Conference in world politics. The first explanation is a postcolonial argument, which aims to understand Bandung Conference as a ‘break’ from a colonial order in world politics (see, most recently, Pham and Shilliam, 2016). Even though the authors in this collection tend to be critical regarding the legacy of Bandung Conference, the authors also acknowledge its importance in shaping the decolonization process and the identity of the ‘Third World’. This postcolonial argument emphasizes the role of Bandung Conference in its challenge to colonialism, albeit limited in many ways, and in embracing an alternate vision of world order (Gettachew 2019).

The second explanation, which is at best posed by a special edition of Australian Journal of International Affairs (2016) places the Bandung Conference in the broader question of ‘international order’. This journal issue extends the discussions from a previous contribution by Acharya & Tan (2008) which argued for a review of the importance of Bandung in the study of international order. It argues that the Bandung Conference has proven the resilience of Westphalian sovereignty in international order, which helped cultivate diversity in global politics after the Second World War. While they agree that Bandung Conference has some limitations in radically challenging the international order, it undeniably had a transformative effect on order by putting forward the agenda of decolonization. Author Manuscript In this article, I aim to advance an alternative explanation. I consider the Bandung Conference to be a result of both (1) the long-standing anti-colonial struggle initiated This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

5 The Bandung Legacy

since the early 20th century; and (2) the transformation of international order after the Second World War (see also Utama 2017). The first argument necessitates an understanding of Bandung beyond methodological nationalism, by tracing the history of Bandung to the network of anti-colonial activism in the colonies since the early 20th century. The second argument will proceed by situating Bandung in the changing international order after 1945, which witnessed the decline of ‘old’ imperial states in Europe, the waves of decolonization, and the rise of two new powers—the United States and the Soviet Union. The article further argues that the Bandung Conference, despite its limited geopolitical and historical reach, has played a significant role in shaping the international order transition after the Second World War and paved the way for the establishment of modern international order.

It is important, therefore, to reformulate an approach to understanding Bandung from an historical perspective. Tracing the role of the Bandung Conference as a part of global decolonization movement in the Second World War is pivotal in explaining its relevance. As will be discussed in the next sections, the Bandung Conference has its root on the struggle against colonialism prior to the Second World War. A network of nationalist movements from Asian and African states had been campaigning for decolonization since the early 20th century, and the struggle against colonialism persisted until the second World War. Viewed from this perspective, the Bandung Conference constitutes only a link in the chain of networked struggles against colonialism and, more broadly, in a more complex process of postcolonial state formation. This alternative reading of Bandung Conference embeds it in the global decolonization movement, which in turn aims to put forward a transformation of international order.

In making the argument, this article primarily draws upon recent contributions from decolonial analysis, which situates the Bandung Conference as a moment in the continuing decolonization of world politics, albeit with its own challenges and limitations (Shilliam & Pham, 2016; Chakrabarty, 2005; Shilliam, 2016). In order to make sense of howAuthor Manuscript Bandung contributed in decolonizing world politics, I shall situate the Conference in the changing post-WWII international order. This move requires a reconceptualization of “international order” in the post-war era as primarily marked by This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

6 The Bandung Legacy

(1) the inception of an interstate system guided by the United Nations; (2) the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, which set the basis for new great power politics after the war. In so doing, I advance a new understanding of international order as a dialectical historical process to reconcile a multiplicity of “political orders” and establish a homogenous political order. I argue that international order is dialectical, in the sense that it always involve contestation from various forces from different ideological or worldmaking visions, and that it is vulnerable to crisis through delegitimization in world politics. However, the crisis does not necessarily lead to a new form of order. It also involves a process of transition that mediates the transformation of order in a certain periods of time, until the normative configurations and political power that shapes the international order is settled. The Bandung Conference, in this context, is regarded as part of the transition in the changing international order after the Second World War until the new international order after the UN Decolonization Resolution in 1960.

Self-Determination and Decolonization in International Relations

This article departs from an assumption that the Bandung Conference is a political project to decolonize world politics through diplomatic means. It was pivotal in shaping the post-colonial international order and establishing an alternative order through “Asian” and “African” solidarity, in which the call for ‘self-determination’ becomes an important narrative. In the 1955 Joint Communique, the participants strongly called for the right to self-determination for all Asian and African states and the delegitimization of colonialism. In gaining the right to self-determination, each Asian and African nation shall be guaranteed the right to determine its political legitimacy and to form its own state by taking into account the features of ethnicity or national identity in the country (Burke, 2011; Wolff & Rodt, 2013; Spanu, 2015). Hence, the Bandung Conference became an arena for Asian and African nations to come together and demand independence from colonial states through the concept of ‘self-determination’.

What is “self-determination”Author Manuscript and why is it important in international relations? Spanu (2015) traces the idea of self-determination back to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), which conditionally granted self-determination only to the people in areas that had been This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

7 The Bandung Legacy

occupied by the countries who lost in World War I: Germany, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman, and Bulgaria. The treaty, in line with Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points, acknowledged the right of particular states to obtain autonomous development and self- governing capacity. Self-determination as well as ‘autonomous development’ were granted to people in these four countries affected by war. It was not to serve as the basis for decolonization of people in all colonies (Manela, 2007; Spanu, 2014; Pham, 2014). Instead, the Paris Treaty established a ‘mandate system,’ through the League of Nations, to manage recognition and governmentality of the colonies. The limited applicability of ‘self-determination’ prompted the wider call for decolonization, sowing the seeds for anti-colonial movements in the next decade.

