A Not-So-Distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor
This book is an unlikely combination of the sort of in-depth analysis expected of a dissertation and the sensationalism of a true-crime story. Nevins did extensive research as he sought to expose the abuses of the Indonesian army during its 24-year occupation of East Timor. His work is given added authority by firsthand accounts of his visits to the scenes of the horrors and his interviews with victims. The story of East Timor after the collapse of Portuguese colonial rule is a confusing one, since it is unclear whether the communists would have taken over if the Indonesian army had not intervened. Now, with the Cold War long over, the horrors of the Indonesian occupation stand out, and the concern about communism's advance seems less important -- leaving Nevins free to concentrate on his story of human suffering. He also denounces the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and others as complicit in the crimes, despite their claims that they were legitimately fighting to check the spread of communism.
Related
AUSTRALIA'S decision to keep forces in Malaysia and Singapore after Britain leaves in 1971 was taken in an election year, after the most searching public debate on defense and foreign policy in Australia's history and after a substantial official review. It represents, therefore, one country's practical assessment of Southeast Asia "after Viet Nam." In this sense, the decision may have significance outside Australia, for the light it throws on the development of Australian thinking, for the contribution it is intended to make to the security of the immediate subregional neighborhood and for the assumptions it appears to make about the broader question of stability in Asia, especially the role of the United States.
Americans who follow trends in Japanese security policies tend to divide into those who see little significant change, particularly in terms of the central importance of the U.S. alliance, and those who believe that Japan is poised to embark on a more assertive and independent course involving independent military capabilities and an important role in regional security. Which view is more nearly correct, and how the balance is struck between autonomy and alliance, are crucially important questions, both in themselves and in terms of U.S.-Japan relations.
Viet Nam has become more than a small country in South- east Asia. It has become a symbol of a new kind of American involvement in world affairs and a focus for intense and bitter divisions throughout every facet of American society. Few issues have produced a greater flow of books, articles, speeches, journalism and TV reports and commentaries. This stream of words has been devoted almost exclusively to two subjects: the conduct of the war, with speculations about appropriate military strategy and prospects, and the political and moral issues of the position of the United States and its allies. Whether the people of Viet Nam prosper or become permanent economic and political cripples or dependents, and how they may construct a viable nation after the fighting ceases, are issues that are rarely discussed. Yet the answers to such questions may determine the future even more than the direct outcome of the war itself. Whether the sacrifice of lives and treasure has been wasted, what lies ahead for Southeast Asia as a region, and indeed, the future standing and influence of the United States in the Pacific Basin will depend largely on the skill-or lack of it-with which the postwar economic development and reconstruction of Viet Nam, both South and North, are planned and carried out.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.