Portugal occupied East Timor from the 1600s to 1975. Months after Portugal left the island, Indonesia invaded, citing the fight against communism as a reason for invading the country. This justification was widely accepted because of concerns of the spread of communism in Southeast Asia after the surrender of South Vietnam to communist North Vietnam in April of that same year.  As a result of the invasion, approximately 200,000 or more East Timor citizens – about one third of East Timor’s population at the time – perished from starvation, encircling and annihilation campaigns, and more. The initial invasion began on December 7, 1975 with naval bombardment of the East Timor’s capital, Dili, and then the use of troops through beach landing and paratroopers. Three days later, Indonesia  attacked Baucau, the second largest city. The direct conflict caused approximately 100,000 deaths. Though the United Nations condemned the significant human rights transgressions, the genocide took place without much attention from western media.

Before the invasion began, media platforms in the United States published a myriad of stories on Portugal’s departure from East Timor and concern over communism’s influence in the nation. The concerns of East Timor falling to communism are what prompted the invasion. Major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Washington Post failed to cover the issue once Indonesia got involved, which fed into the lack of knowledge on the human rights transgressions.

The conflict and occupation did not get much attention until November 12, 1981, when the Santa Cruz Massacre took place at a cemetery during the ceremony of a deceased independence leader, where at least 271 people died. Though this sparked media coverage, it covered the issue as if those fighting for independence were insurrectionists of a separatist movement, rather than as fighting for liberation against an oppressor.

This neglect and invasion was accepted because of Indonesia’s economic importance to the U.S. and the additional resources Indonesia could gain from occupying East Timor. This case provides another example of the indifference to genocide, especially when a nation sees it as beneficial to itself. While the United States was not actively killing mass quantities of people, they implicitly supported Indonesian invasion into East Timor and were contributing to rampant oppression through monetary assistance and weapon supply to Indonesia. During a meeting with Indonesian President Hajji Suharto the day before the invasion, U.S. President Gerald Ford stated, “We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have.” In this regard, the United States is guilty because of their failure to act, as well as their explicit support for the genocidal regime and invasion.

This failure shows that people must work to stay involved in the political process. American citizens must fight to ensure that they elect responsible officials that will not use tax dollars to fund genocide and other mass atrocities. Though this work is difficult, with a large amount of active and informed citizens backing it, we can ensure that our country works to combat genocide and advocate for civilians around the world.

–

Zachary Gossett is a member of the Communications Task Force for STAND. He is a first year student at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he is studying political science. He is passionate about protecting the rights of people of the world.

Schindler’s List (1993)- 

STAND members really like Schindler’s List. STAND Policy Intern and chapter leader Timmy Hirschel-Burns says “Schindler’s List powerfully examines acts of heroism among the horrors of the Holocaust. Although the Holocaust demonstrates the massive negative potential humans have, Schindler’s List also demonstrates the bravery of those who resisted it.” Last year’s West Regional Organizer, Heather Klain, and Jessica Goldstein, STAND Communications Intern and chapter leader also recommend this film. Bri’Anne Parkin, a Lemkin Summit attendee, and Julia Zukin, a rising senior at Emory University both recommend this film as well.

Hotel Rwanda (2004)-

Jessica Goldstein, STAND Communications Intern and chapter leader says, “Hotel Rwanda tells the story of one man–Paul Rusesabagina–to save his country (or at least a few people) from a genocide that is engulfing it. As far as genocide movies go, this one is a classic, a must-watch.” Heather Klain, last year’s West Regional Organizer, Bri’Anne Parkin, and Julia Zukin, a rising senior at Emory University also recommend this film as well.

The Act of Killing (2013)-

Former STAND Policy Coordinator, Danny Hirschel-Burns describes it as “the best film in existence about how perpetrators think, what drives them, and how they manage to commit unimaginable violence.” Justin Schmierer, a former regional organizer expressed: “The Act of Killing was really a great documentary in my opinion. Just saying, if people haven’t seen it.” Recent graduate of Ohio University and former co-president of the Ohio University STAND chapter Neti Gupta also recommends the film.

