Source: Telegram 187 from American Consulate Surabaya to American Embassy Jakarta, 'Joint sitrep 19', Confidential Date: Dec 10, 1965 Archive: RG 84, Entry P 339, Jakarta Embassy Files, Box 14, Folder 7 pol 23-9 September 30th Mvt, dec 1-31, 1965 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 Turbulent Aftermath: The Surabaya Telegram in Context

The December 10, 1965 telegram from the U.S. Consulate in Surabaya to the Embassy in Jakarta is a snapshot of the chaotic security environment that followed Indonesia’s September‑October 1965 coup attempt. The document is a “joint sitrep” – a joint situation report compiled by the political, economic, and military sections of the embassy – and it was transmitted as a confidential cable under the standard State Department control number 368A. Its purpose was to inform Washington of how the Indonesian army, now under General Suharto’s de‑facto command, was handling the purge of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and the associated communal violence that erupted across East Java.

The telegram arrives at a pivotal moment: the army had just begun to consolidate control after the failed “Gestapu” (Gerakan September Tap Maut) coup, while President Sukarno’s authority was rapidly eroding. In Surabaya, the second‑largest city and a key naval base, the U.S. observed a pattern of “minor round‑ups” of PKI suspects, a growing criticism of the army’s selective brutality, and a bureaucratic struggle to purge PKI sympathizers from local intelligence and civil service structures. The cable therefore serves as a barometer of how the anti‑communist purge was being administered on the ground, rather than the headline‑grabbing massacres reported from Central Java and the countryside.

The Actors and Their Signals

The telegram mentions several Indonesian officials whose statements reveal shifting loyalties. Brigadier General Sunarjadi’s recent assumption of the East Java military command from Basuki Rachmat is noted as a possible catalyst for renewed arrests, suggesting that the army’s internal power shuffle directly affected the intensity of the purge. Lt. Colonel Munander, the Surabaya garrison commander, is singled out as the first East Javanese officer to publicly acknowledge that Surabaya had become a refuge for fleeing PKI members – a rare admission that hints at a growing awareness within the military that the purge was far from complete.

Equally telling is the reference to Minister of Internal Affairs Sumarto (spelled “Sumarno” in the cable), who announced the suspension of over 5,000 local officials since October 1. The telegram records his frustration that the dismissal of the PKI‑aligned deputy governor Satryo could only be ordered by President Sukarno, underscoring the lingering legal and political constraints on the army’s ability to eradicate communist influence entirely. The mention of “East Java Dwikora executive” appointing a supervisory team for Surabaya’s radio station, and the arrest of four station officials for “Gestapu” involvement, illustrates how the purge extended into the media sphere, targeting outlets that had been vocal in branding the city a “Gestapo nest.”

The cable also captures the rhetoric of senior military leaders at a public ceremony – Defense Minister Abdul Haris Nasution and Naval Chief of Staff Marlan D. S. M. Maradjatna (spelled “Marladinata”). Nasution’s blunt warning that anti‑Malaysia operations would continue and that “revolution will not move to right” reflects the army’s determination to frame the anti‑communist campaign as a nationalist, anti‑imperialist crusade, aligning it with broader Cold‑War objectives.

What the Report Reveals Beneath the Surface

Beyond the explicit observations, the telegram hints at deeper institutional weaknesses. The second page reports that East Java’s intelligence staff had been “riddled with PKI sympathizers” and was “severely crippled when they dismissed” them, implying that the army’s capacity to locate and neutralize remaining communists was hampered by internal purges. This paradox – the need to purge while simultaneously degrading operational effectiveness – foreshadows the chaotic, often arbitrary nature of the killings that would continue for months.

The document’s emphasis on the absence of clashes between Madurese and the military since the previous sitrep suggests that ethnic tensions, which had flared in earlier weeks, were being contained, at least superficially. Yet the mention of “Moslem dominated ‘command for crushing Gestapu’ (KOPAS)” and the perception that the army was “allowing Moslems continue slaughter” in Pasuruan points to a tacit endorsement of communal violence as a tool of the anti‑communist purge.

Legacy of the Surabaya Sitrep

The Surabaya telegram is a micro‑cosm of the broader 1965‑66 Indonesian mass killings, a period that claimed an estimated 500,000 to one million lives. While much scholarship has focused on the spectacular massacres in Central Java and the countryside, this cable reminds us that the violence was also administered through bureaucratic mechanisms – dismissals, media suppression, and the strategic use of military ceremonies to legitimize the purge.

For contemporary scholars, the telegram provides concrete evidence that U.S. diplomats were closely monitoring the army’s tactics and the political calculus surrounding Sukarno’s waning authority. The cable’s nuanced language – noting “indirect criticism” of the army and the “public secret” that Surabaya was a PKI safe‑haven – shows that the embassy was not merely a passive observer but an active interpreter of Indonesian power dynamics, a role that would later inform U.S. policy decisions toward the Suharto regime.

In the decades since the documents were declassified, historians have used them to argue that the United States, while not directly orchestrating the killings, tacitly approved of the anti‑communist purge as a bulwark against a left‑leaning Indonesia. The Surabaya sitrep, with its detailed accounting of arrests, dismissals, and military rhetoric, remains a vital primary source for understanding how the Cold War’s ideological imperatives were translated into on‑the‑ground actions that reshaped Indonesian society.

Bottom Line

The December 10, 1965 Surabaya telegram is more than a routine diplomatic report; it is a window onto the messy, contested process of Indonesia’s post‑coup cleansing. By documenting the interplay of military leadership changes, bureaucratic purges, and public statements, it illuminates the mechanisms through which anti‑communist violence was both organized and obscured. Its declassification continues to enrich the historiography of one of the twentieth century’s most consequential, yet still under‑examined, episodes of state‑led mass murder.

---