Media Magelang - The article published in the Guardian (“Slaughter in Indonesia: Britain’s secret propaganda war”, October 17, 2021) on the role of the British Foreign Office in Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66, provided evidence on the involvement of external factors in the ignition of the tragedy.
foreign, the Foreign Office’s cold war propaganda arm, was responsible for the release of publications that incited the mass murder of more than half a million of Indonesian citizens.
This evidence debunked the claim of the U.S. Government that foreign parties had no or little influence on the massacre, and only Indonesian should be held responsible.
Baca Juga: Jadwal Serie A Italia Pekan Ke-8 di Vidio: Ada Duel Lazio vs Inter dan Juventus vs AS Roma
The mass killings followed the failed coup d’état by the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), then the biggest communist party in the non-communist world, which tried to seize power by abducting and executing six of Indonesia's top military generals. The mass killings themselves are viewed as retaliation, targeting those who are related to PKI.
Previously, the U.S. Government claimed that the massacre was the result of the perturbation of political powers in Indonesia, in which foreign parties had no or little influence, and it is often concluded that the brutality of the Indonesian and the involvement of military and religious groups were the factors behind the mass killings.
This view was reflected in the news released by the western media during that period, where they emphasized the role of civilians in the massacre, portraying them as orientalist stereotypes that are primitive and violent. For example, A New York Times journalist wrote an article entitled "When a Nation Runs Amok" proposing that the massacre was not surprising at all as it took place in “violent Asia, where life is cheap”.
However, declassified British Foreign Office documents - kept unreleased far beyond the rule of 20 years - showed that Britain played a role in instigating the tragedy, and debunked those claims by western media.
The released documents were pamphlets written by British propagandists, impersonating Indonesian patriots living abroad, urging Indonesia to eliminate PKI, which was deemed to be a ‘dangerous cancer’ in Indonesia’s body, which would pose a major threat if being kept alive. Professor Scott Lucas of the University of Birmingham argued that these documents demonstrated “Britain was prepared to engage in dirty deeds which ran contrary to its purported values”.
He also mentioned that it revealed “how important black propaganda was to provide the illusion that Britain could wield global power – even if many people might be killed for that illusion”, suggesting that Britain was also responsible for the mass murder that occurred.
This was not the first notion on the involvement of the foreign parties in the tragedy, however, the previous claims were often being refuted by the involved governments. For example, Professor Geoffrey B. Robinson from UCLA claimed that based on documentary evidence, foreign states such as the United States and Great Britain were influential in providing support to the Indonesian Army during the mass killings, and without those supports, the killings would not have happened.
Some others argued that the United States was directly involved up to the degree that they assisted the Indonesian Army in facilitating the mass killings, such as by providing small arms, monetary assistance, communications equipment, medicine, and a range of other items.
However, the United States and its allies have denied any responsibility for the tragedy. CIA also tried to conceal United States involvement, which can be seen from their attempts to suppress the release of “State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968” in 2001, which acknowledged the involvement of the U.S. embassy in providing the list of PKI communist leaders for the Indonesian Army to be prosecuted. Still, because previously there was a lack of clear evidence pointing to the involvement of a foreign party, the responsibility of the tragedy was often assigned to the Indonesian.
The release of documents by the British Foreign Office provided grounds to claim that the responsibility of the massacre did not solely belong to the Indonesians, but there were foreign influences that played an important role in exacerbating the incident.
Without foreign influences, there was still a possibility for a riot to occur, however, it would not be as brutal as what happened in 1965-1966. Compared to the previous coup d’état by PKI in 1948 centred in Madiun, East Java, during this attempt, PKI also committed some atrocities, such as the brutal assassination of Ario Soerjo, the first governor of East Java, together with two police guards.
However, even though the Indonesian Government moved to counter the insurgency, there was no extreme massacre in the scale of 1965-1966 mass killing took place as retaliation.
This suggested that without external provocation from foreign party, the possibility of the brutal massacre was very unlikely. Furthermore, separate interviews with the family of the assassinated generals during the 1965 coup d’état showed that they have already forgiven those who committed those atrocities.
Catherine Pandjaitan and Hendrianti Sahara Nasution, the daughter of Donal Isaac Pandjaitan and Abdul Haris Nasution, respectively, said that they had forgiven them a long time ago.
Agus Widjojo, son of Sutoyo Siswomihardjo, even proposed the reconciliation between the parties involved. These facts supported the idea that Indonesians prefer a peaceful way in mediating a conflict.
Therefore, the mass killings in 1965-1966 can be said to be the result of external influence. The role of a few Indonesians with bad intentions that took advantage of the political condition must also be acknowledged, but they did not represent Indonesian as a whole.
The release of these documents is a good time to conduct reconciliation internally in Indonesia, especially those who are closely involved with the tragedy. It does not mean that we must forget the tragedy completely. On the contrary, we must use it as a reminder of the possible threat from foreign propaganda which could leave a deep wound in Indonesian history. We need to be always vigilant to this kind of threat.
Furthermore, we also need to be vigilant to possible extreme ideological threats internally, because those extreme ideologies might provide a crack that would let foreign propaganda infiltrate Indonesia again.***