Sukarno and Cabral:

Both the addresses, by two different leaders in two different decades, address a somewhat similar issue faced by most of the ‘third world’; how to maintain their independence from the colonizers and develop their broken countries.
Reading Cabral’s address, one is again and again brought to think about the importance culture plays in the evolution of a nation. Cabral is addressing the African nations of the importance of embracing their culture to defeat foreign domination. On the other hand, Sukarno in his infamous speech is addressing the newly independent nations of the world of the ways they can maintain their freedom. So both the leaders here are addressing a similar context.A common element seen in both speeches is that of unity. 

Cabral is focused on the unity of the people of a nation in order to fight of the colonizer. A colonizer has many ways of breaking a culture, but one prominent way that stood out in Cabrals address is that of creating social classes. The colonizer generates social divides by gaining the support of the ‘elite’ classes through provision of land, foreign education etc.; material factors that make these people feel a sense of superiority. Thus this particular social class emerges that hails the praises of colonizers and give them unconditional support in most cases. This division breaks the backbone of the cultural unity amongst the people. This tactic is very prominent when you look at the history of colonization especially in India where the British gained the loyalties of a particular class of landlords (mostly) whose support eventually lead to the defeat of Indians in the War of Independence of 1857. So through this assertion, what Cabral is trying to say is that unity amongst the masses, despite differences in class, religion, is important to resist cultural domination.
On the other side, Sukarno is also talking about the same concept. Only the context of his speech is different; he is addressing multiple independent countries from all over the world whereas Cabral was addressing Africa only. So though Cabral talks about unity within the people of one culture; the African culture, Sukarno talks about unity of different nations or countries. Sukarno throughout his speech is asserting two main things; a) tolerance for other religions and culture; “live and let live” and b) importance of banding together. According to Sukarno, there must be unity in desire to break the chains of the colonizer and sustain the independence they have gained through such hardships. The results of the failure of this unity were prominent when many Nations decided to work with USA in developing their economies, creating a divide in the Third World Project. 
The one point where Sukarno and Cabral go separate ways when talking about unity is their methods of creating this unity. Cabral talks about developing a “popular culture… universal culture”... “the development of a universal culture, grounded in a critical assimilation of the achievements of mankind in art, science, literature and
so on;” (Cabral 45). Thus he wants to develop an Africa that is homogenous culturally with similar values and morals. On the other hand, Sukarno is all about embracing diversity. “But what harm is in diversity, when there is unity in desire?” (Sukarno). So Cabral perceives the development of a united front through integration of culture whereas Sukarno sees it in acceptance of diverse cultures, as he simply puts it “live and let live”. This difference in opinion makes sense considering the context of both speeches. Sukarno couldn't possibly imagine it practical for so many different nations comprising of various religions to adopt a homogenous culture. Cabral, on the other hand I believe, saw a richness in the integration of diversity in Africa. This integration may not have seemed impossible due to the similarity of various African cultures. 

Even though both these speeches were made in different times and context, many aspects in it bear similarities in the meaning they were trying to convey. The one that really stood out and seems to be a problem to this day is definitely that of unity; be it unity within a country or unity amongst nations. As can be seen in the present, the failure of both Sukarno and Cabral's ideas of unity have created a similar impact; both have lead to imperialism. So even though these colonizers don't physically control the third world anymore, they are still successfully influencing the ideologies of these people just as both leaders had predicted.