The Bandung Moment: Genesis of a Decolonised World Order

By Talha Haroon

Source: The Decolonial Centre

Emerging from an era reverberating with the roars of cannons and preceding one driven by economic ambition, the 1950s represented a revolutionary zeitgeist. In this age, nascent countries, previously shackled to imperial hegemony, ventured towards equitable global standing. In this endeavour, 29 Asian–African nations — representing two-thirds of the world’s population at the time — convened in Bandung to create a decolonised world order. While the conference featured various deliberations, its final communiqué emerged as a lodestar for transformative independence, not just from political domination, but from the neocolonial levers of economic hegemony. Due to this ambitious reimagining of world politics, many have stressed the disappointments of Bandung, increasingly evidenced by the unabated strength of the current configuration of the international politico-economic system. Others, however, focus on the solidarity movements that have developed from Bandung.

As Eslava et al. write, Bandung acts as a “trace”, prevailing across “disparate spaces” and “trajectories of time” to tackle “old and new forms of resistance and oppression.” Mirroring this latter conception, which has been espoused by scholars such as Robert Cox and Richard Wright among others, Bandung’s success lies in its role as the catalyst of the Bandung Era, evidenced materially by the founding of political initiatives such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the New International Economic Order of 1974 (NIEO), and more intellectually by the principles of solidarity. By exploring this temporal lineage across revolutionary movements, Bandung becomes a timeless political framework that inspires resistance against inequities permeating contemporary Global North-South dynamics.

An Anti-Imperialist Ethic

Bandung represented a seminal moment in the history of colonised peoples. Richard Wright, the noted African-American writer, outlined in The Colour Curtain that the conference drew attention to the “lifeline of imperialism” running from the “Straits of Gibraltar, through the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea, and the Sea of Japan”. From a realist lens, a convergence of nations with such distinct cultures, histories, and agendas would seldom culminate in a homogenised outcome. The colonial experiences of these nations, ranging from British-French colonialism in South Asia/Africa to Dutch and Japanese imperialism in South-East Asia, should have prevented meaningful collaboration. Yet, Bandung transcended realpolitik, acting instead as a concerted undertaking to dismantle structures of global politico-economic subordination that stemmed from colonial pasts. As Chakrabarty aptly notes, Bandung was the founding of a “shared anti-imperialist ethic”: a political and emotional consciousness centred on self-determination.

This emotional rationality arose from centuries of subjugation. The colonial project was universal in its extractive impact — eroding political agency, resources, and dignity of acquired nations. More importantly, it sustained a precedent which has been “transmuted into the structures of the current world order”. Despite the advancements of neoliberal globalisation, the ability of a few nations to dictate economic and policy frameworks continues to sideline Global South sovereignty. In this light, Bandung stands as an unshakeable symbol of insubordination, urging us to envisage international relations not as a hierarchy but as a multiplex system in the pursuit of universal dignity and justice. This ethos materialised in both political and economic domains: the former via the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a coalition of nations independent from enveloping Cold War blocs, and the latter via the critique of the Bretton Woods System, the economic architecture established by the Global North in the aftermath of World War II. Both instances fomented an epoch of defiance in global politics: the Bandung Era.

NAM: Birth of Neutralism

Following independence, the nations at Bandung sought to distance themselves from the hegemonic blocs forming under the US and the USSR. Though NAM’s diversity and emphasis on consensus decision-making limited its capacity to dismantle hegemonic systems, it established a precedent for collective resistance. It did so primarily concerning the status of periphery states within institutions such as the UN Security Council (UNSC), demanding that “…states which were precluded from election [be] enabled to serve on the Security Council, so that they might make a more effective contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security”. With recent political events typifying a disregard for the UNSC, returning to NAM’s constitution reinforces the importance of institutional reform. NAM allowed emerging nations to challenge the very institutions enacted to exert influence upon the Global South against their instigators.

Crucially, the Bandung–NAM association was one of progress. Bandung’s role in advancing the narrative of resistance became inculcated in the identity of the leaders of NAM. For instance, an extract from former Indian Prime Minister Nehru’s speech at Bandung captures the modus operandi of the Global South: “If I join any of these big groups, I lose my identity... It is an intolerable thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into freedom only to degrade themselves and humiliate themselves in this way.” Thus, the synergy between the neutralist political philosophy of Bandung and NAM laid the groundwork for collective postcolonial agency. Though ruptures limited the impact of the association, their genesis echoes in our political climate, where Global South bodies such as BRICS and G77 contest colonial endurances via cooperation and solidarity. Without Bandung, the framework for NAM and other expressions of resistance would not exist.

Resisting Hegemony: The Bretton Woods System

Bandung’s resistance was further amplified through the critique of the Bretton Woods institutions – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – which enshrined a global economic order that prioritises the interests of the Global North, perpetuating dependency and exploitation in the Global South. Rooted in neo-colonial structures, these institutions operate on a solidarity antithetical to Bandung’s, with the laissez-faire dictum permeating economic methodologies. As Moore-Sieray observed in Africa, this expansive monetary system fuelled the Comprador theory, the idea that post-colonial states “exist mainly to facilitate the exploitative, neo-colonialist activities of foreign capital enterprise.” To counteract the inevitability of this fate, Bandung admonished nations to develop an alternative solidarity that champions South-South cooperation. The establishment of this solidarity – in opposition to Bretton Woods – relays the gravity of the conference, in which the Global South emerged as an autonomous actor in global politics. Though chronologically post-1955, its ideational worth acts as a vital signpost for coordinated measures of resistance. The foremost instance of this was seen in 1974, with the founding of the New International Economic Order (NIEO).

Bandung and the NIEO

The NIEO of 1974, a transformative proposal to address the inequalities of the global economy, sought to elevate the position of developing nations marginalised by the postwar political-economic architecture. Robert Cox, the acclaimed critical theorist, conceptualised NIEO as both a “negotiation process” and a “challenge to the intellectual hegemony of liberal economics and its rationality”. Examining both conceptions reveals the extent of Bandung’s influence on the NIEO.

As a “negotiation process,” NIEO advanced a collective impetus for equitable representation in multilateral institutions. Just as Bandung brought together nations to forge South-South cooperation, the NIEO mobilised solidarity within formal platforms like the UN advocating for equal terms of international trade through its foundational policies: fair access to markets for deprived nations and developmental assistance unattached to restrictive conditionalities. By focusing on these issues at the heart of the Global South, the NIEO’s demands unveiled the monetary and social expenditures that bound the budgets of emerging economies.

Similarly, the NIEO functioned as a “challenge to the intellectual hegemony of liberal economics,” rejecting the universalism of free markets and privileging localised frameworks as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach. In this regard, the NIEO created a system that asserted the rights of nations to pursue endogenous development paths, a principle initially articulated at Bandung. Interventions by development institutions in the developing world often impose policy frameworks that seldom integrate the day-to-day capabilities of beneficiaries. This divide between the prescriptions of policymakers and the actual challenges of nations within the Global South was contested by the NIEO, which repositioned human beings as valuable ends in themselves, instead of mere instruments of growth. As Benjamin writes, while revolutionary in ambition, “much of the basic argumentative framework of the NIEO Declaration can already be located in the Bandung Communiqué.” Consequently, the NIEO channelled the legacy of Bandung and amplified the intellectual, political, and economic voice of the Global South.

Conclusion

The Bandung Conference was a unique politico-economic moment, with its spirit continuing to underpin the notion of self-determination in contemporary politics. Demonstrating the multifaceted impact of political initiatives, Bandung shaped a discourse born in the darkness of a colonial past with an eye toward the future of integration. By ushering in an epoch of solidarity among decolonised nations, embodied by movements such as the NAM and transformative proposals like the NIEO, the conference illuminated the structural barriers inherent in the global political-economic system. However, the continued monopoly of Western politico-economic institutions has historically neutralised initiatives embodying the Bandung spirit, limiting the revolutionary abilities required to reconfigure the international system.

Nevertheless, Bandung’s true significance lies beyond its immediate outcomes, with its ideological strength stirring the adoption of various counter-movements. Examples such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the New Development Bank (NDB), and other regional development networks challenge the dominance of Western institutions and promote alternative frameworks for multilateral cooperation. These efforts, along with the ongoing relevance of the NIEO through its advocacy by Progressive International, relay the enduring impact of the Bandung Era. Ultimately, as we navigate today’s shifting political-economic landscape, the imperative of Bandung – to collectively shape the contours of history toward a more just and equitable world – remains as vital as ever.

---

Talha Haroon is a third-year Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) student at the University of Nottingham, with a focus on international political economy and global development. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Nottingham Economic Review, Senior Editor at Global Weekly, Editor and Analyst at Geopol Report, and Editorial Manager at the Andalus Committee. His academic interests are grounded in interdisciplinary inquiry and a commitment to rethinking the global order beyond dominant paradigms. Alongside his editorial work, Talha is engaged in research examining geoeconomic strategy, economic statecraft, and the dynamics of economic and social development in the Global South.