Source: Action Telegram 183 from American Consul Surabaya to Jakarta, Confidential Date: Nov 26, 1965 Archive: RG 84, Entry P 339, Jakarta Embassy Files, Box 14, Folder 6 pol 23-9 September 30th Mvt, November 20-30, 1965. (This cable appears in the State Department Central Files as Telegram 41 from Surabaya to State, November 27, 1965, RG 59, Central Files, 1964-1966, POL 23-8, NARA) Collection: U.S. Embassy Tracked Indonesia Mass Murder 1965 Oct 17, 2017

Editorial Analysis

Original analysis by the DriftSeas editorial desk. The complete primary-source document, transcribed from the National Security Archive scan, appears in full below.

A Grim Ledger from Surabaya

The telegram that arrived in Jakarta on 26 November 1965 is a routine‑style “action” report, yet its content reads like a field notebook of mass violence. Sent by the U.S. Consul in Surabaya to the embassy in Jakarta, it was classified “Confidential” and routed through the Pacific Command (CINCPAC) channel, indicating that Washington treated the unfolding carnage in East Java as a matter of both political stability and military intelligence. The document was produced in the immediate aftermath of the 30 September 1965 abortive coup—known in Indonesia as the “Gestapu” incident—when the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) was blamed for an alleged assassination attempt on General Suharto. Within weeks, the army launched a sweeping anti‑communist purge that spread from Jakarta to the provinces. The telegram captures the moment when the purge had become a decentralized, often vigilante‑driven slaughter, especially in Java’s eastern districts.

The report lists a litany of killings: missionaries recount seeing dozens of bodies floating in rivers; a rumor of 15,000 “Communists” killed at Tulungagung; railway workers refusing to return to stations after colleagues were murdered; and even theatre performers associated with left‑leaning cultural groups being hacked to death by Ansor youth. The language is stark, but the consul’s marginal notes betray a cautious skepticism. He flags the Tulungagung figure as “must be taken with heavy grain salt,” noting that the numbers may be inflated or duplicated across towns. This hedging reflects a broader diplomatic dilemma: U.S. officials needed reliable intelligence to assess whether the anti‑PKI campaign threatened U.S. strategic interests—especially the containment of communism in Southeast Asia—while also confronting reports of atrocities that could undermine any tacit support for the Indonesian army.

The Wider Conflict and Its Actors

The telegram sits within the larger episode of the 1965–66 Indonesian mass killings, a watershed that eliminated the PKI—then the world’s third‑largest communist party—and paved the way for Suharto’s New Order regime. The primary actors mentioned are the Indonesian military (notably the Bratwidjaja Division’s 507th Battalion returning to Surabaya for “crushing Gestapu”), local militia groups such as Ansor (the youth wing of the Islamic NU organization), and civilian actors like missionaries and Chinese merchants. The consul’s reference to “Ansor youths” cutting throats and invoking a “Holy War” reveals how Islamist militias framed the anti‑communist violence in religious terms, a factor that would later be exploited by the New Order to legitimize its rule.

The telegram also notes the movement of PKI refugees into the Malang hills, where they posed a “minor security threat.” This observation hints at the army’s concern that remnants of the PKI might regroup in remote areas, a fear that justified the deployment of additional troops and the establishment of “revolutionary courts” advocated by the NU press. The mention of a Japanese dam project being raided by a PKI‑linked band underscores the lingering insecurity that foreign investors faced, foreshadowing the economic instability that would later prompt Suharto’s developmentist policies.

What the Document Reveals Between the Lines

Beyond the explicit casualty figures, the telegram’s structure reveals the United States’ information‑gathering priorities. The consul categorizes the data for multiple recipients—political (POL), economic (ECON), and military (CINCPAC)—suggesting that Washington was monitoring not only the humanitarian fallout but also the impact on regional security and economic assets. The inclusion of “Action Taken” and reference to Form FS‑412 indicates that the report was intended to trigger a formal response, perhaps a diplomatic note or a reassessment of U.S. aid.

The marginal comment that “PKI refugees have apparently entered Malang area and seem to be creating minor security threat” reflects a nuanced view: while the mass killings were condemned, the presence of armed communist remnants was still seen as a potential destabilizer. This duality mirrors the broader U.S. stance during the Cold War, where anti‑communist regimes were often tolerated despite human‑rights abuses, provided they aligned with American strategic goals.

Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

The Surabaya telegram is a microcosm of the larger, often under‑examined, provincial dimension of Indonesia’s 1965‑66 purge. It shows how local actors—Islamist militias, railway workers, and even cultural performers—became both perpetrators and victims in a chaotic environment where state and non‑state violence overlapped. The document’s declassification, and its inclusion in the National Security Archive’s “U.S. Embassy Tracked Indonesia Mass Murder” collection, has helped scholars reassess the extent of U.S. awareness of, and indirect complicity in, the killings.

Today, Indonesia continues to grapple with the legacy of the purge, as calls for truth‑telling and reparations gain momentum. The telegram reminds us that diplomatic cables, often dismissed as bureaucratic minutiae, can preserve the raw testimony of a society in crisis. For historians, policy analysts, and human‑rights advocates, the Surabaya report is a stark reminder that the line between intelligence gathering and moral responsibility is thin, and that the shadows of Cold‑War calculations still shape present‑day debates over accountability and memory.

NATIONAL
SECURITY
ARCHIVE

National Security Archive,
Suite 701, Gelman Library, The George Washington University,
2130 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C., 20037,
Phone: 202/994-7000, Fax: 202/994-7005, nsarchiv@gwu.edu