Viewed from this perspective, the emergence of the ‘right to self-determination’ for post-colonial states has at least two important implications for world order. First, it marks the entrance of former colonies as independent states, granting them equal legal status with former colonizers. Second, it has implications for the configuration of global and regional order, which now involves the contestation between ‘post-colonial’ states and the former colonized in world politics (Reid, 2008; Abraham, 2008; Acharya, 2011). However, the newly independent states soon became trapped in the heated conflict between the United States and Soviet Union in the mid-60s. Some states tried to maintain independence by forming a new bloc (the Non-aligned Movement and the Soekarno-led New Emerging Forces), or by engaging with either the United States or Soviet Union.

By departing from the idea of ‘self-determination’, the Bandung Conference became a political project to set up a ‘post-colonial’ international order, an alternative in the midst of an emerging Cold War. This project was, however, limited by the growing rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Second World War offered the opportunity for several countries (such as Indonesia, India, Burma, and Indochinese states) to declare independence or to put forward the aspiration for independence immediately after the War. The result was, however, uneven. While Indonesia declared independence inAuthor Manuscript 1945, it was not until 1949 that the full formal recognition as an independent country was obtained, when the conflict with the Dutch was resolved at the Den Haag Roundtable Conference. India and Pakistan obtained independence in 1947 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

8 The Bandung Legacy

while Indochinese states formally obtained recognition in the early 50s. It is evident that “decolonization” was in fact an uneven process, and the Second World War did not directly lead to full decolonization in world politics. In this context, I shall argue that the period between 1945-1970, when Bandung Conference emerged as an important event, should be considered a ‘transition’ from the old colonial order, which was sustained until 1945, to a new Westphalian systemic order that saw the creation of independent states and the end of colonialism.

Conceptualizing International Order Transition

Having understood the relationship between Bandung Conference and the self- determination in world politics, I argue that it is important to reconceptualize Bandung Conference as a form of “order-transition” through its main contributions in putting forward global decolonization in world politics. Phillips (2016) argues that the Bandung Conference contains at least four overlapping dimensions: order-challenging, order- affirming, order-building, and order-transforming aspects. Furthermore, he suggests that Bandung Conference should not be read merely as a form of ‘revolt against the West’— underscoring its ‘order-challenging’ and ‘order-transforming aspects—but also as a part of the order-affirming and order-building process in world politics. While I agree with Phillips’ analysis, I suggest that Bandung Conference also has another role in relation to international order, namely ‘order-transition’, which mediates its role as ‘order- challenging’ and ‘order-affirming’. While it is true that, to some extent, Bandung Conference has an ‘order-challenging’ role, arguing that it also contains ‘order- affirming’ functions requires an understanding of how it mediates the transition of international order from ‘colonialism’ to ‘decolonization’.

The concept of ‘order-transition’ bears further scrutiny. In his previous work on international order, Phillips (2011) argues that the transformation of international order generally comprises of four stages: decay, crisis, collapse, and reconstruction. Phillips furthermore argues that “wars” play important roles in providing a symptom of ‘order

destroyed’, whichAuthor Manuscript led to the renewal of the new order in the reconstruction phase. While agreeing with Phillips’ overall argument, I shall add that the reconstruction phase also requires a process of transition. In this regard, understanding a reconstruction of This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

9 The Bandung Legacy

international order should also be followed by taking into account the process of transition, which involves a series of moments that consolidate the ‘new’ order. For example, the Russian revolution in 1917 did not immediately establish the Soviet Union but had undergone a period of transition—the establishment of Russian Constitution, Soviet Institutions, as well as the Civil War. It was not until the early 1920s that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was finally established (Trotsky, 1930).

A similar pattern could be used to theorize the ‘order-transition’ in world politics. Having understood the transformation as “transitionary,” I shall argue that the Bandung Conference plays an important role as a transition that mediates the transformation of international order after Second World War, which witnessed a crisis of ‘international colonial order’ through, for example, the declaration of independence in Indonesia (1945) and Philippines (1946), as well as the political unrest in Asian and African states during the post-war phase. This crisis has led to the establishment of postcolonial interstate order in world politics. However, even though the end of the cold war was led into the crisis of the colonial order worldwide, it was not until 1960 that the idea of decolonization and self-determination, which was central in Bandung Conference, was acknowledged by the United Nations, which effectively put the agenda for global decolonization in world politics.

Therefore, Bandung Conference could be reconceptualized as a transition from two international orders before and after the second World War: from an international order based on the overseas control imposed by a powerful authority over a particular territories administered as ‘colony’ –which is called ‘colonialism’—to another international order based on an equal sovereign status over each states as the primary members (which will be called as ‘modern international order’) (Doyle, 1986, Osterhammel, 1997). The idea of ‘transition’ suggests that the transformation of international order does not occur overnight, but instead involved processes of mediation in a particular period of time. From this perspective, a crisis of international order does not necessarily followed by the construction of a new form of international order, but involvingAuthor Manuscript a process of transition that enables the new international order to be organized in a certain manner. I argue that Bandung Conference should be understood as a part of ‘international order transition’, in which the Conference provides some new This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

1 0 The Bandung Legacy

shared norms that is used to legitimize the construction of new international order, namely sovereignty and equal status among states. It is in this context the role of global decolonization and the condemnation of colonialism played an important role to establish the modern international order.

