Copyright countercurrents
The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program That Shaped Our World by Vincent Bevins: A Book Review Essay by Kim Scipes ISBN: 978-1-5417-2400-6 (paperback), New York: Public Affairs Press, 2020 Vincent Bevins has written a riveting and quite disturbing book about the military coup that took place in Indonesia in 1965 and its aftermath that spread to 23 different countries, and that while receiving some critical acclaim by journalists and scholars, has been generally overlooked by the US left. It is time to revisit it. (This is part of my effort to break the current social democratic hold on US leftist politics, which limits consideration to just the domestic sphere; I argue that a global viewpoint is necessary for us to understand what is happening in the United States, around the world, and the interaction in-between both, an understanding impossible to generate by focusing on domestic politics alone.) Bevins is an American, a professional journalist who has written for the Washington Post as well as the Los Angeles Times, and who currently lives in Brazil. Thus, he brings enhanced personal knowledge to his subject, as well as multiple language skills (including English, Indonesian, Portuguese, and Spanish) and a strong understanding of the culture of particularly Brazil and Indonesia. He also brings scholarly knowledge to examining archival materials, interviewing acknowledged experts, and combining this with personal accounts by those involved. It is a very strong combination. Additionally, he is an excellent writer who is clear and coherent, and his book almost reads like a well-written novel. Although he doesn’t specifically delineate it, the book is really presented in five parts. First, he focuses on the post-World War II political-economic-military-cultural-domestic system, which I (not him) call the US Empire, containing all of the countries of the world outside of the Soviet Empire and the US efforts to maintain control over them. He then examines the efforts by leaders of the newly independent countries to create a “third world” in efforts to develop in the face of centuries of “Western” imperialism (including Japanese) and possible Soviet domination. Second, he focuses on the unresolved understanding of the September 30, 1965, coup attempt against the military in Indonesia; much is still unknown about this, even at the time of publication of this book Third, he examines the Indonesian military’s survival from the coup attempt and then the bloody aftermath in which the US-trained military and their local allies slaughtered somewhere between 500,000 and a million Indonesians. (I think direct reports of rivers flowing with blood and the huge numbers justify the term “slaughter.”) Fourth, he examines how this mass slaughter of civilians served as a blueprint for reactionary military operations around the world, and he details how this blueprint has been utilized in at least 23 different countries, each time with US Government approval, if not actual direct involvement. And five, he tries honestly to understand how this could have happened; why it took place. So, if nothing else, the scope of Bevins’ endeavor should earn respect; he took experiences that he was aware of in Brazil and especially Indonesia and sought to understand their impact on liberation struggles around the world. However, not only is the scope global, but it is from the perspective of peoples in the affected countries; this is not written from a US or a “global north” perspective. Thus, it is a viewpoint from which very few Americans have considered the world: the perspective of the colonized or formerly colonized countries. [A word on terminology: Bevins uses “third world” or “developing” countries to refer to these victimized countries; I have argued elsewhere (Scipes, 2023) that terms like these have been utilized by governments and the United Nations to hide or certainly obfuscate their reality: these countries have each been victimized by the so-called, white “developed” countries (including Japan, if you will) that should be recognized as “imperialist,” and every country in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East save Ethiopia, Persia (today, Iran), and Siam (Thailand) was colonized by 1915 by these imperial countries. Imperial countries stole their raw materials (lumber, land for agriculture), natural resources (gold, silver, platinum), and sometimes human beings (slavery, overseas workers today) to take back and develop the imperial countries and did not care what type of impact this had on the colonized or formerly colonized countries. Additionally, there are several “settler colonies”—I’m speaking of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and South Africa—where settlers brutally conquered indigenous people and took over the land and all it contained. Accordingly, I argue we should use the term “imperial” countries for the so-called “advanced” countries, and “colonized/formerly colonized” for those so victimized. Using my terminology, I argue, would have enhanced Bevins’ argument, and especially would have better shown the systematic nature of his analysis.] We need to remember, as Bevins argues, that the period right after the end of World War II in 1945 that despite the enhanced military capabilities of the US and their allies (including the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan), and the Soviets and their allies, that millions of people around the world were seeking political independence and democracy. Northern Vietnam gained its independence in 1945, the Philippines in 1946, India and Pakistan in 1947, and China and Indonesia in 1949. There were also efforts by a number of other countries. This was also a time of enhanced struggles for liberation in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, all encouraged by the (“Western”) allies’ propaganda that helped win the war against the “Axis” of Germany, Italy, and Japan. This movement for political independence and democracy, in fact, was a great rebellion against Western imperialism. And these countries were unwilling to subordinate themselves under Soviet domination. They wanted a new world order, where they could work together to gain independence and democracy, but where they would be in control of their own situation. This was commonly referred to as the “third” world. And third world leaders such as Nasser in Egypt, Nehru in India, and Sukarno in Indonesia began acting and speaking on the world stage, and by 1948, were joined by Tito in Yugoslavia. Despite all of their fine words about “democracy” and “freedom,” the United States simply would not accept that; it had to have access to all kinds of raw materials and natural resources, as well as to naval and air bases around the world. In 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was created, intended to help the US maintain control over these formerly colonized countries. [The Soviet Union, from its perspective, also sought these things. The problem, especially in the years immediately following the war, was that they did not have the economic or political capability to compete with the US: not only was the western one-third of their country devastated by the Nazis, but the Soviets lost approximately 27 MILLION people (men, women, and children) as to approximately 400,000 by the US, and those were overwhelmingly military personnel.] So, the Bandung Conference of 1955, which took place in Indonesia to try to unify countries in Africa and Asia, was seen by US leaders as a threat to US domination. However, the US began acting before Bandung. In 1953, along with the British MI 6, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader in Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, and replaced him with the Shah. In 1954, the US CIA helped destroy the armed Hukbalahap movement of the Philippines that had fought the Japanese and then against the neo-colonial government. That same year, the CIA launched a coup in Guatemala, overthrowing a democratically-elected government that sought progressive reforms for its people. Then by 1956, the US struck back in Vietnam. Instead of honoring the US pledge to accept the results of free elections that year, where Vietnamese in the southern half of the country could vote whether to remain “independent” under a French-supported puppet government or to join northern Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, the US allowed the South Vietnamese government to cancel the elections. In his memoirs, US President Dwight Eisenhower admitted that US intelligence had shown that in fair elections, Ho Chi Minh would have won 80 percent of the vote! So, instead of simply honoring their decision, the US actions led to the “American” war in Vietnam, where some 3.8 million Vietnamese were killed and another 5.7 million wounded. Additionally, over 58,000 Americans were killed trying to resubjugate the Vietnamese, and hundreds of thousands have died subsequently from injuries and trauma related to the war. Then, in 1958, the CIA launched air attacks against Indonesia, trying to break apart the extremely diverse country; they didn’t like the increasingly confident approach of President Sukarno, and they wanted to kneecap his efforts. The Indonesian military defeated this project. However, this enhanced the status of the Indonesian military, and the US soon saw that supporting the military could lead to creating a force that could undermine Sukarno, who they feared. Increasing numbers of Indonesian soldiers were brought to and trained in the US, along with enhanced amounts of military aid being sent to the country. In 1964, the Brazilian army launched a successful military coup in that country, with US help. On September 30, 1965, something very bizarre took place in Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital. Junior officers in the military revolted, protesting the increasingly right-leaning, anti-democratic approach of their leaders, captured six of the seven leading Army generals, and were taking them to the President. Despite the statement that the generals would not be harmed, something happened, and the six were murdered. According to Bevins, no one really knows what happened and why this took place. While capturing and taking recalcitrant military leaders to the president had some precedent, killing captured generals did not. Bevins looks at different theories about what happened. However, without the evidence to prove one over another, he smartly refuses to speculate. However, he provides tons of evidence for the aftermath of the killings. General Suharto—separate from President Sukarno—rallied the army and blamed the killings on the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI). Suharto, however, provided no evidence of the PKI’s involvement in the killings and, in fact, this went against the entire history of the PKI: the party was a mass political party—the third largest in the world, behind only the Soviet and Chinese parties—and was committed to an electoral path to power; not only did was it not armed, it did not even begin to arm itself in light of warnings from Chinese leaders. So, seemingly out of nowhere, the army—joined with some right wing Muslim forces—began massacring PKI members and any who might have even spoken favorably of their work across the archipelago. Like mentioned above, somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million people were killed: men, women, and children. It was, for sure, the most extreme violence during the Cold War. [What is of interest here is that we know—based on the work by a woman named Kathy Kadane—that the US intelligence agencies gave names of some PKI members to the Indonesian army, thus, directly participating in the brutality. We also know that the Brazilian military became more brutal after Indonesia, 1965-66. We don’t know of any direct ties beforehand between the Brazilian and Indonesia militaries. Although I am speculating here, I hypothesize that it will someday be discovered that the CIA played a key role in killing the generals and in instigating and encouraging the mass violence in Indonesia—it simply spread too quickly, too widely, and too brutally to assume the anti-communism emerged “automatically” from the grassroots, when the PKI electoral results were increasingly favorable especially in rural areas—and then transferred knowledge from this to the Brazilian military.] In Brazil, in 1967, the army began a much more brutal campaign against its citizens; they had obviously learned from what happened in Indonesia. Once this knowledge of mass suppression reached Brazil, it contaminated Latin America. The words “Jakarta” or “Project Jakarta” began appear on walls in Chile—with a successful military coup in 1973—and then in Argentina, 1976. And then, through Project Condor, an operation to rid the entire continent of leftists. The long and short of Bevins’ analysis is that he brilliantly ties mass violence in a number of countries across the globe in the Cold War period. He does not blame the United States government for necessarily originating this mass violence, but he could find no case where it condemned such violence. Bevins writes, As we have seen, in the years 1945-1990, a loose network of US-backed anti-communist extermination programs emerged around the world, and they carried out mass murder in at least twenty-three countries…. There was no central plan, no master control room where the whole thing was coordinated, but I think the extermination programs in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, East Timor, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam should be seen as interconnected and as a crucial part of the US victory in the Cold War (emphasis added). (I am not including direct military engagements or even people killed by ‘collateral damage’ in war.) The men carrying out purposeful executions of dissidents and unarmed civilians learned from one another. They adopted methods that were developed in other countries. Sometimes, they even named their operations after other programs they sought to emulate. I found evidence indirectly linking the metaphor ‘Jakarta,’ taken from the largest and most of these programs, to at least 11 countries…. But even the regimes that were never influenced by that specific language would have been able to see, very clearly, what the Indonesian military had done and the success and prestige it enjoyed in the West afterwards. Bevins further notes, I am not saying that the United States won the Cold War because of mass murder. I do want to claim that this loose network of extermination programs, organized and justified by anticommunist principles, was such an important part of the US victory that the violence profoundly shaped the world we live in today. And then, he tried to understand why this all happened. Unfortunately, I do not think his analysis holds up as well as it should, given his evidence. I think it is relatively simple: the US is an imperialist nation, and it established a global empire after World War II. It sought to expand the empire to other countries, while keeping those ensnared within. And it was willing to use and used excessive amounts of violence to achieve this aim. Altogether, an excellent book and one I’d recommend any critical thinker to read. I personally think it should be in every high school and library in the country. What makes it especially interesting is that he relies overwhelmingly on academic literature to support his argument; he does not generally use activist literature. While there is already extensive and conclusive activist evidence and analysis, by utilizing the academic literature, he supplements the already strong activist literature. Accordingly, in light of my 2010 book on the foreign policy of the AFL-CIO and my 2020 update, and Jeff Schurke’s more recent and more detailed account in 2024 (see resources, below) that largely supports my work, Bevins totally ignores the role of the AFL-CIO in US foreign policy. The AFL (American Federation of Labor)—before the 1955 merger with the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations)—was involved in helping to overthrow the democratically-elected government in Guatemala (1954), as well as the AFL-CIO was involved in doing the same in Brazil (1964) as well as in Chile (1973). Additionally, the AFL-CIO supported dictatorships in Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan, as well as in The Congo and the white “apartheid” government in South Africa. They also supported reactionary labor centers challenging progressive ones, as in the Philippines in the mid-to-late 1980s, where the largest affiliate of their ally, the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines worked with a death squad (no exaggeration!) against the progressive Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center in a battle to represent the workers of the largest copper mine in Asia. In fact, the AFL began its engagement in US foreign affairs, almost always on the side of the US Government, during the late 1890s, and in over 120 years, has NEVER given an honest report of these operations to its member unions or their members that can be verified by independent researchers. Yet today—or at least before Trump cut off most of their funding in February 2025—they claimed publicly to be operating in over 70 countries around the world, yet they never have honestly reported why they are there in each of these countries, what they are doing, who they are working with, or for what trade union purposes. (For additional information, see the website of the Labor Education Project on AFL-CIO International Operations at https://aflcio-int.education.) I lay this out because, as devastating as Bevins’ account is—and I believe most people will find his facts and analysis truly abhorrent—he still missed a lot of what has been done by the US Government and their allies like the AFL-CIO around the world. This is especially true after 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed; Bevins basically limits his work to 1945-90, while the US government and the AFL-CIO have continued their overseas operations. This is why we must expand our analysis globally: the US Government has operated globally, especially since 1945, and it continues today. An analysis that only focuses on domestic politics and operations is willfully ignorant, and is practically excusing the US for its wars, interventions, and mass murder by it and its allies. And yet, this willful ignorance is now coming back to bite Americans in the butt. Our national debt which totaled $909 million (or $ .9 trillion) in 1981, and after 192 years, jumped to over $37 trillion in mid-2025, in little more than 40 years. The national debt is somewhere around 120 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, which means if all 330 million Americans worked for a year, taking no payment for our labor or income from our investments, we still could not pay off the debt. The US economy is being underwritten not by productive operations but by hot checks or “insufficient funds.” The real unemployment rate is approximately 24 percent as the country is getting more economically unequal, with the impact being greatest on poor Blacks and Latinos—and it ain’t doing too good for poor whites, either. But we have more billionaires than ever before. The only chance we have is to renounce the empire and cut our military spending by somewhere around 90 percent; without that, we don’t have a chance. We have a choice: we can take care of all Americans and good people around the globe, or we can continue the US Empire: we cannot do both. We have to forthrightly look at this problem, as Bevins’ book details, and call things as we see them: your call. Kim Scipes, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Purdue University Northwest in Westville, Indiana. He has published four books and over 290 articles and book reviews in the US and 11 different countries. Scipes has been an industrial worker (a printer), high school teacher, and office worker over the years, and has been a member of the Graphic Communications International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association, and is currently a member of the National Writers Union. His newest book, titled Unions, Race and Popular Democracy: Building a Progressive US Labor Movement, will be published by Cornell University Press in mid-2026. His web site is at https://www.pnw.edu/personal-faculty-pages/kim-scipes-ph-d/publications. He was interviewed by Jesse Jackson, Jr., on October 9, 2025: interview is available at https://znetwork.org/zvideo/the-difference-between-trade-unions-and-labor-movements/ Schuhrke, Jeff. — 2024. Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labor’s Global Anticommunist Crusade. London and New York: Verso Books. — 2025. No Neutrals There: US Labor, Zionism, and the Struggle for Palestine. Chicago: Haymarket Scipes, Kim. — 2010. AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. — 2020. “The AFL-CIO’s Foreign Policy Program: Where Historians Now Stand.” Class, Race and Corporate Power, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, Article 5. On-line at https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol8/iss2/5/. — 2023. “The International Trade Union Movement: Where It’s Been, Where It’s Going” in International Trade Union Rights, Trade Union Centre of London. On-line at https://www.ictur.org/pdf/IUR302_SCIPES.pdf. Originally published in Class, Race and Corporate Power
