To brush-clean, flag-bedecked Belgrade last week came an emperor, two kings and two princes, three foreign ministers, six prime ministers and nine presidents.-Representing 23 countries, they had been invited by Yugoslavia’s President Tito for a Conference of Unaligned Nations.Even as the delegates began to stream in, word reached Belgrade of Russia’s announcement that it intended to resume nuclear testing. The news struck the neutrals like a slap in the face. Hardly united and agreed on anything except their common animus against a big-power thermonuclear holocaust that would endanger them all, the neutralists at first greeted the news with grim silence. Only India’s Nehru stated bleakly: “I am against nuclear tests anywhere.”
Despite Khrushchev’s blatant disregard for their opinions, next day the delegates earnestly began to discuss how to make their opinions felt in world politics. In his keynote speech, Tito grumbled, “Small and medium-sized countries are considered as a kind of reserve and voting machine in international forums. Nonaligned countries can no longer reconcile themselves to that role. They have a right to participate in the solving of problems.”
Nasser echoed Tito’s lofty proposition that the neutralists are “the conscience of the world” for peace. Referring to Russia’s rudely timed nuclear testing announcement, he made a promising start. “This decision shocks me just as it shocked all world opinion,” he said. “Whatever the motives of the Soviet government [it has] a clear bearing on the deterioration of the dangerous international situation.” But his moment of conscience quickly passed; he spent the rest of his time on the rostrum denouncing the West and Western colonialism.
For men aspiring to be the “conscience of the world,” the neutralists as a whole have all too often seemed curiously reluctant to make any of the moral judgments on Russian behavior that conscience would seem to dictate. President Ibrahim Abboud of the Sudan criticized the French for nuclear testing in the Sahara, did not mention Russia. Sukarno hacked away on the old anticolonialist theme. Only Burma’s U Nu seemed willing to give the West an even break. “Let us realize a start has been made toward coexistence,” he urged. “There is a growing recognition of personal integrity rather than color, a stirring of the conscience of wealthy countries for the less fortunate.”
Sitting around a huge oval table in the Federal People’s Assembly as they listened to the speeches, the delegates presented a sharp study in contrasts. Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia was grave, aloof, sad-eyed, a figare out of the past. Some were old antagonists: Ethiopia and Somalia have been squabbling over borders for years.
Some were mint-new friends: Nasser and Tunisia’s Bourguiba met at Belgrade, having patched up their bitter, four-year-old quarrel. Even in their approach to the cold war, the delegates sharply differed: U.A.R.’s Nasser and U Nu ruthlessly repress their local Communists; Indonesia’s Sukarno and Ghana’s Nkrumah (fresh from a red-carpet visit to Russia) actively encourage them.
For some, like India, neutralism is an effort to escape to the sidelines, to get out of the way of the “fighting buffaloes.” For others, like the U.A.R. and Afghanistan, neutralism is an attractive and well-paying way to draw economic and military aid from both blocs. For almost all, lambasting the West is an automatic reflex, since nearly all have emerged from fierce nationalist struggles against some form of Western hegemony. What they fail to realize is that they can enjoy the luxury of neutralism only because the West stands between them and Russia’s ambitions for worldwide dominance. If the Western “imperialists” ever go under, the neutralists’ new-found freedom will go with them.
At week’s end, after the Russians added injury to insult to the assembled neutralists by setting off their bomb, there were signs that the reluctant leaders at Belgrade were getting the point. Senior Neutralist Nehru, who often sees two sides even when there is only one, took the speaker’s platform, declared: “The danger of war comes nearer and nearer by the recent decision of the Soviet government to start nuclear tests. Our situation today is the most dangerous since World War II ended.” The conference, he urged, should first address itself to this issue, laying aside the old shibboleths of colonialism and imperialism. He recalled his stint at the League of Nations in 1938 to underscore his point: “There was fear of war all over Europe, but the League of Nations was discussing the opium trade. Opium was a very important subject, but it was not the important subject.”
Question was, would the neutralists at Belgrade put first things first?
-Emperor: Ethiopia’s Haile Selassie. Kings: Nepal’s Mahendra and Morocco’s Hassan II. Princes: Cambodia’s Norodom Sihanouk and Yemen’s Seif el Islam el Hassan. Foreign Ministers: Guinea’s Beavogui Lansana, Saudi Arabia’s Ibraham Sowail and Iraq’s Hashim Jawad. Prime Ministers: Afghanistan’s Sardar Mohammed Baud, the Algerian F.L.N.’s Youssef Ben Khedda, Burma’s U Nu, Ceylon’s Mme. Bandaranaike, India’s Nehru and Lebanon’s Saeb Salaam. Presidents: Cuba’s Osvaldo Dorticos Torrado, Cyprus’ Archbishop Makarios, Ghana’s Nkrumah, Indonesia’s Sukarno, Mali’s Keita, Somalia’s Adben Abdullah Osman, the Sudan’s Ibrahim Abboud, Tunisia’s Bourguiba and the U.A.R.’s Nasser.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar