Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 387–402 | Cite as

‘Far away from the Atlantic...’: Goa, West New Guinea and NATO’s out-of-area policy at Bandung 1955

  • Moritz PöllathEmail author
Article

Abstract

During the cold war, Afro-Asian leaders had been highly critical of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) out-of-area initiatives. This article will focus on the Portuguese strategy to use the North Atlantic Council to pursue national, colonial interests in Asia and Africa. The solicitation of support from the USA constituted a key element in this diplomatic exchange. As a result, at Bandung, the leaders of the newly independent nations challenged not a specific European colonial empire, but transferred their outrage to the entire Atlantic Alliance. In the end, the promotion of colonial interests in the Atlantic Alliance led to several conflicts with the newly independent nations and a loss of face for the Western world.

Keywords

Out-of-area Bandung NATO cold war colonialism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Amitav Acharya and See Sang Tan, eds, Bandung Revisited. The Legacy of the 1955 Asian-African Conference for International Order (Singapore: NUS Press, 2008).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Speech by Prime Minister Nehru before the Political Committee of the Asian-African Conference, 22 April 1955 in: George McTurnan Kahin, The Asian-African Conference Bandung, Indonesia, April 1955 (New York, Port Washington/London: Kennikat Press, 1972), 68–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tuong Vu and Wasana Wongsurawat, eds, Dynamics of the Cold War in Asia. Ideology, Identity, and Culture (New York: Palgrave, 2009), 1–17; The principle of ‘international interconnectedness’ can be understood as a follow-up to a more global research on the history of ideas and movements. In the case of Bandung, several articles demonstrate a strong connection between segregation in the USA and liberation movements in the global South and underline the importance of race in international relationsGoogle Scholar
  4. 3a.
    Matthew Jones, ‘A ‘Segregated’ Asia? Race, the Bandung Conference, and Pan-Asianist Fears in American Thought and Policy, 1954–1955’, Diplomatic History 29, no. 5 (2005): 841–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3b.
    Jason Parker, ‘The Eisenhower Administration, the Bandung Conference and the Reperiodization of the Postwar Era’, Diplomatic History 30, no. 5 (2006): 867–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 3c.
    Brenda Plummer, ed., Window on Freedom: Race, Civil Rights, and Foreign Affairs, 1945–1988 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    Jörg Fisch, Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker. Die Domestizierung einer Illusion [The Right of Self-Determination of the People: The Domestication of an Illusion] (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2010), 198–9Google Scholar
  8. 4a.
    Reo Matsuzaki, ‘Placing the Colonial State in the Middle: The Comparative Method and the Study of Empires’, Comparativ 19, no. 1 (2009): 108–14.Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    Odd Westad, The Global Cold War. Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) leaves the simple East-West Opposition behind and unifies cold war history with the process of decolonisation. His multiarchival research gives credit to Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and other revolutionary leaders, e.g. from Angola and Ethiopia, as influential actors during the cold war. Westad’s work acknowledges the dynamic of post-colonial regimes by displaying the manipulation and limits of both superpowers in former colonial states. Tuong Vu goes one step further and challenges the idea that the cold war emerged in Europe and expanded from there. Vu proposes to reconceptionalise the cold war. According to him, Asian actors, as Vietnam, freely chose communist ideology and pursued a policy independent from the West.Google Scholar
  10. 5a.
    Jeremi Suri, ‘The Cold War, Decolonization, and Global Social Awakenings: Historical Intersections’, Cold War History 6, no. 3 (2006): 353–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 5b.
    Christian F. Ostermann und Christopher E. Goscha, Connecting Histories. Decolonization and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, 1945–1962 (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2009); Vu and Wongsurawat, Dynamics of the Cold War in Asia.Google Scholar
  12. 6.
    A recent example to combine various historical fields is the newest work on Bandung itself. It combines cold war history, post-colonial studies, global history, area studies, diplomatic history and sociocultural aspects. Christopher Lee, Making A World After Empire. The Bandung Moment and Its Political Afterlives (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2010). McMahon gives one example in the growing number of publications in tradition of the cultural turn in the field of diplomatic historyGoogle Scholar
  13. 6a.
    Robert J. McMahon, ‘Contested Memory: The Vietnam War and American Society, 1975–2001’, Diplomatic History 26, no. 2 (2002): 159–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 7.
