Kolom IBRAHIM ISA
Sunday, 24 April, 2011
-----------------------
56 YEARS AFTER . . . - THE AFRO-ASIAN SPIRIT IS STILL ALIVE
Today, 24 April, 56 years ago, at Bandung, Indonesia, a HISTORICAL
GATHERING OF AFRO-ASIAN NATIONS FOR FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE, for
Solidarity in the Common Struggle Against Colonialism and Imperialissm
for Peace, was closed with great success! The Afro-Asian nations and
countries of today are still confronted with the task of consolidating
their independence, building an independent national economy, and
continue with develoment and progress along the path of independence and
self-reliance.
* * *
The first *Asian--African* or *Afro--Asian Conference* <April 18--24,
1955>---popular known as the *Bandung Conference*---was a meeting of
Asian and African states and regions, most of which were newly
independent. The meeting was the first of its kind, conducted in a
common open discussion, based upon common interest. Free of the Big
Powers that until then control the world. There were twenty nine
countries participated at the Bandung Confeerence.
^<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian%E2%80%93African_Conference#cite_note-0>
The conference was organized by Indonesia, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon and
India. Indonesia's Secretary General of the Minsitry of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Ruslan Abdulgani was secretary
general of the Copnference.
The conference's declared aims were to promote Afro-Asian economic and
cultural cooperation and to oppose colonialism, or neo-colonialism. The
conference was an important step toward the devellopment of of the
NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT , which still exist today.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement>
* * *
Notes published below may give the readers a bird's-eye-view on the
idea and aspirations behind the Afro-Asian Conferenc 66 years ago.
Sixty-six years ago, a significant hitorical/political event took place
at Bandung, Indonesia. The First Afro-Asian Conference -- f i r s t of
its kind in the history of the two continents -- was held from 18 -- 24
April 1955.
A significant and historical document was unaninously adopted: THE TEN
BANDUNG PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE.
The meeting constituted a great impetus to the national independence
struggle of the Afro-Asian peoples and countries. Asserting themselves
as an independentt force, they are neither allied to or a substitute of
the Western Bloc, nor the Eastern Bloc countries. This Afro-Asian
independent political movement that started at Bandung (1955) developed
6 years later, into a formal political movement called THE NON ALIGNED
MOVEMENT (Belgrade, 1961).
* * *
The conference reflected what they regarded as a reluctance by the
Western powers to consult with them on decisions affecting Asia in a
setting of Cold War tensions; their concern over tension between the
People's Republic of China and the United States; their desire to lay
firmer foundations for China's peace relations with themselves and the
West; their opposition to colonialism, especially French influence in
North Africa and French colonial rule in Algeria; and Indonesia's desire
to promote its case in the dispute with the Netherlands over western New
Guinea (Irian Barat)
SOEKARNO,the first president of the Republic of INDONESIA, portrayed
himself as the leader of this group of nations, naming it NEFOS (Newly
Emerging Forces).
CHINA played an important role in the conference and strengthened its
relations with other Asian nations. Having survived an asassination
attempt by foreign intelligence services on the way to the conference,
the Chinese premier,ZHOU EN LAI, displayed a moderate and conciliatory
attitude that tended to quiet fears of some anticommunist delegates
concerning China's intentions.
Later in the conference, Zhou Enlai signed on to the article in the
concluding declaration stating that overseas Chinese owed primary
loyalty to their home nation, rather than to China -- a highly sensitive
issue for both his Indonesian hosts and for several other participating
countries.
A 10-point "Declaration on Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation,"
incorporating the principles of the UNO was adopted unanimously:
1.Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and
principles of the charter of the United Nations
2.Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
3.Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all
nations large and small
4.Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs
of another country
5.Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or
collectively, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
6.(a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence to
serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries
7.Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country
8.Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as
negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as
other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with the
charter of the United Nations
9.Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
10.Respect for justice and international obligations.
* * *
The Final Communique of the Conference underscored the need for
developing countries to loosen their economic dependence on the leading
industrialized nations by providing technical assistance to one another
through the exchange of experts and technical assistance for
developmental projects, as well as the exchange of technological
know-how and the establishment of regional training and research institutes.
