
U.S. Stood by as Indonesia Killed a Half-Million People, Papers Show - forapurpose
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/world/asia/indonesia-cables-communist-massacres.html
======
csallen
Chomsky has written quite a bit about how this is the norm, and about how the
media (including the New York Times) is usually complicit. I recommend his
book _Manufacturing Consent_.

It paints a vivid picture of the media consistently doing the government's*
bidding by painting our mass murdering allies as heroes, while massively
amplifying minor crimes committed by those we consider enemies (e.g.
Communists). And they do this knowingly, too, by ignoring or outright
silencing dissenting voices (like Chomsky's).

Really opened my eyes to how propaganda actually works.

It's not the overt stuff you see from the early 20th century. Instead it's
subtle but pervasive omission and exaggeration of facts.

* They do the same for advertisers, too, not just the government. Which is why people like Harvey Weinstein can call up the NYT and get a disparaging story erased.

~~~
anthonyarroyo
Do you actually consider the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Castro and Mugabe
to be minor?

~~~
jccc
Somewhat related, from Chomsky:

"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own
state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger
component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason
than that: namely, I can do something about it. So even if the US was
responsible for 2% of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it,
it would be that 2% I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple
ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their
anticipated and predictable consequences.

"It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as
much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th
century."

~~~
lazyasciiart
If it were so easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else, then you'd
expect to have fewer people willing to stand by and cover up for Harvey
Weinstein and all the similar cases. It seems more correct to say that it is
easy to denounce the atrocities of someone you already dislike, or somehow see
as 'other'.

~~~
wutbrodo
People didn't stay quiet about HW because of some general difficulty of
denouncing atrocities, they did so because he wielded significant influence
and they didn't want their careers to suffer. This is sadly true of the
victims as well: more than one of them has said that they wanted to go loud
and public with it but were afraid that it would completely wreck their career
through being blackballed, etc (and some of them have said that this _is_ what
happened as a result of coming out with allegations).

That doesn't apply at all to the US failing to denounce e.g. Indonesia.

------
coldtea
Stood by is generous. Actively helped is better.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia#An...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia#Anti-
communist_purge)

~~~
baursak
The same NYTimes apparently was the voice of American establishment at that
time, as usual: [http://fair.org/extra/the-year-of-dangerous-
reporting/](http://fair.org/extra/the-year-of-dangerous-reporting/)

Not that it's not that same voice today, as US "stands by", err, actively aids
mass killing of Yemeni civilians as we speak.

------
adityapurwa
I'm Indonesian, from what I learn, the communist party was considered rebels
and they tried to overthrow the government, they killed generals and other
important figures of the government. My grandfather is also assassinated by
them. Not that I generalize and hate all communists, but Indonesia just got
Independence and it is important to maintain the stability by fighting rebels,
and sure war crime happens, from both sides, to both sides. I just hope we all
learned something from it and find a way to keep this from happening ever
again

~~~
otakucode
Saying things like "it is important to maintain the stability by fighting
rebels" suggests that you haven't learned anything from it, and certainly
won't be able to keep it from happening again. That may sound harsh, but it's
true. If you see people with different views from your own about something
like property rights or how taxes are spent or whether the government should
concentrate on helping people or building weaponry, etc, as a threat to some
mythical "stability" which can be a bugbear pointed to any time a need to
justify violence comes up... you will never know peace. People can work
together, and they can reach common ground. It's in the opposite direction of
labelling those who disagree 'rebels' and impossible to reach through
fighting.

~~~
geezerjay
> Saying things like "it is important to maintain the stability by fighting
> rebels" suggests that you haven't learned anything from it, and certainly
> won't be able to keep it from happening again.

Either you're incredibly naive or you're passing yourself as an disingenuous
individual. The problem with cold war communists is that Moscow pulled the
strings of terrorist groups to try to force whole nations into puppet states
controlled by a communist dictatorship. That had absolutely nothing to do with
the will of the people or even organic political movements arising from within
any nation, and their single reason of existence was to add another communist
puppet state to the list of nations behind the iron curtain.

------
craftyguy
Well it's happening again in Myanmar, and the most important thing we have to
talk about in the US is what our doofus 'leaders' have tweeted last.

~~~
microcolonel
I mean, if you are so certain of the way forward in Myanmar, please tell us
all how we are supposed to maintain all of our tense, fragile security
positions in the rest of the world while invading Myanmar and somehow coming
out without having committed heinous acts of some sort or bungling the whole
thing.

I, for one, think that the Myanmar situation is going to play out as it is,
regardless of foreign involvement.

~~~
craftyguy
Ignoring for a moment that the need for almost all of these "fragile security
positions" is from our own doing.. invading the country isn't the only way.

How about we bring wide-spread international attention to it? What about
pressuring Myanmar's neighbors to take a stand against it (sanctioning
Myanmar's leadership)? For fuck's sake, what about providing support for
refugees fleeing that situation?

I don't know which answer would work, nor did I claim to, FYI since you
somehow think I said that, but doing absolutely nothing is probably not a
great idea.

~~~
weberc2
I tend to agree, but our society incentivizes political inaction from our
leaders. Doing something good and hard that could be cast in an unethical
light (i.e., virtually anything) can be damning. Of course a good leader would
sacrifice his career to do the right thing, but our political system largely
weeds out most such leaders before they rise to national office.

------
Justin_K
Why is the US again responsible and having to be the world's police? This is
why we're hated so much in the first place. Why aren't countries closer to the
region, like China, helping?

~~~
ako
The us are not generously policing the world, they are mostly looking after
their own interests, while pretending to police the world. But in reality it's
all about protecting their own interests worldwide.

------
bambax
Not directly about US involvement, the documentary "The Act of Killing" is a
must-see regarding individuals who participated in these events and their
motivations.

~~~
forapurpose
It is simultaneously the most extraordinary documentary you've seen and also
most chilling comment on the depths and banality of human brutality.

It's unlike anything on film: The mass murderers believe they are showing off
their exploits to an appreciative audience, demonstrating to the filmmakers
what they did. They go so far as to end up acting out a surreal fantasy,
complete with sets and costumes, which cannot be described. But this is a
serious documentary about a horrible event; it's not parody or satire.
Somehow, the perpetrators of the killings reveal themselves.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/movies/act-of-killing-
re-e...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/movies/act-of-killing-re-enacts-
indonesian-massacres.html)

------
anigbrowl
_The dictator 's Handbook_ and the nerdier academic work it's based on, _The
Logic of Political Survival_ , both by Bruce Bueno de Mesquite and Alistair
Smith, offer a compelling economic analysis of why democracies offer political
support for dictatorships whose policies are glaringly opposed to the
democracies' nominal position on human rights and foreign policy. They also
offer some suggestions for breaking that cycle; if you want more practical
advice, you might be interested in the work of Roger Hallam, and if you want
more practical suggestions again then you might want to consult an imprint
like AK Press.

------
icebraining
Oh, I thought this was about that _other_ time when the US stood silent as
Indonesia killed a bunch of people:

 _On 8 October 1975, Assistant Secretary of State Philip Habib told meeting
participants that "It looks like the Indonesians have begun the attack on
Timor." Kissinger's response to Habib was, "I'm assuming you're really going
to keep your mouth shut on this subject."_

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/world/asia/files-show-
comp...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/world/asia/files-show-complicity-
on-timor.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Ti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor)

~~~
tim333
I think that one was worse in many ways. At least in the 60s they were
fighting communists at a time when communists were causing a lot of problems.
I find it hard to see much justification for the Timor stuff.

------
PatientTrades
Does this honestly surprise anybody? We are standing by as thousands are
killed in the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc. Can we provide
solutions to our murder problems at home, before turning attention abroad?

~~~
merpnderp
Standing by? Since BLM started, police have pulled back patrols as was
demanded of them. There has now been a massive spike in young black males
being murdered, almost certainly linked to the lack of police presence.

"We" aren't standing by as those thousands are killed, "we"'re doing as those
neighborhoods have demanded. If you've got some awesome solution, I suggest
you contact Rahm Emanuel asap.

~~~
PatientTrades
> Since BLM started, police have pulled back patrols

High murder rates in inner cities have been occurring long before the BLM. Not
sure why they are being inserted in this discussion

~~~
merpnderp
Because, exactly like I just said, the rate spiked spectacularlly since 2014.
A near 20% increase in the murder rate, almost entirely in inner cities, at
the same time police have drastically toned down the extra attention they gave
crime ridden neighborhoods, is hard to explain away.

