The Asian-African Summit -- a postscript<\/p>\n
Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, The Jakarta Post, Bandung<\/p>\n
The 'true' Bandung Spirit came alive on Sunday. But only after
\nthe leaders and delegates of the Commemorative Summit had already
\nleft the West Java provincial capital.<\/p>\n
Locals were barred from approaching the vicinity of the
\ncommemoration throughout the weekend. However, an hour after the
\nconference closed on Sunday afternoon, the floodgates opened.<\/p>\n
Thousands flocked the fabled Merdeka Building - the venue of
\nthe 1955 and 2005 summits - as if reclaiming something that had
\nbeen taken from them. The throngs continued till late evening.
\nThe old reminisced. Parents recounted to their young the stories
\nof the conference they read in the morning newspaper, while women
\npicked flowers from bouquets left from the morning's proceedings.
\nFlash bulbs popped as visitors incessantly posed for pictures.<\/p>\n
After the pomp and ceremony of the morning's procession, the
\noutburst of enthusiasm in the evening was refreshing. Their
\npassion a reflection of what the Bandung Spirit really meant -- a
\nsense of belonging and togetherness among peoples.<\/p>\n
It was a natural feeling that seemed deficient during the
\nformal summit meetings.<\/p>\n
Delegates, particularly officials from the Ministry of Foreign
\nAffairs, should be commended for their hard work in drafting
\nthorough documents that were adopted by the leaders. But a
\n'spirit' cannot be manufactured, nor live within the contained
\nspace of a highbrow declaration.<\/p>\n
The Asian-African Summit seemed to neglect the participation
\nof the very people the leaders were supposed to be so concerned
\nabout. The people who embodied the soul of the spirit leaders so
\ngrandly toasted.<\/p>\n
Security these days dictates higher vigilance. But shunning
\nthe people, as happened in this Bandung summit, defeats the
\ncontemplative nature of the event.<\/p>\n
There are other examples of how an elitist outlook prevailed
\nduring summit events, both in Bandung and Jakarta.<\/p>\n
There were few channels in which civil society -- the true
\nstakeholders of the Asian-African spirit of cooperation -- were
\nallowed to channel their aspirations. The Indonesian government,
\nas usual, encouraged business interactions but little else.<\/p>\n
A group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) - such as the
\nInstitute for Global Justice, Infid and the Christian Conference
\nof Asia - which held week-long gatherings with international
\ncounterparts in conjunction with the summit received, according
\nto them, the cold shoulder from the government when trying to in
\nsome way correlate their activities with official proceedings.<\/p>\n
While the nature of the summit tried to be inclusive by
\ninviting developing countries from outside Asia and Africa, and
\ngiving their representatives a podium to speak on, the obsolete
\noutlook of officials who consider that they have a monopoly over
\nthe people's voice continues to prevail.<\/p>\n
These experiences typify the dogmatic characteristics of many
\nregimes in Asia and Africa that are still reluctant, or simply
\njust don't bother, to listen to their subjects. Not surprisingly,
\nthis gathering of Asian and African leaders is regarded by some
\ncivil society groups as simply a means to propagate neo-liberal
\ndoctrines.<\/p>\n
With designs afoot to institutionalize Asia-Africa
\ncooperation, it is well worth suggesting that a parallel second
\nand third track of engagement be encouraged to complement future
\nmeetings between the two continent's leaders and ministers.<\/p>\n
The second track would consist of leading think tanks and
\nopinion makers (including the media) in Asia and Africa with the
\naim of providing alternative policy recommendations and visions
\nfor officials. The third track would consist of civil society
\ngroups that can forward general proposals and papers that
\ncorrespond to grassroots sentiments.<\/p>\n
It is the second and third track who are the real heirs of the
\nBandung Spirit. In the long run the network established through
\nthese two alternative tracks will be the strongest component of
\nAsian-African cooperation.<\/p>\n
The development of the Association of Southeast Asian
\nNations's (ASEAN) second track - through a network of regional
\nthink tanks known as ASEAN-ISIS - and its eventual acceptance by
\nASEAN leaders, is a model that could be emulated. During ASEAN
\nmeetings, second track representatives are often allotted time to
\npresent their proposals.<\/p>\n
While still in the formative stages, a third track within
\nASEAN is also being developed by gathering independent NGOs from
\nthe 10 member states.<\/p>\n
It is important to note that the state should not sponsor
\nthese alternative tracks. Doing so would be tantamount to
\nexercising control over their activities. The state, by its very
\nnature, cannot prevent itself from censoring participation and
\ndiscussion.<\/p>\n
What is important is for governments to acknowledge these
\nalternative tracks as partners in their endeavor to widen cross-
\ncontinent cooperation. To allocate time to hear their pleas, and
\naccept with sincerity both criticism and recommendations.<\/p>\n
They say that the business of government is too important to
\nbe left to government alone. For the past 50 years the
\ngovernments of Asia and Africa have had mixed results in
\nconsolidating the Bandung spirit. Without the direct
\nparticipation of its peoples there can only be, at best, another
\n50 years of continental lethargy.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-asian-african-summit-a-postscript-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}