The United States of America, through its Secretary of State, John
Foster Dulles, shunned the conference and was not officially
represented. However, Representative Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.)
attended the conference and spoke at some length in favor of American
foreign policy there which assisted the United States's standing with
the Non-Aligned. When Powell returned to the United States to report on
the conference, the House of Representatives honored him for his
contributions.
The conference of Bandung was preceded by the Bogo Conference (1954) and
was followed by the Belgrade Conference (1961), which led to the
establishment of the Non Aligned Movement. In later years, conflicts
between the nonaligned nations eroded the solidarity expressed at Bandung.
To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Conference, Heads of State and
Government of Asian-African countries attended a new Asian-African
Summit from 20-24 April 2005 in Bandung and Jakarta . Some sessions of
the new conference took place in Gedung Merdeka (Independence Building),
the venue of the original conference. The conference concluded by
establishing the New Asian-African Strategic Partnership (NAASP).
* * *
Origins of the Non Aligned Movement:
Independent countries, who chose not to join any of the Cold War blocs,
were also known as non aligned nations.
The term "non-alignment" itself was coined by Indian Prime Minister
Nehru,, during his speech in 1954 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. In this speech,
Nehru described the five pillars to be used as a guide for Sino-Indian
relations, which were first put forth b Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai
called Pancha Sheel, these principles would later serve as the basis of
the Non-Aligned Movement.The five principles were:
Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty
Mutual non-aggression
Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
Equality and mutual benefit
Peaceful co-existence
A significant milestone in the development of the Non-aligned movement
was the 1955Bandung Conference, a conference of Asian and African states
hosted by Indonesian president SUKARNO, has give a significant
contribution to promote this movement. The attending nations declared
their desire not to become involved in the Cold War and adopted a
"declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation", which
included Nehru's five principles. Six years after Bandung, an initiative
of Yugoslav Presiden Tito led to the first official Non-Aligned Movement
Summit, which was held in September 1961 in Belgrade.
At the Lusaka Conference in September 1970, the member nations added as
aims of the movement the peaceful resolution of disputes and the
abstention from the big power military alliances and pacts. Another
added aim was opposition to stationing of military bases in foreign
countries.
he founding fathers of the Non-aligned movement were:
SUKARNO OF INDONESIA,NEHRU OF INDIA and YOSEP BROZ TITO OF YUGOSLAVIA,
GAMAL ABDEL NASSER OF EGYPT, KWAME NKRUMAH OF GHANA. Their actions were
known as 'The Initiative of Five'.
* * *
The Asian-African Conference at Bandung in 1955
<An abridged articlel bY CHAMARA SUMANAPALA , Aug 26, 2010
<International Affaires>
The Asian-African conference held in April 1955 was an important
milestone on the road to the formation of the non-aligned movement six
years later
The Pre-Bandung Era
The new spirit of anti-colonialism and co-operation between newly
emerging states received a boost at the Asian Relations Conference of
1947 held in India. The future prime minister of Ceylon Mr. S.W.R.D.
Bandaranaike spoke of the conference being the "beginning of something
much greater-a federation of free and equal Asiatic countries, working
not merely for our own advantage but for the progress and peace of all
mankind". This was the common aspiration of the main participants of
this conference.
Ceylon played a vital role in organizing the conference of the Colombo
Powers in 1954, where the holding of an Asian-African conference of
emergent countries were discussed for the first time. Indonesian Prime
Minister Dr. Sastromidjojo was the chief exponent of this idea. "Where
do we stand now? We, the people of Asia, in this world of ours today?"
was the question he posed at the gathering. At this time, the principals
of mutual co-operation and non alignment with the two power blocs were
popular policies in many newly emerged nations. But a more cohesive
agreement between these states was envisioned by the exponents of these
ideas.
On December 28-29, 1954, another conference was held at Bogor,
Indonesia, as a prelude to the larger conference to be held the
following year. This was to decide upon whom to invite for the Bandung
conference and to agree on an agenda. The conference was to be held on
April 18-24, 1955.
Participants of the Bandung Conference
Many independent nations in Asia-numbering 23-took part in the
conference, including Indonesia, India, Ceylon, Burma, Peoples Republic
of China (PRC) and Pakistan. Both the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and
State of Vietnam were represented but Republic of China (Taiwan) was
not. The two Koreas were not represented either. Meanwhile, there were 6
African nations including Egypt, Sudan, Ghana and Ethiopia. These
nations were not a cohesive group with similar agendas. They included
allies of both power blocs and also nations advocating non alignment.
The participation of the PRC was vital because of several factors. She
was hostile towards the West and clearly was an ally of the Soviet
Union. But she was the most populous country in the world and had
traditional ties with many Asian nations. Premier Zhou En-lai had
survived an assassination attempt on his way to the conference by the
sheer chance of changing his plans and visiting Burma at the last moment
to meet Burmese, Indian and Egyptian leaders, thus missing the plane he
intended to travel. Despite the fact that there were several pro-Western
nations at Bandung, the Chinese were quite conciliatory in their
attitude, may be intending to bolster their international image by being
so. To a large extent they succeeded and it contributed to lessen the
diplomatic isolation of the PRC over the next few years.
Main Points of Discussion
There were three committees appointed to discuss the political, economic
and cultural affairs. The discussions focused on important matters such
as economic and cultural cooperation, human rights and right to
self-determination, promotion of world peace and international
cooperation. The promotion of a foreign policy based on the Panchaseela
Principles agreed upon by China and India was an important development
in the conference.
At the end of the conference, despite the differences, all countries
agreed upon a 10 point declaration
<http://pd.cpim.org/2005/0605/06052005_bandung%20conf.htm> on promotion
of world peace and cooperation. Incorporating the principals of the
United Nations Charter, it focused on respect to fundamental human
rights, territorial integrity and equality of all nations, the right of
the nations to defend themselves, non involvement in power blocs,
settlement of international disputes through peaceful means and mutual
cooperation among nations.
After Bandung
Even though some participants remained allied to the power blocs, the
non-aligned policy in foreign affairs enjoyed widespread support among
the newly emerging nations. This ultimately led to the birth of the non
aligned movement (NAM) in 1961.
In 2005, a second Bandung conference was held to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the first conference.
* * *
*The illusion of Afro-Asian solidarity?: Situating the 1955 Bandung
Conference*
*<An abridged article By Tamara K. Nopper August 17, 2008, "BANDUNG
1955", * The research, writing, & politics of tamara k. nopper>
And how could the Bandung Conference not be significant? Bandung
convened only ten years after World War II ended and the United States
emerged as the world's superpower. It was during this period that the
goals of the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference ---including the
International Monetary Funds and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (now known as the Worldl Bank---began to
be institutionalized. And of course it was the beginning of the Cold
War. A political period whose moniker was coined by financier and White
House insider Bernard Baruch, the "Cold War" came to signify the
struggle between the first world of the west (which included the US,
Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and the second
world of the east (comprised of communist Soviet Union and its Eastern
European allies). As we know, the Cold War was anything but cold for the
majority of humanity given that non-European countries were forced to
carefully negotiate their relationships with both the west and the east
and too often were treated as collateral damage. Many territories of
course were engaged in fierce decolonization battles and others were
faced with the challenge of trying to develop as autonomous nations in
an era that was strategically transitioning to a global neo-colonial
framework.
It was in this context that a third world emerged. While the term Third
World was an analytical concept coined by the economist Alfred Sauvy in
the August 14, 1952 edition of the French magazine /L'Observateur/, it
meant much more to those who convened in Bandung with the hopes of
creating what would later become the Non-Algined Movementr, which was
initiated by India, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia in 1961. The Non-Aligned
Movement was an effort to neither align with the first world or the
second world. Its participants continue to meet today, even during an
era of globalization that is certainly marked by alignment or at least a
lack of neutrality. A great deal of attention has been given to what
Martin Luther Kingg Jr.,. <http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/> would
describe in his tribute to W.E.B. du Bois as the United States'
obsession with communism. Yet less material is available about how the
US engaged non-alignment. As such, an exploration into the Bandung
Conference gives us a brief glimpse into this topic.
