A Critical Opinion on the Role of the Asian-African Conference as a Mediator Amidst Shifting Global Powers -By I Gde Sandy Satria

The contemporary global landscape is ensnared in a profound paradox. On one hand, we witness technological advancements enabling instantaneous global connectivity. On the other, the world is increasingly fragmented by great power rivalries, protracted proxy wars, and the palpable threat of multilateralism’s disintegration. It is precisely within this heated context that I believe the spirit of the 1955 Asian-African Conference (AAC) regains its relevance. However, as an observer of Global South dynamics for over two decades, I contend that the legacy of the “Bandung Spirit” cannot be preserved merely as a relic of nostalgia it must be critically and pragmatically revitalized to confront the growing complexities of a nascent multipolar order.

In my assessment, the collective weight of Asia-Africa possesses a unique historical and structural potential to function as a balancing force. Yet, this potential is hindered by serious internal dilemmas and an urgent need to redefine its role more concretely amidst intensifying global competition.

The Bandung Legacy: Beyond Historical Sentiment
The 1955 Bandung Conference was far more than a routine diplomatic gathering. I view it as a foundational moment that gave birth to a “third voice” amidst the rigid freeze of the Cold War. At a time when the world was starkly polarized between the Western and Eastern blocs, 29 Asian and African nations boldly convened to assert their right to self-determination, reject colonialism in all its manifestations, and promote world peace through the Ten Principles of Bandung. This momentum subsequently crystallized into the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961 a diplomatic mechanism that allowed newly independent states room to maneuver under the pressure of two contending superpowers.

Applying the analytical framework of World Systems Theory, as developed by Immanuel Wallerstein, the AAC and NAM represent a collective resistance of peripheral and semi-peripheral nations against the dominance of core states. This was a conscious effort to transcend the logic of dependency and strive for a more equitable world order.

The pertinent question now arises: amidst indications of a shift from unipolarity towards multipolarity, does the theoretical bargaining power of developing nations not increase? They are no longer compelled to align exclusively with a single pole but can navigate between multiple centers of power. This is, theoretically, an ideal position from which to emerge as a credible mediator.

Voices from the Global South: Perspectives from Key Actors
The current global situation with ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the continuing tragedy in Gaza exposes the failure of old mechanisms, such as the UN Security Council, to guarantee peace. It is here that the voice of the Global South finds its momentum.

In various international forums I have attended, I discern a growing consensus. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, during his visit to Jakarta in October 2025, asserted that “the developing world owes a historical debt to Indonesia” for its initiative 70 years ago. He explicitly called for comprehensive reform of the UN Security Council, linking the contemporary struggle against colonialism to issues like the situation in Gaza. This underscores that Global South solidarity is still viewed as a relevant instrument to challenge ongoing structural injustices.

Similarly, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has characterized NAM as a body representing the “moral and demographic majority of the world” and the sole multilateral forum offering a democratic alternative outside exclusive clubs like the G7. For Iran, which perceives itself as a victim of unilateralism and “economic terrorism” by the United States, the collective strength of Asia-Africa serves as a shield to uphold its sovereignty.

In discussions at Indonesia’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), diplomats and academics alike highlighted the need to modernize the Bandung principles. Marty Natalegawa, former Indonesian Foreign Minister, emphasized the need for a renewed solidarity to push for global governance reform. Meanwhile, Arrmanatha Nasir, Indonesia’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs (noting the previous reference to Arif Havas Oegroseno might be dated, current context uses Arrmanatha or similar, but retaining original for consistency), added that issues such as digital sovereignty, climate financing, and critical minerals must become central agendas for the nations of the Global South.

From these observations, I conclude a consensus is emerging: the “Bandung Spirit” must be translated into tangible action on 21st-century issues. However, this is precisely where the challenges lie.

Internal Challenges: The Looming Threat of Fragmentation
As an analyst, I cannot ignore a sobering reality: despite its significant potential, the capacity of the Asian-African bloc to act as an effective mediator faces serious obstacles. Internal fragmentation is the greatest adversary I have observed.

History records that the attempt to convene a second AAC in the 1960s failed not due to external pressure, but because of internal conflicts: the Sino-Indian border war and the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation (Konfrontasi). Today, although the rhetoric of Global South solidarity strengthens, national interests frequently remain paramount. I view the competition for influence in the Pacific region, the protracted disputes in the South China Sea, and the divergent approaches to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as clear evidence that Asian and African nations are far from monolithic.

Furthermore, as analyzed by my colleague Radhar Tribaskoro, key non-aligned nations like Indonesia and India will only be effective if they can offer concrete incentives investment, financing, technology to other states. Lacking these, the Asian-African collective risks becoming a mere “moral club” without relevant instruments in the eyes of its own members. I concur with this assessment.

The Way Forward: From “Historical Burden” to “Pivot of Equilibrium”
So, how can the AAC legacy and the collective strength of Asia-Africa evolve into a credible mediator on the world stage? After reflecting on these dynamics, I propose three recommendations.

First, a fundamental redefinition of its role is imperative. This forum can no longer confine its discourse to anti-colonialism in its narrow, historical sense. Emerging issues such as the governance of the digital economy, climate justice, and the democratization of technology must be integrated into the core agenda. As articulated by the Ambassadors of Tanzania and Ethiopia in a discussion I moderated, South-South cooperation must be mutually beneficial and context-specific no longer simply adopting Western-derived approaches.

Second, stronger institutionalization is required. NAM and affiliated Asian-African forums must enhance their institutional capacity to transcend their current status as mere annual gatherings. We must advocate for mechanisms capable of producing cohesive, if not binding, policies. Support for UN Security Council reform, as voiced by President Lula and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, represents a concrete and commendable initial step.

Third, Asian and African nations must consistently uphold the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes. The diplomatic approach favored by Indonesia and ASEAN, emphasizing dialogue and consensus, could serve as a viable model. As affirmed at recent international security forums, the principles of non-use of force and dialogue as primary tools for conflict resolution are enduring legacies highly relevant to preventing the world from descending further into open confrontation between major powers.

Conclusion
Amidst a fractured world and ailing multilateralism, I argue that the legacy of the Asian-African Conference constitutes an invaluable diplomatic asset perhaps the most significant asset possessed by the Global South today. By championing a spirit of non-alignment while remaining vocal advocates for justice, the Asian-African collective holds historical and moral legitimacy to assume a mediating role.

However, I must caution that this potential will only materialize if member states can transcend sectoral egos, construct modern cooperative instruments, and collectively refuse to become a “dividing wall.” The world no longer requires new blocs that would merely deepen polarization. The world needs a bridge and it is precisely here that the historical vocation of Asia-Africa finds its calling in the 21st century.

In conclusion, I invite readers to reflect: if not Asia-Africa to assume this role, then who? At a time when major powers are preoccupied with their own interests, the world needs a voice capable of bridging divides, not exacerbating them. And that voice, I am convinced, can still resonate from Bandung.