Reviving the Spirit of Bandung as a New Moral Force
“Moral” and “force” do not sit quite well together in my mind. However, motivating men and women, children, youth, and adults of diverse conditions for a sound imperative may result in a world force for the good. That said, in any domain, including the moral one, force has -- ethically -- to be held under permanent scrutiny. On the other hand, Earth existed long before humanity appeared on it. And it does seem that humanity, today, is in need of saving itself from itself. So, in view of this, what would a revival of the Bandung spirit mean today within a program such as SHAPE?
First, a revival can only be a profound transformation which nonetheless tries to hold onto something that endures: something that was at Bandung, in spirit, in 1955, yet gestured toward the future. Newly-independent states and liberation movements represented the downtrodden human majority on the planet: a comparatively weak majority in every respect except for the moral fortitude to struggle collectively for justice in the new international order.
Second, following the radical changes that have affected the world since 1955, the spirit of justice in today’s global world is what endures in the emerging world order/disorder. Consequently, it would seem that justice requires agents who would seek it and issues for which those agents would struggle. The former is a new moral subject in the form of persons and collectives (of persons). The latter is survival in freedom and dignity.
Third, in most nations and states of the former Global South, free subjectivity and dignity are institutionally denied and/or suppressed. And inequity, inequality and exclusion reach such heights as to reduce vast numbers of people to ‘bare life’. As for humanity’s survival in the face of climate change and nuclear proliferation, such matters seldom advance beyond negotiations over state interests. States, in fact, keep tight control of, if not suppress non-state organizations, especially those with the potential for mobilization.
In the former Global North, the concentration of wealth and media power gravely endanger the spheres of freedom and action, and widen the circle of exclusion. In any case, massive migrations amplify trans(national) politics and civic action in unprecedented ways across the planet.
Among the great powers, old and new, conflicts imperil the circulation and trade of foodstuffs and/or bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. In addition, it seems that nuclear proliferation will accelerate, in part, because of the ambitions of new financial moguls (individuals or states).
Building on the insights of my colleagues and friends who took the initiative to elaborate SHAPE, I reflect on what it means to be human under these new conditions. I fully subscribe to the ethical standpoint, and to the notion of what we are and want to be as humans: i.e., living beings, thanks to the gift of life from Planet Earth.
It is clear to me that saving ourselves as a species, sharing life with all other species and sustaining our living planet may at this point be posed as a shared definition and imperative for all humans. I may add, for the sake of discussion, that we also consider differences within that universalizing imperative, since for many, the gift of life derives from a spiritual principle that is either inherent in the universe or transcends it. This notion of a spiritual principle can be found in infinite accents in the cosmologies of “first nations “and other communities, as well as those of religions that span continents, and other old and new human efforts. More importantly for our purposes, differences are now in more intimate contact and friction across the planet …
I conclude with two suggestions regarding the promotion of a world civil society on which there seems to be a consensus among us. At the risk of simplifying, I propose sustained conversation and translation across lines of difference. A corollary suggestion may be regionalization. Both can be pursued with concrete steps.
I believe that we would need to create a list of persons who would be in charge of conversations about issues within languages, and communication from those languages into English, our current lingua franca. For this we may need regional committees to coordinate the work. Furthermore, translations of the SHAPE platform would be appropriate.
Regionalization appears even more crucial insofar as nuclear proliferation and resistance to its perils are concerned. I prefer to cite one example: the Middle East and North Africa region. It is located at several major crossroads of the world; its proximity to Eurasia is evident; the United States, the leading world power, is heavily invested there; competition with Russia is intense; China is more and more engaged in its affairs; it is of great significance to the adherents of three major religions spread across the globe. It is certainly one of the most explosive regions on the planet.
At the center of its numerous conflicts is the so-called “Arab-Israeli conflict” with no peace in sight; it includes one nuclear power, a potential one at an apparently advanced stage, and several aspiring ones…
It would seem that a regional committee is warranted here, as well as committees for other regions to be determined.
Abdellah Hammoudi was Professor at the Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco, and the first holder of the Faisal Visiting Professorship at Princeton. He was the founding director of the Institute for the Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.