    Winfried THeinemann, Vom Zusammenwachsen des Bündnisses. Die Funktionsweise der NATO in ausgewählten Krisenfällen, 1951–1956 [Growing Together as an Alliance. NATO’s Mode of Operation in Selected Crises, 1951–1956] (Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1998) andGoogle Scholar
  15. 7a.
    Mary Ann Heiss, ‘Colonialism and the Atlantic Alliance. Anglo-American Perspectives at the United Nations, 1945–1963’ in NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Intrabloc Conflicts, eds, Mary Ann Heiss, S. Victor Papacosma (Kent: Kent State University Press, 2008), 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 7b.
    Christopher Coker, ‘The Western Alliance and Africa 1949-81’, African Affairs 81, no. 324 (1982): 319–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 8.
    Rupert Emerson, ‘The Atlantic community and the emerging countries’, International Organisation 17, no. 3 (1963): 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 9.
    ‘An Independent Approach’, 25 February 1955, Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches, Volume Three, March 1953–August 1957 (India, Government of India: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1958), 286.Google Scholar
  19. 10.
    Suri, ‘Historical Intersections’, 358; Westad, The Global Cold War, 99; Kahin, The Asian-African Conference Bandung, 1–4; Dewi Fortuna Anwar, ‘Indonesia and the Bandung Conference: Then and Now’ (Singapore: NUS Press, April 18–24, 1955); Acharya and Tan, Bandung Revisited, 183.Google Scholar
  20. 11.
    Office of Information and Press, NATO-Handbuch (Brussels: Office of Information and Press, 2001), 603Google Scholar
  21. 11a.
    Johannes Varwick, Die NATO. Vom Verteidigungsbündnis zur Weltpolizei [NATO’s Evolution: From Defense Alliance to World Policeman] (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2008), 23–4.Google Scholar
  22. 12.
    FRUS, 1948, III: Western Europe, pp. 325-6; Washington Embassy to Departement of External Affairs, 13. January, 1949, NASP., file 283(s), part 5, quoted from Escott Reid, Time of Fear and Hope. The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977), 216.Google Scholar
  23. 13.
    Varwick, Die NATO, 143.Google Scholar
  24. 14.
    For example, in the 1980s, Schmitz acknowledged that a military mission in the Persian Gulf under NATO colours would have been legitimate during the first Gulf War. Peter N. Schmitz, Defending the NATO Alliance. Global Implications (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1987), 69–71. Karl Heinz-Kamp, summarised the ‘out-of-area’ issue in 2005: ‘it was always a dubious phrase which implied that NATO was not allowed to act beyond a certain strictly geographically defined area but such a limitation has never existed’. In theory, NATO could have become active in the whole world with unanimous consent from 1949 on. Kamp calls, out-of-area a ‘benign illusion’ of the cold war.Google Scholar
  25. 14a.
    Baerjee Dipankar and Aisha Saltanat, Hrsg., NATO and European Dialogues with India (New Delhi: Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 2005), 9–10.Google Scholar
  26. 15.
    Bowles, Chester, Ambassador’s Report (New York: Harpe & Brothers, 1954), 48.Google Scholar
  27. 16.
    Colonialism, for instance, was a live issue for Indians whose political identities were formed by resistance to it, and it remained salient as long as the Portuguese clung to colonies on the subcontinent and in Africa. Andrew J. Rotter, Comrades at Odds. The United States and India, 1947–1964 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2000), 48; ‘Your Frontier-Posts Are in Asia!’ Sukarno’s speech to the World Affairs Council of Northern California and the Asia Foundation, san Francisco, June 1, 1956, LAC RG 25, vol. 7751, file 12371-40 (2.2), quoted fromGoogle Scholar
  28. 16a.
    Webster David, Fire and the Full Moon: Canada and Indonesia in a Decolonizing World (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2009), 103.Google Scholar
  29. 17.
    Robert J. McMahon, ‘Heiße Kriege im Kalten Krieg [Hot Wars During the Cold War]’, Mittelweg 36 14, no. 1 (2005): 7.Google Scholar
  30. 18.
    Ang Chen Guan, ‘The Bandung Conference and the Cold War International History of Southeast Asia’ (Singapore: NUS Press); Acharya and Tan, Bandung Revisited, 27-8; Lee, Making A World After Empire, 9.Google Scholar
  31. 19.
