THE COMPARISON OF CAMBODIAN AND INDONESIAN COMMUNISM

(the red and blue sentences in the whole article are the comments of my professor that we do
not agree with each other; it would be appreciated if you can go down ward and read the
arguments we both use to support our ideas)

INTRODUCTION

In Cambodia and, probably in Indonesia, Communism is no longer an interesting subject. It

becomes the taboo for both the government and people to talk about. No body, both the
victims and the perpetrators, claim they once preferred communism, or if they claim, they
would say it was because of their blind eyes. I, a Cambodian, also share this point of view with
thousand of Cambodian people. We hate Communism, and we wish our country to be like
United States which we believe it as the most democratic and developed country in the world.
Some people dare to blame the recent elites as the slave of Vietnamese Communism, and may
also wish to change the history, the history of colonialism and post-colonialism under Sihanouk.
They wish that it should be American or British who came to colonized or cooperate, not the
French and Chinese. They even invent a very popular saying, "to be a slave of the poor, you
just have the bone to eat, but if you are the slave of the rich, you at least have the bone with
some meat attached with".

However, one should be aware of the variety of Communism and its practices all over the
world. From its original theorist, Karl Marx, one can see such a theory transformed into
Stalinism/Maoism. While the theory changed, the practice also becomes different. As some
scholars argue, the main goal of Marxist is to bring about the awareness of the exploitations
among the working class, and encourage them to unite and strike for the elimination of such
class exploitation and create the welfare society. But the main goal of Stalinist and Maoist is to
encourage all participation of all classes with all means to fight for independence, but then
create the totalitarian and state capitalism. Both of these theories flowed into Southeast Asia
by many kind of means, but the Stalinism/Maoism seemed to influence Southeast Asia the most
and drove them to fail to help eliminating class exploitation[1].

So this paper is aimed at primarily analyzing the similarities and differences between
Cambodian and Indonesian Communism and concludes how they failed. The main argument is

[
both Cambodia and Indonesia shared the similarities much more than the differences,
especially in term of receiving the policy guideline from Maoism/Stalinism.
Khmer Rouge did not use Stalinism or Maoism in the end. They used Rousseau and Ankor.
The reason that they shared many similarities can be argued that firstly they had the same
nature of economy, the unindustrialized. So the force of the workers, which have been
considered as the most important force in Marxist revolution, could not be strong enough and
used to implement the revolution in Cambodia and Indonesia. Workers movement strong
historically in Indonesia. The peasant class was used instead. No, not in the case of Indonesia.
Yes, in the case of Cambodia, but again, not in a Maoist way. You must not confuse support
from China to the Khmer Rouge and the use of Maoism by the KR. And as the Marxist said, "the
social origin of the new class lies in the proletariat just as the aristocracy arose in peasant
society, and the bourgeoisie in a commercial and artisan's society"[2], the use of peasants in
the revolution could contribute to the failure of Communism in Cambodia and Indonesia
because they and their aristocrat elites have built the strong relationship through the patron-
client relationship. Such attachment is written by Serge Thion as the social-cultural value that
has borne in their mind for centuries. The reason that they joined the revolution does not
reflect that they wanted to change the whole society, but just change or justify the immoral
"son of heaven", which was believed as the micro-cosmos that could affect their livelihood.

Moreover, the different goal of revolution is also drawn to show that communists in Indonesia
and Cambodia joined with other classes, most particularly, the peasants, to fight for their own
country independence rather than for class elimination. They received whatever aides and
joined with even the corrupt ruling class in order to come to power. However, remarkably, the
only difference between Cambodia and Indonesia is Cambodian communists once became the
government of Cambodia, while Indonesian communists just played the important role
especially a few years before 1965, but never fully controlled the government.

Honestly, it is my first work related to politics. To transfer from the field of cultural to
political studies, I have to confess that I could not go deeper. And another difficulty is books on
communism in Southeast Asia are very rare, and among those rare books the authors explained
in their own convincing word already, in which I could not find out the new things aside from
trying to understand and digest out. So in this paper, it does not reflect my intellectuals at all.
However, I am not hopeless, I hope that the more I try to read and research, the more I may
learn and find out some thing new. I still have a feeling that richest documents in both
Cambodian and Indonesian languages are not consulted yet since communism is stereotyped as
[
the worst thing they should not touch. Whatever difficulties or hopes, I feel very grateful to my
Professor and my dear friends, who spent their valuable time to help me to have critical
thinking and interest in Politics. Without their help, I would not see how vital I and other
people are in sharpening our society democratically.

CLASS STRUGGLE OR NATIONALISM

While some scholarships shed light on Communism in Southeast Asia, the general agreement
turns out that Communist movement in Southeast Asia was not the same as the communist
movement used to eliminate the class exploitation in Europe, Actually Stalinist parties took
power in Eastern Europe!!! Actually, communism in Southeast Asian was used by the Southeast
Asian nationalists to liberate their own countries from the colonialism. It is clearly mentioned
in Milton Osborn (2004) when he observed the Communist movement in Vietnam. He claimed
that in Vietnam Communism became the last choice for the Vietnamese nationalists A strange
way to look at it. I prefer to say that the CPVN managed to win leadership of the nationalist
movement after their old value, Confucianism, failed many times to prevent their country from
falling into the French occupation. With such a useful notice, one can draw the same
conclusion about other countries such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao so on and so forth that their
nationalists gave up their traditional way to fight against their colonialists, and started using
the modern ways of which communism was deemed as the most effective tool. And even there
are many forms of Communisms, it was conceded that Maoism/Stalinism is the most influential,
since the nature of Chinese and Southeast Asian society and politics were alike. But in Vietnam
they used non-Maoist Stalinism. This is something you need to understand. So below is the
argument that will show how and why the Indonesian and Cambodian Communism received the
influence from Maoism/Stalinism, and changed from the Class struggle to nationalism. Then to
self-sufficiency community politics of Rousseau and Ankor.

It is believed that Marxism came to Indonesia yes and Cambodia ?? before Maoism/Stalinism. It
was said that Indonesia formed the Marxist revolution in 1914 by Sneevliet, a Dutch-born
Socialist[3]. And in Cambodia, even it was unclear when Communism took place, it was said
that after the Second World War, many Cambodian Marxists who went to study in France came
back, formed their political party, and won the election to push French-Cambodia to be the
constitutional monarchy country.

However, the questions are raised up if all these Marxists really hoped that their revolution
[
could work with a small amount of working class in their country; and how they could make
their revolution without any supports from the outside influences. As one understands the
nature of revolution in Europe, it is very different from Southeast Asia. The first difference is
Europe became the industrialized countries since 19th century. There, small scaled agrarian
economies replaced by the large-scaled industrial economics. The Marxist Russian revolution
1917 led by Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks was successful in a country dominated by
peasants and agriculture!!!!! There were 3 million workers: 160 million peasants!! Many people
changed from the peasants to be the wage labor workers in the urban areas, where they were
exploited. With this big amount of people and their material support, Marxist worker union
leaders could put pressure easily on the ruling class. Moreover, their revolution was made
against their own nation rather than against the colonialist. The nature of revolution in Europe
is the reform that they wanted to do from the internally unequal and exploited to the welfare
society.

But In Cambodia and Indonesia, the nature of revolution is different. Firstly, these two
countries were not the industrialized states, in which could absorb labor workers from the rural
areas. And among the limited workers, most of them were not really the nations of these two
countries. They were IndianNo Chinese?, and Vietnamese?, who were seen as the foreigners as
well as the associates of the colonialists. Therefore, the revolutionary nationalists that played
the most important role in fighting for the independence were very reluctant to associate with
those workers.No! not the case in Indonesia at all. Workers were Indonesians In Indonesia, it
was not different from Cambodia; the nationalist decided to work with those they called
"Original Indonesian", especially the nationalist group led by Sukarno and Sarekat Islam.No They
even forgot about their original doctrine that rejects the cross-class alliance and religion
manipulated by other classes. They joined Sarekat Islam and Sukarno group in order to fight
against the Dutch as well as Christians, who they saw as the imperialists.

Furthermore, it was the tradition in Asia that all the unrest, both the millenarianism and
nationalism movement, involved with the peasants. Serge Thion (1983), and other many
scholars, saw this tendency not only in Southeast Asia, but China too. According to Serge Thion,
while the political space in the urban area did not allow those millenarianists and nationalists
to operate, they wished to go to the village where they tried their best to mobilize people and
their local elite called by the Southeast Asian communists as the "petty or little bourgeoisies".
And the most influential example before the creation of nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s,
the victory of the Chinese people, with cross class alliance, to overthrow the absolute
monarchy and the defeat of the Russian in the Japanese-Russian war in 1904-1905 also had a
lot of impact on the thinking of the future nationalists (Milton Osborn, 2004?). Therefore,
peasants were seen as the most pure and potential group for those so called "revolution
Nationalists"[4]. The reason why Mao was forced to use the peasantry was because of the
massacre of Communists by the Kuo Mintang in 1926, 1927 (a result of Stalinist policies). You
should read the books in the reference list at the end of Thammasart paper on S.E.Asian
Communists.

Additionally, as one could see in Cambodia, before the independence, the concept of
nationalism really split even communism into two adversary groups. Even all of the
revolutionaries claimed that they were communist, but they rarely united. Those who did not
allied with the Vietnamese communists[5] fought against those who allied with the Vietnamese
communists in term of protecting their nation from the Vietnamese interference. The dispute
was really about the fact that the CPVN was a much stronger nationalist movement and they
decided that a cross-class alliance with Sihanouk would be good. This handicapped the
communists in Cambodia until 1970. The former group very often had the feeling to join with
other nationalist movements. These different schools of Communism in Cambodia are very
often used to refer to the reason why Pol Pot killed those who he thought as the (Soviet)
Vietnamese-communist spy. The same thing happened in Indonesia, the Indonesian communists
were never united. For example Tan Malaka and Amir Sjarifuddin and Musso can be seen as two
different figures of Communists that had different thought. Tan Malaka supported Sukarno, the
representative of bureaucrat Bourgeois, who was ready to negotiate with the Dutch to share
the power, while Amir and Musso worked against Sukarno. No In 1948, while Amir and Musso
made the coup and then were executed, Tan Malaka still worked for Sukarno. According to
M.C.Ricklefs (1981: 229), he described the political policy of Aidit, the leader of Indonesian
communist party, "Aidit argued that Indonesia was as semi-colonial and semi-feudal country,
and that the first target of the party must be the remnants of colonialism. The party should
therefore seek cooperation with non-communist but anti-colonial forces…Rather than social
class determining political orientation, in Aidit's argument political orientation became a
determinant of social class. Thus, he argued that the Communists could collaborate with the
petit bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisies against the comprador bourgeoisies and the feudal
classes."

Therefore, what we can see the revolution in Indonesia as well as in Cambodia, it is not the
revolution to eliminate the class exploitation, but it is the revolution that the nationalist

[
[
borrowed to use against the Colonialism and imperialism that they saw as the neo-colonialism.
As it became clearly that class elimination was not the prioritized policy in their revolution,
the revolutionaries both in Cambodia and Indonesia, changed their tactics to associate with
whoever they thought could help them to come to power.

LIMITED POLITICAL SPACE IN SIHANOUK AND SUKARNO REGIME

It will not be surprised when talking that Cambodian and Indonesian Communism could rise and
fall because of Sihanouk and Surkarno. Similarly, these two figures have been considered as the
fathers of independence, even their achievement could not be succeeded without the Anti-
colonialism Communist movement. Their influence really eclipsed all the parties even the
communists' or the non-communists'.

It was reported that Sihanouk, with his charismatic leadership, stole the independence from
Communist movement that worked very hard to fight against French colonialism. However,
here it should be clarified that some part of the report is true, but other part is not true.
Taking advantages of weak colonialism and imperialist movement of anti-communism, Sihanouk
started his crusade to ask for support from international community and then independence
from France.

However, at the first stage, the international community (including USA and Brittan) and
France did ignore his proposal saying that when the troop of Colonialists withdrawn, the
Vietnam-supported Cambodian communists would seize the power. However, without any
hopeless, Sihanouk returned back home and started mobilize people to be his voluntary army.
Thousand of both men and women, and with some support from the monk, joined his
independent movement. The question here should be raised if Sihanouk really stole the
achievement from the Cambodian Communists. Indeed, it should thank to the French policy to
popularized Sihanouk during the colonial period. They changed the way the previous king did to
Cambodian people. They brought Sihanouk to the countryside to talk, to join the ritual and
inauguration of schools, pagodas or any kind of infrastructures and construction, and provide
gifts to the people. This can explain how Sihanouk could mobilize people and their support
quickly. Even though it is true that without the communist guerillas the French would not
consider Sihanouk's case, as explained above, the Cambodian communists sometime made
people confused if they were the independent movement or bandits.

