Re-visiting the Bandung Conference through the Eyes of a Norwergian Newspaper.

Editor

As JSAS prepares for its 2025 conference under the keynote subtheme “Peace and Conflict in Afrasia: Seventy Years after the Bandung Conference, where are Asian African relations today?”, we are pleased to share an article reflecting on this pivotal history and its contemporary significance. The piece is a translation of an interview, originally published in a Norwegian newspaper, Klassekampen, with our own Professor Seifudein Adem (Visiting Professor at the Institute for Advanced Research and Education, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan). In the interview, Prof. Adem revisits the 1955 Bandung Conference, where leaders from 29 Asian and African countries charted a new course of solidarity and cooperation in the midst of decolonization. He argues that the “Bandung Spirit” of shared resistance to colonial domination continues to shape global South relations today, even as new alignments—such as BRICS—emerge as possible successors to that legacy. Seventy years on, Prof. Adem reflects on how Bandung’s call for sovereignty, mutual respect, and peaceful coexistence resonates in an era of shifting power balances and contested global orders. His insights provide timely context for Afrasian debates on peace, conflict, and the future of interregional cooperation.

The Article

70 years after they gathered at the Bandung Conference, the countries of the Global South are building a new global order.

(By Yohan Shanmugaratnam. January 23.)

On the list of events in 1955, a few things stand out: Elvis Presley made his TV debut. McDonald's opened the first of what are now 40,000 franchises worldwide. The United States launched a nuclear-powered submarine, three years ahead of the Soviet Union, and announced its plans to develop intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.

But in the same year that these signs of cultural and military dominance emerged in the United States, something remarkable was happening on the other side of the world—an event whose long-term repercussions we may only now be beginning to fully see.

Let Us Take Over Again

There, during a defining week in April 1955, the Asian-African Conference was held in Bandung, on the Indonesian island of Java. Leaders and delegates from 29 former and then-current colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East gathered to chart their own course in the world.

The host city was steeped in relevant history. One of the most well-known events of Indonesia’s often bloody struggle for independence took place in Bandung. During a retreat and mass evacuation in 1946, Indonesian forces burned down the southern part of the city rather than allow the invading troops to take it intact.

In a song about the tactical retreat, as quoted in the book The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World (2007) by Vijay Prashad, it says:

Hey, hey Bandung, the city of memories / I haven’t seen you in a long time / Now you are a sea of flames / Let us take over again, comrade.

Within three years, the Indonesians had not only reclaimed Bandung but also the rest of their vast archipelago. Liberation leader Sukarno became the republic’s first president. But beneath the political foundations of the world, greater seismic forces were at play. Anti-colonial movements drew inspiration from one another across continents, intensifying their efforts to rid their nations of European colonial rulers, one country at a time. "Let us take over again" was, in other words, not just a line from an old Indonesian song—it was the refrain of the era in the Global South.

The Spirit That Walks

As diverse nations as Liberia and Laos, Sudan and Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon) were represented at what has since been known as the Bandung Conference. Among the heavyweights in attendance were India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Chinese counterpart Zhou Enlai—the latter having survived an assassination attempt (the plane Zhou was originally supposed to take to the conference was blown up in midair).

The Bandung Conference opened with a welcome speech by President Sukarno, who stated that “hurricanes of national awakening and reawakening” had swept across their continents. At the same time, he warned against believing that colonialism was dead, adding that it “does not surrender its prey so easily.”

Seifudein Adem, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, has studied, among other things, the historical significance of the Bandung Conference. In an email to Klassekampen, Adem writes that the gathering emerged from a shared humiliation—inflicted by European racism and colonialism—and marked the beginning of modern political relations between Asia and Africa.

Together, the participating countries represented more than half of the world's population. The purpose of the meeting was to promote economic, political, and cultural cooperation among peoples who had all been, or still were, under the rule of Western colonial powers.

The final declaration, consisting of ten points, emphasized the importance of the UN Charter, the sovereignty of states—both large and small—non-interference, peaceful coexistence, and, most importantly, the need to “promote mutual interests and cooperation.”

Nevertheless, Seifudein Adem believes that the greatest legacy of the conference is the "Bandung Spirit."

"This was a deeper sense of solidarity between Asians and Africans, born from the fact that they were directly or indirectly victims of European colonialism and imperialism," explains the political scientist. "It is the Bandung Spirit that has laid the foundation for cooperation between Asia and Africa over the past seven decades, including their efforts to distance themselves from the Cold War." The conference also served as a precursor to the Non-Aligned Movement, which was established in Yugoslavia six years later. This, in turn, became the foundation for the Group of 77 (G77), a bloc of Global South countries that began coordinating their positions within the United Nations.

Bandung 2.0?

But if someone asks who is carrying forward the Bandung Spirit today, many would point to another alliance: BRICS. The organization's core members are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, but last year, the group expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.

In many ways, the circle was completed in January, when Indonesia—the host country of the Bandung Conference—was also admitted to BRICS. Several other states are currently on the waiting list.

