Sustaining the Bandung Spirit

After decades of enjoying multilateral cooperation, an open global economy, and the rules-based order, the world has now entered another tumultuous period. Domestic social and economic landscapes and the fundamentals of the international community are rapidly transforming. At home, many leaders care about retaining power more than conserving principles. Abroad, a de-globalization movement complains about the downsides, including the loss of jobs and the shuttering of domestic manufacturing industries. The most dangerous part of all is that populism heavily clouds the judgement of a country with so much entrenched hard and soft power.

This ongoing reality calls for reflection on the 1955 Asian-African Conference, also known as the Bandung Conference. As this year marks the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference, it is necessary to retrofit the principles.

Looking back at the Bandung Conference, the participating nations regarded the United Nations as the most meaningful ground to assert agency and defend independence. Furthermore, they imagined the UN as a collective force to ensure equitable rights and the fulfilling of the responsibilities of the international community. To make this point, they mentioned some principles of the Charter of the United Nations in the Bandung principles: respect for fundamental human rights, respect for the right to self-defense and the peaceful settlement of disputes. However, since the global order subsequently transformed into bipolar and then unipolar moments, the UN found itself incapacitated to tackle some delicate matters.

The Ukraine crisis and the Middle East crisis have proved this is still the case today. While the UN still serves as a pivotal platform, its contributions barely deliver the three related messages from the Bandung principles. The challenge is no easier following the dramatic withdrawal of the one superpower from several UN agencies and international treaties. Although this is not the first time such a move has been exercised, the damage is slightly broader, as some countries are now following suit and reconsidering their participation in UN-related frameworks. At the same time, other like-minded developed countries are also showing their inclination to pursue so-called minilateral initiatives which sooner or later may cut the financial resources of multilateral institutions.

Beyond the political-security realm, the Bandung Conference also envisioned a non-zero-sum world in which mutual interests would be promoted while anchoring the rules of the game in international obligations to avoid blatant pressure on other countries. This idea may not necessarily echo the capitalist or free market proposals from the liberal camp, since the Bandung principles emphasize "justice" and "equality". It is more about a facilitated free flow of goods, capital and talent that positively benefits developing countries, as reflected in the UN General Assembly resolution on the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order. However, problems began to emerge after the Doha Development Agenda reached a stalemate in 2008 over agricultural subsidies and market access for developing countries.

A more complicated aspect of that saga is not the emergence of bilateral, regional or plurilateral free trade agreements. Instead, it is the changing United States' strategy. Just days ago, the White House has imposed "reciprocal tariffs" on all countries, rendering its multiple trade agreements and free trade regime virtually meaningless. This blanket approach does not even exempt US treaty allies such as Thailand and the Philippines, countries with which the US has maintained a trade surplus such as Singapore, or developing economies such as Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. This represents a complete reset of the global economy, and without a doubt, the Bandung principles require recalibration in the US' tariff-centric world. Especially considering that the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement body has also been paralyzed since the first Trump administration deliberately blocked new judge appointments to its Appellate Body in 2019.

Like other international norms, the Bandung principles cannot revitalize themselves. The future of the Bandung principles is what the Bandung Conference participants make for them. That is why China and Indonesia as the two emerging economies from the Global South should shoulder the responsibility of retrofitting those principles into the context of the new strategic external challenges.

First, on the declining multilateralism, China and Indonesia should ensure that their cooperative initiatives complement the work of multilateral agencies rather than compete against them. The 2023 BRICS Summit Johannesburg II Declaration and the BRICS Informal Consultative Framework on WTO issues are indeed great small steps to achieve this complementarity, but as BRICS incorporates new members, those normative ideals may be worth revisiting again. China and Indonesia could also leverage their shared diplomatic platforms such as the G77+China and the G20 to further discuss any proposal related to strengthening multilateral agencies.

Second, on the declining open global economy, China and Indonesia should seek to ensure that their immediate backyards remain committed to inclusive regionalism practices. Signing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in 2020, resuscitating the trilateral framework among East Asian countries, and upgrading the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area 3.0 to address emerging issues, such as the digital and green economy, are significant achievements, but they are not enough. To sustain the Bandung Spirit for another 70 years, these efforts must be coupled with meaningful coordination with the rest of the world to unleash the potential of collective actions.

The immediate test is indeed the new global tariff reality. While responses may vary due to differing modalities and applied rates, it is essential to resist the temptation to act selfishly or ignore the struggles of others. The next step should not be limited to resuscitating the open economy, but also focus on preparing new norms for the new situation. Only by remaining mindful and agile can the life expectancy of the Bandung principles be extended for another 70 years and beyond.

Muhammad Habib Abiyan Dzakwan is a researcher at the Department of International Relations at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Indonesia. Wang Yuehong is an assistant researcher at the RCEP Research Institute at the China Institute for Reform and Development. The authors contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.