250

p Problems linked with relations between the developing countries themselves become increasingly important in contemporary international affairs. This is due not simply to the purely quantitative factor, the numerical preponderance of the developing countries among the participants in 251 international affairs, but also to the fact that these relations are intertwined with a multiplicity of contradictions, and that this sphere of modern international relations is fraught with various conflicts. The conflicts that are a legacy from the colonial past, those that have arisen after liberation, and the contradictions between the developing states, in combination with the internal instability, result in sources of tension and the general absence of stability in that sphere of international relations.

p One can see a battle and tangle of two major trends in the relations between the developing countries. One trend is towards a mutual coming together, co-ordination of foreign policy, solidarity based on a community of historical destiny and historical tasks, on a joint struggle against the common enemy—imperialism and colonialism; the other trend, the counterposing of one country to another, is engendered by border disputes, tribal and racial strife, rivalry in the struggle to receive economic aid from industrial countries and to obtain markets for their own products, and also a divergence in social and political development. The policy of imperialism, which fans reactionary nationalism, causes friction among the developing countries and tends to split them, is an important factor in the strengthening of the second trend.

p The first trend is more in evidence at a time when the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle in Asian and African countries for political independence is on the rise; the latter—in the subsequent period of transition to the resolving of social and economic problems. Both these trends stem from objective reality.

p The logic of the national liberation struggle, aimed initially at attaining political independence, produced solidarity of the oppressed peoples in the face of the common enemy— colonialism in its classical forms. Unity of all anti– imperialist forces both within individual countries and on an international scale made it relatively easy and quick to decide the tasks of the first stage of the national liberation revolution.

p Solidarity among Asian and African peoples largely helped them to achieve success in their battle against the 252 colonialists, to establish the newly liberated states as a new world force. The movement for Afro-Asian solidarity acquired immense scale and importance in the mid-1950s, when it was quite definitely expressed in relations between countries. The Bandung Conference of Afro-Asian states in 1955 and the decisions taken facilitated its organisational shaping.

p Delegates from 29 Asian and African states, headed mostly by Prime Ministers or Foreign Ministers, took part in the Bandung Conference. Its resolutions on problems of dependent peoples, on human rights and self-determination, on economic co-operation, on cultural co-operation, and the declaration on the promotion of world peace and co– operation testified to the growth of national awareness in Asian and African countries, and helped these countries to overcome their isolation.

p The Conference decisions and the Bandung spirit became a symbol of solidarity of Asian and African countries and of their qualitatively new and independent role in world politics. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said: “The Bandung Conference has been a historic event. If it only met, the meeting itself would have been a great achievement, as it would have represented the emergence of a new Asia and Africa, of new nations who are on the march towards the fulfilment of their independence and of their sense of their role in the world. Bandung proclaimed the political emergence in world affairs of over half the world’s population.”  [252•* 

p The Bandung Conference was memorable in another sense. It not only symbolised the appearance of a new force in world politics, it showed the nature of that force, its basic direction. The Conference decisions unambiguously condemned colonialism and aggressive imperialist policy, proclaimed the loyalty of its participants to the principles of peaceful coexistence. These decisions, like certain subsequent actions by the developing countries, their common position on major international issues, give every ground for positively evaluating their general role in modern international 253 relations, and for viewing them as an anti-imperialist, revolutionary and progressive force.

p Bandung was no chance event in international affairs. Both before the Conference and after, a series of international and political measures of a regional character were taken, though on a smaller scale. These included the Colombo Group Conference in 1954 (Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia and Pakistan), the joint actions by Asian and African countries in the United Nations, the creation and the activity of the Organisation of African Unity in 1963, and so on. However, facts of another order, such as the abortive second conference of Asian and African states of the Bandung type, scheduled for Algeria in 1965, must also be taken into consideration.

p There is no doubt that in the new conditions most countries of Asia and Africa have remained true to a neutralist foreign policy, and as before, refuse to join military and political blocs, and have taken an active part in a wider but less clearly defined group of non-aligned states. Asia and Africa were broadly represented at the Belgrade and Cairo conferences of non-aligned countries, which condemned the aggressive policy of imperialism and pledged allegiance to the principles of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. The movement for Afro-Asian solidarity and solidarity of the peoples of the three continents (Asia, Africa and Latin America) is developing in the same direction.

