simak lebih lanjut cuplikan books.google Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties
Eksil di Uni Soviet (Komite Luar Negeri PKI) dan RRT (Delegasi Komite Sentral PKI) yang saling berseteru
The number of people who were, in the course of 1966, deprived of their nationality in that way and reduced to the status of political refugees is around 500.6 Considering their origin (mostly students, journalists, intellectuals and Party cadres) they belonged to the educated fringe of society, which explains the propensity of some of them to write. Those who belonged to the Party’s network quickly got organised: as soon as February 1966, a “Delegation of the Central Committee of the PKI,” located in Beijing and claiming to act in the name of the Party, summoned all communists to gather in China, and most complied. Concurrently, the Soviet Communist Party encouraged the creation of a “Foreign Committee of the PKI,” sitting in Moscow and charged to handle the community that stayed behind in the USSR, including the very few who made the reverse trip, from Beijing to Moscow, as was the case of two writers mentioned below, Utuy Tatang Sontani and Agam Wispi, in 1971. With the passing years, the antagonism between China and the USSR only grew stronger. The refugees in the USSR, under the leadership of the Foreign Committee and the Soviet CP, limited themselves to a political campaign against the new Indonesian government (the “New Order,” Orde Baru).
With the passing years, the antagonism between China and the USSR only grew stronger. The refugees in the USSR, under the leadership of the Foreign Committee and the Soviet CP, limited themselves to a political campaign against the new Indonesian government (the “New Order,” Orde Baru). They were well treated, as long as they abided to the directives of the Committee. Otherwise, they were ostracised (like Ali Chanafiah) or sent to a remote city with difficult material conditions (like Waruno Mahdi). Refugees in China had a totally different life : on the one hand, they were subjected to the heavy demands of the Cultural Revolution, including a perpetual indoctrination of the thought of the Great Helmsman, self-criticism, and “rehabilitation” in the countryside ; on the other hand, they were preparing themselves to bring revolution to Indonesia in order to restore the PKI and to set up a socialist regime. This implied a heavy political education and military training performed in China and in Vietnam.
The refugees were not prepared for this confrontation with the reality of socialist regimes and most of them suffered from the conditions they were living in, mainly the psychological conditions caused by the political propaganda and the excesses of the Cultural Revolution. Many chose to emigrate in the 1980s, in order to flee from those circumstances. The Cold War was coming to an end ; international socialist solidarity was crumbling away ; the refugees were becoming a burden for the USSR as well as China, while the eventuality of a communist revolution in Indonesia was obviously becoming more and more utopian. Then it is the authorities (the Delegation and the Chinese government on one side, the Foreign Committee and the Soviet CP on the other) that encouraged the process of emigration to other countries.
disalin dari Locked Out: Literature of the Indonesian Exiles Post-1965 – Henri Chambert-Loir
The Dilemma of Indonesian Political Exiles in China after 1965 – David T Hill
Citation: Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde / Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia 176, 2-3 (2020) ; 10.1163/22134379-bja10005
from Hersri Setiawan collection, International Institute of Social History
Citation: Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde / Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia 176, 2-3 (2020) ; 10.1163/22134379-bja10005
from Hersri Setiawan collection, International Institute of Social History
foto disalin dari David T Hill
Several thousand Indonesians were in China on 1 October 1965, when six senior military officers were killed in Jakarta by the Thirtieth of September Movement (G30S) in a putsch blamed upon the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). The event changed the lives of Indonesians—in China and in their homeland—irrevocably. This article examines the impact of bilateral state relations upon the fate of those Indonesian political exiles in China and assesses the role of the Beijing-based leadership of the PKI (known as the Delegation of the Central Committee) as it attempted to manage the party in exile. Oral and written accounts by individual exiles are drawn upon to illustrate the broader community experience and trauma of exile, which was particularly harsh during the Cultural Revolution. The fate of the Indonesian exiles during this tempestuous period of Chinese politics was exacerbated by the failure of the delegation and, ultimately, by the exiles’ eventual rejection by the Chinese state.
….
The party’s largest cadre base abroad was in China. As the Indonesian military had moved to capture or execute the national PKI leadership in Indonesia,29 one of the few remaining senior office-bearers was Jusuf Adjitorop (see Figure 4), a PKI Central Committee and Politburo member who had been undergoing medical treatment in China since 26 June 1964. Adjitorop was thus thrust from relative obscurity to becoming the party’s most senior leader.
Born Josef Simanjuntak in Balige, North Tapanuli, 19 December 191830 (and dying in Beijing on 3 June 1999), Adjitorop joined the PKI in Yogya in May 1947. He relinquished his birth name for the pseudonym by which he was subsequently known when the PKI instructed him to move back to North Sumatra as an underground organizer in 1949. After becoming a member of the PKI Central Committee, in 1959 he became the deputy head of the party secretariat and secretary of the Central Committee in Jakarta. After his despatch to China for medical treatment, he represented the party at the 15-year anniversary of the establishment of the PRC on 1 October 1964 (together with Tjoo Tik Tjoen and Suharyo).
As Adjitorop later wrote, ‘on the 22 February 1966 [I] received the decision [ketetapan] from the Politburo of the PKI Central Committee to lead the Central Committee Delegation abroad’.31 Mortimer noted (1974:391) that ‘by the end of 1966 all members of the Politburo had been killed or taken prisoner except Adjitorop, who had the good fortune to be in China at the time of the coup attempt’. Adjitorop gathered around him a dozen senior party members—either members of the Central Committee or the Verification Committee—who became collectively known as ‘the Delegation (of the PKI Central Committee)’ (hereafter: the Delegation).
Indonesian Political Exiles in the USSR – David T Hill
foto disalin dari David T. Hill
Emerging to lead the pro-Moscow Marxist-Leninist faction of the PKI was Thomas Sinuraya, who with several dozen like-minded Indonesians—some coming from Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and East Germany—banded together to form an organization they ultimately called the Overseas Committee of the Indonesian Communist Party (Comite Luar Negeri PKI, or
CL–PKI).79 Till the fall of the Soviet Union, the CC–CPSU recognized this Overseas Committee as the primary—some would say, the sole—interlocutor on behalf of Indonesian exiles in the USSR. The PKI Delegation in China condemned the Overseas Committee, claiming that the China Delegation was the only leadership of the PKI in exile that had been endorsed by the Politburo in Indonesia
Some exiles who were familiar with the workings of the Overseas Committee recalled that Thomas Sinuraya was never formally elected to its leadership but, as the initiator of the organization, was accepted spontaneously as its head. A Karo Batak and former general chairperson of the North Sumatran branch of IPPI, Sinuraya (born Singga Manik, 6 April 1933; died Velserbroek, 6 June 2000) had been studying in the USSR since 1961 and had established a reputation as a determined, energetic organizer and impressive public speaker. When the call came from Jusuf Adjitorop for PKI cadre to gather in China, according to a close friend’s funeral oration, Sinuraya rejected the instruction for two reasons: first, “at a time when we were being beaten it was precisely when we needed to seek out friends and comrades, not the reverse”; and second, “the decision [to consolidate in Beijing] did not come from our homeland, but was rather the decision of leaders who were already in Beijing.”80 Several other key PKI cadre, including Sudibyo, the younger brother of PKI Politburo member Sudisman, also rejected the call to relocate to Beijing. At that time, already well settled in Moscow with an apartment, a Russian wife, and work with the publisher Progress, Sudibyo believed there was still much to learn from the Soviet Union. Yet, though he occasionally attended Overseas Committee meetings, Sudibyo never joined the organization, and he believed the best interests of the PKI would be served by striking a neutral stance in the Sino–Soviet competition for communist parties’ allegiances.81
4.3.2. The memory of Soviet Union –
There were six respondents with Soviet Union trajectories namely Setiarti, Suratman, Budiarto Djayadi, Ahmadi, Sumarni, Sarman, Karsiman and the biography of Ibarruri Putri Alam. Ibarruri and Budiarto were part of student exchanges between PKI and Soviet Communist Party. All respondents but Karsiman, who moved to Soviet Union from China, were sent to study in Soviet Union and became stateless in this country.
4.3.3. The memory of Tiongkok –
There are six respondents mentioning their memories of Tiongkok in the interviews namely Srikandi, Karsiman, Sarmadji, Suratman, Susilowaty and Setiarti In addition, Ibarruri biography mentioned her stay in Tiongkok as well after Soviet Union. The first three intially went to Tiongkok, while the other
two moved to Tiongkok from Vietnam.
Kisah Para Eksil 165 di Tiongkok / Republik Rakyat Cina (RRC)
KLAYABAN DI NEGERI ASING : kISAH PARA EKSIL 1965 DI UNI SOVYET (RUSIA)
Penerbitan Sebagai Bagian Perlawanan Terakhir PKI di Luar Negeri
(Penerbitan oleh Delegasi CC PKI di Cina 1966 dan 1971)
Build the PKI Along the Marxist-Leninist Line to Lead the People’s Democratic Revolution in Indonesia: Five Important Documents of the Political Bureau of the CC PKI (1971) dan “People of Indonesia, Unite and Fight to Overthrow the Fascist Regime” (1966)
“Build the PKI Along the Marxist-Leninist Line to Lead the People’s Democratic Revolution in Indonesia: Five Important Documents of the Political Bureau of the CC PKI”, published (in China?) by the Delegation of the CC PKI, September 1971, 304 pages
- “Hold Aloft the Reputation and Honour of the Communist!”, message of the Political Bureau of the CC PKI, May 23, 1966.
- “Take the Road of Revolution to Realize the Tasks which Should have been Accomplished by the 1945 August Revolution”, statement of the Political Bureau of the CC PKI, Aug. 17, 1966.
- “Build the PKI Along the Marxist-Leninist Line to Lead the People’s Democratic Revolution in Indonesia”, self-criticism of the Political Bureau of the CC PKI, Spetember 1968.
- “Hold Aloft the Banner of of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung Thought: March Forward Along the Road of Revolution!”, message of the Political Bureau of the CC PKI, May 23, 1967.
- “The Programme of the Communist Party of Indonesia for People’s Democracy in Indonesia”, November 1967
1966:
“People of Indonesia, Unite and Fight to Overthrow the Fascist Regime”, (Peking: FLP, 1968), 68 pages. The PKI self-criticism included in this pamphlet was co-authored by Sudisman, who led the Political Bureau after the murder of the Aidit by the Army during the 1965 massacres. Apparently the full document (which is not included in the pamphlet from China) specifically blames Aidit for the revisionist road after 1951 and the resulting catastrophe. But the ideological thrust of the self-criticism is against the so-called Bandung theses, a revisionist line that led to uncritical support of Sukarno among other things. Sudisman himself was arrested by the fascist regime in December 1966, put through a show-trial in 1967-68, and then executed. This PKI self-criticism was publicized internationally, especially by another Political Bureau member, Jusuf Adjitorop, who was based in Beijing after 1965. (He was in China when the 1965 massacre occurred.) Adjitorop may have co-authored the self-criticism. Searchable PDF format [3,159 KB]; HTML format [107 KB] Includes these 3 documents:
o Editorial of Hongqi [Red Flag], No. 11, 1967.
o “Statement by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Indonesian Communist Party (Excerpts)”, Aug. 17, 1966.
o “Self-Criticism by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Indonesian Communist Party (Excerpts)”, September 1966
unduh disini
simak pula
Klayaban di Negeri Asing – Kompilasi Kisah-kisah Para Eksil 1965
simak 1600 ‘entry’ lainnya pada link berikut
Daftar Isi Perpustakaan Genosida 1965-1966
Road to Justice : State Crimes after Oct 1st 1965 (Jakartanicus)
Definisi yang diusulkan D. Nersessian (2010) untuk amandemen/ optional protocol Konvensi Anti-Genosida (1948) dan Statuta Roma (2000) mengenai Pengadilan Kejahatan Internasional. (disalin dari Harry Wibowo)
Perpustakaan Online Genosida 1965-1966 