Not surprisingly, the US did not take well to neutralism and saw it as
similar to aligning with the enemy or being ready to do as much. As if
to foreshadow a contemporary quip heard 'round the world, the US
government believed that you're either for it or against it. And so it
was within this context that twenty-nine African and Asian nations
convened in Bandung, Indonesia in an effort to denounce colonialism and
what they termed "racialism," maintain neutrality, promote economic and
cultural cooperation, and critique nuclear weapons. In doing so,
participants of Bandung were issuing a mighty challenge to the both the
west and the east, a challenge that has great significance and meaning
for the many of us who did not or could not attend Bandung but who can
identify with its goals.
The significance and meaning of Bandung, then, makes it difficult to
intervene in the conversation about the conference, to speak in a way
that troubles the gathering, or at least explores it from a slightly
different angle. I have often been accused of being at best, negative,
and despite what some may think, I am not going out of my way to live up
to this image. But I want to take on the challenge, as daunting as it
may be, to reevaluate Bandung. After all, our forum today is less about
celebrating Bandung but more about commemorating its memory by
interrogating Black-Asian coalition, which has become a hegemonic and
institutionalized impulse in the 21st century. And so I will try to
engage in the dual task of both describing Bandung and evaluating it in
the process.
In April 1955, twenty-nine African and Asian nations came together in
Bandung, Indonesia for a gathering of non-aligned colored nations to
discuss issues of economic and cultural cooperation as well as the
threat of nuclear weapons and the need for world peace. Yet only six out
of the twenty-nine countries formally represented at Bandung were
African nations or regions: Egypt, Ethiopia, the Gold Coast (now Ghana),
Liberia, Libya, and Sudan. Out of these six African countries, a third
was of the Arab world and the Gold Coast and Sudan were not yet
independent. The Central African Federation, which was comprised of what
is now present day Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi, would have been the
seventh African country but could not attend because it was still
engaged in a struggle of decolonization. Thus, despite its emphasis on
"Afro-Asian" solidarity, the majority of Sub-Saharan Africa was not
present at Bandung.
Moreover, the location of Bandung, Indonesia was not incidental to the
gathering given that Indonesia was one of the five countries that
organized and ran the Bandung Conference. Actually, all of the
organizing nations that also played key roles at the conference were of
Asia: Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Burma (now Myanmar), and Ceylon (now
Sri Lanka). In 1953, the Indonesian Prime Minister delivered a statement
to the Indonesian Parliament encouraging cooperation between Africa and
Asia. In 1954, the Prime Minister of Ceylon invited the heads of the
other Asian nations who would eventually become the Bandung organizers
to a meeting in Colombo, Ceylon to discuss an Afro-Asian Conference.
Based on the proceedings of the Columbo meeting, the five Asian nations
began to discuss the possibility of a gathering with other African and
Asian nations. The Columbo Powers, as they were dubbed, met in Bogor,
Indonesia at the end of 1954 to plan what would eventually be the
Bandung Conference, a process that involved determining who would be
invited. At the time, the majority of Africa was still colonized and
therefore, not "inevitable," so to speak, given that the emphasis was on
independent nation status.
One of the most controversial decisions from the organizers was to not
invite either the United States or the USSR. Also not invited were South
Africa, North Korea, South Korea, and Israel. No European countries
formally participated, with the exception of Turkey, whose racial
identity was not yet European in a pre-European Union era.
The decision to not invite the United States of course rankled the US
government, especially Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Publicly
the White House attempted to appear ambivalent about and even
disinterested in Bandung. But behind the scenes, the US government was
concerned about the possibility that Bandung would make it difficult for
the US to maintain control over, or contain the spread of communism
through Africa and Asia. If countries were to become self-determined and
become a non-aligned bloc, it might mean that they will either be at
best uncooperative with the US government's efforts to contain communism
or at worst might align themselves with the Soviet Union.
