By Ramesh Jaura* – rjaura.substack.com
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
—W.B. Yeats
Yeats, a Protestant of Anglo-Irish descent, wrote those words over a century ago. But today, they feel eerily prescient.
The global order is fraying. Trust is evaporating. Crises multiply faster than cooperation can contain them. The institutions that once promised stability are now questioned at their very core.
And yet, amid the wreckage of the old order, an idea born seventy years ago in Bandung, Indonesia, continues to flicker with relevance. In 1955, newly independent nations from Asia and Africa gathered—not to create another axis of power, but to imagine a world governed by sovereignty, solidarity, and equality.
They called not for domination, but for dignity.
This article revisits Bandung’s spirit, not as history, but as a blueprint for the future. Can the world’s fractured powers—Europe, China, and the Global South—still realise a multialigned future where justice, not hierarchy, defines legitimacy?
The Return of Bandung’s Question
In April 1955, twenty-nine newly sovereign nations—many of which were poor, recently decolonised, and largely ignored by the Cold War superpowers—gathered in Bandung. Lacking military might, they carried something more potent: moral authority born from shared struggle.
They demanded a world free from tutelage, where cooperation, not coercion, defined global affairs.
Now, seventy years later, that same question returns—more urgent than ever. Multilateralism is unravelling. Power has splintered into rival poles. The foundational ideals of Bandung—equality, independence, cooperation—have found new relevance in debates over climate justice, data sovereignty, and global finance.
The Global South no longer asks to be included. It is already central.
The real question is: will Europe and China—two of the most powerful non-Southern actors—engage the South as equals? Can they move from rivalry to reciprocity, from privilege to partnership?
A Fractured Multilateralism
The “rules-based international order” is invoked often, but is believed in less and less—especially by those who have long been excluded from shaping those rules. Southern nations point to its selective application:
- International law is defended in Ukraine, but ignored in Gaza.
- Climate pledges are made but not kept.
- Debt relief is promised but endlessly delayed.
As Egypt’s former Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy observes, “The system has been structurally biased toward the powerful.”
But abandoning multilateralism is not an option. Without shared frameworks, pandemics, climate shocks, and financial crises will cross borders unchecked. As World Bank official Axel van Trotsenburg warns: “The shared challenges we face are growing faster than our shared capacity to respond.”
He calls for “Bandung economics”—a shift from donor-driven charity to co-ownership of global public goods. And that co-ownership depends on something now in short supply: trust.
Europe and China must understand: legitimacy isn’t declared. It’s earned—through fairness and consistency.
Europe’s Identity Crisis
Once the self-declared moral compass of the world, Europe now finds itself in uncharted waters.
Italian analyst Nathalie Tocci calls it “the most severe crisis of self-definition since 1945.”
Europe preached universality, but now confronts its own partiality.
German historian Andreas Rödder puts it bluntly: “Europe’s deepest illusion has been to mistake its history for the world’s.” Global history has no centre—it is a choreography of perspectives.
Europe’s problem isn’t a lack of values. It’s the inconsistency of their application:
- It upholds human rights but exports arms.
- Promotes democracy while ignoring occupations.
- Champions green transitions while outsourcing emissions.
As Jürgen Trittin notes, “The world isn’t falling apart; it’s falling into place.” Europe’s exceptionalism isn’t collapsing. It’s being normalised.
To regain credibility, Europe must shift from being a value exporter to a value partner. That means:
- Supporting real UN reform
- Championing African representation at the Security Council
- Aligning the EU’s Global Gateway with Southern priorities—not merely countering China
In Tocci’s words: “Europe’s autonomy will not be measured by distance from America, but by proximity to the Global South.”
China’s Responsibility
While Europe grapples with moral consistency, China’s test is one of moral restraint.
In 1955, Zhou Enlai’s presence in Bandung signalled a rising China looking outward with humility. Today, China is a near-superpower and a self-proclaimed leader of the Global South.
Through its Belt and Road Initiative and newer frameworks, such as the Global Development Initiative, China has reshaped the infrastructure and connectivity of much of the developing world.
But influence is not trust.
As Chinese scholar Jing Huang warns: “When assistance becomes leverage, solidarity turns into strategy.” Concerns about opaque loans, political strings, and dependency are real.