Furthermore, it is worthwhile noticed that the nature of Cambodian revolution is to fight for an
independence. So some communists as well as the other non-communists, at the first stage,
thought that they should unite under the umbrella of nationalism. The one that had such a
charisma to unite them is Sihanouk. We can see clearly after the independence when Sihanouk
himself invented what he called "the Buddhist socialism" to fit with all the ideologies. This
national policy really reflects how he lumped together the Buddhists and Socialists to work
under his patronage.

With all these merits, Sihanouk really won the heart of people, who previously trusted the
communists or democrats that spent much times but could not gain any independence for
them. Moreover, with the policy of national unity and neutral, and with his political
harassment, he won the first election after the independence. Such a result, not only drove
away some Vietnamese supported Cambodian communists to Vietnam, but also helped him
become the father of the nation until 1970 when he was overthrown by Lon Nol, United States-
supported Military general.

When Cambodia under Sihanouk adopted neutral policy, the Vietnamese supported communists
could not even do anything, just kept silent as ordered by their main supporters, Vietnam,
China, and Soviet which wished to use Cambodian Neutral policy to prevent any foreign military
bases in Cambodia.

During Sihanouk regime, the one political party system did not allow any spaces for other
political party to run independently. They had to associate with Sihanouk party and policy.
Some Cambodian students who just returned from France and who claimed that they were
Marxists (?), such as Hou Yun, Kiev Sampan, or even Pol Pot decided to work as the government
staffs or the private school teachers. With the economic crisis after the withdrawal of the
United States Aids, corruption, and low agricultural production, some of the aforementioned
Marxists (?), with their merits, won the heart of the poor people who voted for them to be the
parliament members but still under the control of Sihanouk who became the head of state
after his father died. They could voice their criticism against the government, or to be more
correct, Sihanouk, but very often they had to run to the forests, otherwise they would be killed
or jailed. Hou Yun, Kiev Sampan, and Pol Pot are the best example; they had to flee to the
forest before the unlucky fate fell on their shoulders. However, their action could not make
any serious problems toward Sihanouk government.

Even after 1970 coup, the communist still could not mobilized people if they did not use
Sihanouk's name and declaration for Cambodian people, especially the peasant to join the
revolution. This may explain clearly when Sihanouk return back to Cambodia during 1991,
thousand of people came to welcome him; and his son, Ranarith won the national election in
1993 because of his King father's popularity.

Talking about Indonesia, indeed, the communists were not the leader of the independent
movement. They were just one part of the united nationalist movement run by Sukarno. Even
though they had their own political program, their association with other classes who had
different interest really made them eclipse. As in the word of Miltone Osborn (2004: 185)
described how they were:

"The Indonesian Communist party was only one of the many political parties and groups that
joined together on the nationalist side, ….This concern with their own political interests, as
opposed to the interests of the nationalist anti-Dutch movement as a whole, led elements
within the communist party to attempted a takeover of the revolutionary movement. The
attempted coup ended in bitter failure. In less than one a month, during September 1948[6],
the communists operating from their central Javanese base in medium experienced brief
success and then suffered near total eclipse."

And with this reason, as in Cambodian case, Sukarno used it as the evidence to win the heart of
the international community that they really fought against their enemy, the communists, so
they should deserve independence from the Dutch. And after the independence, the Indonesian
communists even could they have much influence on the peasants, especially when the country
faced the economic crisis, and Anti-Malaysia Confrontation, they were manipulated by Sukarno
and other classes to join in the government. They chose to join with Sukarno!!! As M.C Ricklefs
(1981: 267) described Sukarno's manipulation over the Indonesian Communists, "The Chinese
publicly urged the creation of a 'fifth force[7]' …Nor did Sukarno order that a 'fifth force' be
formed, which is evidence for those who believe that the president had no genuine intention of
helping Indonesian communists to power but sought only to pressure the army leadership".
Sukarno's such charisma could be traced to the colonial period when he tried to eliminate the
gap between Communism and Islam. Chr.L.M Peners (1977) quoted his most influent statement:
Sukarno had a very weak power base he therefore relied on both the PKI and the army, who
were opposed to each other.
"We are convinced that there are no important obstacles to Muslim-Marxist friendship. As we
have explained, true Islam has some characteristics of Socialism. it is true that socialism is not

[
[
necessarily Marxism, and we know that this Islamic Socialism is different from Marxist- because
Islamic socialism is spiritual, while Marxist Socialism is based on materialism. But it is sufficient
for our purpose to show that true Islam is socialistic in Character… The nationalist who are
reluctant to seek contact with Marxists and work together with them show great ignorance of
history and of the way the world's political system has evolved. They do not realize that the
Marxist movement in Indonesia and Asia generally has the same origins as their own movement.
They forget that to oppose those of their countrymen who are Marxist is to reject comrades in
the same struggle and to add to the number of their enemies. They forget or do not understand
the significance of the policies of their fellow fighters in other Asian countries, such as the late
Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, that great nationalist leader who happily and wholeheartedly cooperated with
the Marxists, even though he realized that a Marxist organization of society was still
impracticable in China because of necessary conditions did not exist.."

Again the Indonesian Communists did not learn anything from their previous mistakes. They
were plotted and killed after the 1965 coup by the military leaders.
In conclusion, with a very limited space in Sukarno and Sihanouk regimes, the Communists
could rarely implement their revolution, but integrated themselves to the ruling class. Only
when they rejected completely from that class, they started to think how to do their
revolution in the countryside. However, with their unclear policy and the suppression from the
Governments, they could not win the heart of people much. Sukarno and Sihanouk still played
the role as the peasants' elites. Without their support, the communists could not push up to the
power.

EXTERNAL DEPENDENCY

In Southeast Asia, during the cool COLD war, it was very hard for each country to survive
without any foreign financial support. Even the country that wished not to align with both the
left and right wing blocs, it would be put under pressure soon and had to decide to align with
one of them. The communists in Cambodia and Indonesia also have the same fate. Source of
fund also played the most important role in shaping Communist ideology in Indonesia and
Cambodia. NO, this does not explain the policies of the PKI or the Khmer Rouge AT ALL, No!
China and Soviet were the main source for them. These both countries always encouraged not
only Cambodia and Indonesia but Southeast Asia as a whole to use their ideology rather than let
them to be independent. Their actions could be waned and waxed because of the changing
foreign policies of their supporters. Even though, there are not much documents providing the
clear and enough evidence, in this section I will try to show how the policies of the foreign
supporters of the Indonesian and Cambodian Communists really affected them.

So far, it was agreed that without important foreign fund, the revolutionaries really could not
fight against the colonialists. Cambodia can explain this case better than Indonesia, since the
economy of this country in French colonialism was weaker. Before any support from Vietnam,
China, or Soviet, the revolutionists could only rely on the tax they collected from the peasants
and traders. With the small amount of tax, and with the repeated attack by the colonialists,
sometime the revolutionists became the bandits robbing the people for their survival. With
such a weakness, they allowed other classes to join in their revolution in term of material
supporting as well as forces. It is very clear in Ben Kiernan's words:

"A captured Viet Minh Document dated June 1952 noted that the KPRP[8] ' is not the vanguard
party of the working class, but the vanguard party of the nation gathering together all the
patriotic and progressive elements of the Khmer population "

Even though somewhat period before the independence no much evidence to show the number
of fund from Vietnam, china, and Soviet, Ben Kiernan tried to show the relationship between
Cambodian, Vietnamese, Chinese communists. Such a relationship could be seen through the
training, and arming. In 1954 Geneva conference, Vietnamese communists stood with the
Cambodian Communists to negotiate in order to split Cambodia into two areas. Luckily, China
and Soviet did not approve with this. Moreover, the failure of the first election after the
independence, at least two thousand of Cambodian Communists went to live in Vietnam.

After the independence, the Cambodian Communists really could not pursue their job
effectively. The main support from China or Soviet through Vietnam did not wish to make
Sihanouk, the most influential leader, angry, since his neutral policy really favored their sides.
Here we can see a lot of financial aids provided by china or Soviet to Sihanouk government
instead of the Cambodian communists. With their own interests, China and Soviet also failed to
provide any protection to the Cambodian communists when Sihanouk took the harsh measures
against them. Only until 1970, when Sihanouk was overthrown and decided to join with
Cambodian Communists, China publicly funded the Cambodian Communists movement in order
to fight against the republican, Lon Nol. it is believed that it is because they could see the
clear victory came along side with Sihanouk. Furthermore, what we should notice in the book
on Sihanouk Biography that the split of Chinese and Soviet communism also made Cambodian
communists suffer. While China decided to support the Cambodian Communists and Sihanouk,
[
the Soviet recognized and donated Lon Nol Government. In 1978-79, while Vietnam invaded
Cambodia, china could not help Cambodian communists at all, so they had to end up by running
to the Cambodian-Thai border.

Without surprising, the Indonesian Communists also shared this problem with Cambodian
Communists. After the 1948 coup, they were very weak. And while China and Soviet favored
the neutral policy and anti-imperialism of Sukarno, the Indonesian communists could not do
anything. They just decided to join with the government, especially a few years before 1965. Ji
Giles Ungpakorn (1998) described one of the reason that the Indonesian Communists join the
government is because of nationalism. His idea was supported by the proclamation of the PKI
leader, Aidit, in the beginning of the 1960s that national struggle was put above all. Justus
M.Van der Kroef in winter 1964-1965 (maybe before the coup) also tried to explain that it is the
Indonesian Communists' strategy to join with the government because it really helped them to
be able to make national policy decisions as well as popularity among the people, especially
during the economic crisis and Anti-Malaysia confrontation. However, it is also taken into
account that China and Soviet who stayed behind the Indonesian Communists supported and
funded their idea, because Anti-Malaysia Confrontation was seen as the anti-imperialism and
gave a favor to the pro-Chinese and soviet Communists in Malaysia and Singapore.

According to M.C.Ricklefs (1981), in 1960 Khrushchev paid a visit in Jakarta and provided USD
250 million credit to Indonesian Government led by Sukarno and the Communist cabinet. In
1961, USD 450 million also came from Soviet to fund the arms. The same thing happened in the
Chinese side; China also provided Indonesia many financial aids. Most important thing that we
can see during that time is the creation of "the fifth force" in which the peasants were armed.
Moreover, China even promised with Indonesia to launch the nuclear bomb. However, the split
between Soviet and China made the Indonesian communists have the same fate as the
Cambodian. Soviet, instead of helping the Communists, funded the anti-communist
Government. When, the Indonesian communists were massacred by the USA-supported
Indonesian Government, China could not even provide any protection. So the communists just
ended up in the bloodbath.

Here the argument is to show that the failure of the communists both in Cambodia and
Indonesia is because they depended too much on their external friends rather than their own
people. One may argue that if they do not have any mass base to support them, how can they
came to power. For my own opinion, in the Cambodian case it is the Sihanouk's popularity
rather than the Communists themselves, and in the Indonesian case, even though they said
there were many million people supporting them, the question was put back why they had to
end up in the bloodbath and disappearing from Indonesia.

CONCLUSION

In brief, Communism in Cambodia and Indonesia shared the similarities, both their weak policy
and external dependency. The unclear policy in which sometimes to work with other classes
with different interests always made them less influent, since they were seen as the associates
of the government. And with such a policy, other classes, especially the rulers could exploit
their influence to guarantee their power when they were weak and then threw them away
when they revived their power. The External dependency, especially toward China and Soviet,
also helps explain that they could not have their own stance. Their policy and power always
changed according to their supporters, who saw their interest above all. I really see these
aforementioned as their mistakes, but such mistakes are probably out of their control, since
the post independence-situation was worst, did not provide any space or choice for them to
elect, aside from the armed struggle, cross-class alliance, and external dependency. This era
can be called as the darkness, since the ruling class, with the full support from many blocs such
as the colonialism, USA imperialism, China, and Soviet to harass and kill in the inhuman way.
However, what I wish to say here, the failure of Cambodian and Indonesian Communism are
applied only in their own context, one can not really generalize that their failure are the
failure of all communists. And Communism probably can be applied in this recent Southeast
Asia better than the past, since each country now are urbanized and industrialized. However,
the question of which form Communism or Marxism can be applied, is still controversial. From
my own perspective, political form is maybe the best choice, not the armed struggles.

REFERENCES

Ben Kiernan. (1985). "How Pol Pot Came to Power" Brittan: The Fthetford Press Limited.

Chr.L.M Pernders. (ed.) (1977). "Indonesia" University of Queensland Press.

D.W.Ashley. Pol Pot, Peasants and Peace: continuity and change in Khmer Rouge Political
thinking 1985-1991. Thailand: Indochinese refugee information Center, Institute of Asian
Studies, Chulalongkorn University.

Hal Kosut. (ed.) (1967). "Indonesia: the Sukarno Years", Newyork: facts on file, Inc.
Harold Crouch. (1998)."The Rise or Fall of Suharto's generals" in third world quanterly, Vol. 10,
No. 1.

J.D. Leggge. (1972) "Sukarno: A political Biography". Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Ji Giles Ungpakorn. (1 June 1998). "The Failure of Stalinist Ideology and the Communist Parties
of Southeast Asia" in Thammasat Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, You don’t have to agree with this paper
but then you must be able to argue why this was wrong!!! You must read Ruth Mc Vey on
Indonesian Communism and David Chandler on the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.

Jean Gel Man Taylor. (2003). "Indonesia: People and Histories ", New Haven & London: Yale
University Press.

Justus M. Van der Kroef. (winter, 1970-71) Interpretation of the 1965 Indonesian Coup: review
of the literature" in pacific Affair, Vol. 43, No. 4, P: 87-96.

Mckay Hill Buckler. 1996. "A history of World Societies". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

M.C.Ricklefs. (1981). A history of Modern Indonesia" London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Asian
Histories series, the Macmillan Press LTD.

Milton Obsorne. (1994). "Sihanouk: prince of light, prince of Darkness" Thailand: silkworm
books.

(2004). "Southeast Asia: an introductory history". Singapore: South Wind Production.

Rex Mortimer. (1974) "Indonesia Communism under Sukarno". Ithaca and London: Cornell
Univerity Press.

Serge Thion. (1983). The Cambodian Idea of Revolution" in David P. Chandler and ben Kiernan
(ed.) Revolution and its aftermath in Kampuchea. Monograph series no. 25, Yale Univeristy of
Southeast Asian Studies.

Vedi R. Hadiz. (December 2006). "The left and Indonesia's 1960: the politics of Remembering
and forgetting" in Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Volume 7, Number 4.
[
1] It is very difficult for me, who are very new to police, to understand what is the mainstream
debate about the different definitions of Communism defined by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao,
Rose Luxemburg, and others. In this paper, the aforementioned definition is received from
some books and lectures from my professor in Southeast Asian Studies program. However, I
sometime find there are some historical points that go against my professor and other authors
of those books too.
[
2] Mckay Hill Buckler. 1996. "A history of World Societies". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
p: 1222.
[
3] According to Jean Gelman Tylor (2003), in 1914 a group of Dutch socillists and indonesian
political exiles created Indies Social Democratic Union which functioned as the Labor union
Study Clubs, and political parties. Therefore, it was not called Indonesian Communist Party
until 1920.
[
4]This word is preferred by Serge Thion to call the Cambodian Communists rather than
Revolution Marxists or Cambodian Communists since the ideology is different. (please see Serge
Thion, 1983)
[
5] Vietnamese communists or Viet Minhs were the Vietnamese communist party members, who
operated not only in Vietnam but also in Cambodia and Loa; with the belief that revolution
against the French could not be succeeded if only Vietnamese Communists alone operated,
they came along side with some Chinese communists to create the Communist movement in
Cambodia and Loa too.
[
6] This uprising headed by Musso, a leader of Indonesian Communist Party. He used to live in
Moscow for 23 years. After he returned back, he captured Madium and declared it as Soviet
Republic. However, this uprising was suppressed by Sukarno ad his band. Please see Hal Kosut
(ed.) 1967)
[
7] This "fifth force" was a proposal of the Communist leader in Sukarno's cabinet to arm the
peasants in order to balance their power with the military leaders. At first Sukarno did not

[
[
[
[
[
[
[
accept, but until the problem was out of his control, he came to agreement.
[
8] Cambodian Communists.
Posted by Southeast Asian&Great Mekon Subregion Studies at 12:20 AM 0 comments Links to
this post

SUNDAY, APRIL 13, 2008

COMMENT FROM MY GREAT PROFFESSOR

(The red letters are the comments one of my dear professors gave to me when i submitted
my paper; then the black ones are what i reacted back; but without much proofs i could
not convince my professor. So, he gave me other comments in the blue color. I understand
that i do not understand many things, and it is very dangerous to express when we do not
understand the full context. I always lose in these points. And all of my writing expresses
how weak and unreliable i am. So, please make sure that when you read all these stuffs in
this anonymous web, you use your great knowledge to ask yourself if it is reliable or not.)
1) Khmer Rouge did not use Stalinism or Maoism in the end. They used Rousseau and
Ankor.

'Here it is depended on what you argued, but I personally believed that Pol Pot used
varieties of ideologies one of them is Maoism. I am probably convinced by the
propaganda of the Pro-Vietnamese government in the 1980s, but Serge Thion (page: 26)
probably influenced me the most. As he wrote:

"Certainly the Khmer communists entertained the illusion they were not "Maoist" and
were devising some sort of original version of the old dogma, even though Pol Pot paid
tribute, when Mao died, to the power of his "thought." But the true originally of the
Kampuchean experiment is more on the authoritarian aspects of ruling methods in the
"Chinese way."…..Similar results stem from similar causes. A brief and penetrating
analysis of china in 1949 points out, "the truth of the Chinese communist revolution is
the encounter between the smallest of the social groups, the thin layer of the modern
intellectuals, and the largest social force, the peasantry. as a group standing outside of
the power structure, but nurturing the idea of modernization as a reaction to western
domination, the radical intelligentsia in China suffered from the failure of the Republic
in the twenties, and, after 1927, adhered to the motto of one of its most admired
thinkers, Li Dazhao, who said: "go to the village." One aspect of Maoism is the
rationalization of this breakaway from the ruling class, and the subsequent

[
 reorientation of political activities towards the countryside. "Rectification campaigns"
are the way for the party to adapt to, and adopt the new social environment. This
broad outline of events applies perfectly to Cambodia. The leadership of the KCP is
made up of "outcast" intellectuals who could never gain control inside the power
system (although some Khmer Marxists, later purged by Pol Pot, tried hard to do so)
and who were rejected by the traditional body politics. They "went to the village
"(1963-68) and had to place themselves under extreme pressure in order to become
professional peasant leaders. The theorization of their evolution was then, quite
normally, very close to Maoism, i.e., and ideology which rationalizes the substitution of
the radical intelligentsia for a powerless, and occasionally privileged, working class. "

Thion uses a psychological analysis. He doesn’t understand Maoism and he says nothing
about what the Chinese communists actually did. They didn’t clear the cities and they
didn’t remain in the shadows. The Chinese communists did not use much repression to
force the peasantry. They couldn’t do that even if they wanted. They were too weak
compared to the peasantry.

2) Workers movement strong historically in Indonesia.

Read Hadiz’s history of labour, Anne Stoller and Ruth McVey …..the workers movement
in Indonesia is well documented from 1914 onwards.

I do not understand well with your sentence. I just wonder what you do mean by
historically strong. Do you mean the number of the Workers? by this definition, I could not
find the good book that can provide me the clear cut statistics on it, I find one of the
statistics in the book by Adrain Vickers (2005: 49) "a history of Modern Indonesia, saying in
1929, "among the 180 sugar factories, employing 60,000 permanent hands….another
700,000 temporary hands came to cut the cane or perform the other seasonal tasks…………
the poorest of Javanese sold themselves to join the coolies labor force of 360,000." I know
the real figure probably is more than this, but if compared to the figure of the peasants,
Indonesia was still agricultural based. By other definitions, I did not see them strongly, and
working class was seen by Sukarno in 1926 as weak in Asia or non-existed in the same sense
as in Europe, but still a part of the main force could be manipulated to fight against the
Dutch. In his word, Sukarno said:
" Marxism which was previously so violently anti-nationalist and anti-religious, has now
altered its tactics, especially in Asia, so that its previous bitter opposition has turned into
comradeship and support. Today there is friendship between the Marxists and nationalist in
China, and between Marxists and Muslims in Afghanistan…Marxist Theory has also changed.
In fact it had to: Marx and Engels were not prophets who could determine eternally valid
laws. Their theories have to be changed with the times; they must be adapted to fit a
changing world if they are not become bankrupt. Marx and Engels themselves realized this
and in their writings they often showed that they had changed their minds or changed their
interpretation of certain events of their time… This ability to make tactical and theoretical
changes explained why the "younger" Marxists, whether they are "patient" or " tough",
especially the younger Marxists in Asia, are all supporters of genuine nationalist
movements. They know that in Asia, where there is no proletariat in the European-
American Sense, their movement must change its character to fit in with prevailing
condition of life. They know that the Marxist movement in Asia must employ different
means than in Europe, and that they must "work together" with the petty-bourgeois
parties", because the prime target here is not to achieve power but to fight feudalism…
The workers in Asia can only organize a socialist movement, if these countries are free, and
workers have national autonomy. As Otto Bauer said, "national autonomy is a goal which
must be pursued by the proletariat in its struggle, because it is very necessary for its
policies……" (Chr.L.M Penders. 1977: 309)

Here Sukarno's idea is maybe not clear, but the Medium Affair really shows the working
class is weak. The communist strikes or front was suppressed very cruelly. Moreover, if we
talk about the post-independence, working class worked under the ineffective leader,
Aidit. M.C. Ricklefs (1981: 235) said, "As the price of PNI protection, PKI muted its
criticisms of corruption and economic problems. In May 1955 SOBSI members even helped
to break a strike by a PSI Union. " M.C.Ricklefs added, "while Aidit was on a visit to the
Soviet Union in March, his leadership was challenged by Alimin, who had twice seen the
downfall of PKI and was now an elderly man in his late Sixties. he circulated a statement
that the Aidit leadership group was soft, opportunist and deviationist, and was leading PKI
to become an ordinary bourgeois party by stifling class-consciousness. He was largely
correct, but it is hard to see how PKI could have survived in any other way. Alimin found no
support, was forced to recant, and withdraw to a lonely and embittered old age. He died in
1964 before having to witness the third and bloodiest destruction of PKI". Moreover, aside
from the aforementioned, I just wondered how the figures really mean something,
especially when Aidit claimed that over 27 million Indonesians were the members of PKI.
3) No, not in the case of Indonesia. Yes, in the case of Cambodia, but again, not in a Maoist
way. You must not confuse support from China to the Khmer Rouge and the use of Maoism
by the KR.

Having a support base among peasantry does not imply Maoism. The PKI didn’t use armed
struggle from the countryside at all.
I am sorry to say honestly that I do not know much about Indonesian history, but I read a
few books and they told me that peasants were important for the Indonesian communists.
As Vedi R. Hadiz (2006: 560) reported, "One of the major support bases of the PKI was in
the peasantry, especially on the most populous island of Java. Indonesia's low level of
industrialization in the 1960s meant that the traditional agricultural sector was important
to the PKI in terms of maintaining strong grassroots support in society. More so because the
party's gradual gravitation towards Beijing and away from Moscow meant that the Maoist
version of Marxist-Leninist doctrine became ever more a distinctive feature of PKI
propaganda."

4) Actually Stalinist parties took power in Eastern Europe!!!

Here I refer to the 1917 revolution, This was not Stalinist the one that used to eliminate
the class exploitation (I am not sure this is true or not, since I do not read much about that
revolution; but I learn that Lenin, since the first hand, decided not to collaborate with the
bourgeoisie class.)

5) A strange way to look at it. I prefer to say that the CPVN managed to win leadership of
the nationalist movement

Here I understand Milton Osborn. He just wanted to claim that the Communist leaders did
know the operations of Vietnamese millenarianism movements against the French. Not
true. They were involved in Nge-Thin. However, such movements could not help liberate
the country; so even though they worked with some of those people, they preferred to use
the structure of Communist revolution. And sometimes the unclear idea of Ho Chiminh to
contact or ask for support from USA, also can be used to support Milton Osborn's idea. How?
However, I still could not understand clearly the Vietnam communism since there were a
lot of interpretations, not only among the external, but internal scholars. You have to look
at the fact that the non-cp nationalists cooperated with the French and , very importantly,
the Vichy French who were allied to the Japanese in Indochina. In other areas of SEAsia CPs
had to ally with the colonialists.
6) But in Vietnam they used non-Maoist Stalinism. This is something you need to
understand.

Sorry I could not understand what you mean; however, I still believe, especially in Serge
Thion, that it is depended on which corner of Communism you look at. If you look at the
cross-class alliance, the peasantry arms, so on and so forth, you will see how similar
ideology the Vietnam communists used. You don’t understand Maoism. The Vietnamese
never left the cities in order to wage a peasant war. They waged a conventional war from
the north plus guerilla war in the south. No hint of Maoism. Thion is a journalist who does
not have deep analysis. However, indeed, I wish not to use Marxism/Leninism or
Maoism/Stalinism, because the concepts themselves are very complicated, I wish I can use
the same concept as Serge Thion, "the revolution nationalists."

7) Then to self-sufficiency community politics of Rousseau and Ankor.

I know you believed in David Chandler, I have no idea since he is the great scholar.
However, I wish, one day, I can access to original Khmer documents so I can prove or
disprove him. In Cambodia, the recent years, some Cambodian scholars have a lot of
arguments about Cambodian history; some of them base their arguments on foreign scholar
while other on the local. These two schools of thoughts sometime run into contradiction.
So, Cambodian history by David Chandler is under the question. Cambodian Scholar, Keng
Vansak, the one that Pol Pot used to work in his party So he isn’t going to say there was a
problem with Khmer Rouge, but to say the top guy was crazy instead. That way he can
avoid blame, "democratic" claimed in the broadcast of Radio Free Asia CIA radio, yes,
hardly academic truth that Pol Pot became violent because his only one favorite girlfriend
was "stolen" by Sam Sary, the political opponent, the father of Samraingsy, and high
ranking official of Sihanouk. This a very stupid explanation. A bit like saying you can
explain Nazi Germany because Hitler was crazy and had a chip on his shoulder. No sense of
social political and economic circumstances!!! He added that, the last time he met him, he
told Pol Pot about a traditional Khmer folktale that usually the prince, who lost his
kingdom, always went to the forest and learned some magic from the hermit, then he
returned back to fight for his kingdom. Therefore, Pol Pot did as if he commented. All
these information sometime make me get stuck, and wish that I can learn here and have
capability enough to dig out. Please give me more times.
You have to prove that Pol Pot wasn’t interested in Rousseau when in France. Actually it
was other left activists too , not just Pol Pot. And you cannot deny the importance of Ankor
. These ideas arose because of the terrible conditions created by US bombing. (CIA radio
won’t talk about that).Your explanation about him losing his girl friend is nursery school
compared to real evidence.

8) It is believed that Marxism came to Indonesia yes and Cambodia ?? before

Maoism/Stalinism.

I failed to understand the concept since the beginning, so I have no ground to argue with
you. But since they called themselves, or the writers called them, I just use that word. I
hope you do not mind since my accessibility to books is limited here.

9) The Marxist Russian revolution 1917 led by Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks was
successful in a country dominated by peasants and agriculture!!!!! There were 3 million
workers: 160 million peasants!!

Yes, I am thinking about that too. I just wonder if you are right to say the working class in
Indonesia was strong; I asked myself if it was true, why they could not win. Because the PKI
didn’t lead a fight against Sukarno!!! Does number or historical strength really mean
anything else? I am so sorry that I could not attend your last lecture, but when I read your
handout, it seems to tell me something. It sounds like even though each country in
Southeast Asia is urbanized and industrialized, working class could not really enjoy their
rights fully; and in each country, the strengthening for class struggle also produces
different result. It is depended on the quality of the union, the class consciousness among
the workers, and the measurements of the government. So to conclude the case of
Indonesian "revolution" and Marxist Russian revolution, I have to say strength and the unity
of working class in Russia was probably better than the Indonesian. Russia was ruled by an
absolute monarch!!!! Moreover, during that time, war against Germany really deteriorated
the ruling class. But in Southeast Asia, the revolutionaries had to wait until the end of
World War II, so that they could "fully" wage the war against the colonialists. (with
Japanese guns? and the intervention of international community).

10) They were Indian No Chinese?, and Vietnamese?, who were seen as the foreigners as
well as the associates of the colonialists.
I am sorry, in this point I am so ambiguous. Indeed, I am too quick to draw the Indonesian
case in the same conclusion as in other parts of Southeast Asia. However, it is not me who
invented this idea. It is Milton Osborn who explained that the Colonialists preferred to use
the ethnic immigrants rather than the indigenous. A generalization which should not be
copied without thought. No Indians or Vietnamese in Indonesia, No Indians in Cambodia.
Hardly any Chinese workers in Cambodia. Also, Osborn ignores that it would be much more
expensive to hire local peasants because they were doing OK by being peasants. Why
should they move to the city at that time? (circumstances change later).There are many
reasons, but one of them is their labor was cheap. Honestly, I mean in these two countries,
the workers can be Indian or Chinese, or Vietnamese. I am sorry my English is not good
enough.

11) Therefore, the revolutionary nationalists that played the most important role in
fighting for the independence were very reluctant to associate with those workers. Osborn
is really talking about Burma and attitude to Indian workersNo! not the case in Indonesia at
all. Workers were Indonesians.

Yes, you are rights, but Chinese in Indonesia, suffered a lot from the Indonesians both the
communists how? And when? Data please! and non-communists. No, the PKI organized
across ethnicity. Osborn is totally ignorant. The PKI didn’t attack Chinese and most Chinese
in Indonesia were not workers, but small scale self employed businesses. I know here I am a
bit convinced by Milton Osborn saying that it is only the stereotype that saying that Chinese
are the rich and the exploited. Many of them are in the working class too. For example, in
the case of Malaysia, the poor Chinese were always attracted by the Chinese Communists
until the British administration changed their policy to upgrade their economics and slums.
However, I realize it is my mistakes. I read a few books but still could not find Chinese
were poor workers. You read the wrong books!!! Thailand & Malaysia are two very good
examples. However, some books really show that the Indonesian did not like Chinese. M.C.
Ricklefs wrote, "Amy interference in the economy and administration was also increasing.
In May 1959 it had decreed that, with effect from 1 January 1960, aliens would be banned
from rural trade. While this affected Arab and Indian traders, it was mainly an army-
instigated move to hurt the Chinese, weaken Jakarta's friendship with China and embarrass
PKI. Late in 1959 the army began forcibly moving Chinese from rural areas to the cities.
Eventually about 119, 000 were actually repatriated to China." Jean Gelman Taylor (2003:
353) added, "Other enemies were found. Chinese filled this role as a foreign minority that
had been in partnership with the Dutch….Indonesian's founding constitution identified all
people of Chinese ancestry as foreigners until they applied for naturalization… Those who
stayed could not free themselves from the perceived taint of Dutch privilege. Young men
wishing for military careers found the armed services closed to them, except medical
corps. There were quotas in university and pressure to change names to Indonesia forms. In
1960 the army ordered foreign Chinese out of rural towns across java and herded them into
clusters in cities… People of Chinese origin also were targets for killing and arson whenever
government authority weakened and local heroes marshaled armed supporters"

Yes, the army tries to turn peoples anger against Chinese. You just go along with a one-
sided argument that Race is more important than anything else. We had a lecture on this
argument. To believe what you do you must show evidence why my argument is wrong, not
just repeat what Osborn thinks

12) led by Sukarno and Sarekat Islam.No Read the context of what you wrote. There is no
question that the PKI worked with the SI
What do you mean by saying No. Jean Gelmantaylor (2003: 353) said yes, " From the first,
Indonesian communism tangled with Organized Islam. In the second decade of the
twentieth century, party leaders pursued a Strategy of "Red Islam". Members joined
branches of Sarekat Islam. When they lost the contest for control of Sarekat Islam's central
leadership, they formed Sarekat Rakyat ( people's union)." Moreover, Vedi R. Hadiz (page
588) referred to Mc Vey (the one you recommend), saying, "So much so that the indonesian
Communist Party's origins lay in an association called Sarekat Islam (Mc Vey 1965). Even
many devoutly Islamic political actors of the day were simultaneously leftist or communist
in their political ideology- as best personified by Haji Misbach- who led the secret 'section
B' of the Sarekat Islam, any many times fell afoul of Dutch authorities."
13) The reason why Mao was forced to use the peasantry was because of the massacre of
Communists by the Kuo Mintang in 1926, 1927 (a result of Stalinist policies). You should
read the books in my reference list at the end of my Thammasart paper on S.E.Asian
Communists.
I think you have similar idea with Serge Thion; This isn’t my “idea” . Look at the history of
China 1926-1927. No such event happened in Cambodia. the difference is only Serge Thion
mentioned about the limited political space in the urban areas, and about Li Dazhao, who
encouraged Mao to: "go to the village." I am still not clear if the idea to go to the village
happened before 1926/27. " NO it did not. That is why I say 1926-27 is vitally important .
You obviously never read my Thammasart paper!!!I am sorry, I do not know much about
Chinese history, but I will try to read more.
14) The dispute was really about the fact that the CPVN was a much stronger nationalist
movement and they decided that a cross-class alliance with Sihanouk would be good. This
handicapped the communists in Cambodia until 1970.
Yes, maybe. But the dispute between Cambodia and Vietnam can not just explained with a
few words. It can trace back to the pre-colonial history. Yes, yes, “difference races hate
each other by nature”. Actually this is rubbish. The Chams who attacked Ankro were not
Vietnames. Vietnam is a much more recent invention. But the Cambodian ruling class want
you to hate the Vietnamese by “nature”.But I do not want to talk about that period, what I
wanted to say is French colonialism also helped increase this dispute. One of them is
national identity/nationalism. Cambodian students who study in French school especially in
France had a deep feeling on what their Cambodian identity is and how it is different from
others, especially Vietnam. Ben Kiernan wrote that sons of the Thhion family, one of the
highest elites in Cambodia, and later worked as the high ranking officials in Pol Pot regime,
rejected when their friends asked them to welcome Uncle Ho Chiminh in France, saying
that "he is not our uncle". Another point is economic inequality. French so far saw
Cambodian people as the lazy people; they did not wish to hire them. They preferred
Vietnamese. And it is clearer when see more developments such as road, University, and …
in Vietnam, but a very few in Cambodia.
However, I can see the similar paradigm in Chinese-Vietnamese relationship too. While
Cambodians wished to work with China rather Vietnam, Vietnamese wished to work with
Soviet rather than China. So is it about stronger national movement, or what else I am not
sure.

Yes, and whites always hate blacks and Thais hate Chinese…oops the Thais ARE Chinese!!!
15) Tan Malaka supported Sukarno, the representative of bureaucrat Bourgeois, who was
ready to negotiate with the Ducth to share the power, while Amir and Musso worked
against Sukarno. No
No? I say yes with M.C.Ricklefs (1981: 216-17), "In September the government released Tan
Malka in the Vain hope of wining leftists away from Musso…With the removal of the
Stalinists, the 'national Communists' who followed Tan Malaka's thinking and opposed the
PKI rebellion at Madiun, joined together to form Partai Murba (proletarian Party in October
1948 " indeed, I read other book saying that Tan Malaka really criticized Sukarno, but in the
point of attacking Amir and Musso, I think he did not object Sukarno." so I should say, he
did not object. Stalinism and National communists are the same. Ricklefs doesn’t
understand. They may have a small difference in approach but the politics is the same. Bad
analysis!
16) They chose to join with Sukarno!!!
They chose to join, or they were persuaded that Sukarno could bring Indonesia into
Communist state with them, I think it is the same thing. No, not if you understand
Stalinism and what CPs did all over the world. You would understand this if you read my
paper. Now, if you did and don’t agree, then tell me why Egypt, Iraq, Thailand and China,
where CPs did the same thing are somehow all unique!
17) Source of fund also played the most important role in shaping Communist ideology in
Indonesia and Cambodia. NO, this does not explain the policies of the PKI or the Khmer
Rouge AT ALL, No!
I understand that I do not have enough evidence to convince you, but

This is because you cannot believe that ordinary people support Communism. PKI Had 20
million members!!! You may love American democracy (which supports dictatorships all
over the world and 60% of Americans who are poor don’t bother to vote) but you need to
be critical. So far you just believe in right-wing myths.

First of all, let me quote Vedi R. Hadiz again, " More so because the party's gradual
gravitation towards Beijing and away from Moscow meant that the Maoist version of
Marxist-Leninist doctrine became ever more a distinctive feature of PKI propaganda." This
quote does not mean much, I know, but what about the quote from M.C. Ricklefs (1981)
saying, "Late in September 1963 Aidit returned from extended visits to the Soviet Union and
China. On his return, for the first time he aligned PKI unequivocally with China against the
Soviet Union. It is possible that Aidit had accepted Chinese advice to mount a domestic
political offensive… But the difficulties of PKI soon became clear, and sealed its fate. China
shortly became so confident of its influent in Jakarta at government-to-government level
that its support of PKI rural policies may have been qualified. The Soviet Union looked to
the Indonesian army and anti-PKI leftist for allies. The Americans almost certainly became
involved in clandestine encouragement of anti-Communists. Chinese delegations paid
frequent visit to Jakarta… In April 1965 Zhou Enlai himself came. The Chinese publicly
urged the creation of a 'a fifth force'…On 16-19 September Omar Dhani went secretly to
China upon Sukarno's instructions to discuss, among other things, the Chinese offer of small
arms, without prior notification having been given to Nasution as defense minister...In
1964, China had also offered to turn the assets of the Bank of China in Jakarta over to the
Indonesian Government, and did so in November. This move is still not entirely explained.
The Bank was believed to be PKI's main source of Chinese financial aid. That this
represented a further step in the Jakarta-Beijing alliance is clear."
 And in 1959, what is the point that both PKI and Sukarno in 1959 attempted to prevent the
army from taking even more sever measures against the Chinese, when Chinese
government imposed very heavy diplomatic pressure on Jakarta.

By the way, between 1979 1nd 1991 the USA supported the Khmer Rouge and armed and
supplied them, keeping the civil war alive in Cambodia. By your logic this “proves” that the
US government was Maoist. The “must” also be radical Islamists because they armed and
funded Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the same period.

George Bush also attacked Iraq because an Arab man stole his first girlfriend.

This is the end of the debate.

Posted by Southeast Asian&Great Mekon Subregion Studies at 11:42 PM 0 comments Links to
this post