To understand this process, I shall trace the birth of the idea of “decolonization” to the struggle against colonization since the early century, which was initiated by a network of anti-colonial 20th activists in the colony and in Europe and was sponsored partly by the Communist International Movement (The Comintern). This long process of anti- colonial activism has paved the way for the formation of “national consciousness” among anti-colonial nationalists and sowed the seed for the postcolonial state formation in the 20th century. I argue that these processes of anti-colonial resistance has found a momentum in Bandung Conference and the diplomatic struggles in the United Nations, which brings the global struggle for decolonization to the global governance, thus paved the way for a new vision of world order (albeit posed in a different way afterwards).

3. The Road to Bandung: Global Decolonization Movement and Anti-Colonial Internationalism

This part traces the historical origins of the Bandung Conference from two important historical events, namely (1) The League Against Imperialism and (2) the rise of Pan- Asianist movement that was developed by Japan in the early 20th century. These historical events had paved the way for the emergence of Bandung Conference in the international context, which witnessed the rise of anti-colonial internationalism and the global call for decolonization. I sargue that Bandung Conference was successful in bringing about the idea of global decolonization in world politics, although its global outreach has also been constrained by domestic and global political changes in the late 1960s.

The League againstAuthor Manuscript Imperialism (1927-1933) and the Seed of Global Decolonization Movement

1 1 The Bandung Legacy

The roots of the Bandung Conference may be traced back to the network of anti- colonial activism in the 1920s, where various groups of anti-colonial leaders, educated both in the colonies and in Europe, started to form a networked resistance against European colonialism (Umar, 2017). One of the prominent global networks was the League Against Imperialism, which was set up as part of the International Communist movement under the leadership of German Communist Willi Munzenberg to support the struggle against colonialism. The foundation of the League itself was unique. It was initially established as part of the global communist movement, embedded with Communist International Movement (see Petersson, 2014).

On February 10, 1927, 175 anti-colonial activists gathered in Brussels to establish the League Against Imperialism. Under the leadership of Willi Munzenberg, a German young communist leader, the League was able to globally connect the resistance to colonialism, ranging from anti-colonial leaders such as Mohammad Hatta and Jawaharlal Nehru, to intellectuals and scientists in the West such as Albert Einstein and Henri Barbusse (Peterssen, 2013, 2014; Utama, 2017). The foundation of the League had been set against the post-War arrangement of world politics, which witnessed the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919. Prashad (2007: 21) argued that the name League of Imperialism is chosento direct a criticism against the League of Nations, which dismissed the idea of self-determination of colonial societies through the mandate system.

The League Against Imperialism was an important starting point for understanding the Bandung Conference. First, it was the early attempt to resist colonialism through political activism in the 1920s. While the struggle against colonialism had emerged in the colony prior to the establishment of the League, the League was the first to unite the anti-colonial activists on a global scale. When the League was disbanded in the 1930s, its legacy was carried out by some of its participants—most notably Hatta and Nehru— who initiated further struggles against colonialism. Second World War became a direct impetus to declare independence, which paved the way for an ‘anti-colonial’ internationalismAuthor Manuscript in world politics. Second, as suggested by Stutje (2015), the League also sets forth a convergence between the nationalists and the communists. Even though the League was established through a close cooperation with the Comintern and This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

1 2 The Bandung Legacy

definitely held a strong communist agenda during the first meeting in 1927, the alliance was, in fact, a loose one. In the early 1930s, the League faced a breakup from the Communists. This breakup was supported by Moscow and the Comintern and the anti- colonial leaders who were opposing communism, including the League’s Indian faction (Petersson, 2014). It sowed the seed for more nationalistic struggles in the 1950s, which distinguished Bandung’s anti-colonial internationalism from Soviet internationalism in the Cold War (Umar, 2017; Valdez, 1993; Rupprecht, 1997).

Pan-Asianism and the Rise of Anti-Colonial Internationalism (1945-1955)

Another important historical event that was also pivotal in the development of the Bandung Conference was the Japanese expansion to Southeast Asia during the Pacific War. The short Japanese rule in several Asian states (Indonesia, Burma, and the Indochinese States) had repelled several European colonizers (such as Britain and Dutch) out from their colony in Southeast Asia, which provided a momentum for the declaration of independence from anti-colonial leaders. This effort was successful in Indonesia; but in Indochina, it became an impetus for anti-colonial war (Pham, 2014).

Japanese expansion in the 1940s was preceded by the rise of “Pan-Asianism”, which was manifested in the Japanese idea of “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity”. This idea first emerged in Japan in the late 19th century (after the Meiji Restoration), and then spread to other Asian parts in the early 20th century, either directly or indirectly. It originated from the post-Meiji thinking of Koa (“raising Asia”) which promoted Asian Unity against Western imperialism (Saaler & Szpilman, 2011). Japan’s military victory over Russia brought this idea further to ‘liberate’ other countries by establishing the “Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, which paved the way for Japan’s annexation of Korea (1919), its occupation of Manchuria (1931), and its involvement in the Pacific War (1942-1945).

Even though the Japanese idea of ‘Greater East Asian’ Co-Prosperity did not offer a similar ‘solidarist’ anti-colonial idea as that of the League Against Imperialism, it was Author Manuscript arguably important in the development of the Bandung Conference because Pan- Asianism was politically articulated by Japanese Empire to resist Western colonialism

1 3 The Bandung Legacy

in Asia, which was well-received by Indonesian anticolonial leaders (Stutje, 2016, Aydin, 2007). While the Pan-Asianism idea associated with Japanese imperialism was diminished after Second World War, its legacy evolved in another form. The Asian Relations Conference” (1947) is an important event that aims to revive Pan-Asian idea to a new direction: decolonizing Asian states in world politics (Singh 2011). As exhibited by the ‘After Year Zero’ collaboration The Asian Relations Conference, which was dedicated to support Indonesia’s struggle for independence, sowed the seed of the Bandung Conference (HKW, 2013; Utama, 2017). It marked the re-emergence of the idea of Pan-Asianism, which was led by Indian President Jawaharlal Nehru and supported by Burmese leader, Kyaw Mint. . However, as noted by Appadorai (1979), the discourse of Pan-Asianism was interpreted differently by Indian delegations due to disagreements with Chinese delegates and the unclear notion of the term ‘Asia’ (Appadorai, 1979).

In 1949, Indonesia hosted a conference in Bogor to discuss the possibility of gathering Asian and African countries for the purpose of supporting their struggles against colonialism. This conference sowed the seed for broader cooperation in the 1950s. In 1953, Indonesia’s Prime Minister Ali Sastroamidjojo, with the support of Indonesia’s parliament (the Temporary People’s Representative Assembly/MPRS), upheld the purpose of the conference and made it part of Indonesia’s foreign policy. Two more conferences followed in the subsequent year—one in Colombo, Sri Lanka and another in Bogor, Indonesia—in preparation for the larger Bandung Conference in 1955. The first Conference in Bogor was attended by the five leading Asian states of Indonesia, Burma, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan. During the Colombo Conference, a Final Communique was released, which stated that the five states agreed to share “the desirability of holding a conference of Asian-African nations and favored a proposal that the Prime Minister of Indonesia might explore the possibility of such a conference” (Appadorai, 1955). The plan to hold a an Asian African Conference was then re- embraced in a more concrete action plan at a conference in Bogor that same year, during which the five states agreed to Indonesia’s proposal to convene the Asian and Author Manuscript African conference in Bandung in the subsequent year.

1 4 The Bandung Legacy

notable leaders in Asia and Africa, such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah of Pakistan, UN Secretary GeneralU Nu (Burma), Zhou Enlai (China), Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia), and Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt). Afro-American author, Richard Wright, also attended the Conference and wrote a report after.

“The Bandung Conference produced ten principles, which would later be known as the ‘Bandung Principles’/Dasasila Bandung, including, among others, respect for human rights and sovereignty and territorial rights of states, and respect for the rights of the states to defend themselves. The Joint Communique of the Bandung Conference also “declared its full support of the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations as set in the United Nations Charter, and took note of the United Nations resolutions on the rights of peoples and nations to self-determination, which was a pre-requisite of the full enjoyment of all fundamental Human Rights” (Joint Communique, 1955).

It is therefore important to conceive “Bandung Conference” as a continuation of the anti-colonial struggle before the Second World War, which led to the establishment of several new post-colonial states, such as India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Burma. through the establishment of several new ‘post-colonial’ states (e.g., India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Burma). The notion of right to self-determination for Asian and African nations constitutes the core idea of the conference. In relation to the Bandung Conference’s legacy, the right to self-determination constitutes two meanings in International Relations: First, it set forth the decolonization of Asian and African nations, which were then colonized by European countries, to become new independent states; Second, it aimed to politically call for ‘the making/unmaking of global order. The Bandung Conference was designed to support Asian and African states to obtain independence and, if successful, to create the third bloc that is able to mediate the two emerging forces of world politics at that time, the United States and the Soviet Union. It called for the independence of the ‘Third World’ by awakening its revolutionary forces. The idea of ‘the Third Bloc’ can be traced to two important political thinkers at that time: Soekarno (the President of Indonesia) and Jawaharlal Nehru (the Prime Minister of India), who have engaged, sinceAuthor Manuscript the early 20th century, with emergent nationalist movements that gained momentum in their countries after the Second World War (see Miskovic, Fischer-Tiné, and Boskovska, 2014). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

1 5 The Bandung Legacy

4. Bandung Conference and the Transition to Modern International Order

The previous part suggests that the Bandung Conference could be considered as a ‘resurgence’ of Asian and African states calling for decolonization, cooperation, and development, and for the establishment of equal status among all states in world politics (Nesadurai, 2008; Weber & Winanti, 2016; Nurhayati, Dunne, & Devetak, 2016). Some argued that the Bandung Conference embraced a form of ‘internationalism’ that put forward the aspirations of newly independent states amidst the US-Soviet rivalry (Weber & Winanti 2016, Amrith, 2005). Given the historical background of the Bandung Conference, I argue that the Bandung Conference can be viewed as a further development of ‘post-colonial sovereignty’ at the global level. This also reveals the role of Bandung Conference in international order transition , in which Bandung Conference plays significant role through its call for “global decolonization”. Having understood the transformation as “transition”, I argue that Bandung Conference plays an important role as a to mediate the transition from colonial order to post-war international order after the Second World War. Bandung Conference’s role is important to delegitimize colonialism and pave the way for an international system that is based upon equal status among states in world politics. I substantiate this argument by explaining the limited outreach of Bandung Conference during the Cold War, which sheds light to another role of Bandung Conference to establish a modern international order based on sovereignty and equal status among states.

The Limits of “Bandung Effect”?

The Bandung Conference was successful in leading efforts in decolonization in global politics as well as laying the foundation for political cooperation among Southeast Asian states in terms of decolonization (see Reid 2008). Apart from these, it was , however, evident that the Bandung Conference did not seem to propose a promising base for regionalism in Southeast Asia. This was due to the division between a state’s Author Manuscript interests and the external political interest in the region that limited cooperation. An example of this was the establishment of the US-led Southeast Asian Treaty

1 6 The Bandung Legacy

Organization (SEATO) that included the Philippines and Thailand to counter communist propaganda in the region. Indonesia and other states, who aimed to maintain neutrality in their foreign policies, rejected this SEATO initiative. The post-1960s marked the decline of ‘Bandung’s Effect” in world politics, which was replaced by the ‘New International Economic Order’ initiatives from developing states in the United Nations. The new international order, which set another proposal for the post-colonial state in terms of managing their economies and development, was adopted as a UN Resolution in 1972.

The world politics from the 1960s until 1970s was marked by three important features of global transformation, which was closely related to the decline of ‘third worldism’. First, there had been domestic political changes in the middle of 1960s in several Asian and African states that previously had very strong nationalist views in world politics. Amidst the political turbulences in 1965-66, Sukarno was toppled by a series of demonstrations and was later replaced by Soeharto, whose ideological vision of world politics was closer with that of United States’ interests (Robison, 1986). In Burma, the military coup successfully installed General Ne Win in the country’s top leadership, having abandoned the progressive nationalist foreign policy of former Prime Minister U Nu. Such political changes also occurred in African states with the death of Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt) and Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), thereby transforming their approaches (as well as several other African states) to world politics.

Second, there was also a ‘developmental turn’ in international political economy, which was characterised by the state’s increasingly strengthened role in managing its economy. This developmental turn was made possible by the ‘oil boom’, which allowed many resource-rich countries to benefit from managing their own economies. In several countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and other Middle Eastern countries, the oil boom and developmental turn were accompanied by two modes of governance: (1) the planned economy, which was based on a prescribed developmental model in a long- term phase; and (2) authoritarian politics, which incorporated the planned economy into a strong bureaucratic/militaryAuthor Manuscript rule in governing society. These modes of governance survived until the emergence of neoliberal politics in the US (Ronald Reagan) and UK (Margaret Thatcher,) giving birth to the ‘financial turn’ in 1980s and 1990s. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

1 7 The Bandung Legacy

Third, the 1960s and 1970s era was marked by an increasing conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, which pushed many Asian and African countries, either directly or indirectly, to either side. Despite this, several Asian and African countries declared the non-bloc movement in continuation of the Bandung Conference, thus the alliances that were formed were loose and less political. There were also several new initiatives that attempted to shift cooperation to the regional level, for example the initiative of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Southeast Asia, the Organization of African Union, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in South Asia, or several Free-Trade agreements. The establishment of these new channels of cooperation, which were for political and economic purposes, has weakened the ‘revolutionary’ spirit that has been initiated by Bandung Conference.

These transformations had, from this viewpoint, limited the potentials of Bandung Conference as a global forum to introduce ‘post-colonial sovereignty’ into world politics. Even though the conference had met some successes on, for example, the decolonization policy in the United Nations that led to the emergence of newly independent states, it was limited to setting direction for those newly independent states to govern their politics and economies after declaring independence. As Guan (2008) argued, Bandung itself has failed to produce a long-lasting legacy due to political constraints in Southeast Asia, even though “the spirit” remained vibrant in world politics. The issues of state-building and suppression of minority after independence had also been neglected by international law, which were closely related to the persistence of colonial legacy in the post-colonial states (Spanu, 2014). Bandung Conference’s global outreach, therefore, has been arguably constrained by domestic political changes.

The Emergence of Modern International Order

The latter part of this article shall argue that while the revolutionary spirits of Bandung

Conference hasAuthor Manuscript been constrained in the 1970s, it also plays another role as a as a precursor of ‘international order transition’ in the late 1969. The case of Southeast Asia may be used to illustrate this role. There were two important transformations that This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

1 8 The Bandung Legacy

affected the impact of the Bandung Conference in the region at that time. First, the change of leadership in Indonesia (in 1965-66) and Burma (in 1963) had been crucial in weakening the progress of the Bandung Conference in world politics as they were pivotal in championing the ‘third world’ spirit as an alternative discourse in world politics. The change of leadership led to a change in the direction both their foreign policies. Indonesia, after Sukarno, maintained a more passive approach to global politics and emphasized its role in the region rather than becoming a global player (Sukma, 1995; Anwar, 1994). A quite similar approach was also maintained by Burma, which, under the military junta, tended to be more conservative and inward-looking towards global politics. It, therefore, stagnated the ‘Bandung’ agenda and slowly diluted regional politics.

Second, the rise of ASEAN marked a new phase of “regional order and the establishment of a new international order based on the principle of ‘non-intervention’ and respect for national sovereignty. The establishment of the ASEAN in 1967 also shifted the discourse on regionalism from an internationalist and ‘order-challenging’ form to a less political and economic-based cooperation. ASEAN has declared that it would maintain neutrality and would not intervene in regional or international political issues (Bangkok Declaration, 1967). Furthermore, in its first Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (1976), it reconfirmed its position by stating that cooperation would be based around economic development while politically maintaining neutrality toward global conflict (particularly with the tension over Vietnam) and proposing collective security to encounter any possible threat (Acharya, 2003). Such position successfully prevented Southeast Asia from becoming a site of global conflict, but has also weakened the discourse of anti-colonialism proposed by the Bandung Conference. Therefore, ASEAN has successfully shifted the narratives of regional order in Southeast Asia –from a strong radical and anticolonial approach, as posed by Bandung Conference, to a more conservative and inward-looking approach based on cooperation and respects to sovereignty.

