The US and UN sanctioned the Act of No Choice, a rigged "vote" that saw Indonesia take over West Papua and continue with a largely unreported brutality to this day.
Most of the independence stories are complete B.S. They were enabled by the US to kick out the Europeans out of their colonies. It has resulted in the creation on some of the most corrupt and mismanaged governments and centralization of power in the hand of these rulers. Indonesia could have been 20-30 separate countries.
The punchline is that this is hurting the US even more now as that keeping these governments aligned is a much harder job than imagined and they are being scooped by Chinese influence in the present day.
> Most of the independence stories are complete B.S.
Not most. All. Including ours. All independence stories are nonsense if you bother to think about it.
> They were enabled by the US to kick out the Europeans out of their colonies.
That's some serious revisionist nonsense. Not only was the US was one of major 'european' colonizers in east asia since the early 1800s, it was also a major guarantor/protector of european colonial interests in east asia. The US fought the japanese in ww2 mainly to protect european colonial interests. Delve a little deeper than superficial propaganda. The vietnam war was the US fighting the vietnamese to protect european/french colonial interests. Heck today, the US is the major 'european' colonial power in east asia, and the rest of the world, protecting european colonial interests.
> The punchline is that this is hurting the US even more now as that keeping these governments aligned is a much harder job than imagined and they are being scooped by Chinese influence in the present day.
'Scooped by china'. What gibberish. Does that mean they were 'scooped by the US' after ww2?
“ The US fought the japanese in ww2 mainly to protect european colonial interests.”
Pearl Harbor was the main reason. And perhaps the Philippines (a US territory at the time). But the US gave up most of its overseas empire after the war, so it’s hard to argue they fought the war to keep their colonies
It’s obviously better being ruled by someone who lives closer to you, looks like you, speaks like you, and shares your values. That is basically how participants in a representative democracy think. Even if my local ruler is a corrupt incompetent PoS, I’d rather have him than some alien calling the shots. I acknowledge that perspectives can be biased.
I’m a native of a former colony so I absolutely hate colonialism and don’t see any good coming out of it. Even though it I try to detach myself from that situation, I can see some good things have been done. But I think it’s fair to reason that we could have done those things ourselves given enough time and interaction with the outside world.
At the same time it appears to me that people who are natives of former coloniser powers who want to keep apologising for and even glorifying the imperial times do so by minimising the extremely harmful effects of settler imperialism. Maybe they are compensating for the rise of a section of their culture which is too apologetic of their own history.
So even though the actual events of history and their consequences are complex, in the current time I’d rather have a king/queen who has all their eggs in my basket than have a backup option somewhere else.
They (most of SE Asia) were enabled by the Japanese to kick the Europeans out of their colonies.
Never mind that the Japanese lost or that a good number of SE Asian countries weren't fans of Japan, they saw first hand that the Europeans could be pushed aside.
Many countries in the region post WWII pursued citizen lead democracies that expressed interest in socialist policy | ideals; these didn't fare well with post war European colonial powers pissing in US ears and encouraging coups and pro US military dictators.
The US|UN aligning with Indonesia against Dutch interests is one example that seems to break that pattern, however US mining interests and US anti communist interests aligned in not wanting a war of Indo Vs Dutch that would send Indo back to the communists and ruin chances of huge US owned mined in W.Papua.
> It has resulted in the creation on some of the most corrupt and mismanaged governments and centralization of power in the hand of these rulers.
Yes, but, colonial rule was a) not at all sustainable b) probably thoroughly corrupt in favour of different rulers and c) directly responsible for the shape of Indonesian politics today.
Indonesia had been colonized long before Europeans came around. The dominant political dynasties in the region were Hindu, then Buddhist, and then Islamic, all of which originated over seas as merchant trading communities, in some cases only a few centuries before Europeans arrived. Persians had been sailing to Indonesia for millennia, and Indonesia was a destination for the Muslim slave trade (of Africans) before the New World was even discovered by Europeans.
This is even more starkly evident in its neighbor, Malaysia, where the Islamic dynasty had only been established for about a century before Europeans showed up. Ethnographically, to be "Malay" in Malaysia is to claim descent from overseas colonists from elsewhere in SE Asia, not from the "native" peoples of the peninsula (i.e. those who migrated prior to recorded history).
Because of its size and diversity (geographic and cultural), it's entirely unsurprising that Indonesia is politically... complex. Portuguese, Dutch, and British colonial periods blend almost seamlessly into its long history, which perhaps more than any other region in the world is a product of serial colonization by seafaring empires. But similar patterns are seen throughout SE Asia--rich, dynamic, if sometimes contentious, admixture of cultures resulting from millennia of seafaring, both peaceful and in conquest.
The point is that these colonies were first fucked by being colonies and then fucked during the process of not being colonies anymore. Nobody is implying colonial rule is better.
On the other hand its not that hard to find people in former colonies who think colonial rule was better - if they have been sufficiently badly run since independence. Colonial rule is obviously worse than honest democratic government, but that is not what a lot of countries have had.
I am a citizen of both a former British colony and a British citizen and I have fairly recent ancestry from another former British colony. I suspect some of my ancestors support the British (because they seem to have up to my grandparents generation) because it allowed them freedom of movement, or because they had been oppressed by the previous ruling castes.
Colonial rule in many places was only possible because it had significant local support. A good example is that a tiny number of British people were not holding places like India through force of arms.
Based on your blog, you have Sri Lankan ancestry. From the failed Dutch attempts at colonisation. That came after the failed Portugese attempts.
Did British colonisation really have significant local support from the Sinhalese?
Because I feel like the fact that there were two Kandyan wars before Britain managed to take control of Sri Lanka is a strong argument against that.
And if the British colonisation had so much local support, then why did they import Tamils, surely the Sinhalese were eager to work for them?
Colonisers have always played off groups/tribes/petty kingdoms against each other to gain a foothold. Substantial support? Citation needed, seriously.
And as for India not being held by arms alone, true, it was also held by alliances with petty kingdoms and diplomats playing them off against each other.
As well as a bunch of armed soldiers invading when push came to shove.
This is exactly how it played out in Ireland too. Where my family is from - on the coloniser side.
But then India wasn't a coherent polity at the time - which is the point I made in a previous paragraph about how colonisers rolled.
I also have Indian ancestry (and Dutch and Portuguese) and many other things.
With regard to India, and to some extent Sri Lanka, the worst lower castes had to fear from empires was that one oppressor would be replaced with another. They also got the opportunity to move and start elsewhere (as my fisher caste ancestors did, very successfully) where prejudices were weaker.
I would turn your question about Tamil labour in Sri Lanka around - why were they willing to leave their homes and go to another country to work for the British?
I did not say there everyone supported British rule, I said a large enough group did to make it viable. Minorities and oppressed groups were probably more likely to do so.
According to the books I have read on colonial Sri Lanka there was definitely support. It is also the only explanation of how a tiny number of British people could run the country (just as in India). Sometimes you would have one British civil servant in charge of a district, and the only British person in that district.
I recently read Leonard Woolf's biography (the second volume) and it is very illuminating on how things did work - and this is a work of a man who came to oppose the imperial project, so not biased in favour of it.
Indonesia in general is somewhat of a colonial project. Sukarno had large visions of a great Indonesian empire, and what the people who actually lived there thought of that wasn't really his main concern.
Arguably the occupation of West-Papua is the worst of that. Also because there's just so little attention to it.
Sukarno was flirting with communist Soviet Russia and China, and had the 3rd biggest communist party in the world. When Suharto took over, USA was just fine with the status quo with a different leader, because it was then a US "colony".
Modern history of Indonesia is also brutal, strange and very hard to grasp and accept. Just 6 months ago, a new generation choose a murderer, linked with previous coup as their new president because he was looking cute and post dancing videos on tiktok.
As an Indonesian, I have to admit that most of our people are susceptible to cheap but clever personal branding. Before running on 2024 presidential election, Prabowo Subianto (the elected president) was imaged as a firm and authoritative former general. But, when he run on the presidential election, he changed his personal image to be a "gemoy" (a slang for chubby and cute kid/baby) and even dancing around with his supporter, something that he never do on his past election.
His pairing with Gibran (the son of Joko Widodo, the current president of Indonesia) also gave some factor to his winning the election.
"I have to admit that most of our people are susceptible to cheap but clever personal branding"
Just saw this in Wikipedia: "When a UN delegation arrived in Jakarta on 8 September, they were told by Habibie that reports of bloodshed in East Timor were "fantasies" and "lies". General Wiranto of the Indonesian military insisted that his soldiers had the situation under control, and later expressed his emotion for East Timor by singing the 1975 hit song "Feelings" at an event for military wives."
Well, it is just my opinion, but I am sure the reality is not that far off. I think the majority are voting based on the popularity of the candidate. Some people I know choose candidates based on which candidate has the most support in the surrounding community. They just follow the people's choices without finding out about the programs promoted by the candidates they choose.
That would be Prabowo Subianto, formed US-trained special forces commander implicated with a whole bunch of murder in East Timor, Papua and in the final days of Suharto's regime.
To be fair, Indonesia is hardly alone as a republic to have elected an appalling character for a leader. If anything, they're somewhat late to this past decade's wave.
But that someone is wrong. Pointing out past strongmen (which both Suharto- and Sukarno, really, were) have led Indonesia in the distant past is not the same as Subianto being democratically elected into office and replacing the mainstream Widodo and ending the Era Reformasi. Subianto exists in the same company as Duterte, Modi, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Meloni, Milei; 2010s and onwards figures.
Berlusconi is a perfect precursor to this type of character. But I'd say Conte and the Five Star Movement is far more populist and part of a global wave than Bunga-Bunga was.
my disclaimer was supposed to mean: I live here, I am interested in the current and past history of this country, I am involved, I have an Indonesian partner and Indonesian friends, but you have your right to seek the truth for yourself, which I strongly encourage you to do.
Indonesia's current political climate cannot be understood without understanding the 1965 Coup that shaped it.
I recommend "The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World" book for people looking to understand how the coup was orchestrated and what followed it.
Another colonized killing colonizer masskilling when the powers shift. What can be expected to happen for example in xinjang if the current han-empire fails? The politics are decoration on top of a nasty locals vs outsiders struggle? Tons of powderkegs like this exist around the world on ex-empires shores. Balkans are always ready to explode to right ancient wrongs.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XTXfOPIFAok&t=1s
CIA doesn't even need matches. Thats multicultural societies worldwide lots of villages living side by side, everyone remembering what the others were willing todo the moment they got in power. American meltingpot is the exception, not the norm..
Certainly not in 1965, approximately twenty years after they became independent. There were no colonizers left by then, everyone the Indonesians saw that way either fled or was murdered in the street by 1947 or so.
One thing I don’t understand is how Indonesia became an Islamic nation. One of the islands, Bali, is Hindu as I understand. That fits my expectations more given the geographical location. Is there some past history of religious brutality in this story?
I don’t have the source, but I read that before the Dutch VOC came there were also quite a lot of Arabic traders active in the region that brought with them their religion.
Obligatory plug for The Act of Killing, an absolutely surreal documentary about the Indonesian mass killings and what happened to the PKI after independence. Basically, they get some of the perps of mass murder to re-enact their crimes on camera.
This was really well made and hard to watch, it just made me seethe with anger due to the openly admitted murder and injustice and I could not finish it.
This movie/documentary is about that, but also a very incredible look into how we hide and justify our past actions, involving a lot of lying to ourselves. The "movie" they were supposedly making even had a surreal scene of "victims" dancing with "angels" by a waterfall and giving their killer a medal, thanking him for saving them from communism and godlessness and sending them to heaven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ta9To14yw ; which is obviously how the killer prefers how his actions are received.
Do write your side of the story as well. As a SE Asian, the history is fascinating to me, and we all know how a lot of it has been buried and misinterpreted.
My wife's grandma used to tell stories about Japanese wartime. Things like babies being thrown and 'caught' with a blade, about how a rebellious relative was tortured with a firehose but miraculously survived. How the Chinese ethnics would pretend to be Malay for fear of torture.
But she couldn't blog, so these stories all disappeared. Nobody was around to record or verify them either. She could be lying or it could be false memories for all we know. But we need the pieces to connect them and see which make sense or not.
The atrocities carried by Indonesians to Indonesians slip through your comments. The religious persecution of non-muslims in Papua and Bali, and the literal genocide in East Timour.
Reminder that the "pacification campaigns" genocide carried out by Indonesian military on East Timour _civilians_ only seized in 1999 (25 years ago) after UN peace forces intervention.
In 1991, Indonesian soldiers opened fire on a peaceful crowd of 2500 people gathering at a memorial mass Santa Cruz Cemitery. It is documented that at least 250 people were killed point blank.
It takes a very special kind of evil to open fire on a packed crowd of unarmed civilians at a memorial mass. Their only crime was carrying FRETILIN resistance flag and being Catholic in a muslim majority country.
Before whataboutism accusation, I agree that former colonists should own their mistakes. But equally it is up to a People to take care of their People and not keep pointing to the past for blame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Free_Choice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict