Little useful purpose can be served by crystal gazing into the future. Such forecasts as "we foresee its failure," or "the meeting is doomed to fail" which appeared in a Hongkong Chinese daily on January 3 do not contribute much to an understanding of the possibilities of the conference. We prefer an analysis of the known factors.
The communique of December 29 gave some interesting facts about the proposed membership of the Bandung Conference. "The Prime Ministers agreed that the conference will have a broad and geographical basis. All countries in Asia which have independent governments will be invited, and with minor variations and modifications of this basic principle, they decided to invite the following 25 countries: Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Central African Federation, China (the puppet Peiping regime), Egypt, Ethiopia, the Gold Coast, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Nepal, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Yemen. The above 25 countries, with the five sponsoring countries, namely, Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia and Pakistan, will, it is hoped, participate in the conference."
Of the 30 countries, 23 are in Asia and only seven are in Africa. The minor variations and modifications of the basic principle of inviting all countries in Asia which have independent governments covered the exclusion of Israel, the puppet regime of North Korea, the Republic of Korea and the Republic of China. Israel was excluded because the Moslem states would not like to sit at the same conference table with her. None of the Colombo powers recognizes the Government of the Republic of China. The exclusion of the puppet regime of North Korea and the Republic of Korea cannot be readily explained.
In laying down the basic principle of inviting "all countries in Asia which have independent" governments, the sponsoring powers pointedly omitted Africa after specifying "Asia." The failure to mention Africa was probably necessitated by their refusal to consider the inclusion of the Union of South Africa. The guiding genius of Jawaharlal Nehru can be clearly seen. The classification of Nepal and Sudan as "in dependent governments" indicates some bias.
Turkey, having rejected the idea of joining in an alliance with the Arab powers on the ground that NATO is the only real protection for the Middle East, is likely to be very careful about attendance at the Bandung Conference. Japan will not be able to make a reply until after the general election of February 27. Vice President Carlos P. Garcia of the Philippines indicated on January 4 that the inclusion of the puppet Peiping regime "would place difficulties for the Philippines to send delegates to a meeting where a country with whom she does not intend to have diplomatic relations will have a say in the policies to be formulated at that conference." The puppet Peiping Communist press indicated on January 5 that the Soviet Union might have been invited on the ground that it is as much an Asian as a European power.
The communique went to great lengths in trying to persuade the disparate elements among the invitees to accept the invitation. It took pains to point out that "acceptance of the invitation by anyone country would in no way involve or imply any other change in its view of the status of any other country," "that the form of government and the way of life of any one country should in no way be subject to interference by any other" and "that any view expressed at the conference by one or more participating countries would not be binding on, or be regarded as accepted by, any other unless the latter so desired." "The basic purpose of the conference," the communique went on to emphasize, "is that the countries concerned should become better acquainted with one another's point of view."
The purposes of the conference would be (1) to promote cooperation among the participating nations, (2) to consider social, economic and cultural problems of the participating nations, (3) to consider problems affecting national sovereignty and of racialism and colonialism and (4) to study the contributions the participating nations may make to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.
The sponsoring countries made their views known in the communique. They are opposed to the formation of power blocs and the polarization of nations into two hostile camps. The Colombo powers maintain that they themselves are not a bloc, that they have no permanent organization and are not linked by any alliance. They are as opposed to anti-Communism as they are to Communism.
They charge that the United States is too obsessed with Communism. India, Burma and Indonesia among the sponsoring countries oppose SEATO on the ground that it creates a military bloc provocative to the puppet Peiping regime.
They are opposed to all vestiges of colonialism. They supported the position of Indonesia in the matter of West New Guinea. They expressed the hope that the Netherlands Government would reopen negotiations to implement her treaty obligations. They expressed their continued support "to the demands of the peoples of Tunisia and Morocco for their national independence and their legitimate rights of self determination."
They reiterate their concern in respect of the destructive potential of nuclear and thermo-nuclear explosions for experimental purposes and call for "a cessation of such experiments."
They believe in an effort to establish workable relations with the Communist world. The Peiping regime, they claim, is to a considerable extent an upsurge against the years of outside Western domination and, internal social and economic decay. They maintain that once the spirit of revolt is sublimated, the Peiping regime will not necessarily be aggressive. With some reservations on the part of Pakistan, the sponsoring states believe the way to deal with the Peiping regime is to accord it a seat in the United Nations and full acceptance in world councils. On this ground, the sponsoring states "expressed gratification at the result of the Geneva Conference on Indochina and the cessation of hostilities. They expressed the hope that the Geneva agreements would be fully respected and implemented by all concerned, and that there would be no outside interference which would hinder their successful implementation."
Because of the divergence in the points of view of the participating countries, large areas of agreement on concrete problems cannot be reasonably expected. In exploiting the resentment against colonialism and imperialism of peoples who have only recently gained independence, the Asian-African Conference will furnish a convenient point of departure for the propaganda of the puppet Peiping Communist regime.
Instead of creating better understanding among the participating countries, the struggle for leadership in the conference and subsequent to it may cause some trouble. If India would try to insinuate herself into the better graces of the Arab countries, she would not be improving her relations with either Egypt or Pakistan. Should India let Peiping have too great a hold on the conference, Nehru would be jeopardizing his own position of preeminence. Vice versa, Peiping could not be expected to play second fiddle.
Whichever way such interplay of forces works out, Peiping has nothing to lose. She gets a platform to air her views; she gets a chance to hoodwink the more gullible among the participants.
The philosophy of the proposed conference cannot be, divorced from the desire of India to play "Follow the Leader" with the other youngsters of the neighborhood with herself as leader. The leadership of India is essentially in the hands of Nehru. A generation ago, Nehru wrote: "Much in Soviet Russia I dislike-the ruthless suppression of all contrary opinion, the wholesale regimentation, the unnecessary violence…but there is no lack of violence in the capitalistic world." In the final analysis, Communist violence is to be preferred, for "violence was common in both places, but the violence of the capitalist order seemed inherent in it, whilst the violence in Russia, bad though it was, aimed at a new order based on peace and cooperation and real freedom for the masses."
Such are still Jawaharlal Nehru's views. Such seems to be the philosophy underlying the proposed Bandung Conference.
* * * *
It is impossible to make everything in the world conform to our wishes. We should, therefore, guard against getting angry. When one is angry, one is likely to say something inappropriate. Eight or nine out of every ten circumstances confronting us in life are such as to give us a feeling of frustration. The only thing we can do is to deal with them with patience…. Just because people are unable to control their mind, they easily become irritated whenever they meet with some frustration, and their spirit and mental powers are thereby seriously affected. Hence an ancient proverb says that irritability is a sharp weapon which injures one's health while patience is the indispensable key to success.
Lu Peng-po