雅加达方法。华盛顿的反共产主义十字军和塑造我们世界的大规模谋杀计划。

 雅加达方法。华盛顿的反共产主义十字军和塑造我们世界的大规模谋杀计划。文森特-贝文斯。New York: 公共事务, 2020 .

https://twitter.com/Vinncent

https://twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1268190697808703489

320页。书名：9781541724006 。

通过全球框架看冷战，贝文斯认为，"1964年在巴西和1965年在印度尼西亚发生的事情可能是战争期间最重要的胜利"（2）。
此外，这两个国家的两个事件导致了 "一个大规模的国际灭绝网络的建立......在建立我们今天所生活的世界中起到了根本性的作用"（2）。
表明巴西、印度尼西亚和其他国家的暴力是冷战和 "美国在全世界的目标"（5）的 "基本组成部分"，贝文斯加深了我们对整个冷战，特别是反共暴力的理解。
他说，他的研究结果，除其他外，对冷战专家也有意义。
我同意。他发现了许多迄今为止鲜为人知的东西（7）。

贝文斯用中央情报局（CIA）内部人员的故事来解释其成立。
他不仅强调了中情局在冷战时期的反共征战中的作用，通过诬陷敌人进行谋杀、恐怖活动、绑架、政变等来诋毁他们，而且还涉及到该机构在欧洲与苏联的斗争。

他们意识到，苏联在欧洲的地位太稳固了，所以他们决定将美国的力量集中在第三世界。
此外，贝文斯还提出了一个重要的论点："缓和ˮ（1970年代美国和苏联之间的紧张关系缓和期）并不适用于第三世界，那里的暴力和战争仍在蔓延。

贝文斯首先叙述了巴西的历史，从葡萄牙的殖民地到成为美国在拉丁美洲的盟友，进行冷战、反共宣传，包括1973年对智利社会主义者的攻击。
直到本书的一半，读者才会明白书名 "雅加达方法 "的含义。贝文斯以两种方式将1965年对印尼共产党人的灭绝与后来的全球发展联系起来。
首先，在华盛顿的支持下，全球的右翼游击队采用了类似的方法（灭绝）来消灭左翼分子。

贝文斯详细解释了1970年至1976年在南美的 "雅加达行动ˮ "以及后来在1970年代末和1980年代在中美洲的行动。

第二，全世界的左派都关注印度尼西亚共产党的命运，并从中吸取教训。
本书展示了从雅加达公理（指来自独立的第三世界的威胁）到雅加达方法的转变，雅加达最后指的是 "反共大屠杀"。
贝文斯总结说，我们现在生活的世界在五个方面发生了变化，
大屠杀留下的创伤，
发展的粉碎，
特别是在第三世界国家，
社会主义运动的失败，
以及最后，
狂热的反共主义继续存在至今。

 贝文斯将主要和次要资料与采访全球各地不同人士的口述历史结合起来，从个人的个别故事放大到冷战的全球叙事。
他的书不仅成功地启动了那些不熟悉这个主题的人，而且还吸引了冷战研究、拉丁美洲研究、印度尼西亚研究、东南亚研究或一般历史的专家。
尽管该书的重点是政治，但也触及了商业的重要作用，
例如在1950年代中期的危地马拉，华盛顿通过支持三次政变企图来寻求保护美国在该国的商业利益。
贝文斯还讨论了美国、印度尼西亚和巴西的种族问题，并强调了媒体在冷战期间的作用。

通过研究《纽约时报》和《人民日报》等主流媒体的新闻报道，他表明这两家媒体在很大程度上支持冷战。

本书介绍了反共产主义大屠杀计划受害者的观点，这对于更好地了解冷战结束后世界的发展情况至关重要。
在本书的最后，贝文斯引用了一位受访者最激动人心的发言.

"美国赢了。在印度尼西亚这里，你得到了你想要的东西，而在全世界，""我们是怎么赢的？" 贝文斯问道.

"你杀了我们"（第233-234页）的确，贝文斯为冷战带来了一个新的有利视角，脱离了关注重要人物/世界领导人的标准冷战学术研究。
书中缺少的是可以伴随叙述的图片，
例如，
那些关于
拉丁美洲媒体对雅加达行动的宣传、
智利的壁画，
或对巴厘岛塞米亚克这个大屠杀地点的讨论。
虽然扎实地依赖口述历史，但我期望引用更多的二手资料来丰富整个故事。
读者可能会注意到，
作者多次引用了一本书或一位作者的话，
例如
布拉德利-辛普森的《持枪的经济学家》、
蒂姆-韦纳的《灰烬的遗产》或
埃文-托马斯的《非常好的人》。
通过让受害者发声，
贝文斯反对 "由胜利者书写的历史，ˮ并试图纠正冷战史学中长期存在的不平衡现象。

Tenny KRISTIANA 日本早稻田大学 tenny@suou.waseda.jp

 

 

The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World. Vincent Bevins. New York: Public Affairs, 2020 .

