In the spirit of Bandung

Southern leaders in Havana pledge to get their act together and fight for justice against hegemony, writes Faiza Rady

The 14th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), convening from 11-16 September in the Cuban capital Havana revived the spirit of southern defiance, long lost since the early days of national liberation struggles.

The Havana summit was opened by outgoing NAM leader Malaysian Prime Minister Ahmed Badawi, who nominated Cuban President Fidel Castro as the new head. Attending delegates approved Badawi's move with a standing ovation of thunderous applause.

This is the second time that Castro has been elected to lead NAM. Cuba chaired the movement from 1979-1983. "We are confident in Cuba's leadership of the movement. Its history tells us NAM is in good hands and will reach new heights," said Badawi.

Still convalescing from surgery, President Castro didn't attend the summit that was led by his younger brother and acting Cuban president, Raul Castro. Still, Fidel met privately with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivian President Evo Morales, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, among other heads of state.

"Fidel is walking, singing. I saw him well enough to play baseball again, almost," a smiling Chavez told reporters after meeting with Castro.

Present at the summit were several leaders who embody a spirit of defiance to "worldwide dictatorship by the United States", to use the words of Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage. "The ideas of limited sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, preventive war and regime change are fascist; they are not modern theories to defend freedoms and fight terrorism," said Lage.

"US dictatorship", Lage explained, has turned back the clock to an earlier period of imperialism and foreign domination, with Britain, the world's former colonial master, in tow behind the world's lone superpower. Thus there is an urgent need to return to the Bandung principles of national independence and self-determination, Lage added.

At the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, nationalist liberation leaders of the stature of Gamal Abdel-Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia declared their neutrality and independence from the camp of the two superpowers. Included in the 10- point Bandung proclamation was a commitment to national sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-adherence to multilateral military pacts, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, struggle against imperialism and foreign occupation, and the rejection of the use of force in international relations.

"The current international situation, characterised by the one superpower's attempts to control the world, shows that we need to unite in defence of the principles upon which the Non-Aligned Movement was established," said Raul Castro, blasting the Bush administration as a threat to global peace and security, in his opening address to leaders and delegates from 118 nations representing two-thirds of the world's countries.

Many southern leaders agreed, citing US wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq waged under the cover of "democracy" and "freedom". US complicity with and support of Israel's war against Lebanon, and US blessings for Israel's continued occupation of Palestine also featured prominently on the summit's agenda. "We denounce the aggression against Lebanon, to whose people and government we offer our full support," said Raul, "and we must repeat our condemnation of the intensified aggression against the Palestinian people."

Victims of the Bush administration's penchant for intervention in sovereign internal affairs voiced their defiance at the summit: Ahmadinejad is currently facing a threat of sanctions following his refusal to suspend Iran's uranium enrichment programme for energy production; Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was slapped with severe sanctions because of his land redistribution programme to the poor; and Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus is threatened with "regime change" for the crime of being a socialist, an ideology the Bush administration considers hard-line and passé.

But it is the "new socialists of the 21st century" --Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales-- who, perhaps, best represent the new spirit of defiance to US hegemony. True to form, Chavez pledged he would defend Iran, a country that is widely slated to be next on Washington's list for a US-led invasion. "We are with you," Chavez told Ahmadinejad, "like we are with Cuba. And if the US invades Cuba, blood will flow."

As usual, Chavez made good on his promise. After the summit, Chavez clinched a $3 billion trade deal with Iran and vowed to further strengthen economic and political ties with the Islamic Republic --one among the many "rogue" states blacklisted by the US.

As for Cuba, it has been on the US hit list for the past 45 years. Short of invading the island, the Bush administration assiduously plods on to effect "regime change" in the "post- Castro" era. To that effect, the administration's self-styled Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba launched a 95-page report outlining its "transition to democracy" strategy under the auspices of transition coordinator, Caleb McCarry on 10 July. In addition to listing a host of destabilising mechanisms, the report includes a "secret annex", ostensibly outlining an invasion package.

The latest US scheme against Cuba includes the creation of five new interagency working groups, reported The Miami Herald. A highly secretive operation, it was set up shortly after 31 July, following news of Fidel's surgery. According to the Herald, three of the working groups are directed by the US State Department and sponsor orchestrated diplomatic action against the island in addition to broadcasting inflammatory anti-Cuban propaganda. The idea is to expand and improve current radio and TV broadcasts, which suffer from low viewer ratings as a result of mediocre programming and a crude capitalist sales pitch.

Another group championing "humanitarian aid" is operating under the umbrella of the US Commerce Department, while a fifth group deals with immigration issues under the Department of Homeland Security. The idea is to restrict immigration out of the island in order to create an explosive internal situation that will facilitate civil strife.

Notwithstanding destabilisation schemes, old or new, the Cubans remain defiant. They have been at the receiving end of US aggression for more than half a century. Notwithstanding the US onslaught against countries of the global south, what is important is to turn things around and revamp NAM in the spirit of Bandung, says Raul.

"Non-Alignment nowadays", said Raul, "means supporting the right of the countries of the south to take the measures needed to ensure that they have control over their natural resources for the benefit of their peoples." As representatives of two-thirds of the world's people, the Havana NAM summit therefore agreed to struggle for the right to national sovereignty, including the right to development, in the face of neo-liberal economic hegemony.

NeoLibs sucks!

World Bank Profits From Poor Countries - Report

Anil Netto

IPS – FINANCE

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34780

SINGAPORE, Sep 19 (IPS) -The World Bank receives more from developing countries than what it disburses to them says a new report released Tuesday as finance ministers endorsed a controversial new Bank plan to tackle corruption in developing countries.

The Social Watch Report 2006, released here at the annual meetings of the Bank group and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), stressed the need to reform the current international financial structure. Net transfers (disbursements minus repayments minus interest payments) to developing countries from the Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction (IBRD), have been negative every year since 1991, the report pointed out.

The IBRD is now not making any contribution to development finance other than providing funds to service its outstanding claims. The International Development Association (IDA), which provides interest-free credits and grants to the poorest developing countries to boost their economic growth, is the only source of net financing from the Bank.

But these disbursements amount to only 4-5 billion US dollars a year. Taken together, the contribution of the Bank to the external financing of developing countries is negative by some 1.2 billion dollars, thus "failing to fulfil the purpose of its mission'', said Social Watch, an international network of over 400 citizens' organisations in 60 countries monitoring commitments to eradicate poverty.

Meanwhile, critics say the Bank has embarked on a public relations offensive using the good governance and poverty eradication rhetoric to mask its unpopular neo-liberal agenda of ‘deregulation', privatisation, and removal of government subsidies for essential services.

Good governance is not an end in itself, but the foundation of the path out of poverty, said Bank group president Paul Wolfowitz in his address to the annual meeting of the Board of Governors on Tuesday. ''It leads to faster and stronger growth. It ensures every development dollar is used to fight poverty, hunger and disease.'' Wolfowitz said that governance, a "much broader concept than anti-corruption'', was aimed at poverty reduction and would not be used as a new conditionality for lending.

"Governments are the key partners of the bank in governance and anti-corruption programmes, while, within its mandate, the Bank should be open to involvement with a broad range of domestic institutions taking into account the speficities of each country,'' said the Development Committee of the IMF and the Bank in a communiqué on Monday. It added that ''country ownership and leadership'' are key to successful implementation.

Yet, it was country ownership and (previous) leadership that were responsible for the Bank's complicity with corrupt regimes in the past. In the case of Indonesia, the Bank poured some 30 billion US dollars over 30 years into the coffers of the dictatorial Suharto regime. It tolerated a significant siphoning off of its aid funds, turned a blind eye to blatant rights violations there and helped to legitimise the regime. When Suharto was eventually toppled, the credibility of the Bank's good governance rhetoric nosedived.

Critics say the Bank's demand for greater transparency would have better credibility if the Bank were to improve its own transparency, carry out a thorough audit of its projects, and provide full support to whistle-blowers. A former Bank staffer, who declined to be identified, expressed doubts to IPS over the practicality of the Bank's new anti-corruption guidelines. "How are they going to put their anti- corruption teams together? Are they going to be consultants or Bank staff or civil society groups?

Some say an excessive focus on anti-corruption is simplistic and the desirable goals of good governance may be neither necessary nor sufficient for boosting development. "Our analysis seriously questions whether the governance agenda can be interpreted as a precondition for development rather than being a list of important and desirable objectives,'' said Mushtaq Husain Khan, a professor of economics, in a paper presented to a G24 briefing here, last week.

There was a real danger that the strong structural drivers of corruption are not being properly understood, he warned: "The desire to link lending and partnership with developing countries on the basis of small differences in governance and corruption indicators is seriously misguided according to our analysis.''

Reforms at the Bank would also have to address its extremely skewed voting structure that, like the IMF's, favours richer nations. The U.S. and Japan, for instance, each have one executive director with 16 and 7 percent voting powers respectively. Africa, on the other hand, has three executive directors (representing 53 countries), one of whom has less than two percent voting power while the other two have three percent each.

Though developing countries have very little power in decision-making, they are the ones that have to largely finance the administrative costs of both institutions through interest and other charges on loans, according to Social Watch. The Bank's prescriptions meanwhile have generally focused on economic work in developing countries that benefits large private firms rather than meaningful practical policies that empower the grassroots poor.

Its big-ticket projects have had disastrous effects in some of these countries and generated much grassroots resentment. Farmers in developing countries have blamed the Bank for pushing for privatisation, ‘deregulation' and ‘liberalisation' through numerous conditions attached to its loans.

In Sri Lanka, for example, development banks such as the Bank have advocated cutting subsidies on fertilisers and seeds, privatising state fertiliser manufacturing industries and seed farms, and selling off stores, mills and retail outlets. They have also attempted to introduce charges for irrigation water and to remove restrictions on the lease and sale of land given to farmers under government grants, triggering a deep crisis in the paddy sector.

"The World Bank is destroying our traditional agricultural systems and our livelihoods" said D R Jayatilake of the Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform in Sri Lanka. "This is why we are telling the Bank and the IMF to get out of our countries.'' Peasant movements, especially in Latin America and Asia, have also struggled against World Bank land reform policies.

''The World Bank is promoting ‘market assisted land reform','' said Henry Saragih, general coordinator of La Via Campesina, the international peasants' movement. He said this was done through a process of privatisation of land markets, which distributes land to the rich who can pay for it. He noted that agribusiness firms are getting more powerful while small farmers have less access to land. "Farmers consider land as a source of livelihood, culture and community life and not as a commodity,'' he said.

In many countries, Bank-funded projects have evicted rural communities from their land, benefiting transnational companies and marginalising local communities. For decades, peasants and indigenous communities have opposed mega projects funded by the Bank such as the Pak Mun dam in Thailand and the Kedung Ombo dam in Indonesia.

The bias in the process begun by the Bank on good governance is interventionist, said the Latin American Network on Debt, Development and Rights (LATINDADD) in a pronouncement distributed at the Singapore meetings. In seeking to carry out judicial reform, combat corruption, and promote reforms in public administrations, the World Bank "intervenes in democratic state institutions (judiciary, executive and legislative branches and control bodies) promoting market mechanisms in public administrations that facilitate transnational investment.''

Address to the United Nations

Rise Up Against the Empire

By Hugo Chavez Frias, President of Venezuela

Madam President, Excellencies, Heads of State, Heads of government and other government’s representatives, good morning.

First, and with all respect, I highly recommend this book by Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious intellectuals in America and the world, Chomsky. One of his most recent works, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project). It’s an excellent work to understand what’s happened in the world in the 20^th Century, what’s currently happening, and the greatest threat on this planet; the hegemonic pretension of the North American imperialism endangers the human race’s survival.

We continue warning about this danger and calling on the very same U.S. people and the world to stop this threat, which resembles the Sword of Democles over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but for the sake of time, I shall just leave it as a recommendation. It reads easily. It’s a very good book. I’m sure, Madam, you are familiar with it.

(APPLAUSE)

The book is in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German.

I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil –the devil, himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday.

(APPLAUSE)

Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: “The Devil’s Recipe.”

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent’s statement –cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that’s their democratic model. It’s the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I’m quoting, “Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom.”

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother –he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there’s an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are extremists. It’s that the world is waking up. It’s waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.

The president then –and this he said himself, he said: “I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace.”

That’s true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They’ll say yes.

But the government doesn’t want peace. The government of the United States doesn’t want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what’s happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What’s happening? What’s happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela –new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly.

The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision? Is this crossfire?

He’s thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, “We’re suffering because we see homes destroyed.’

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples –to the peoples of the world. He came to say –I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, “Yankee imperialist, go home.” I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed –fully, fully confirmed.

I don’t think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let’s accept –let’s be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It’s worthless.

Oh, yes, it’s good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Evo’s yesterday, or President Lula’s. Yes, it’s good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we’ve heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, September 20th, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility, our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Lula talked about this yesterday right here: The Security Council’s expansion, both regarding its permanent and non-permanent categories. New developed and developing countries, the Third World, must be given access as new permanent members. That’s step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression –and that is something everyone’s calling for –of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we’ve always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar’s home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let’s see. Well, there’s been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there’s no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela’s thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said “helplessly optimistic,” because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceania. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that’s why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents, in a Cubana de Aviacion airliner, died.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I’m here today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don’t worry, I’m not going to read it. But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter –more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, “Oh, Fidel was going to die.” But they’re going to be disappointed because he didn’t. And he’s not only alive, he’s back in his green fatigues, and he’s now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I’m now closing my file. I’m taking the book with me. And, don’t forget, I’m recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We’ve proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us, and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

Pertemuan Gerakan Non-Blok di Havana

Perhatian banyak kalangan di seluruh dunia tertarik kepada peristiwa penting ini, bukan saja karena pertemuan tingkat tinggi ini dihadiri oleh 56 kepala negara dan delegasi dari 118 negara, melainkan juga karena pertemuan ini (yang diketuai oleh Kuba sebagai tuan-rumah) dilangsungkan dalam suasana anti-imperialisme (terutama AS) dan anti-globalisasi atauanti-neoliberalisme yang makin meninggi dimana-mana.

Patutlah kiranya diperhatikan oleh banyak kalangan di Indonesia bahwa pertemuan tingkat tinggi Gerakan Non-Blok yang ke-14 (Non Aligned Movement -NAM) yang diadakan di Havana kali ini menunjukkan –sekali lagi!– bahwa pada pokoknya, atau pada intinya, garis politik internasional Presiden Sukarno yang anti-imperialis yang didengung-dengungkan sampai tahun 1965 ternyatalah sekarang benar, dan bahkan telah dan sedang menjadi sikap dari makin banyak rakyat dan negara di dunia. Bung Karno, yang sampai akhir hayat hidupnya mendambakan solidaritas antara rakyat- rakyat Asia-Afrika dan Amerika Latin dalam perjuangan bersama melawan neo-kolonialisme dan imperialisme (istilah yang dulu terkenal sekali: nekolim) pastilah sekarang dalam makamnya berseri-seri mukanya karena gembira sekali melihat perkembangan situasi dunia yang sudah mengalami banyak perubahan, seperti yang tercermin dalam pertemuan Gerakan Non-Blok di Havana kali ini.

Suara anti-imperialisme AS yang menonjol
Dalam pidato pembukaan pertemuan besar itu pada tanggal 11 September, Menteri Luar Negeri Kuba, Felipe Perez Roque, menyerukan kepada para peserta untuk bergerak bersama dan meninggalkan perbedaan atau pertentangan yang ada guna merapatkan barisan (close rangs) dalam membela negara-negara yang anggota NAM.

”Bahaya, ancaman, dan kesulitan yang kita hadapi bersama adalah sama dan berasal dari sumber yang sama (The risks, threats and difficulties that we face are similar and have commmon origins). Kita harus tunjukkan kepada dunia kekuatan kita dan kemampuan kita untuk menanggulangi bersama-sama tantangan-tantangan besar yang dihadapkan kepada kita semua oleh kekuatan yang paling kuat di dunia,” katanya.

Ia dengan keras mengkritik perang baru-baru ini antara Israel dan Libanon, dan memberikan julukan “genocid sehari-hari” terhadap apa yang dialami rakyat Palestina. “Pertemuan tingkat tinggi Gerakan Non-Blok kita juga bersamaa waktunya dengan makin kuatnya tekanan terhadap Iran yang mempertahan- kan haknya melanjutkan program pemakaian tenaga nuklir untuk tujuan damai, dan ketika berbagai negara non-blok diancam perang pre-emptive (perang pencegahan) dan agressi,” katanya.

Isi pidato pembukaan Menteri Luar Negeri Kuba, Felipe Perez Roque, itu menunjuk- kan bahwa dalam pertemuan tingkat tinggi Garakan Non-blok di Havana kali ini –lebih dari pada yang sudah-sudah di masa yang lalu– suara-suara atau sikap anti- imperialisme AS sangatlah menonjol. Perkembangan semacam ini adalah sangat penting untuk mendorong maju lebih lanjut gerakan di dunia (termasuk di Indonesia) menentang anti-imperialisme dan anti-neoliberalisme.

Pentingnya pertemuan di Havana
Berbagai sejarawan dan pakar politik di dunia melihat Gerakan Non-Blok sebagai kelanjutan dari Konferensi Bandung dalam tahun 1955, yang sangat besar pengaruhnya bagi pembebasan rakyat dan bangsa di dunia dari cengkeraman kolonialisme dan imperialisme. Sekarang, sekitar 3.000 orang delegasi (dari 118 negara-negara anggota NAM dan sekitar 20-an negara peninjau) berkumpul dalam pertemuan tingkat tinggi ini. Sebagian terbesar dari negara- negara yang hadir di Havana ini adalah negara-negara berkembang dari dunia ketiga dan sebagian adalah negara-negara “miskin”.

Arti penting Gerakan Non-Blok atau NAM itu juga kelihatan bahwa jumlah negara-negara yang tergabung dalam NAM sudah mendekati jumlah seluruh negara anggota PBB (dua pertiganya), dan mencakup lebih dari separuh penduduk dunia (sekitar 55%). Sudah tentu, politik negara-negara yang jumlahnya begitu banyak itu juga mempunyai sikap yang warnanya –atau kadarnya– berbeda-beda menghadapi imperialisme AS, termasuk sikap pemerintah Indonesia yang diwakili oleh SBY.

Pertemuan tingkat tinggi NAM yang ke-14 dan diadakan di Havana ini mencerminkan makin merosotnya citra AS sebagai negara adi-kuasa tunggal, yang sejak lama sudah memainkan peran sebagai polisi dunia dan sering bertindak sewenang- wenang terhadap berbagai negara, mentang-mentang kaya, besar, dan kuat sekali. Kuba yang selama lebih dari 40 tahun sudah diboikot dan diblokade oleh AS secara politik dan ekonomi dengan cara-cara yang brutal, dan telah disubversi berulang kali, ternyata sekarang masih tegap berdiri dan bahkan makin mendapat simpati dari banyak penjuru. Pertemuan besar di Havana ini mengisaratkan bahwa makin lebih sulit lagilah kiranya bagi imperialisme AS untuk menghancurkan Kuba.

Faktor Hugo Chavez yang menonjol
Munculnya presiden Hugo Chavez dari Venezuela dalam pertemuan di Havana ini merupakan salah satu faktor yang membikin pertemuan kali ini sangat menarik perhatian dari banyak kalangan di dunia. Banyak kalangan dari berbagai negeri menyoroti peran yang bisa dilakukan oleh Hugo Chavez untuk menjadikan pertemuan NAM di Havana sebagai pusat anti-AS dan sebagai panggung untuk mendorong benua Amerika Latin berkembang lebih ke kiri lagi.

Sejak terpilihnya (melalui pemilu demokratis) sebagai presiden Venezuela (dalam tahun 1998), Hugo Chavez sudah terang-terangan memperlihatkan dukungan atau simpati besarnya terhadap Fidel Castro dengan revolusi sosialisnya di Kuba. Sejak bertahun-tahun kerjasama dalam bidang politik, ekonomi, sosial dan kebudayaan antara Venezuela dan Kuba telah digalang secara besar-besaran, dan makin lama makin meningkat terus. Sudah berkali- kali Hugo Chavez menyatakan bahwa ia menaruh respek yang tinggi terhadap Fidel Castro dan mengagumi revolusi Kuba. Bahkan, ketika Fidel Castro jatuh sakit dan mengalami operasi baru-baru ini, ia sudah mengunjunginya sampai 3 kali. Suatu hal yang bisa dianggap sebagai luar biasa!

Banyak pengamat politik yang memperhatikan usaha Hugo Chavez dalam pertemuan ini untuk mengumpul- kan dukungan bagi Venezuela untuk duduk sebagai anggota non-permanen Dewan Keamanan PBB yang akan dipilih tidak lama lagi. Hugo Chavez berusaha menjadi wakil dari negara-negara kecil dan miskin di dunia, dalam menghadapi kekuatan-kekuatan besar di PBB, terutama AS. Kalau usaha Hugo Chavez untuk menjadikan Venezuela sebagai anggota non- permanen Dewan Keamanan PBB berhasil, maka banyak negara yang selama ini dirugikan oleh imperialisme AS akan mempunyai wakilnya yang bisa diandalkan, karena selama ini sudah teruji gigih. Oleh karena itu, dapatlah dimengerti sepenuhnya, kalau fihak imperialisme AS berusaha sekuat- kuatnya, dan dengan segala daya dan cara, untuk mencegah terpilihnya Venezuela menjadi anggota non-permanen Dewan Keamanan PBB.

Kekuatiran Washington terhadap pertemuan di Havana
Dapatlah kiranya dimengerti bahwa Washington mengamati pertemuan di Havana kali ini dengan amat cermat atau sangat teliti, bahkan mungkin bercampur dengan kekuatiran akan apa yang terjadi selanjutnya. Sebab, kalau selama ini NAM sudah menunjukkan sikap anti-imperialisme dalam berbagai statement atau resolusi-resolusinya, tetapi itu semuanya masih bisa dianggap samar-samar atau umum-umum saja. Tetapi, pertemuan di Havana kali ini menunjukkan hal-hal yang pada masa-masa yang lalu belum ada.

Kehadiran presiden Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Najad, yang jelas-jelas anti-AS dan anti-Israel, dan juga presiden Siria Bashar Assad yang mempunyai sikap yang sama, merupakan pertanda yang tidak menguntungkan sama sekali bagi kepentingan atau citra AS. Juga hadirnya presiden Bolivia, Evo Morales, sekutu dekat Hugo Chavez, membikin pertemuan di Havana ini menjadi peristiwa yang penting bagi perkembangan gerakan di dunia untuk melawan hegemoni imperialisme AS dan neo- liberalisme. Patut dicatat bahwa Korea Utara juga dikabarkan mengirimkan delegasi tingkat tinggi untuk menghadiri pertemuan ini. Kuba, yang menjadi ketua Gerakan Non-Blok dari sekarang sampai 3 tahun yang mendatang, menyelenggarakan pertemuan di Havana dalam suasana politik internasional yang makin tidak menguntungkan imperialisme AS, antara lain karena perkembangan di Timur Tengah dan Amerika Latin.

Diselenggarakannya pertemuan tingkat tinggi Non Aligned Movement kali ini diperkirakan –sedikit banyaknya– akan mempunyai dampak terhadap gerakan sedunia (termasuk gerakan di Indonesia) yang makin lama makin menguat dalam melawan neo-liberalisme. Tidak salahlah kiranya kalau kita juga berharap bahwa kehadiran SBY dalam pertemuan di Havana memungkinkan baginya sendiri (dan juga bagi anggota rombongannya) untuk menghayati semangat dan suasana anti-AS, yang merupakan tanda-tanda arah zaman sekarang. Kita semua akan bisa melihat, nantiya, apakah SBY (dan orang-orangnya) memahami sepenuhnya arah perubahan situasi dunia yang tercermin dalam pertemuan di Havana ini.

Bung Karno tokoh Gerakan Non-Blok
Sudah seoatutnya, atau seharusnya, bahwa presiden SBY yang hadir dalam pertemuan di Havana kali ini merasa bangga bahwa Gerakan Non-Blok sekarang menjadi begitu besar dan merupakan kekuatan politik di dunia yang “diperhitungkan” oleh kekuatan-kekuatan imperialisme, terutama AS. Karena, Gerakan Non-Blok yang pada dasarnya anti-imperialisme inilah yang sudah diperjuangkan oleh Bung Karno, dengan diadakannya Konferensi Bandung dalam tahun 1955.

Seperti kita ingat dari catatan sejarah, Konferensi Bandung merupakan tonggak sejarah yang penting bagi lahirnya Gerakan Non-Blok. Istilah “Non-Alignment” mulai dikenal ketika Perdana Menteri India Jawaharlal Nehru mengucapkan pidatonya di Colombo (Srilanka) dalam tahun 1954, dan kemudian menjadi jiwa Konferensi Bandung dalam tahun 1955. Gerakan Non-Blok telah dilahirkan oleh lima pemimpin besar dunia: Tito dari Yugoslavia, Sukarno dari Indonesia, Nasser dari Mesir, Nkrumah dari Ghana dan Nehru dari India.

Konferensi tingkat tinggi Gerakan Non-Blok diadakan untuk pertama kalinya di Beograde dalam tahun 1961, dengan dihadiri oleh presiden Sukarno juga. Kemudian, rata-rata setiap 3 tahun, diselenggarakan berturut-turut di Mesir (1964), Zambia (1970), Aljazair (1973), Sri Lanka (1976), Kuba (1979), India (1983), Zimbabwe (1986), Beograd (1989), Indonesia (1992), Colombia (1995), Afrika Selatan (1998), Malaysia (2003), dan sekarang Kuba lagi.

Konferensi Gerakan Non-Blok di Zambia (yang ibukotanya bernama Lusaka) dalam tahun 1970 mencatat peristiwa-peristiwa yang “tidak mengenakkan” bagi rombongan Presiden Suharto, berhubung dengan adanya demonstrasi-demonstrasi anti-Suharto oleh golongan-golongan penduduk Afrika yang bersimpati kepada Bung Karno, karena mereka mendengar bahwa beliau digulingkan dan dikenakan tahanan rumah oleh Angkatan Darat.

Jadi, kalau ada orang yang banyak bicara tentang Gerakan Non-Blok tetapi sengaja mau menghilangkan nama atau mengecilkan peran Bung Karno sebagai salah satu di antara tokoh-tokoh penting yang membidani kelahirannya sejak Konferensi Bandung dan kemudian diteruskan di Beograd dalam tahun 1961, berarti bahwa orang tersebut tidak mengerti apa sebenarnya isi, atau tujuan, atau hakekat Gerakan Non-Blok, seperti yang dicita-citakan para pendirinya. Orang-orang sejenis pendukung Orde Baru-nya Suharto itulah yang umumnya mempunyai sikap yang demikian itu, sampai sekarang.

Tidak lama lagi kita semua akan bisa mengetahui apa-apa saja yang dihasilkan oleh pertemuan di Havana kali ini. Namun, apa pun hasilnya dan bagaimana pun keputusan yang diambil oleh pertemuan dari negara-negara anggota Gerakan Non-Blok ini, satu hal yang jelas adalah bahwa situasi internasional makin tidak berfihak kepada imperialisme AS beserta sekutu-sekutunya. Dan bahwa gerakan anti-imperialisme AS dan anti-neoliberalisme makin meninggi dimana-mana.

Arah perkembangan situasi dunia semacam inilah yang perlu diamati oleh banyak kalangan di Indonesia. Sebab, perang dingin dalam bentuknya yang lama sudah berlalu, dan sekarang digantikan dengan resistensi global terhadap superpower AS. Sayangnya, sisa-sisa kekuatan rejim militer Orde Baru masih terus berusaha diperpanjangnya persekongkolan dengan imperialisme AS. Mereka adalah golongan-golongan yang membuta-tuli terhadap arah perubahan zaman sekarang ini. Sayang sekali!

Paris, 17 September 2006
MDK

To Build The World Anew

“….However, it is my sincere belief that Pantja Sila has much more than a national significance. It has a universal significance, and can be applied internationally. No one will deny the element of truth in that view expressed by Bertrand Russell. Much of the world is so divided between those who accept the ideas and principles of Declaration of America Independence and those who accept the ideas and principles of the Communist Manifesto. Those who accept one, reject the other, and there is conflict on both ideological and practical grounds....”

(Pidato Presiden Soekarno "To Build World A New" di depan Sidang Umum PBB, 30 September 1960)

MEMPERINGATI 80 TAHUN KARYA BUNG KARNO

NASIONALISME, ISLAMISME DAN MARXISME

S. Suroso

80 tahun yang lalu. Tahun 1926. Bagai petir mengguntur di siang hari, Bung Karno mengumunkan tulisannya yang historis: NASIONALISME, ISLAMISME DAN MARXISME. Tulisan ini sangat menggemparkan, karena ia menampilkan gagasan raksasa yang belum pernah ada sebelumnya dalam sejarah Indonesia. Gagasan ini mempunyai jangkauan jauh ke depan. Sampai pada saat sekarang!

Kini, sesudah hampir sepertiga abad dihitamkan oleh rezim militer fasis Orba, nama Bung Karno mencuat kembali sebagai Bapak Bangsa. Bangsa kita memuja Bung Karno bukan karena jasmaninya yang tampan, bukan karena suaranya yang menggelegar membangkitkan semangat perjuangan. Tapi karena kepemimpinannya. Kepemimpinannya berarti fikirannya, gagasan-gagasannya. Salah satu gagasan Bung Karno yang brilyan dan historis adalah dipaparkan dalam tulisan NASIONALISME, ISLAMISME DAN MARXISME.

Kita peringati 80 tahun karya ini, karena isinya adalah sangat relevan dengan situasi bangsa kita dewasa ini. Nasionalisme sedang jadi bahan perbincangan. Ada yang mempersoalkan: adakah nasionalisme Indonesia dewasa ini? Apa itu nasionalisme Indonesia kini? Masih perlukah nasionalisme itu dikala jagat dilanda globalisasi? Islamisme kini sedang kiprah di semua benua. Setiap saat dikumandangkan orang, bahwa Indonesia adalah negara dengan penganut Islam terbesar di dunia. Apa dan sampai dimana Islam bermanfaat dalam membangun Indonesia, menghadapi ancaman neo-liberalisme, membela dan mempertahankan Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia, mengatasi krisis multi-dimensi yang melanda bangsa saat ini? Marxisme ternyata tidaklah punah. Para penganut dan penentang Marxisme kian lantang menyuarakan pandangan masing-masing yang dianut.

Yang jelas dan tak bisa dibantah adalah: selagi ada nasion, tetap ada nasionalisme. Bangsa yang tak punya nasionalisme, berarti bangsa yang tidak berjiwa, tidak punya gagasan ke arah mana bangsa itu akan menuju. Berarti bangsa itu tidak bermasa-depan. Bagi Indonesia, Bung Karno adalah bapak nasionalisme Indonesia. Mengakui Bung Karno sebagai Bapak Bangsa, tak bisa lain haruslah mengakui nasionalisme yang diajarkan Bung Karno. Juga tak bisa dibantah, Islam adalah salah satu agama terbesar di dunia. Selalu dikumandangkan, bahwa Indonesia adalah negara berpenduduk penganut Islam terbesar di dunia. Islam yang demikian besar pengaruhnya, mestinya bisa memainkan peranan penting bagi membawa maju penganutnya ke arah mewujudkan cita-cita nasion Indonesia. Marxisme yang kontroversial kini juga mencuat. Walaupun ratusan ribu bahkan sejuta lebih penganut dan simpatisan Marxisme sudah dibantai, Marxisme sudah dilarang selama sepertiga abad oleh rezim militer fasis Orba, kini Marxisme sudah jadi buah mulut lagi. Bahkan ada yang sudah ketakutan, karena tanpa alasan yang masuk akal merasa terancam oleh kebangkitan lagi penganut Marxisme. Disamping itu, bermunculan pula para pembela Marxisme sejati. Mata dan fikiran mereka sangat jeli, hingga dengan gampang menemukan dan menuding adanya pengkhianat Marxisme. Ada pengkhianat Marxisme, berarti ada pendukung Marxisme sejati. Betapa pun jua, hiruk pikuk antara pembela dan penentang Marxisme ini adalah baik. Kenyataan ini menunjukkan, bahwa bangsa kita sedang maju selangkah, keluar dari kurungan kekuasaan fasis yang memasung kebebasan orang punya pendapat, memasung orang punya keyakinan poilitik, punya ideologi. Perlulah dipelihara kebebasan bersuara yang sudah dimenangkan oleh gerakan reformasi ini. Biarlah diperdepatkan secara bebas pemahaman tentang Marxisme itu. Benar atau salahnya Marxisme akan diadili oleh sejarah.

Sejarah pergerakan nasional Indonesia menunjukkan bahwa penganut nasionalisme Indonesia, penganut Islam, dan penganut Marxisme adalah kenyataan objektif dalam masyarakat Indonesia. Kekuatan apapun tak mungkin bisa melenyapkan salah satu dari penganut aliran ini. Dan penganut ketiga aliran ini sudah terbukti berjasa dalam perjuangan melawan kolonialisme Belanda, melawan fasisme Jepang, membangun Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia. Ini sesuai dengan gagasan Bung Karno yang dipaparkan dalam tulisan NASIONALISME, ISLAMISME DAN MARXISME.

Dua dasawarsa sesudah diumumkannya tulisan NASIONALISME, ISLAMISME DAN MARXISME, Bung Karno tampil mencetuskan Pancasila sebagai dasar negara. Dalam kedua karya inilah terpaku nasionalisme Indonesia. Kedua-duanya mengisi jiwa nasionalisme Indonesia. Kedua-duanya menjadi senjata bagi bangsa Indonesia untuk mewujudkan nasionalisme Indonesia.

Kini, sangat mencuat suara pengakuan akan Bung Karno sebagai Bapak Bangsa. Apa artinya pengakuan atas Bung Karno sebagai Bapak Bangsa? Perlu berpikir baik-baik dalam mengakui Bung Karno sebagai Bapak Bangsa. PIKIR ITU PELITA HATI. Akan banyak tersingkap, jika kita pikirkan arti pengakuan atas Bung Karno sebagai Bapak Bangsa.

Bapak Bangsa Indonesia berarti Bapak nasionalisme Indonesia. Nasionalisme Indonesia dipaparkan dalam karya-karya Bung Karno. Maka di kala menjelang peringatan Hari SUMPAH PEMUDA, adalah seyogyanya digerakkan kegiatan mempelajari karya-karya Bung Karno, terutama NASIONALISME, ISLAMISME DAN MARXISME.

Sekali lagi, pikir itu pelita hati.