On the other hand, of late some circles in developing countries have been showing an inclination to ignore the difference between imperialist countries—which have grown rich over the decades at the expense of ruthless exploitation of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America and are responsible for all the crimes of the colonialists and for the past sufferings and present social and economic backwardness of the developing countries on the one hand, and the socialist countries, on the other, which are giving all-round help to the national liberation struggle of these peoples and which have built an advanced economy by their own efforts. On certain issues the position of some participants in UN conferences on trade and development in Geneva in 1964 and in

254 Delhi in 1968 has reflected undiscriminating demands in relation to all “rich” states.

p At the same time, another trend has appeared in recent years in relations between developing countries—a trend towards differentiation, disunity, the sharpening of divergencies and contradictions among them. One may cite the exacerbation of territorial disputes inherited from colonial times, and tribal, racial and religious conflicts between individual newly liberated states. There is the example of the Indo-Pakistani conflict which led in 1965 to military action; the contradictions between individual Arab states; border conflicts in Africa and the rivalry between individual groups of African countries.

p To a large extent these differences and conflicts are a consequence of the "divide and rule" policy which the imperialist powers try sometimes to pursue even today. The frontiers of the young sovereign countries in Asia and especially in Africa are, as a rule, the frontiers which were formed during the building of colonial empires and more often reflected the correlation of forces that existed between colonial powers rather than local conditions, tribal and language differences, and often quite deliberately infringed upon natural contacts and divergencies, which had existed on these territories before the coming of the colonialists. Even today the imperialists try to play on the friction between developing countries, to fan strife, and to encourage separatist movements, thereby complicating the complete emancipation of the young states from foreign dependence.

p Economic reasons are also behind the noticeable weakening in the former solidarity that existed between the developing countries. While earlier they used to be primarily allies in the struggle against their common enemy—colonialism, today some countries sometimes act as rivals in the struggle to get foreign capital for developing their economies and for more advantageous conditions of capital investment.

p Differences over the paths of social and political development and, correspondingly, over foreign policy are a major source of contradictions among the developing countries and of potential conflicts between them. Countries that have started out or are starting out along a non-capitalist path of 255 development and enjoy wide-scale support from the countries of the world socialist system comprise one group of countries. It is against the progressive tendencies and regimes in these countries that the struggle of the imperialists is spearheaded in an endeavour to set the other group against them, the group that is most backward in the social and political respect, countries with a reactionary and often puppet regime, utterly dependent on the imperialist powers and which pursue a pro-imperialist policy. One of the reasons for direct encouragement by the imperialists of Israeli aggression against Arab states is the desire to bring down the progressive governments of Egypt and Syria.

p Finally, another source of conflict in relations between developing countries is to be found in the complexity of social and political tasks confronting these countries, the unstable political situation, the attempts of certain circles to seek a settlement of domestic difficulties through foreign adventures designed to provide popular discontent with a safety valve.

p Irrespective, however, of the reasons and character of contradictions and conflicts within the area of newly liberated states there is always the possibility of their growing into armed struggle and affecting the interests of world peace. With the prevailing balance of power and a situation where two systems confront one another with nuclear missiles, local conflicts and wars, inasmuch as the imperialists invariably try to use them in their own interests, carry the threat of escalation and, ultimately, of a world war, with all the possible disastrous consequences.

p In this light, the position of the present Peking leaders in advocating "a revolutionary war of the world village against the world city" seems particularly irresponsible.

p Many bourgeois politicians, in their writings on the acute problems facing Asia, Africa and Latin America, try to whitewash imperialism of the accusation that it produces danger spots of war.

p In fact, imperialism was and remains the main source of a threat to world peace in the area of newly liberated states as well. This is amply borne out by US policy in recent years, particularly the aggressive actions in Vietnam, 256 Cambodia and Laos, the support for the Israeli militarists, the encouragement given to the reactionary Yahya Khan regime in Pakistan, and aggressive adventures in other parts of the world.

p Naturally enough, foreign policy conflicts between developing countries complicate international relations and are a source of international tension. The avoidance and elimination of sources of war danger in the newly liberated zone, and the prevention of imperialist intervention accord with the interests of all peoples in the world, and of all countries, including the great powers, and objectively require their concerted efforts. In these circumstances, the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence, of peaceful resolution of controversial issues between states, and of relaxing international tensions, a policy consistently pursued by the Soviet Union, has great relevance in respect to relations between the developing countries.

p The background, proceedings and decisions of the Tashkent Conference of 1966 were profoundly symbolic. It was in Moscow, not in London or Washington, that India and Pakistan sought u just mediator. It was a socialist state that guaranteed, if not a resolution of the conflict then, at any rate, an end to the senseless blood-letting of the two neighbouring peoples.

p The stand taken by the Soviet Union over events in East Pakistan in the spring of 1971, a stand aimed at a just political settlement and the consolidation of peace on the subcontinent, had great importance.

Soviet policy is winning mounting recognition from the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, who see in the Soviet Union a consistent, selfless and impartial fighter for peace and friendship among peoples.