In relation to thisAuthor Manuscript development, in the 1970s, therefore, it is possible to say that the ‘order-challenging’ dimension of the Bandung Conference (as argued by Phillips) had been constrained by domestic political changes and the establishment of a new This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

1 9 The Bandung Legacy

international order. However, it does not mean that the Bandung Legacy has disappeared. Whilst the politics of anti-colonialism was reversed in the 1970s (as shown by the political changes in Indonesia, Burma, Egypt, and Vietnam), the idea of anti- colonial internationalism was transformed into several new modes of resistance to counter the forices of “neocolonialism”. Anti-colonial project of Bandung Conference has been shifted to the resistance against globalization, military intervention, and inequalities in global politics. According to Michael Hardt, emerging social movements after the Cold War such as the World Social Forum has attempted to revive the legacies of Bandung Conference in resisting United States’ dominance in world politics (Hardt, 2002). Relatedly, Weber and Winanti (2016) suggested that the call for New International Economic Order (NIEO) evoked the political legacy of the Bandung Conference in the United Nations, given the strong ‘developmental’ approach undertaken by the Conference participants in the Joint Communique of the Bandung Conference (Joint Communique, 1955; Nesadurai, 2008; Weber, 2016).

It was also evident that the Bandung Conference obtained its political impact through the Decolonization Committee of the UN. The impact was also visible in Southeast Asia, where some countries were trying to decolonize after the 1955 Bandung Conference. Malaysia, for example, obtained their independence from the British in 1957, after the British government set forth an agreement with Malaysian political leaders to create a new state. Several years later, Singapore declared its independence. The conference also brought an impact in several Indochina states, including Cambodia and Laos which gained their independence shortly after the Bandung Conference. Therefore, from a global perspective, the Bandung Conference can be seen as the ‘radicalization’ of post-colonial sovereignty discourse in global politics. At the Bandung Conference, the discourse of ‘post-colonial sovereignty’, which found its manifestation in the form of newly-independent states, was proposed as an alternative form of alliance in global politics. According to Berger (2004), it constituted ‘third-worldism’ as a third discourse of global politics besides the US-led liberal capitalist discourse and the Soviet-led communist camp. At the Bandung Conference, this ‘third worldist’ discourse Author Manuscript contained three important features: (1) anti-colonial struggle, which was manifested in the rights of self-determination; (2) south-to-south cooperation, particularly in terms of

2 0 The Bandung Legacy

economy; and, (3) the respect for human rights, equality, and freedom for all states, without any discrimination (Joint Communique, 1955; Ten Principles, 1955).

This development thus constitutes another role of the Bandung Conference in mediating the transition to the modern international orderThe Bandung Conference, with the central idea of “self-determination’ and the need for development and cooperation, was played significant role for the establishment of a sovereign interstate system in world politics. Between 1945-1970, the state system membership rose drastically from 96 to 176 states, which marked the global outreach of decolonization in world politics. Between 1945 to 1955, the ‘new members of state system only numbered 26. The number tripled from 1955 to 1970 (Correlates of War, 2017). The role of the United Nations was pivotal in this context. In 1960, the United Nations captured the aspiration of the Bandung Conference and gave recommendations for many colonial states to be decolonized. In 1960, a resolution to grant independence to ‘Colonial Countries and Peoples’ was signed by the United Nations General Assembly. The resolution was followed by the establishment of a ‘Committee of Decolonization’ in the United Nations. The resolution, which was then known as Resolution 1514, set a milestone for decolonization in many parts of the world, including Southeast Asia.

5. Conclusion

How did the Bandung Conference affect the international order after Second World War,? In this article, I have demonstrated that the Bandung Conference affected the international order by highlighting the importance of decolonization in world politics and bring it into global politics. While the global outreach of the Conference was limited by domestic political changes and growing Cold War rivalry, I argue that the Conference nevertheless played an important role in bringing about ‘transition’ from the international colonial order, which had been in crisis at the end of the Cold War, to a new Westphalian global state systemic order that put the newly independent states in Author Manuscript equal sovereign positions with former colonizers. Even though the Conference collapsed in the 1960s due to political changes and the rise of US-Soviet rivalry in the

2 1 The Bandung Legacy

Cold War era, as well as the China border war with India, it was important in bringing about the ‘transition’ in the international order.

From this viewpoint, therefore, Bandung Conference constituted an important site of ‘transition’ from the international colonial order—which was in crisis after the second world war but had not yet demised in the global level—to a Westphalian interstate system. It is in this context that the Bandung Conference found its relevance to the study of International Relations. I argue that the legacies of Bandung Conference could be reconceptualized in terms of its ‘transitional’ role in bringing about decolonization in world politics. This was a global struggle that was initiated by a network of anti- colonial activists in world politics since 1920s. Even though the early precursor of Bandung, the League against Imperialism, was invented by the Communist network, the idea went beyond ideological divide, which paved the way for the establishment of anti-colonial internationalism after Second World War. The fact that the outreach was limited, and the ways in which post-colonial states engaged in world politics after the Bandung Conference changed due to domestic changes and international political dynamism, did not make the Bandung Conference irrelevant. Instead, it showed the possibility of articulating the “Bandung Spirit” in a different form of resistance in the present day.

It can be also concluded that the current state system in world politics is not merely a “European expansion”, as International Relations scholars argued (Bull & Watson, 1984; Jackson, 1992), but rather a result of a radical transformation in world politics put forward by anti-colonial struggles (Gettachew 2018). Understanding the legacies of Bandung Conference through this lens will provide an alternative understanding of ‘international order’ not only in terms of Westphalian systems of sovereign states, but also a result of global decolonization politics.

REFERENCES Author Manuscript

Abraham, Itty. (2008). “Bandung and State Formation in Post-colonial Asia” in Acharya, A & Tan, S. S. (Eds.). Bandung revisited: The Legacy of the 1955 Asian- This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

2 2 The Bandung Legacy

African Conference for International Order. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.

Acharya, Amitav. (2003). Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London and New York: Routledge.

Acharya, Amitav. (2011). Can Asia Lead? Power Ambitions and Global Governance in the Twenty-First Century. International Affairs, 87 (4): 851-869.

Acharya, Amitav. (2016). Studying the Bandung conference from a Global IR perspective. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(4), 342-357.

Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2009). “Why is There Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction”in Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (Eds.). Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. London and New York: Routledge.

Acharya, A.mitav., & Tan, See Seng. (2008). “Introduction: The Normative Relevance of the Bandung Conference for Contemporary Asian and International Order” in Acharya, A & Tan, S. S. (eds). Bandung revisited: The Legacy of the 1955 Asian- African Conference for International Order. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.

Amrith, Sunil S. (2005). Asian internationalism: Bandung’s echo in a colonial metropolis. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 6(4), 557-569.

Anievas, Alexander. & Nişancıoğlu, Kerem. (2018). How the West came to rule: The geopolitical origins of capitalism. Pluto Press.

Anwar, Dewi Fortuna (1994). Indonesia in ASEAN: Foreign Policy and Regionalism. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Appadorai, Angadipuram. (1955). “The Bandung Conference” India Quarterly: A Author Manuscript Journal of International Affairs, 11(3): 207-235.

2 3 The Bandung Legacy

International Studies 18(3): 275-285.

Aydin, C. (2007). The politics of anti-Westernism in Asia: visions of world order in pan-Islamic and pan-Asian thought. Columbia University Press.

Beeson, Mark. & Stubbs, Richard. (2012). Routledge Handbook of Asian Regionalism. London: Routledge.

Benjamin, Bret. (2015). Bookend to Bandung: The New International Economic Order and the Antinomies of the Bandung Era. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 6(1), 33-46.

Berger, Mark. T. (2004). “After the Third World? History, Destiny and the Fate of Third Worldism”. Third World Quarterly, 25(1): 9-39.

Brigg, Morgan., Wilson, Lee; de Jalong, Frans, & Sugiono, Muhadi. (2016). Diversity, democratization and Indonesian leadership. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(4), 407-421.

Bull, Hedley. (1979). Natural Law and International Relations. British Journal of International Studies, 5(2): 171-181.

Burke, Roland. (2011). Decolonization and the Evolution of International Human Rights. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Chakrabarty, Deepak. (2009). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Correlates of War Project. (2017). "State System Membership List, v2016." Retrieved from http://correlatesofwar.org

Devetak, Richard; Dunne, T. & Nurhayati, R. (2016). Bandung 60 years on: revolt and resilience in international society. Australian Journal of International

Affairs, 70(4),Author Manuscript 358-373.

Doyle, M. W. (1986). Empires. Cornell University Press.

2 4 The Bandung Legacy

El-Ayouty, Yassin. (1972/2012). The United Nations and decolonization: the role of Afro—Asia. Springer Science & Business Media.

Escobar, Arturo. (2004). Beyond the Third World: imperial globality, global coloniality and anti-globalization social movements. Third World Quarterly, 25(1), 207-230.

Eslava, Luis Fakhri, Michael & Nesiah, Vasuki. (Eds.). (2017). Bandung, Global History, and International Law: Critical Pasts and Pending Futures. Cambridge University Press.

Geldart, Carol, & Lyon, Peter. (1980). The Group of 77: A perspective view. International Affairs 57(1), 79-101.

Getachew, A. (2019). Worldmaking after empire: The rise and fall of self- determination. Princeton University Press.

Gettig, Eric. (2015). Trouble Ahead in Afro-Asia: The United States, the Second Bandung Conference, and the Struggle for the Third World, 1964–1965." Diplomatic History 39(1): 126-156.

Gilman, Nils. (2015). The new international economic order: A reintroduction. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 6(1), 1-16.

Guan, Ang Cheng. (2008). The Bandung conference and the cold war international history of Southeast Asia. In Acharya, A & Tan, S. S. (Eds). Bandung revisited: The Legacy of the 1955 Asian-African Conference for International Order. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.

Hardt, Michael. (2002). Today's Bandung? New Left Review 14:112-115.

“After Year Zero: Geographies of Collaboration since 1945” Exhibition Presented at HKW, October 3–5 and November 23–24 2013 Author Manuscript

Herrera, Remy. (2005). Fifty Years after the Bandung Conference: Towards a Revival of the Solidarity between the Peoples of the South? Interview with Samir Amin. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

2 5 The Bandung Legacy

Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 6(4): 546-556.

Hongoh, Joseph. (2016). The Asian-African Conference (Bandung) and Pan- Africanism: the challenge of reconciling continental solidarity with national sovereignty. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(4), 374-390.

Jackson, Robert H. (1993). Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lay, Cornelis. (2016). The Bandung Spirit: Nation State and Democracy. Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities 6 (1): 1-10.

Manela, Erez. (2007). The Wilsonian moment: self-determination and the international origins of anticolonial nationalism. Oxford University Press.

Matin, Kamran. & Anievas, Alexander. (2016). Historical sociology and world history: uneven and combined development over the longue durée. Rowman & Littlefield International.

Nesadurai, Helen. E. (2008). Bandung and the political economy of north-south relations: sowing the seeds for revisioning international society. In Acharya, A. and Tan, SS. (Eds). Bandung revisited: The legacy of the 1955 Asian-African conference for international order. Singapore: NUS Press.

Osterhammel, J. (2005). Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, translated by Shelley Frish (Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener).

Pasha, Mustapha Kemal. (2013). The “Bandung Impulse and International Relations in Seth, S. (Ed.). Postcolonial Theory and International Relations: A Critical Introduction. Oxon: Routledge.

Patel, Rajeev & McMichael, Phillip. (2004). Third Worldism and the Lineages of Global Fascism: the Regrouping of the Global South in the Neoliberal Era. Third Author Manuscript World Quarterly 25 (1): 231-254.

2 6 The Bandung Legacy

Münzenberg, the League against Imperialism, and the Comintern, 1925-1933. Doctoral Dissertation, Abo Akademi University.

Petersson, Fredrik. (2014). Hub of the anti-imperialist movement: The league against imperialism and Berlin, 1927–1933. Interventions, 16(1), 49-71.

Pham, Andrew. (2014). Woodrow Wilson’s Self-Determination as an Impetus for the French Indochina War of 1946. Research Paper, University of Denver, June 2014.

Phạm, Quynh & Shilliam, Robbie. (Eds.). (2016). Meanings of Bandung: postcolonial orders and decolonial visions. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

Phillips, Andrew. (2010). War, religion and empire: The transformation of international orders. Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, Andrew. (2016). Beyond Bandung: the 1955 Asian-African Conference and its legacies for international order. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(4), 329-341.

Phillips, Andrew. & Hiariej, Eric. (2016). Beyond the ‘Bandung divide’? Assessing the scope and limits of Australia–Indonesia security cooperation. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(4), 422-440.

Prashad, Vijay. (2007). The Darker Nations-A Biography of the Short-Lived Third World. Leftword Books.

Reid, Anthony. (2008). “The Bandung Conference and Southeast Asian Regionalism” in Acharya, A & Tan, S. S. (Eds.). Bandung Revisited: The Legacy of the 1955 Asian-African Conference for International Order. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.

Rupprecht, Tobias. (1989/2015). Soviet internationalism after Stalin: interaction and exchange between the USSR and Latin America during the Cold War. Cambridge Author Manuscript University Press.

2 7 The Bandung Legacy

Fanon, and the Bandung spirit. Constellations, 23(3), 425-435.

Shimazu, Naoko. (2014). Diplomacy as Theatre: Staging the Bandung Conference of 1955. Modern Asian Studies 48 (1): 225-252.

Spanu, Maja. (2014). “What is Self-‐determination Today? Using History to Understand

International Relations.” e-IR, April 2014.

Spanu, Maja. (2015). The idea of self-determination: hierarchy and order after empire. Doctoral dissertation, Florence: European University Institute.

Stubbs, Richard. (2014). ASEAN's Leadership in East Asian Region-Building: Strength in Weakness. The Pacific Review 27(4): 523-541.

Stutje, Klaas. (2015). To Maintain an Independent Course. Inter-war Indonesian Nationalism and International Communism on a Dutch-European Stage. Dutch Crossing, 39(3), 204-220.

Stutje, K. (2016). Behind the Banner of Unity: Nationalism and anticolonialism among Indonesian students in Europe, 1917-1931 (Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam).

Sukma, Rizal. (1995). The Evolution of Indonesia's Foreign Policy. Asian Survey, 35(3): 304-315.

Saaler, Sven. & Szpilman, Christopher. (Eds.). (2011). Pan-Asianism: A Documentary History, 1920–Present (Vol. 1). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Singh, Sinderpal (2011). From Delhi to Bandung: Nehru,‘Indian-ness’ and ‘Pan-Asian- ness’. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 34(1), 51-64.

Teschke, Benno. (2002). Theorizing the Westphalian System of States: International Relations from Absolutism to Capitalism. European Journal of International Author Manuscript Relations, 8(1): 5-48.

2 8 The Bandung Legacy

Archive. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/

Umar, Ahmad Rizky. (2017). “The Bandung Ideology: Anti-Colonial Internationalism and Indonesia’s Foreign Policy (1945-1965)” Asian Review 30 (2): 29-50.

Utama, Wildan Sena. (2017). Konferensi Asia-Afrika: Asal-Usul Intelektual dan Warisannya bagi Gerakan Global Anti-Imperialisme. Tangerang Selatan: Marjin Kiri.

Valdez, Jonathan C. (1993). Internationalism and the Ideology of Soviet Influence in Eastern Europe (Vol. 89). Cambridge University Press.

Weatherbee, Donald E. (2014). International relations in Southeast Asia: the struggle for autonomy. Rowman & Littlefield.

Weber, Heloise E. (2016). “The political significance of Bandung for development: challenges, contradictions and struggles for justice.” in Phạm, Q. N., & Shilliam, R. (Eds.). (2016). Meanings of Bandung: postcolonial orders and decolonial visions. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

Weber, Heloise . & Winanti, Poppy . (2016). The ‘Bandung spirit’ and solidarist internationalism. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(4), 391-406.

Wolff, Steffan. & Rodt, Annemarie . (2013). Self-determination after Kossovo. Europe- Asia Studies, 65 (5): 799-822.

The Joint Communique of the 1955 Asian and African Conference. Author Manuscript

2 9