Some refer to BRICS as “Bandung 2.0.” Currently, BRICS accounts for 46% of the world’s population, while the so-called G7 countries (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan) make up less than 10%.

And unlike in 1955, non-Western countries—especially China—have now built enough economic and political power to support their initiatives with both money and influence.

Seventy years ago, the United States alone accounted for nearly half of global GDP. Today, the U.S. and the EU together hold 30% of the world economy, compared to BRICS nations’ 37%, writes Nathan Gardels in Noema magazine. By 2040, BRICS is expected to increase its share to 50%, reaching the same level the U.S. held at the time of the Bandung Conference.

Seifudein Adem believes that BRICS can, in many ways, be seen as a kind of successor to Bandung. However, he also emphasizes that there are plenty of signs suggesting otherwise.

"BRICS has yet to develop a unifying ideology or vision, whereas Bandung had both. And there are striking differences within BRICS," Adem writes. But in at least one fundamental sense, BRICS and Bandung share common ground: "They are both a form of protest or resistance from those who have felt sidelined by, or are dissatisfied with, the status quo—and are dedicated to reforming or transforming it."

（BRICS） Could Shake Dollar Dominance

In addition to establishing its own financial institutions, such as the New Development Bank, headquartered in Shanghai, BRICS has also launched an alternative international payment system. BRICS Pay is designed to be decentralized and based on the national currencies of its member states, a move that Western analysts have interpreted as an attempt to bypass the Brussels-based SWIFT system, from which Russian and Iranian banks have been excluded due to sanctions.

BRICS is also exploring the possibility of an internal currency, tied to gold and local currencies. This has drawn the wrath of Donald Trump, who stated: "The idea that BRICS countries are going to try to move away from the dollar while we just stand by and watch is OVER," Trump wrote on Truth Social in December, before threatening a 100% tariff in response.

"The U.S. and the West can feel that a system shift is underway."

— Seifudein Adem―　

Speaking to the news agency AFP a few weeks later, Brazilian diplomat Eduardo Saboia emphasized that the goal is not to replace the dollar, but rather to strengthen their own currencies, reduce transaction costs, and increase trade and investment within BRICS.

Saboia, who is responsible for organizing the next BRICS summit, set to take place in Rio de Janeiro this summer, also assured that BRICS is not "anti-Western" but a constructive partner.

Rule-Based Disorder

Parallel to the rise of BRICS nations, Western leaders have increasingly expressed concern about the so-called rules-based international order—a concern that escalated significantly with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Among BRICS countries, only Brazil, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates have openly condemned Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine. Seifudein Adem understands the West’s nervousness. At the same time, he argues that the greatest threat to the rules-based order is neither BRICS as a collective nor its individual members, but rather “the creator of the rules-based system itself: the United States.” He writes that the erosion of this order truly began with President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, adding that its decline is accelerating under today’s Trump administration, with its statements about taking over both the Panama Canal and Greenland.

According to Adem, “America’s potential self-castration” stems from the fact that the superpower has long been unchallenged on the international stage. In such a unipolar system, the dominant power tends to behave irresponsibly, Adem notes:

"The maxim that absolute power corrupts absolutely seems to hold very true in international relations as well."

Adem, however, is cautious about overestimating BRICS' significance as a counterweight in itself. This is partly because the group has diverging interests, and several of its members—most notably China and India—are bitter rivals at their core.

He believes that the new global order will not necessarily be centered around BRICS itself, but rather around a few “key states in the Global South.”

"The U.S. and the West rightly sense that a system shift is underway. This is a transformation unlike anything the world has seen in the past five centuries," Adem writes. According to him, this marks a transition from “Euro-American supremacy” to “Asia’s global hegemony,” with BRICS symbolizing a new reality: "A multipolar world order in which Europe and the U.S., at best, represent just one pole—nothing more, nothing less."

The World’s Steering Committee

Rereading Sukarno’s speech from Bandung today, one passage stands out in particular. Unlike today's Western-dominated forums, where the political conclusions are often predetermined, Sukarno emphasized the diversity of the gathering. Not only were “all religions under the sun” represented in Bandung, but the forms of government also varied— “democracy, monarchy, theocracy, with countless variations,” as Sukarno put it. The same applied to economic models, where the host country acknowledged socialism, capitalism, and communism, with all their many variations and combinations. "It is possible to live together, to meet and speak with one another," Sukarno declared, "without losing one’s individual identity."

Compare this to the statement made by Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, who in 2022 called the G7 “the steering committee of the free world.” Or take Donald Trump’s response earlier this week when a journalist asked him a question about Spain and NATO—to which the newly reinstalled president launched into a rant about BRICS. After falsely claiming that Spain was part of BRICS, Trump condescendingly told the reporter: “Do you know what a BRICS country is? You’ll figure it out.”

Who knows—one day, Trump himself may have to figure out what BRICS actually is.