Watchers of the Sky (2014)-

Southeast Regional Organizer Bethany Vance, a rising sophomore at UNC Chapel Hill stated, “‘Watchers of the Sky’ is a documentary based on the work of Raphael Lemkin ( who invented the term “genocide”) while also taking a look at the contributions of others to the fight against genocide and mass atrocities. Lemkin lost his entire family during World War 2 and devoted the better part of his life to inventing a term for the deliberate killing of a large group of people in order to make it easier to prosecute those who commit acts of genocide.” Heather Klain, a former Western Regional Organizer also recommends this film.

Hannah Arendt (2012)-

Former Education Coordinator Sean Langberg expressed, “The movie explores Arendt’s contributions to the narrative of the Holocaust (and thus genocide rhetoric more broadly) that developed following the trial of Eichmann. I enjoyed learning more about how she refused to accept the bad apples’ story that was being told at the time.”

War Dance (2007)-

War Dance tells the story of three Ugandan children living in Potango refugee camp who have the opportunity to participate in a nationwide music and dance competition. Bri’Anne, a Lemkin Summit attended concludes that “War Dance is a pretty powerful film. It’s one of my favorites.”

Worse than War (2009)-

Jessica Goldstein, STAND Communications Intern and chapter leader says, “This film is for anyone who wants to understand the concept of genocide. Daniel Goldhagen’s interview with a genocidaire is unforgettable.”

Concerning Violence (2014)-

Recent graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill Danielle Allyn, a former STAND Education Task Force member says, “This documentary, based on the life and writings of Frantz Fanon, displays the everyday violence of colonial regimes in Africa and analyzes methods of resistance. Not a feel-good film but necessary all the same.”

The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006) –

Former STAND Policy Coordinator, Danny Hirschel-Burns says, “it’s the best film I’ve ever seen about how violent politics work. The characters are multi-faceted and they’re struggling with dilemmas many people in conflict zones experience: how much power to cede to outsiders, the effectiveness of armed struggle, and the implications of sectarianism.”

The Good Lie (2014)-

STAND Student Director, Francesca Freeman, says; “The Good Lie is a film that documents the experience of Sudanese refugees from the attack on their village to their life in the United States. Many of the actors in the movie are Sudanese and either lived through or are related to people who lived through different conflicts in the region. Additionally, the Enough Project played a large part in the making of the film, and therefore it is historically accurate and effectively portrays the experience of the Lost Boys of Sudan.”

Virunga (2014)-

STAND Communications Intern and chapter leader Jessica Goldstein says, “I’ve been obsessed with this movie even before I saw it. I remember watching and rewatching the preview of this film until I finally got to see it. This film deserves all the hype it is getting. It shares the story of conservationists who understand that the park’s success is inextricably bound to Congo’s survival.”’

Look out for more comprehensive lists to come! Thanks to all of the STAND members who contributed to this list! Contact Francesca Freeman at ffreeman@standnow.org if you have any questions or contributions.

I saw Joshua Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing over this last summer. The documentary follows several men that participated in the Indonesian mass killings of suspected communists, ethnic Chinese, and intellectuals following an attempted coup in 1965. Like Jean Hetzfeld’s Machete Season, Oppenheimer’s film provides an intimate portrait of mass killers. Slate’s Dana Stevens describes the result:

The Act of Killing is among the most profound, formally complex, and emotionally overpowering documentaries I’ve ever seen. It’s also, by turns and sometimes at once, luridly seductive and darkly comic and physically revolting—a movie that makes you want to laugh and cry and retch and run out of the theater, both to escape the awful things the film is showing you and to tell everyone you know that they need to see it, too.

Unlike many other portrayals of mass killing, the film does not show any footage of the massacres or speak to victims. Rather it allows the perpetrators to act out the atrocities 45 years later in whatever film genre they wish, creating a disturbing yet meaningful detachment from the actual atrocities. The killers, instead of bloodthirsty monsters, are often immature and pathetic. Sure, they praise and rationalize their own actions, but they are not beyond showing unease at the past. Instead of reviewing the film, I’d like to focus on a couple of key issues that are relevant for studying violence and politics.

Oppenheimer’s documentary does little to provide context, and everything has to be gleaned from prior viewer knowledge or tangential remarks by the film’s subjects and therefore there are some truly puzzling parts of the killers’ stories. The three main characters, Anwar, Herman, and Adi were once petty gangsters that made their livings scalping movie tickets. However, communists banned American films, seriously reducing their income. This seems to have been the first step on the path to becoming mass killers. Interpersonal conflicts also seem to have played a role. Adi, for example, tells Anwar how he stabbed his girlfriend’s hated father because he was Chinese.

Beyond these petty economic and personal motivations, a fairly basic ideology also is used by the killers to rationalize their actions. All of the characters share an aversion to communists (and ethnic Chinese to a lesser degree), but it’s unclear why. No one ever gets past the surface-level “Communists were a threat to the nation.” Why were they a threat to the nation? It’s doubtful the subjects could answer the question. In fact, a character begins to describe the communists’ actions, but is interrupted by another for painting Communists in too good a light. There’s no “well, think about all the terrible things the Communists did” or “well, the Communists wanted to kill us.” It’s simply left at describing the Communists positively is wrong. In the context of the movie, the most convincing explanation would seem to be the subjects’ desire to demonstrate their masculinity and power.

Because the film doesn’t examine the structural factors involved in initiating the mass killings, it’s impossible to draw a firm conclusion on the killers’ motivations from the movie alone. Deeper societal cleavages likely played a role in elevating the subjects into the role of mass murderers, and so personal grievances, a flimsy ideology, and psychological essentialization don’t explain the events in full. Even without a complete understanding, mass atrocity scholars (including myself; I’m trying to answer this question in my undergraduate thesis) can draw an important, if anecdotal, lesson from The Act of Killing. As Christopher Browning concluded in Ordinary Men, in violent and chaotic settings, ordinary individuals experiencing fairly weak influences pulling them toward violence can in fact commit genocide.

The remembrance and celebration of violence is a central theme in the film, but it comes across as quite foreign to Western audiences. In the US, we celebrate violence regularly. Soldiers are presented as national heroes for undergoing hardship and danger to protect the rest of the nation. The killing itself escapes the public lens. Drone operators, for example, aren’t heroes to the American public because they themselves were never in danger. The film’s portrayal of Indonesia paints a very different picture. Anwar and his fellow executioners are indeed public heroes. When interviewed on public television, the host praises Anwar and Herman for developing more humane way to eliminate Communists. Anwar and his cronies weren’t in danger themselves, but they nonetheless are the subjects of public adoration without having to hide the exact nature of their past actions.

On a similar theme, the film reflects very poorly on the current state of Indonesian politics. Politicians are both publicly and privately supportive of mass murderers and their ideological inheritors, in this case the paramilitary organization Pancasila. The film includes a speech by Indonesian Vice President Yusuf Kalla at a Pancasila rally in which he says the country needs more “gangsters” (which is consistently and bizarrely translated proudly as “free men” by Anwar and the other executioners) to “get things done.” The film also includes numerous examples of political corruption. Herman runs for office, but rather than examine how he’ll do the job, he ponders how much money he can make through bribery and threats. Along the campaign trail, citizens care little about his platform and instead ask if he comes bearing “gifts”. The film also portrays some good-ol’ extortion of Chinese businessman by the former mass murderers. Oppenheimer implies that these actions are taken with the full knowledge and cooperation of big time politicians. All of these examples point to the existence of a mafia state in Indonesia, where murderers, gangsters, and other unsavory characters collude with the highest levels of power to enrich themselves without worrying about public accountability.

The film is an unsettling masterpiece with veteran filmmaker Werner Herzog saying, “I have not seen a film as powerful, surreal, and frightening in at least a decade… it is unprecedented in the history of cinema.” Along the way, it presents several insights on the nature of mass atrocities, and I highly recommend The Act of Killing.