320 pages. ISBN: 9781541724006 .

Looking at the Cold War through a global framework, Bevins argues that “what happened in Brazil in 1964 and Indonesia in 1965 may have been the most important victories” during the war (2). Furthermore, the two events from both countries led to the “creation of a massive international network of extermination… which played a fundamental role in building the world we all live today” (2). Showing that the violence in Brazil, Indonesia, and other countries is a “fundamental part” of the Cold War and “US goals worldwide” (5), Bevins deepens our understanding of the Cold War in general and anti-communist violence in particular. His findings, he says, are of interest to, among others, experts on the Cold War. I agree. He has uncovered much that have hitherto been little-known (7) .

Bevins uses the story from the individuals inside the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) itself to explain its establishment. He not only stresses the role of the CIA during the Cold War’s anti-communist crusade, which defamed its enemies by framing them for murder, terror, kidnapping, coup d’etat, and others, but also touches on the agency’s fight against the Soviets in Europe .

They realized that the Soviets were too entrenched in Europe, so they came to a decision to focus American power on the Third World instead. Also, Bevins puts forth a significant argument: that the “détenteˮ (the period of easing tension between the US and Soviet Union in the 1970s) did not apply to the Third World, where violence and war continued to spread .

Bevins first narrates Brazil’s history, from being a Portuguese colony to becoming a US ally in Latin America that carried out the Cold War, anti-communist propaganda, including an assault against Chilean socialists in 1973. It is not until half of the book that the reader will understand the meaning of the book’s title, “The Jakarta method.ˮ Bevins connects, in two ways, the extermination of Indonesian communists in 1965 to later global developments. First, right-wing partisans across the globe, with Washington’s support, employed a similar method (extermination) to eliminate leftists .

Bevins explains in detail the “Jakarta Operationˮ in South America from 1970 to 1976 and later in Central America in the late 1970s and 1980s .

Second, leftists across the world paid attention to, and drew lessons from, the fate of the Indonesian Communist Party. The book shows the transition from the Jakarta Axiom, which refers to the threat from an independent Third World to the Jakarta Method, with Jakarta coming in the end to refer to “anti-communist mass murder.ˮ Bevins concludes that the world where we live in now has changed in five different ways, the trauma left by mass killing, the crushing of development, especially in the Third World countries, the defeat of the socialist movement, and lastly, a fanatical anticommunism that continues to exist today .

 Bevins combines primary and secondary sources with oral history interviewing different people across the globe, zooming out from personalindividual stories to the global narrative of the Cold War. His book succeeds not only in initiating those unfamiliar with the subject but also in engaging with experts in Cold War Studies, Latin American Studies, Indonesian Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, or History in general. Even though the book focuses on politics, it also touches on the important role of business, such as in Guatemala in the mid-1950s when Washington sought to protect American business interests in the country by supporting three coup attempts. Bevins also discusses racial problems in the United States, Indonesia, and Brazil, and stresses the mediaʼs role during the Cold War .

Examining news articles in mainstream media such as The New York Times and The People’s Daily, he shows that both media largely supported the Cold War .

This book introduces the perspectives of the victims of anti-communist mass murder programs, which are crucial to get a better understanding of how the world turned out after the end of the Cold War. Towards the end of the book, Bevins quotes the most emotional statement from an interviewee .

“The United States won. Here in Indonesia, you got what you wanted, and around the world,” “How did we win?” Bevins asked .

“You killed us” (p.233–234) Indeed, Bevins brings a new vantage point on the Cold War, departing from standard Cold War scholarship that focuses on important figures/world leaders. What’s missing in the book are images which could have accompanied the narratives, say, those on the media propaganda in Latin America about the Jakarta Operation, the mural painting in Chile, or discussion of Seminyak, Bali, a site of mass murder. Though solidly reliant on oral history, I expected more secondary sources quoted to enrich the whole story. Readers might notice that the author quoted one book or author several times, e.g.
Bradley Simpson’s Economists with Guns,
Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes, or
Evan Thomas’s The Very Best Men.
By giving voice to the victims, Bevins writes in opposition to a “history written by the victors,ˮ and seeks to correct a long-standing imbalance in historiography on the Cold War .

Tenny KRISTIANA Waseda University, Japan tenny@suou.waseda.jp