OCR Specification focus:
‘the creation of SEATO in 1954 and its failure to 1977; non alignment: the Bandung Conference 1955 and its development from 1961’
The Cold War in Asia saw shifting alliances and strategies as the USA sought to contain Communism. SEATO and non-alignment reflected competing visions for Asian security.
The Creation of SEATO in 1954
The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was established in September 1954 following the Geneva Conference that divided Vietnam. The United States feared that Communism might spread throughout Southeast Asia, particularly after the perceived “loss” of China in 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean War. SEATO was designed as a regional counterpart to NATO, offering collective security to prevent Communist expansion.
Membership and Structure
SEATO’s membership was a blend of Western powers and regional states:
Western powers: United States, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand.
Regional states: Thailand, the Philippines, Pakistan.
Map showing the SEATO member states highlighted on a world map, illustrating the alliance’s geographically dispersed composition. Although dated 1959, the map accurately reflects the core membership established in 1954. Source
Unlike NATO, SEATO did not have a standing military force. Instead, it relied on the collective commitment of its members to intervene against aggression or subversion in Southeast Asia.
Key purpose: To implement the policy of containment in Asia and strengthen US credibility as the main guarantor of non-Communist states.
Containment: A US Cold War strategy aimed at preventing the further spread of Communism, using alliances, military aid, and intervention when necessary.
Context and Justification
The US promoted SEATO under the Domino Theory, which argued that if one state in Asia fell to Communism, neighbouring countries would quickly follow. For Washington, SEATO was a deterrent to Communist influence in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and beyond.
The Failure of SEATO to 1977
Despite its ambitious goals, SEATO struggled throughout its existence and was formally dissolved in 1977.
Structural Weaknesses
Several flaws weakened SEATO’s credibility:
Lack of regional representation: Key Asian states such as India, Burma (Myanmar), Indonesia, and Malaysia refused to join, viewing the alliance as a tool of Western imperialism.
No permanent forces: Unlike NATO, SEATO had no integrated command structure or standing army.
Geographic ambiguity: The treaty did not clearly define the defence perimeter, leading to disputes about which states were covered.
Political and Military Ineffectiveness
During the Vietnam War, SEATO failed to provide unified action. While the US, Australia, and New Zealand supported South Vietnam, Britain and France remained largely passive.
Internal divisions made joint responses to crises—such as Communist insurgencies in Thailand—difficult.
By the 1970s, détente and changing global priorities made SEATO increasingly irrelevant.
Key outcome: SEATO served US strategic interests initially but failed to secure lasting regional legitimacy.
The Bandung Conference 1955
While SEATO represented one model of Cold War security, the Bandung Conference marked the emergence of a different path: non-alignment.
Aims and Participants
Held in Indonesia in April 1955, the conference gathered 29 Asian and African states, many newly independent.
Delegates seated in the Merdeka Building during a plenary meeting of the Bandung Conference (20 April 1955). The image conveys the scale and multistate participation that underpinned early non-alignment. Source
Key figures included:
Jawaharlal Nehru (India)
Sukarno (Indonesia)
Zhou Enlai (China)
Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt)
Main aims:
Resist alignment with either the US or USSR.
Promote Afro-Asian solidarity and cooperation.
Support decolonisation and oppose racism and imperialism.
Non-alignment: A Cold War strategy whereby states refused to formally join either the US-led Western bloc or the Soviet-led Eastern bloc, instead pursuing independence in foreign policy.
Significance of Bandung
The Bandung Conference highlighted widespread dissatisfaction with superpower rivalry in Asia. Many states feared becoming pawns in Cold War conflicts and sought a “third way” that prioritised sovereignty and development.
The Development of Non-Alignment from 1961
The ideals of Bandung evolved into the formal Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), founded at Belgrade in 1961. Its leadership came from influential postcolonial states: India, Egypt, and Yugoslavia.
Principles of Non-Alignment
Political independence: Rejecting binding alliances with either superpower bloc.
Economic cooperation: Advocating fairer trade and development opportunities for the Global South.
Support for decolonisation: Backing independence struggles in Asia and Africa.
Peaceful coexistence: Calling for reduced Cold War tensions.
Relevance to Southeast Asia
For many Southeast Asian states, non-alignment was more attractive than SEATO. Countries like Indonesia and India viewed SEATO as a Western imposition, preferring the autonomy that NAM promised.
Challenges and Contradictions
Non-alignment faced its own difficulties:
Some members leaned towards one bloc for military or economic aid, undermining neutrality.
Internal conflicts between NAM members limited unity.
The movement’s calls for global reform were often ignored by the superpowers.
Yet, non-alignment provided a powerful alternative to Cold War alliances, shaping the foreign policy of many Asian nations well beyond the 1960s.
SEATO versus Non-Alignment: Competing Visions
SEATO symbolised US-led containment and reliance on military alliances.
Non-alignment embodied postcolonial independence and a rejection of superpower dominance.
Together, they illustrate the competing choices faced by Asian states in the Cold War: to be drawn into bloc politics or to seek autonomy in global affairs.
FAQ
India and Indonesia saw SEATO as an extension of Western imperialism rather than a genuine regional alliance.
They preferred non-alignment, which allowed them to pursue independent foreign policies free from the influence of Cold War blocs. Joining SEATO would have risked compromising their sovereignty and appearing complicit in Cold War militarisation.
SEATO’s treaty area included countries not even part of the organisation, such as Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam.
This ambiguity created disputes over responsibilities and complicated collective decision-making. When crises arose, especially during the Vietnam War, disagreements over whether SEATO was obliged to intervene weakened the alliance’s credibility.
Pakistan joined SEATO to secure military and economic aid from the United States and bolster its international standing against India.
However, its interests were largely centred on South Asia rather than Southeast Asia. This mismatch reduced Pakistan’s effectiveness within the alliance and highlighted the divergent priorities of SEATO members.
The conference addressed not only political independence but also cultural and economic collaboration.
It promoted exchanges in education and science.
It encouraged economic self-reliance by reducing dependence on former colonial powers.
It stressed respect for human rights, marking a collective rejection of racial discrimination and colonial legacies.
The Belgrade Conference institutionalised the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), transforming Bandung’s ideas into a formal organisation.
It created a regular platform for leaders of developing nations to coordinate strategies, strengthening their collective influence in the United Nations. Belgrade also confirmed that non-alignment was not just an Asian phenomenon but a global one, linking Asian, African, and European postcolonial states together.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
In which year was the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) created, and in which year was it formally dissolved?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying the correct creation year: 1954.
1 mark for identifying the correct dissolution year: 1977.
(Max 2 marks)
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two reasons why the Bandung Conference of 1955 was significant in the development of non-alignment.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 3 marks per reason, with a maximum of 6 marks:
Identification and explanation of reason 1 (up to 3 marks):
1 mark for identifying a relevant reason, e.g. promoted Afro-Asian solidarity or rejected Cold War bloc politics.
1–2 additional marks for explanation of significance, e.g. it encouraged newly independent states to resist superpower influence, laying the groundwork for the Non-Aligned Movement.
Identification and explanation of reason 2 (up to 3 marks):
1 mark for identifying a relevant reason, e.g. supported decolonisation or gave states a collective platform.
1–2 additional marks for explanation of significance, e.g. it provided a voice for postcolonial nations, challenged Western-dominated alliances such as SEATO, and established principles later formalised in 1961.
(Max 6 marks)
