The discussion extends beyond merely terming this panel about sovereignty; it aims to delve into the intricate relationship between these two fundamental concepts. Sovereignty, as a normative concept, originated in the West, particularly in Europe, before its forceful introduction globally, raising numerous historical questions about its nature. A key inquiry is whether sovereignty exists as a substantive form, and whether its character is positive or passive. This prompts a deeper understanding of sovereignty as a condition, a process, or a movement.
The second concept is friendship. In international relations and global order discourse, friendship is often loosely interpreted as a metaphor for geopolitical ties or a mere footnote to power dynamics. However, it is crucial to recall the profound experiences associated with the term "friendship" during the 20th century, a period marked by the climax of wars, revolutions, and people's uprisings. This historical context compels us to consider whether friendship represents a genuine commonality and mutual relation, or simply a strategic alliance.
This sets the stage for examining how non-Western communities have conceptualized sovereignty. From the outset, the history of colonialism, imperialism, so-called free trade, and the global imperialist and capitalist system has drawn every nation, society, and community into an empire-led global order. While it is true that we have all been compelled to adopt and utilize the terms "sovereignty" or "sovereign" to define ourselves, this acceptance has simultaneously been a process through which peoples of the Global South, the Third World, and socialist countries actively rewrote and fundamentally reconstructed the meaning of sovereignty. Their struggles, practices, negotiations, and historical wisdoms have been instrumental in expanding and re-envisioning this concept.
Today, while sovereignty undeniably originated from European history, it has evolved into a common project for all peoples, remaining a contested concept claimed by various global powers. Addressing this, sovereignty serves as a fundamental guarantee for national independence and autonomy, providing essential security and conditions for development, unity, and solidarity. However, it must be acknowledged that the concept of sovereignty can also erect legal barriers or boundaries, impeding broader solidarity actions. This presents a dialectical challenge that requires careful navigation.
It is crucial to understand that sovereignty is more than just a normative term. While every actor in international relations claims to be sovereign and recognition often hinges on this status, as seen in the signing of contracts or treaties, true independence and autonomy are not automatically conferred. Therefore, sovereignty-making is not merely a legal designation but a continuous, historical, and substantive process.
Furthermore, while sovereign equality may appear to be a cliché principle of international order, its full realization is a challenging endeavor. Relations often deviate from this principle without a complete understanding that achieving genuine sovereign equality necessitates a revolutionary approach to negotiation and interaction. It is not merely a normative ideal but a concrete path to be forged through complex relations, solidarity, and practical engagement, a truth understood from the outset.
Considering historical examples, we should recall the early African national liberation movement, which represented the largest-scale national movement in history. Within a remarkably short period — five, ten, or fifteen years — most African countries achieved independence, becoming new national members of the United Nations (UN) and the Afro-Asian family. In the late 1950s, leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere recognized the futility of merely possessing the nominal sovereignty of a nation-state. They understood that it would be suicidal for small countries with limited populations and resources to confront imperialism solely with a normative claim to sovereignty. Instead, they planned to unite, even before achieving individual independence, believing that a collective, revolutionary force was essential to combat imperialism.
Numerous experiments in unity were attempted, but only one, the union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, which formed modern-day Tanzania, has endured. Julius Nyerere, a national and Pan-Africanist hero, notably delayed the establishment of the Republic of Tanganyika for several months, hoping for other East African nations to join a larger federation. This aspiration, however, did not materialize, offering valuable historical lessons on the challenges of achieving such unity.
This understanding of unity was not exclusive to African leaders; it also resonates deeply within the Chinese perspective. Chairman Mao Zedong and the Chinese government have historically been strong proponents of the African Unity movement. In 1962, during a reception for economic and women delegates from Guinea, Chairman Mao articulated two key points: first, the necessity for African countries to unite; and second, the vision for an even broader union encompassing the three continents of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He emphasized unwavering support for revolutionary governments and parties, highlighting the extensive revolutionary work required for African liberation. Crucially, he stressed that achieving independence does not absolve nations of the responsibility to care for others, defining "caring for others" as providing friendly support and assistance. This underscores the principle that sovereignty alone is insufficient; it thrives only in a condition of solidarity among sovereign entities, embodying the truth that no one can be truly sovereign until everyone is sovereign. However, other lessons also warrant consideration.
For instance, Julius Nyerere's 1970 address offers profound insights into the solidarity of sovereignty. This period marked a watershed, as the political achievements of the 1960s were met with increasingly pressing economic hardships, making the unity of sovereign nations even more critical. Nyerere advocated for a "trade union loyalty," asserting that no single nation-state should pursue short-sighted national interests without considering others. He emphasized that collective survival is the only viable path, articulating that such a transformative change is within our power, not an unimaginable feat. It does not demand economic power beyond our reach but rather requires political consciousness and will, necessitating political decisions that prioritize economic solidarity. This highlights the imperative for sovereignties to draw closer through genuine solidarity.
Conversely, other historical examples offer cautionary lessons. Consider the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) in Europe. While its achievements were substantial — accounting for approximately one-third of global industrial output and significantly improving living standards — it also presented an inherent problem. When solidarity is misapplied, it can lead to a "limiting sovereignty" thesis, which contradicts the very principle of solidarity by fostering center-periphery or vertical relations. Thus, a united force, if built upon the disregard for individual national sovereignty, warrants critical examination.
In this context, it is pertinent to recall Chairman Mao Zedong's remarks in October 1971, when he dispatched the first Chinese delegation to the United Nations (UN). He emphasized the necessity of building an international united front, distinguishing it from a national united front. While a national united front involves the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class exercises authority without extensive argument or negotiation, the international arena is fundamentally different. It comprises diverse nations, cultures, civilizations, and sovereignties. Therefore, Chairman Mao asserted that the only viable approach for an international united front is through consultation among all parties, rather than establishing a hierarchical structure where one country leads and others follow. He warned that even left-leaning experiences, such as that of the Soviet Union, would ultimately fail if this principle were disregarded.
In summary, the question arises: how can we foster genuine solidarity within the Third World and the Global South? This requires moving beyond mere political slogans or passions to establish a substantive, concrete politics rooted in meaningful economic relations. It necessitates an "economy of the political," transcending a mere market or trading system to embrace an economy that is deliberately and outspokenly political. This approach, I believe, can forge true solidarity among peoples, leading to a people's democracy. It is crucial to recognize that an abstract "economic man" cannot construct a truly real world. While a form of globalization can be built, if it is entirely divorced from the realities of the world, it is not the future we seek.
Ultimately, the path forward for the Global South involves fostering mutual aid and cooperation, rather than constructing vast supranational structures. This approach, exemplified by the concept of a Political Recognition Association, emphasizes genuine friendship over mere alliance, ensuring equality and autonomy for all. It also necessitates economic support that transcends simple market principles, aiming to make the market serve the people rather than dictate to them. Philosophically, this vision is grounded in the understanding that each political community is both autonomous and inherently interconnected. Thus, the goal is not to formally merge everyone into a single entity, but to cultivate individual unity and a concrete universality. This concludes my remarks.
(Transcribed from recording and edited.)