Indeed, despite today's tendency to describe the coming together of
"people of color" as inherently revolutionary, it does not appear that
the US government was convinced that Africans and Asians were
steadfastly united in some primordial sense of brotherhood. Rather,
research suggests that the White House was more concerned with what they
anticipated to be certain Asian countries' efforts to make participants
look to the east and away from the west. In other words, it appears that
the White House was not too concerned with a real possibility of
solidarity between Africans and Asians. Rather, evidence suggests that
the US really feared that certain Asian countries were using the
platform of solidarity in order to achieve Asian self-determination.
This of course would undermine US and Western interests in controlling
the Asian region and its people. Further, the specter of Asian
nationalism and regional cooperation was driven by the specter of
cooperation between Asia and the USSR. Ostensibly, the US worried that
the platform of Afro-Asian solidarity was really a ruse to turn the
Black and Asian worlds into what can crudely be labeled "communist
dupes" vis-à-vis a strategic discourse of self-determination and
anti-colonialism.
To be sure, its fear of a communist takeover at Bandung revealed the
White House's racist arrogance and white western superiority towards
both Africans and Asians. But this racism must be understood in relation
to the context of the Cold War and particular racial ideologies
associated with Africa and Asia. The US was mainly concerned about
losing the non-western world to a developing pan-Asian nationalism and
what appeared to be a growing cooperation among emerging independent
Asian nations with each other and the USSR, as apparent in its
particular anxiety over the newly formed Peoples' Republic of China and
the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
Conversely, White House discussions of Bandung do not reveal a great
deal of anxiety over the possibility of a self-determined Africa and its
role at Bandung, although future research may unearth more important
insight into this area. But overall, most research suggests that the US
was not too concerned about losing Africa and Asia to Africans but
rather was afraid of losing both regions to Asia and the USSR.
While the possibility of widespread African decolonization and
independence of course threatened the sensibilities of the
US---particularly its pro-segregationists---it was one that reflected
its racist belief that Africans and African Americans were incapable of
self-actualization and self-determination. Hence the White House's
concern that Asian countries would dupe other participants at Bandung to
go red and therefore initiate a worldwide communist struggle in which
Black Africans would be controlled by Asia or the USSR. In other words,
the US was threatened by the specter of Asian nationalism and Asian-USSR
control over Africa.
The US government's preoccupation with Asian nationalism is congruent
with their vehement denial of white supremacy in general because it
suggested that Blacks had no legitimate reason to rebel or to side with
Asians and that Asians were getting Blacks "riled up" about racism in
order to win them over to an Asian version of communism. As Thomas Noer
<http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/book_detail?title_id=897> demonstrates,
white supremacists in the US believed that Africans and African
Americans were incapable of self-determination or self-governance and
therefore believed that Blacks were constantly vulnerable to being used
by others for their own (communist) agendas. In some cases, and
consistent with popular discourse of African/Black leadership today,
Africans and African Americans were viewed as politically corrupt and
therefore unable to govern themselves in a way that did not result in
anarchy or moral turpitude. Many pro-segregationists came to believe
that both the decolonization movements in Africa and the African
American Civil Rights Movement were largely communist conspiracies.
Thus, Blacks were subject to a global racist ideology that posited they
had no basis for complaint and that whatever protest they did engage in
was because they had been manipulated to do so. In this way the White
House was definitely threatened by Black independence---whether at
"home" or abroad---but, given its racist assumptions, did not assume
that Blacks were capable of initiating such movements without white---or
in the case of Bandung, Asian---leadership pulling the strings.
Yet despite its reservations about Black agency, as well as its
hostility to Asian self-determination and Asian communism (which far
exceeded its hostility to Russian communism), the US government saw
Asian nationalism as an actual threat to the stabilization of the US'
growing dominance and thus a major factor in the direction of world
affairs. In other words, the US begrudgingly considered Asians as
capable of self-determination and therefore competed with them for
control of Asia. This may explain why most of the books I acquired from
a university library regarding the Bandung Conference were found in the
Asian nationalism section.
