On Neutrality

Frantz Fanon’s Les Damnés de la Terre includes an insightful passage on the politics of the so-called post-colonial states. He talks of the third way chosen by many countries of the third world, in the context of the Cold War that the newly independent countries found themselves stranded in. Caught between a rock and a hard place, these states found the middle ground; that of neutrality. They refused to align with either the U.S. or the Soviet bloc, and often urged fellow third world nations to follow suit, as a symbol and ode to their hard-earned independence. (We have noticed this attitude in some of the texts we have encountered so far, such as the speeches at the Bandung Conference.)

Fanon, with his short but shrewd analysis, forces us to reflect upon this oft-glorified policy through different lenses.

It is possible that the idea of neutrality stems from the mere fact that these young nations have not had the time to come to a national consensus over their future character. Neutrality, then, is a consequence of indecisiveness, of the people and their leaders. It appears that Fanon sees this lack of ideology as a potential issue for the new states and this is a word of warning for the people. Additionally, it could be further be construed that this new ideology of neutrality is to present a façade of unity independence to the colonists, since Fanon argues diplomacy for the new nations is a matter of defending their right to freedom and self-sustainability (37). 

Perhaps, on the other hand, the neutrality could be a consequence of deliberate disengagement. The third world is not being given space to express its true will, and its values barely matter in this clash of ideologies. The neutrality is a protest. Yet, Fanon also questions the extent to which this detachment is possible, considering the power of the European states over the former colonies. Here, one can read some of Fanon’s anger; this treatment is reminiscent of the constant degradation of the colonized under colonialism. It continues in post-colonial states, which puts into question the notion of “post”-colonialism itself.

The explanation of neutrality that is most interesting, however, is neutrality as a distraction. As both blocs vie to extend their control over the young nations, the national leaders are subsequently exalted to a high stature. On international platforms, they eloquently and boldly proclaim this ideology as proof of their independence. The leaders of the third world sensationalize their stance of neutrality to excite the people and divert their attention from the very real problems that face the new nations. Neutrality is portrayed as a strong symbol of the rejection of the imperial ideologies and the acceptance of their own sovereignty. This is Fanon’s warning to the freed citizens of the new states: do not fall for the gimmicks of national leaders who attempt to distract the people with tall claims and fiery speeches.
The question that arises is whether neutrality is an option – rather, the only option – for the third world states to follow Fanon’s way forward. Fanon has implored the new nations to truly shed off the skin that colonialism has sewn over their hearts and minds by rejecting the European visions and developing their own humanist ideas for the future. Is neutrality not as brilliant as the national leaders say it is, then? And perhaps, the aggressive passion that the leaders embody is not to distract people but is the result of the violence of colonialism that Fanon talks at length about. Having their existence and values negated by the colonists for centuries, is the “brazenness and hieratic pride” and the “staunch refusal to compromise” not natural?

[Relevant passages from the text: On Violence (main arguments and 40-42) and Conclusion (235-239)]