Huang calls for a “Bandung-compatible” China: One committed to reciprocity, transparency, and sustainability.
China’s development success gives it moral authority—but its growing dominance tests it.
Bandung offers not just inspiration, but also discipline: to lead by example, not by extraction. To empower, not entrench.
The South’s Reassertion
Once seen as a geopolitical afterthought, the Global South is now a strategic force to be reckoned with.
As Indonesia’s Arif Havas Oegroseno explains, its emerging strategy is one of multi-alignment—diversifying partnerships to protect its sovereignty. “Multi-alignment is not indecision,” he says. “It is risk management.”
The Global South is no longer asking for a seat at the table—it’s helping set the agenda.
India, Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa are no longer passive recipients.
The African Union’s long-overdue entry into the G20 reflects this new status.
But power must come with accountability.
As Indian scholar Indrajit Roy puts it: “A nation that tolerates inequality at home cannot demand justice abroad.”
The next Bandung will be judged not only by its global reform agenda, but by its ability to avoid replicating the internal inequalities it once resisted
Europe, China, and the South: Toward a Mutual Compact
From different starting points, Europe and China now face the same challenge: How to lead in a world that rejects tutelage.
The Körber-Stiftung calls for a bold step: A “compact of mutual renewal.”
Such a compact would rest on three shared commitments:
- Co-ownership of Multilateral Reform
Europe offers institutional knowledge, China offers scale, and the South offers moral legitimacy. Together, they can push for reform of the UN and global financial institutions. - Joint Stewardship of Global Public Goods
Climate, health, food, and digital governance require coordinated investment.- Europe brings technology and regulation
- China brings infrastructure and capital
- The South brings priorities shaped by urgency and experience
- Operationalising Bandung’s Principles
- Cooperation over coercion
- Open standards over proprietary control
- Accountable, inclusive development finance
This won’t end rivalry—but it can humanise power by rooting it in fairness.
The Digital and Ethical Frontier
The next Bandung won’t be about maps. It will be about code.
As Ingrid Schneider warns: “Digital infrastructures have become the railways of the twenty-first century.” Who builds and owns them controls tomorrow’s economy.
Europe and China offer contrasting paths:
- Europe champions privacy and rights.
- China offers speed and state-led innovation.
The Global South risks becoming a data colony—consuming, but not owning, its digital destiny.
A multialigned model would combine:
- Europe’s regulatory ethics
- China’s development capacity
- And Southern ownership
This is Bandung for the digital age: Sovereignty through shared stewardship.
The Moral Economy of Power
What, ultimately, makes power legitimate?
Europe has anchored it in law. China in order and performance. Bandung added a third pillar: justice through equality.
As van Trotsenburg says: “We cannot build a just transition on an unjust foundation.”
Ethics-free multipolarity just multiplies hegemons. Ethical multipolarity democratises power.
Bandung offers more than memory. It provides a moral compass for an interdependent age.
Europe’s Second Chance, China’s Test
Europe and China both stand at a crossroads. Both have power. Both have history. And now, both share responsibility.
Europe must reconcile its colonial past with its global aspirations. China must prove it can rise without ruling over others.
Europe brings diplomacy. China brings scale. The South brings clarity.
Together, they can build a multilateralism of equals—not out of sentiment, but survival.
If Europe listens, and China shares, then perhaps—at last—sovereignty can be grounded in solidarity.
Bandung as Practice
“Bandung is not a place we once visited; it is a practice we must keep alive.”
—Körber-Stiftung Editors
That practice begins with listening—not to reply, but to understand. It continues through reform—bringing in those who have long been excluded. And it culminates in justice—tangible, visible, shared.
President Sukarno’s words remain our unfinished task: “Let us fashion a world where no nation is too rich to listen, and none too poor to speak.”
Europe and China hold the tools. The South holds the moral compass.
The only question is whether they will act—not as rivals in a fractured century, but as partners in an inclusive one.
*Ramesh Jaura is a journalist with 60 years of experience as a freelancer, head of Inter Press Service, and founder-editor of IDN-InDepthNews. His work draws on field reporting and coverage of international conferences and events.