Wk. 13 Jawaharlal Nehru, Speech to Bandung Conference Political Committee (1955)

Question 1

Jawaharlal Nehru, Speech to Bandung Conference Political Committee (1955)

Answer 1

Jawaharlal Nehru, Speech to Bandung Conference Political Committee (1955) – The Cold War posed a major challenge to newly independent nations like India after World War II. Both the Soviet Union and the United States pressured new nations to join their side. This speech by Nehru, given at a conference of independent African and Asian nations held in Indonesia, was a major step in the creation of the “non-aligned” movement.

Why did Nehru want India and the other countries present to stay out of the Cold War?

• Taking sides would only aid an imperialist nation to conquer the world.

What connections did he see between the Cold War and the colonial past of these nations?

• The Cold War was simply a battle between two Imperialist nations trying to take over the world.
• Nehru thinks both sides have a good story but so what. Independence is of the utmost importance.
  
  • “[The US aligned] Turkish Delegation […] gave us an able statement of what I might call one side representing the views of one of the major blocs existing at the present time in the world. I have no doubt that an equally able disposition could be made on the part of the other bloc. I belong to neither and I propose to belong to neither whatever happens in the world.”
• The correct principle is one of Anti-Imperialism.“We do not agree with the communist teachings, we do not agree with the anti-communist teachings, because they are both based on wrong principles.”
• India prefers to stand on their own and suffer consequences rather than adhere to the whims of other nations.“But I know also that if we rely on others, whatever great powers they might be if we look to them for sustenance, then we are weak indeed.”
• Nehru is not fond of the global reach of the powers, which he equates to imperialism. He asserts that the mistakes of ‘regular’ nations have consequences to the nation, but the mistakes of the ‘powers’ like the US and the USSR have consequences to the whole world.“The mistakes of my country and perhaps the mistakes of other countries here do not make a difference; but the mistakes the Great Powers make do make a difference to the world and may well bring about a terrible catastrophe.”
• Nehru believes that if India takes sides and helps one power to win, then that power Will take over the world and rule India (Imperialism). On the other side, if the enemy wins, they will also take over the world and rule India. So why should India help either side? Their wisest choice is to defend themselves and not take sides.“When they begin to think in terms of military strength – whether it be the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union or the U.S.A. – then they are going away from the right track and the result of that will be that the overwhelming might of one country will conquer the world.”
• Nehru‘s goal is to maximize the “unalined areas” (countries not alligned with either the US or the USSR) in order to minimize the possibility of war. The greater the unaligned, the less power allocated to those who are aligned. Here, he was focusing on weaker countries standing together on aligned, mostly from Africa and Asia.“If all the world were to be divided up between these two big blocs what would be the result? The inevitable result would be war. Therefore every step that takes place in reducing that area in the world which may be called the unaligned area is a dangerous step and leads to war. It reduces that objective, that balance, that outlook which other countries without military might can perhaps exercise.”
• This illustrates the idea that a build-up of arms is the very thing that prevents war – because the ability to defend oneself – or even to harm the aggressor – can serve as a deterrent to aggression, thus the term, “Nuclear Deterrent”.“However powerful one country is, the other is also powerful. To hit the nail on the head, the world suffers; there can be no victory. It may be said perhaps rightly that owing to this very terrible danger, people refrain from going to war.”
• The consequence of siding with a block of nations is that any aggression becomes world war instead of just aggression between two nations. And in the age of nuclear weapons, this means total annihilation.“If there is aggression anywhere in the world, it is bound to result in world war. It does not matter where the aggression is. If one commits the aggression there is world war.”
• Nehru also implies that the mere act of Nuclear War, which is inevitable in any war due to the nature of retaliation and escalation, is, in and of itself, imperialism since the result of such actions inflicts it’s consequences on all nations.“Even if tactical atomic weapons […] are used, the next step would be the use of the big atomic bomb. You cannot stop these things. In a country’s life and death struggle, it is not going to stop short of this. It is not going to decide on our or anybody else’s resolutions but it would engage in war, ruin and annihilation of others before it annihilates itself completely. Annihilation will result not only in the countries engaged in war, but owing to the radioactive waves which go thousands and thousands of miles it will destroy everything.”

POWERPOINT:

Cold War Background

• USA and USSR as dominant “superpowers” after WWII
• Allies, but deep mutual suspicion
  
  • US sees Stalin as another Hitler, bent on expansionism and world conquest
  • USSR sees US as imperialists and fascists, who want to control everything
    
    • Also informed by WWII experience (remember the 20 million dead)
• Reinforced by developments in liberated countries after WWII
  
  • Those occupied by the USSR chose Soviet-supporting governments
  • Those occupied by the USA chose American-supporting governments

NATO (1949) and the Warsaw Pact (1955)

• North Atlantic Treaty Organization (US-centered) formed 1949
• Warsaw Pact (USSR-centered) formed 1955
• These are Nehru’s “blocs”

Nehru, Speech to the Bandung Conference

• The Bandung Conference was a summit of newly independent nations
• Start with what Nehru says about war: how has it changed?
  
  • Nuclear weapons now exist and are very powerful
    
    • “The point of saturation” where both super powers have so many nuclear weapons that the whole world will be wiped out if the US and USSR fight a nuclear war
    • As a result, we can’t have the US and USSR fight a war
  • Any country that is part of one of the blocs could also trigger nuclear annihilation
    
    • The blocs and alliances are supposed to increase security and safety, but they’re actually making things much more dangerous
• What is the appropriate response for a country like India?
  
  • They should refuse to join either side (non-aligned)
    
    • This reduces the risk of global war through escalation
  • He wants to be positive rather than focusing on being anti-something
  • Joining one of these two blocs means losing your identity
    
    • It is degrading or humiliating
    • These countries have just gained their independence from imperialism
      
      • Joining one of the two sides means giving up that independence
      • The blocs are dominated by the superpowers
• Joining one of the two sides is like signing up for imperialism again

Cold War Strategy

• By 1949 both sides have nuclear weapons (“point of saturation”)
  
  • Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): direct conflict is unimaginable
• The Cold War was a struggle for advantage without direct fighting
  
  • Ideological and symbolic conflicts
  • Alliances and the US strategy of containment
  • Proxy wars
  • Coups and revolutions

Symbolic Conflicts

• Olympics
  
  • Origin of the “medal count”
• Space Race
  
  • Sputnik (1957)
  • Apollo 11 (1969)
• Kitchen Debate (1959)

Cold War Strategy and Imperialism

• Proxy Wars (where one or both sides are backed by US or USSR)
  
  • Korea (1950-1953)
  • Vietnam (1955-1975)
  • Afghanistan (1979-1989)
• Coups and Revolutions
  
  • Iran (1953): US-backed coup
  • Cuba (1959): Soviet-backed revolution
  • Many, many other examples in Asia, Africa, and Latin America
• What does this look like to someone like Nehru?
  
  • Indirect imperialism

India and Non-alignment

• Ideology and domestic policy
  
  • India was/is a democracy
  • India had elements of economic planning (Five Year Plans)
• Geopolitically, India occupied a middle ground between China (usually a Soviet ally) and Pakistan (a US ally)
• For Friday (Modi), think about how this has changed since the Cold War ended