 |
Pix Credit Granma here
|
Especially in the United States (though also a feature of missionary work among those in need of salvation), and to a substantial extent practiced among believers of one of the various communal traditions of Protestant Christianity, religious revivals have been an important performative (witnessing) element of the profession of faith. It is a communal act of solidarity aiming to inspire active members, gain new converts, and generally firm up the faith by calling on all sinners (whether or not baptized) to repent their sins (Generally Charles G. Finney, Revivals of Religion (CBN University Press, 1978), pp. 6-15).
Political movements also have their share of revival meetings: and towards the same ends. Recently there has been a convergence of the form of revival within the structures of G+ meetings: G7; G20; etc. Each, of course, consists of a flock of believers that distinguish themselves from other "G+" congregations by virtue of some set of characteristics or others of importance to them (and consequentially to the rest of us). Not all such congratulations are "G+s". Other have arisen around trade blocs: OECD, BRICS, and the like. But the ends of all are similar: firm up the faith, reinforce the guiding leading of the vanguard or priesthood of the congregation, and further develop (and make understandable) its theology and behavior expectations. These are witnessed internally by congregants but offered up to the world as variations of what Christians have long called the "good news" or "glad tidings" (evangelium and gospel), the witnessing of which will bring humanity closer to the realization of the purpose of that witnessing. As with religious revivals, these political revivals "should be practical" (Finney, supra 205 citing 2 Tim 3:16--"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness").
Today a very special, and by the time reckoning of politics, ancient, G+ organization is having its revival. The G77 +China is holding its annual meeting hosted by Cuba. And with it, G77 is mounting a political-religious a revival of the sort of Scriptural fervor of the political religions of the post-colonial and developing world that was crystalized with the New International Economic Order of the 1970s, and is now manifested in its most developed state in New Era Marxist Leninist theories of Internationalism. It too must embed doctrine, reprove heresy, correct, and instruct. Indeed, its basis rooted in the sensibilities and political outlook first crystalized in the Bandung Conference, also reflected the five principles for peaceful co-existence developed in the regularization of Chinese Indian relations (as touchy as they remain to this day) and which now serve as the foundation for Chinese Socialist Internationalism: mutual respect for sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in internal
affairs, and equality.
This is a revival, to be sure, in all the classical senses of that term. It is, however, one in which Marley's ghost--the ghost of past "sins" and unresolved errors-- hovers at the edges ("I must wander through the world and I wear the chains because I was so stingy in life. I only cared about business but not about the people around me." here). The G77 wears heavy chains indeed. And who is that ghost, that spectre who reminds the global elites that very very little has changed, conceptually, since the 1960s?--Fidel Castro Ruz. When one wanders through the discursive thickets of what will be crystalized as the G77 agenda, "statement", "action plan" and the like, one will find in it a precise echo (though now in the language of the third decade of the 21st century) of the speech that Fidel Castro Ruz made to the UN General Assembly on 26 September 1960. 1960. . . . (Fidel Castro Ruz, "The problem of Cuba"; Address to the UN General Assembly (26 Sept., 1960), in Fidel Castro's Personal Revolution in Cuba: 1959-1973 (James Nelson Goosdell (ed); Alfred Knopf, 1975); pp. 30-32 ("The poor and underdeveloped country of the Caribbean, with 600,000 unemployed, contributing to the economic development of the most highly industrialized country in the world!, ibid., p 32). Indeed, as heralded in the press organs of the Cuban Communist Party "As part of the agenda, attendees are expected to continue the Group’s
historical demands, particularly in relation to the new international
economic order, the reform of the global financial architecture, the
rejection of unilateral coercive measures, concentration of wealth and
the weight of the external debt." (Granma 15 September 2023).
Hosted by Cuba, the G77 (+China) (a coalition of developing countries), like the G20 meeting held a week or so earlier, and the meetings of the BRICS, and the Democracy Summit held before them, provided a contemporary space in which the religious
revival of the spirit and orthodoxies of the Bandung Conference and the the Non-Aligned Movement (for an
interesting analysis from 1986 here) was first created, updated to suit the times and conditions of the states that form that faith community. . . . and China. Even the Americans recognize that, as the title of a recent text posted to the United States Institute for Peace Website noted: "
The New Nonaligned Movement Is Having a Moment" (May 2023). G77 describes itself this way:
The Group of 77 (G-77) was established on 15 June 1964 by seventy-seven developing countries signatories of the “Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Developing Countries” issued at the end of the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva. . . The Group of 77 is the largest intergovernmental organization of developing countries in the United Nations, which provides the means for the countries of the South to articulate and promote their collective economic interests and enhance their joint negotiating capacity on all major international economic issues within the United Nations system, and promote South-South cooperation for development. (G77)
The theme for G77 (+China) 2023 is is the scientific and technological divide between rich and poor countries and its impact on development. The current meeting was opened by the UN Secretary General.
"The focus is the scientific and technological divide between rich and poor countries and its impact on development. Guterres
said greater international equality was essential to building the
consensus needed to tackle climate change and inequality. "The
world is failing developing nations" he said, expressing the hope that
the meeting would strengthen participants' clout on a wide range of
issues. He echoed climate advocates who have long urged developed
nations, including top greenhouse gas polluters like the United States,
to pay to mitigate climate change and lessen the weight of foreign debt" (UN secretary-general calls for equality for Global South at Cuba G77 summit).
His remarks follows below. This theme was taken up by Cuba's President, hosting the event, whose remarks (Díaz-Canel: En nombre de los pueblos que representamos, hagamos respetar sus voces; in English HERE) also follow. But all made in the shadow of Fidel Castro, Marley's ghost. Díaz Canel summed up his remarks in a most telling way:
Twenty-three years ago, at a meeting like this one, the historical leader of the Cuban Revolution Fidel Castro asserted and I quote: “As for the Group of 77, this is not the time for begging from the developed countries or for submission, defeatism or internecine divisions. This is the time to rescue back our fighting spirit, our unity and cohesion in defending our demands. “Fifty years ago we were promised that one day there would no longer be a gap between developed and underdeveloped countries. We were promised bread and justice; but today we have less and less bread and more injustice.” End of quote. The topicality of those words can be construed as a defeat, in terms of what this Group aimed for and failed to achieve. I ask you to take it as a confirmation of the long road we have traveled together and of all the rights we have to demand the overdue changes.
Hace 23 años, en una reunión como esta, el líder histórico de la Revolución cubana, Fidel Castro, afirmó: “Para el Grupo de los 77 la hora actual no puede ser de ruegos a los países desarrollados, ni de sumisión, derrotismo o divisiones internas, sino de rescate de nuestro espíritu de lucha, de la unidad y cohesión en torno a nuestras demandas. “Nos prometieron hace cincuenta años que un día no habría abismo entre países desarrollados y subdesarrollados. Nos prometieron pan y justicia, y hoy hay cada vez menos pan y menos justicia”.La vigencia de esas palabras pudiera interpretarse como una derrota de lo que este Grupo pretendía y no ha logrado resolver. Yo pido que la tomen como una confirmación del largo camino que hemos andado juntos y todos los derechos que nos asisten para exigir los cambios pendientes. (Díaz-Canel: En nombre de los pueblos que representamos, hagamos respetar sus voces; in English HERE)
Key themes are old: technology transfers; transformation of the systems of patent ownership and exploitation, reparations (presented in a variety of forms), and a focus on a development lens for human rights and sustainability goals. But these have also been updated for the times, and here with the support of the UNSC: transformation of voting system in the UN and the structures and powers of the UN Security Council; and to some extent other international organizations which would effectively shift authority in a more horizontal way among states, irrespective of their wealth and state of development. And the G77 +China want access to the technological innovations of developed states.Lastly, the G77 (+China) embraces the increasingly important narrative of just transitions (eg here, here, and here). Again Secretary Genera Guterres:
Turning to your theme for today’s meeting: Science, technology and innovation can forge solidarity, solve common
problems, and help to make the Sustainable Development Goals a
reality. Yet today, they frequently inflame inequalities and entrench divisions: Richer countries hoarded COVID vaccines while the pandemic ran rampant in the Global South. . . And Africans in particular pay three times more the global average for data, while tech titans amass unimaginable wealth. Only global action can tackle these inequalities, secure a just
transition to a digital economy, and ensure that in a new technological
era, no one is left behind. (Guterres remarks)
Wanting something, and getting what one wants are quite distinct things. But, again, effective solidarity can have effects, even at the margins. And thus the elements of revival and the continuing power of the narratives of the 1950s-1970s outside of OECD states. At the same time that power of narrative poses a great challenge and constitutes a terrible burden; a heavy weight pulling G77 +China back into a past the goals of which were unsuccessful then (because they were not aligned with the times) and less likely to succeed now (except among the intellectual glitterati, nostalgia addicts, and left populists). And here again Marley's ghost--Fidel Castro-- whose spirit is infused in must of the structural and normative elements of the G77 agenda (consider the essays, Fidel Castro Ruz, De Seattle al 11 se septiembre (Editorial Txalaparta, 2002)); and see here, and here.
And it would foolish for the advanced elements of the liberal democratic camp to fail to take notice--and counter-measures. But to be effective these ought to focus on targeted states rather than on the modalities of leading state self-actualization. But that will require listening carefully to the narratives of developing and post colonial states, not change them necessarily, but to use them as a basis for effective engagement consistent with the goals and principles of the G7 leading states. But that requires both a knowledge of the historical context in which the current narratives were forged and their contemporary (though reshaped) power, to align with contemporary agendas. But here as well, the developed states also wear quite heavy chains that they forged in their past that that continues to weigh them down in the present. To understand the G77, one must, in some sense, teleport oneself back to the middle 1960s. That it remains self-referencing, self-contained and thus inter-subjective, provides it both with its power, and ultimately its limits. In that sense, little has changed from the performative realities captured in the 1961 iteration of this reflex.
Nonetheless, revivals are powerful--especially when deployed against an orthodoxy that is viewed (or constructed) as weak. Revival in all its senses; one that it would be foolish for the "established churches" of contemporary political theocracies to ignore for long.