美国没有“袖手旁观”印度尼西亚的种族灭绝——它积极参与了
不，美国没有“袖手旁观”印度尼西亚的种族灭绝——它积极参与了
美国政府文件实际上显示，美国在印度尼西亚种族灭绝中发挥的作用比纽约时报标题 ( 10/18/17 ) 所暗示的要积极得多。
《纽约时报》今天 ( 10/18/17 ) 刊登了一篇报道，标题是：
论文显示，美国在印度尼西亚杀死了 50 万人时袖手旁观
然而，“袖手旁观”并不是美国在 1965-66 年印度尼西亚种族灭绝期间所做的；相反，它积极支持大屠杀，这在当时受到了纽约时报的称赞。
1965 年的印度尼西亚由苏加诺总统执政，苏加诺是一位反殖民主义的民族主义者，他与印度尼西亚共产党（即 PKI）的友好关系激怒了华盛顿。当一次流产的政变企图被怀疑地归咎于印尼共产党时，这被印尼军方和美国视为一个机会。
美国驻雅加达大使馆在一封现已解密的电报（10/5/65）。在建议美国“在权力斗争展开时避免公开参与”的同时，美国大使马歇尔格林敦促政府
然而，隐蔽地向纳苏蒂安和苏哈托等军队中的关键人物明确表明我们希望在力所能及的地方提供帮助，同时向他们传达我们的假设，即我们应该避免以任何方式参与或干涉。
值得注意的是，大使馆将宣传确定为美国要发挥的关键作用：
传播印尼共产党的内疚、背叛和残暴的故事（如果我们能找到办法做到这一点，而不认为它完全或主要是美国的努力，那么这项优先努力可能是我们可以给予军队的最需要的直接援助）。
印度尼西亚军方利用政变企图为正在进行的一系列屠杀辩护，不仅针对印共成员，还针对作为其主要基地的华人社区。随着大屠杀的范围变得清晰，美国为这场杀戮欢呼，格林大使 (10/20/65) 写道，印度尼西亚军队一直在“努力摧毁印共，而我，一方面，越来越尊重它执行这项重要任务的决心和组织。”
这篇华盛顿邮报的标题 ( 12/2/15 ) 以更积极的方式描绘了美国的参与。
《华盛顿邮报》（12/2/15）纪念种族灭绝 50 周年，刊登了历史学家凯·塞勒 (Kai Thaler) 的一篇文章，总结了美国在支持大屠杀方面发挥的积极作用：
[国务卿迪恩]腊斯克确认美国支持“消灭印共”。美国官员还为军队和反共平民提供了数千名印共成员的详细名单，据报道，美国官员核对了哪些人被杀或被捕。
在全国各地大屠杀的报道中，10 月下旬，腊斯克和美国国家安全官员制定了无条件向印度尼西亚军方提供武器和通信设备的计划，而美国则在 12 月为民间反共联盟和军方组织了新的援助. 到 1966 年 2 月，格林赞许地说， “共产党人……已经被大规模屠杀所摧毁。”
与《纽约时报》东南亚分社社长汉娜·比奇 (Hannah Beech) 的报道相比，后者将美国置于更加被动的境地：
这是至少 50 万印度尼西亚人的反共血洗。根据最近解密的国务院文件，美国官员目睹了这一切，但没有引起任何公众反对，有时甚至为杀戮背后的力量喝彩，这些文件显示外交官们在 1965-66 年间精心记录了清洗……
当一群强硬派将军将 1965 年未遂政变归咎于共产党特工时，中国被指责为策划者，华盛顿几乎没有对这种说法提出质疑。
由于印尼军队、准军事人员和宗教暴徒造成的死亡人数不断攀升，美国政府基本保持沉默。
这并不是说“华盛顿没有采取什么行动来挑战这种说法”被用来为数十万起谋杀案辩护；相反，传播这种说法被美国大使视为“我们可以为军队提供的最需要的即时援助”。
《纽约时报》（2090年 7 月 12 日）特意质疑美国参与大屠杀的证据。
This is not the first time that the New York Times has downplayed US culpability in the Indonesian bloodbath. When Kathy Kadane of States News Service (Washington Post, 5/21/90) broke the story that the US embassy had provided lists of PKI members to the Indonesian military at the height of the murders, the Times‘ Michael Wines (7/12/90) wrote an unusual attempt to discredit the story:
A dispute has developed over a report that 25 years ago, United States officials supplied up to 5,000 names of Indonesian Communists to the Indonesian Army…. The dispute has focused on whether the decision to turn over the names was that of an individual American Embassy officer, or was coordinated with the Central Intelligence Agency and approved by senior embassy officers.
The New York Times‘ most cheerleading coverage of the Indonesian genocide came from future executive editor Max Frankel (e.g., 10/11/65).
As FAIR noted at the time (Extra!, 7–8/90), the Times‘ reluctance to admit that the US had actively participated in the Indonesian genocide may have been related to its enthusiasm for the genocide as it was happening:
While some of its coverage did invoke the horror of the massive killing (as early as 1/16/66), in general the Times’ commentary and analysis viewed the destruction of the Communist party quite favorably. “A Gleam of Light in Asia” was the headline of a James Reston column (6/19/66). “Almost everyone is pleased by the changes now being wrought,” C.L. Sulzberger commented (4/8/66). The Times itself editorialized (4/5/66) that the Indonesian military was “rightly playing its part with utmost caution.”
But perhaps the most enthusiastic of all the Times’ writers was Max Frankel, then Washington correspondent, now executive editor. “US Is Heartened by Red Setback in Indonesia Coup,” one Frankel dispatch was tagged (10/11/65). “The Johnson administration believes that a dramatic new opportunity has developed both for anti-Communist Indonesians and for United States policies” in Indonesia, Frankel wrote. “Officials…believe the army will cripple and perhaps destroy the Communists as a significant political force.”
After the scale of the massacre began to be apparent, Frankel was even more enthusiastic. Under the headline “Elated US Officials Looking to New Aid to Jakarta’s Economy” (3/13/66), Frankel reported that
the Johnson administration found it difficult today to hide its delight with the news from Indonesia…. After a long period of patient diplomacy designed to help the army triumph over the Communists, and months of prudent silence…officials were elated to find their expectations being realized.
Frankel went on to describe the leader of the massacre, Gen. Suharto, as “an efficient and effective military commander.”
To acknowledge that the US has looked upon mass murder as a positive project worth supporting is risky when the Times itself saw that same mass murder as worthy of support.
It’s not that the Times‘ piece today is wholly uncritical; it even admits, in a backhanded fashion, that the US did more than “stand by” during the massacres:
In 2015, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico reintroduced a resolution in the Senate calling for Indonesia to face up to its traumatic history. He also held the United States to account for its “military and financial support” there, which included providing lists of possible leftist sympathizers to the Indonesian government and, as one cable released Tuesday showed, pushing to bury foreign news coverage of the killings.
But this information, appearing two-thirds of the way through the article, does not overcome the message in the headline and much of the text that the US sinned by omission, not commission. Framing Washington as a passive onlooker rather than active participant not only lessens the government’s (and the New York Times‘) culpability; it also tells readers that if the US is to be faulted, it’s to be blamed for not doing enough. That’s a handy attitude to cultivate for the next time you want to sell a “humanitarian” war.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter: @NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Jim Naureckas