Given these concerns about the rise of Asian nationalism, the growing
energy of what would result in the Civil Rights Movement, and violent
decolonization battles being waged worldwide, the US government debated
privately how to handle the Bandung gathering. When asked about his
opinion on the upcoming Bandung Conference at a press conference on
February 2, 1955, President Eisenhower feigned ignorance stating that
his administration was not too familiar with the event. The White House
was of course lying but did not want to take a public stand against
Bandung. Doing so would suggest that Bandung was important and on the
White House's radar. And they did not want to publicly dismiss Bandung
for fear of being accused of racism. Such a critique would hurt the US'
efforts to push its agenda worldwide in the face of growing global
criticism of US racism that was gaining momentum and also being
strategically exploited by the USSR.
One way the US enforced its "encouragement, not discouragement" strategy
was to push African and Asian countries they identified as cooperative
or allies to attend. The US especially encouraged the attendance of
Japan, who emerged out of the bitter ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to
be a junior partner of the US. The White House also pushed for members
of the now defunct Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) to go.
SEATO was an alliance established in 1954 that included Pakistan, the
Philippines, Thailand, and the United States. It is important to point
out that despite the inclination to see Bandung as a gathering driven by
feelings of kinship, some suggest that the Columbo powers who organized
Bandung (which included SEATO member Pakistan) actually hoped Bandung
would prove an important counterpart to SEATO.
Basically, the US was, on the surface, either keeping its critiques of
Bandung to themselves or feigning support for the all colored gathering
while conducting power plays behind the scenes to insure its dominance.
As Fraser puts it, "The United States was thus participating in the
Afro-Asian conference although it had not been invited."
* * *
. . . . .
The lack of African American representation at Bandung can be easily
attributed to the repression of the US government towards African
American mobility and politics. But we must also consider the paucity of
African Americans to be indicative of a lack of insight on behalf of the
Columbo Powers to adequately grapple with the African American
experience and how it relates to the very issues of colonialism and
racialism addressed at Bandung. While African Americans were welcomed to
attend Bandung, and as the testimony of those who went reveals, treated
quite well when they were there, African Americans were never invited to
the conference as a class of people despite their intimate knowledge of
colonialism and racialism or sustained albeit varied critiques of white
supremacy and western imperialism. Indeed, the parameters of the Bandung
Conference, which emphasized nation building and movement towards
independent nation status, could not adequately address the African
American situation. In many ways, Bandung did not even really address or
seek to radically include Africans despite its public commitment to
Afro-Asian solidarity. Perhaps this is why Richard Wright would remark
in /The Color Curtain/ that "Africa was barely represented."
* * *
Overall, then, Bandung may be an event that was largely a gathering of
good intentions on the surface and a developing albeit highly fractured
pan-Asian nationalism or more---as revealed in the recent APEC
conference---a growing pan-national Asianism behind the scenes. Asian
nations controlled the planning and the proceedings and dominated in
both numbers and importance. Africa was hardly present. And the African
American presence was limited to observers and journalists.
While the US government was indeed threatened by the rise of Asian
self-determination and racially opposed to it, there was recognition
from the White House that Asian nations may actually be capable of
self-rule and that this possibility could change the tides of history or
at least seriously challenge the status of the west. As such, white
supremacists begrudgingly negotiated with Asia as a partner of
sorts---albeit in a hierarchical relationship---in a larger movement
towards modernity and actualization of Enlightenment ideology. The same
can not be said for Africa or African America.
* * *
Thus, I look at Bandung neither to memorialize or destroy it but rather
to /situate it/ within a larger history and trajectory of what it means
to be Black and Asian in the modern world. The story about Bandung and
the conclusions we draw from it regarding Black-Asian coalition still
requires much reflection. But reevaluating such events and figuring out
what such efforts mean to our understanding of the world today is, to
me, an integral step in determining whether coalition is truly viable
between our communities.
* * *
Milis Wanita Muslimah
Membangun citra wanita muslimah dalam diri, keluarga, maupun masyarakat.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/wanita_muslimah
Situs Web: http://www.wanita-muslimah.com
ARSIP DISKUSI : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/messages
Kirim Posting mailto:wanita-muslimah@yahoogroups.com
Berhenti mailto:wanita-muslimah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Milis Keluarga Sejahtera mailto:keluarga-sejahtera@yahoogroups.com
Milis Anak Muda Islam mailto:majelismuda@yahoogroups.com
Milis ini tidak menerima attachment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment