Jeff Sachs, an academic with a spine

[Matt Cloud]

Regarding Indonesia, Kennedy favored creation of British Malaysia, albeit stating that it's maintenance would be a British, not a U.S. responsibility.  The Mayasian Agreement was in ways a step back toward colonial authority, and its controversial effects on self-determination are still being grappled with today.  

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v23/d329

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Agreement

Kennedy also preferred a domestic-police-state approach there, and elsewhere, regarding quelling communist activities.  That is to say, the preferred approach was to support and strengthen national conceptions of resistance first, not international ones.   

"Kennedy’s administration favored police assistance to military assistance abroad. Police agencies were more attuned to the anticommunist counterinsurgency task, the Kennedy brothers believed, than were militaries focused on interstate conflict, and the administration beefed up the police advisory program, permitting it a great deal of independence and resources."

 

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/stuart-schrader-murderous-legacy-anticommunism/

 

And as ever to bear in mind, the assumed conceptions of one actor's state-of-mind may, at the end of the day, be in some real tangible sense irrelevant anyway.  Both Sukarno and Kennedy realized this, I'd say.

 

"When it came to Third World countries, Kennedy himself, along with some of his intellectual advisors, was committed to modernization in the form of economic development and political liberalization. But, as Sukarno remarked in 1964,

'we must make a distinction between Kennedy and the Kennedy Administration. It is one thing for a Kennedy to appreciate the changing world situation, or to understand the role of nationalism in shaping the policies of the emerging countries, but what can be expected of an administration is quite another matter.'

Indeed the administration, including the president’s kid brother Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, was committed to anticommunism. Almost everyone in Kennedy’s government (and in Lyndon Johnson’s, for that matter) agreed that in case of emergency, democracy would be sacrificed to anticommunism. Many Eisenhower-era U.S. officials, including the Dulles brothers, feared that non-alignment, a position they most closely associated in Southeast Asia with Sukarno, was a cover for communist tendencies. Through Secretary of State Dean Rusk, these views carried over into the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, particularly as Sukarno forged closer ties to China. For its part, the CIA consistently amplified evidence that Sukarno’s non-alignment was insincere.

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/stuart-schrader-murderous-legacy-anticommunism/

 

Finally, do note, it was Kissinger, in 1974 with India and Indira Gandhi, that reversed 25-years of Dulles' rejection of non-alignment, proclaiming on Oct. 28, 1974: "The U.S. accepts non-alignment."

 

Memoirs of an Angry American

 

https://www.jstor.org › stable

 

 

by A Dhawale · 1979 — It was not until 1974 that a Secretary of State. (Kissinger) on a visit to India, declared, 'The United States accepts non-alignment.' 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516745

 

_____

329. Memorandum From Secretary of State Rusk to President Kennedy0

Washington, February 17, 1963.

SUBJECT

• U.S. Position on Malaysia

The British have been developing the Malaysia concept for the last three years. Last year Malaya and Singapore gave approval to the formation of Malaysia, and North Borneo and Sarawak have indicated approval in principle. The adherence of Brunei is still under negotiation.

The United States has not participated in the negotiations, nor have we been formally consulted. We have, however, followed these developments closely, and since we have not objected, the British have assumed our tacit approval. Several weeks ago, a Department spokesman publicly stated the United States considered that the Federation of Malaysia was the best available solution for the future welfare of the people in the area.1 This was confirmed by the President’s press conference, February 14.2

Earlier this week, we met with the representatives of the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments. The following represents our position as stated in these conferences:

1.

The United Kingdom and Malaya are to have full responsibility for the formation of Malaysia.

2.

The United States will assume no responsibility. We will, however, continue to inform the Philippine Government and the Indonesian Government as we have done so far that we consider Malaysia is the best [Page 711]solution, not only for the benefit of the area generally, but for the Philippines and for Indonesia.

3.

If either the Philippines or Indonesia takes the subject to the United Nations, we have agreed to consult with the United Kingdom and attempt to minimize the difficulties which they may encounter.

4.

We have warned the United Kingdom that they have a serious problem in assuring the United Nations and the world generally that the populations involved have been fully consulted. The United Kingdom feels they are on good grounds in Borneo, fairly good grounds in Sarawak, but on very weak grounds in Brunei.

5.

If, as and when Malaysia comes into existence as a member of the United Nations, we have informed the British that we do not intend to give any military or economic assistance to this new State. This is a British responsibility. In addition, it is a British responsibility to protect the country against any internal subversion if outside assistance is needed. We will, of course, give to the new State of Malaysia as a member of the United Nations the protection against external aggression which we would give to any friendly United Nations member. We may find that it is desirable for us to make a public statement, giving this assurance, in order to forestall aggressive actions by other countries.

6.

The British have already undertaken to expand their existing defense agreement with Malaya to include the Federation of Malaysia, when organized. This agreement includes the maintenance of their defense establishment in Singapore. The Australian and New Zealand Governments, who are now involved in the defense of Malaya, have not yet decided whether they will assume a broader responsibility for Malaysia.

 

Comment: The Indonesian and Philippine Governments have indicated strong opposition to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. It is not clear whether either Government will be able to interpose difficulties serious enough to frustrate the formation of the Federation. The British intend to attempt to drive through their plan on schedule, the final date of which is now fixed for August 31, 1963.

Dean Rusk3

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 3 MALAYSIA. Secret. Drafted by Harriman on February 15. In a covering memorandum to Rusk, drafted by Rice and concurred in by Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard Davies of EUR, Rice wrote that this memorandum to the President represented the U.S. position as stated in the quadripartite talks held earlier that week with representatives of the British, Australian, and New Zealand Governments. Accounts of the quadripartite talks are in telegrams 342 and 348 to Singapore, February 13 and 16. (Ibid., POL 2 INDON and POL 3 MALAYSIA)↩
1. Apparently a statement made at the Department of State press briefing. On February 13 in a press conference, Rusk stated in answer to a question about the effect of the West Irian settlement on Indonesian interests in North Borneo, “I think if those who are to take part in the Malaysia Federation do so on the basis of consent, as is now the case, and on the basis of arrangements which are in their own jurisdiction and control, that if anyone on the outside attempts by force or threat of force to interfere with those, this would create a very serious problem.” (Department of State Bulletin, March 11, 1962, p. 366)↩
2. On February 14, Kennedy stated, “we have supported the Malaysia Confederation, and it’s under pressure from several areas. But I’m hopeful it will sustain itself, because it’s the best hope of security for that very vital part of the world.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1963, p. 180)↩
3. Printed from a copy that indicates Rusk signed the original

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v23/d329

 

 

Edited June 17 by Matt Cloud

[James DiEugenio]

I should also add, Hilsman said in a later interview that in 1961, Kennedy told him to be ready for an approach to

Red China. Over a decade before it happened.

So when you add it all up, again, its probative.

Mr. Stoll is full of garbage.

[Matt Cloud]

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I should also add, Hilsman said in a later interview that in 1961, Kennedy told him to be ready for an approach to

Red China. Over a decade before it happened.

So when you add it all up, again, its probative.

Mr. Stoll is full of garbage.

Hilsman is a completely compromised and self-interested player here. Unbelievable that you'd cite Hilsman, who was perhaps almost singularly responsible for enflaming South Vietnam with the Diem coup and forcing the U.S.' escalated role.  Total vacuum-chamber historical analysis again.

[Matthew Koch]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

One last point, after Hammarskjold was killed, and I think that is a certainty today, it was Kennedy who went to the UN twice in order to make a priority of restoring Katanga into Congo.

And it was JFK who approved the final UN military operation, Grand Slam, that finally quelled the rebellion.

Compare this to what Ike did before and LBJ after.

Ike authorized the assassination plots through Dulles to murder Lumumba.

Johnson sent Cuban exile pilots to eliminate the last of Lumumba's followers and said this was due to a Red China plot! And now the White House all but abandoned the UN (Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies, p. 79) 

Here is where I give Mr. DiEugenio, a taste of his own medicine.

I am now putting my hand against my forehead like a damsel in distress and I now am *a-gasp* that James DiEugenio would cite JOHNATHAN KWITNY!!!! I mean really?! Kwitny the guy that says the Mafia killed JFK?!? I mean Really?

I'm going to put this DiEugenio Character on Mute because Johnathan.. Kwitny!!??!! [Sarcasm Emphasized]

The same guy.. who cites Dan Moldea?!? Who Lisa Pease made look stupid in her book?!? Dan Moldea?

 I guess James should read K&K more [Empasis Added] Moldea?  the same guy who said something about Siharn that we don't believe?

Ruby.. a Mafia guy has anyone really shown that? Talk about Fruity John Davis of Mafia king fish? [Emphasis Added Sarcastically]

Now.. this DiEugenio guy is citing Hillsman and can't put the citation? This is why this guy is on mute I mean can someone explain his nonsense to me? The guy thinks Kwitny is a good source? 

 

Edited June 17 by Matthew Koch

[Matthew Koch]

54 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I should also add, Hilsman said in a later interview that in 1961, Kennedy told him to be ready for an approach to

Red China. Over a decade before it happened.

So when you add it all up, again, its probative.

Mr. Stoll is full of garbage.

*Please, source cite this statement 

Edited June 17 by Matthew Koch