    Republic of Indonesia, Asia-Africa speak from Bandung (Djakarta: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1955), 19–29; Jones, ‘A ‘Segregated’ Asia?’, 865.Google Scholar
  32. 20.
    Speech by Prime Minister Nehru before the Political Committee of the Asian-African Conference, April 22, 1955 in: Kahin, The Asian-African Conference Bandung, 68.Google Scholar
  33. 21.
    Michael Brecher, India and World Politics. Krishna Menon’s View of the World (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), 53.Google Scholar
  34. 22.
    Mohamed Abdel Khalek Hassouna, The First Asian-African Conference held at Bandung, Indonesia (Cairo: Imprimerie misr S.A.E., 1955), 99–107 and 119.Google Scholar
  35. 23.
    Speech by Prime Minister Nehru before the Political Committee of the Asian-African Conference, April 22, 1955 in: Kahin, The Asian-African Conference Bandung, 68-9.Google Scholar
  36. 24.
  37. 25.
  38. 26.
    The Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference form 24 April 1955 lists under ‘D. Problems of Depenmdent Peoples’ the support of the rights of the people of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Under ‘E. Other Problems’ are named Palestine, West Irian and Yemen. Only point D(b) ‘affirming that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights’ could be interpreted against Moscow’s policy in Eastern Europe. Republic of Indonesia, Asia-Africa Speaks, 161-9.Google Scholar
  39. 27.
    After the division of Yemen in North and South between Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire, the British maintained a protectorate around Aden until 1967.Google Scholar
  40. 28.
    Except on anticolonial resolutions, solidarity between the Afro-Asian nations in the UN was low. Afro-Asian voting record was as diverse as its members, when it came to different topics. Emerson, ‘The Atlantic community’, 634.Google Scholar
  41. 29.
    Bandung’s Final Communique: Kahin, The Asian-African Conference Bandung, 17, 32, 35, 81; Westad, The Global Cold War, 104; Anwar, ‘Indonesia and the Bandung Conference’; Acharya and Tan, Bandung Revisited, 185; Jones, ‘A ‘Segregated’ Asia?’, 853.Google Scholar
  42. 30.
    A backdrop of anti-European sentiment, Corriere della Sera, 19. April 1955.Google Scholar
  43. 31.
    C-R (55), 21, p. 4. NATO-Archives, Brussels, Belgium (NAC); few years after Bandung the Indo-Chinese border disputes became heavily militarized. The ensuing war brought India again closer to the Western bloc. Kapur, India’s Foreign Policy 1947-92, 22-4.Google Scholar
  44. 32.
    C-R (55) 21, pp. 4–6, NAC.Google Scholar
  45. 33.
    Republic of Indonesia, Asia-Africa Speaks, 161-9.Google Scholar
  46. 34.
    C-R (55) 21, p. 6, NAC.Google Scholar
  47. 35.
    Ursula Lehmkuhl, Pax Anglo-Americana. Machtstrukturelle Grundlagen anglo-amerikanischer Asien- und Fernostpolitik in den 1950er Jahren (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1999), 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 35a.
    Marc Frey, Dekolonialisierung in Südostasien. Die Vereinigten Staaten und die Auflösung der europäischen Kolonialreiche (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2006), 148–9 and 298; Jones, ‘A ‘Segregated’ Asia?’, 848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 36.
    C-R (55) 21, p. 6, NAC.Google Scholar
  50. 37.
    C-R (55) 21, p. 7, NAC.Google Scholar
  51. 38.
    Full quote by Senator Tom Connally: I agree 100 percent with those who argue that this treaty should not be either the front door, the side door, or the back door through which the United States might be drawn into family quarrels between signatory parties and their overseas territories in Africa, the Far East, or other party of the world’. Connally Speech, 5 July 1949, U.S. Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, 81st Cong., 1st sess., 95, pt. 6:8814-16 from: Bills, Scott L., ‘The United States, NATO, and the Third World: Dominoes, Imbroglios and Agonizing Appraisals’, Lawrence S. Kaplan, ed., NATO after Forty Years (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1990), 149.Google Scholar
  52. 39.
    Heinemann, Vom Zusammenwachsen des Bündnisses, 185 and 188; C-R (55) 21, p. 9, NAC.Google Scholar
  53. 40.
    C-R (55) 21, p. 9, NAC.Google Scholar
  54. 41.
    Heinemann, Vom Zusammenwachsen des Bündnisses, 188-90; Robert J. McMahon, The Cold War on the Periphery. The United States, India, and Pakistan (New York: Columbia University, 1994), 179–80Google Scholar
  55. 41a.
    Arthur G. Rubinoff, India’s Use of Force in Goa (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1971), 50–6.Google Scholar
  56. 42.
    Peyton V. Lyon, NATO as a Diplomatic Instrument (Toronto: The Atlantic Council of Canada, 1970), 13; Heinemann, Vom Zusammenwachsen des Bündnisses, 190-1; The Department of State Bulletin, 12. December 1955 (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1955), 966. At the end of 1955 Portugal also went before the International Court in Den Haag and filed a lawsuit against India’s denial of transit rights to Goa. The verdict from 12 April 1960 conceded the general argument to Portugal and at the same time accepted India’s actions on the grounds of ‘special circumstances’. Private persons, civil administrators and goods were still allowed to reach Goa, armed individuals, weapons and munitions not.Google Scholar
  57. 42a.
    Jörg Fisch, Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht. Die Auseinandersetzungen um den Status der überseeischen Gebiete vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart [The European Expansion and the Law of Nations. The Contest Over the Status of Overseas Territories from the 15th Century to the Present] (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, Beiträge zur Kolonial- und Überseegeschichte, Bd. 26, 1984), 456.Google Scholar
  58. 43.
    Nicholas Tarling, ‘“Ah-Ah”: Britain and the Bandung Conference of 1955’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 23, no. 1 (1992): 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 44.
    ‘Foreign Footholds’, 26 July 1955, Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches, Volume Three, March 1953–August 1957 (India, Government of India: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1958), 378-80.Google Scholar
  60. 45.
    ‘Future Status of Area’, 25. August 1954, Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches, Volume Three, March 1953–August 1957 (India, Government of India: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1958), 327-77.Google Scholar
  61. 46.
    Cary Fraser, ‘An American Dilemma: Race and Realpolitik in the American Response to the Bandung Conference, 1955’ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press), in: Plummer, Window on Freedom, 121 and Jones, ‘A ‘Segregated’ Asia?’, 843.Google Scholar
  62. 47.
    New York Times, ‘Nehru Declares Goa is Acid Test’, September 18, 1955; New York Times, ‘Nehru Seeks Clarification of U.S. Position on Goa’, December 23, 1955; New York Times, ‘Nehru is Pleased by Soviet Stand on India Claims to Goa, Kashmir’, January 4, 1956; McMahon, The Cold War, 218; Rubinoff, India’s Use of Force, 67-8.Google Scholar
  63. 48.
    New York Times, ‘Nehru is Pleased by Soviet Stand on India Claims to Goa, Kashmir’, 4. January 1956.Google Scholar
  64. 49.
    Heinemann, Vom Zusammenwachsen des Bündnisses, 193.Google Scholar
  65. 50.
    Lyon, NATO, 22; Cees Wiebes und Zeeman, Bert, ‘Political Consultation during International Crises: Small Powers in NATO’, Kaplan, NATO, 91; Heinemann, Vom Zusammenwachsen des Bündnisses, 193; C-R (55) 58, p. 14, NAC.Google Scholar
  66. 51.
    C-R (57) 75, p. 7, NAC.Google Scholar
  67. 52.
    Marc Frey, ‘The Limits of Modernization: American Development Assistance and Southeast Asian Resistance during the 1950s’, Comparativ 19, no. 4 (2009): 45–6 and Frey, Dekolonialisierung in Südostasien [Decolonisation in Southeast Asia], 148-9 and 298.Google Scholar
  68. 53.
    Veronica Kitchen, ‘NATO’s out-of-area norm from Suez to Afghanistan’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 8, no. 2 (2010): 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 54.
    Michael Leifer, Indonesia’s Foreign Policy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983), 39; Tarling, ‘Britain and the Bandung’, 111.Google Scholar
  70. 55.
    Brecher, India and World Politics, 56.Google Scholar
  71. 56.
    Parker, ‘The Eisenhower Administration’, 869-72, 881, 888-90; Fraser, ‘An American Dilemma’, 116.Google Scholar
  72. 57.
    Republic of Indonesia, Asia-Africa speak, 185-6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Friedrich Schiller UniversityJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations