It is the thesis of this paper that the Communist Uprisings of 1926–27 in Indonesia were neither “proto-nationalist” nor a “revolution of hope”, as they have been called by two historians. I shall try to show that there were decidedly nationalist characteristics in the demands which the Communists made, in the objects against which the revolt was directed, and in the makeup of the Communist leadership at both the highest and secondary levels; furthermore, that, despite the era of prosperity which the colony was enjoying, the situation of the peasant was worsening.

The limitation of this essay seems obvious if we take modern Indonesian history to have started in 1870 and consider the word “recent” in the above title adequately covered by the years since 1940. The date 1870 is the starting-point of Western modern imperialism — a world-wide phenomenon — as well as of the so-called Liberal Period in the restricted Indonesian context. Thus the heyday of Dutch colonialism, the emergence of Indonesian nationalism, the downfall of the Netherlands Indies and the first decades of Indonesian independence fall within the scope of this survey. The choice of 1940, too, can be explained easily: it is the first year of the period which ultimately led not only to the political separation of the Indies and the Netherlands but also to a new approach in Dutch history-writing on Indonesia. This is not to sav that opinions critical of colonialism had not found their way into Dutch literature on Indonesia before 1940, or that opposition to the so-called Europe-centric attitude is to be noticed only after the Second World War: Stokvis and Van Leur, to mention only one for each case, are evidence that this was not so. Nor is it true that colonial apologists are extinct since 1940. But the Second World War nevertheless contributed to a significant change in the general trend of Dutch history-writing on Indonesia.

Relations between Australia and Indonesia became strained within months of Indonesia's attainment of independence, deteriorating as conflict developed first on the question of West Irian and then as a result of Indonesia's hostility towards Malaysia. For many years, it seemed ironical that Australia should have played a major part in the emergence of a neighbour whose external policies and internal trends endangered rather than safeguarded Australian interests. But there is more involved here than historical irony in the context of Australian-Indonesian relations. Sufficient time has now elapsed for Australian policy on the Indonesian independence question to be seen in the wider context of the whole postwar phenomenon of decolonisation. For it is not merely of interest that Australia should have assisted neighbouring Asian rebels against a European colonial Power (remembering that Australia herself was, and is, a European colonial Power) and should then have been embarrassed by the activities of the rebels coming to office. It is of greater interest that, of the immense number of colonial issues anxiously engaging the attention of international society in the 1940s and 1950s, the years which saw the virtual demise of western colonialism, this was the one issue on which Australia took up the rebel cause. Throughout this period and irrespective of the complexion of the parties in power in Canberra, Australia persistently jeopardised her regional objective of friendly relations with anti-colonial Asia by opposing strongly and, at times, bitterly the anti-colonial cause in the United Nations. If nothing else, the United Nations has provided a forum in which each year Australia and other members have been forced to declare themselves on colonial questions. And, until the 1960s when Australia switched policy, Australia fought against all the anti-colonial Powers' largely successful attempts to have developed a system of international control over colonies under the authority of Chapter XI (“Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories”) of the United Nations charter, to tighten the trusteeship system of supervision erected under Chapters XII and XIII of the charter, and to involve the United Nations in particular disputes so as to meet alleged threats to peace — all of them being attempts, however indirectly, to hasten the attainment of independence by dependent territories. Thus, Australia supported South Africa on South-West Africa, the Netherlands on West New Guinea, the British on Southern Rhodesia and Oman, the Portuguese on their African territories, the French on Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. But Australia opposed the Netherlands on the Indonesian question.

Although much has been written on China's relations with her neighbours to the north, west and east, relatively little has been done on those to the south. Such studies could provide many valuable contrasts and comparisons and should be of considerable assistance in assessing China's historic role as well as her present intentions in Southeast Asia.

In this article an attempt is made to trace back as far as possible a history of Bang Chan, a rice-growing village in the central plains of Thailand. Documents existed which might have offered some clues, but help could not be expected from court records, land registration deeds or the census. All that existed lay in bundles in the District Office store rooms, a bit mouldy and perhaps chewed by silverfish. It would take a year at least to dig out the relevant papers, and then since family names do not appear until about 1915 and place names changed frequently, one would never know whether the case of Chan vs. Chya referred to incidents in Bang Chan or some other part of the district.

An individual observing the varied complex course of Laotian events since the 1954 Geneva conference on Indochina can well appreciate the frustrations experienced by Alice as she watched the animals run their caucus race. From 1954 to 1957, Laos followed a generally pro-Western foreign policy but government leaders would occasionally extol the virtues of the five Panscheel principles of peaceful coexistence. From November 1957 to July 1958, Laos was governed by a coalition that included two members of the Communist Neo Lao Hak Sat (NLHS), the political arm of the Pathet Lao. The Royal army and right wing political factions opposed the coalition, removed it from power and established a new government, one that was avowedly anti-Communist. By 1961, the major cold war protagonists had become so deeply and dangerously involved in Laotian politics that some observers feared and expected a major escalation in the Laotian conflict. Instead of fighting the major powers decided to convene a second Geneva conference. They debated the issues for more than a year and then agreed to neutralize Laos and recreate the coalition government. Today Laos is officially neutral but the fighting continues as it has since 1954. The Pathet Lao have withdrawn from the coalition and they continue to rely on military means for the realization of major objectives. In Alice in Wonderland, the caucus race has a happy ending: all the animals are declared winners. In Laos there have been no winners; the struggle continues and its outcome will affect the future of mainland Southeast Asia.

Burma, like so many other former British colonies, embarked upon its independence period with the stated aim of establishing a representative government of the parliamentary type. From 1949 to 1962, with the single interruption of General Ne Win's caretaker regime (1958–1960), Burma conducted in practice what its leaders conceived as a Parliamentary system. Concepts of government were “democratic” and emphasized the need for open discussion, political competition, and some real sense of political representation.

The difficulties inherent in the systematic and comprehensive acquisition of materials published in the Philippines are matched by their variety and value. The current volume of Philippine titles probably remains unduplicated elsewhere in Southeast Asia. In 1951, for example, “Manila was producing more serial publications than any other center in Southeast Asia.” English remains the predominant language of most scholarly publications. The usefulness of these materials, therefore, is increased for institutions who lack research needs for Philippine language resources but desire a solid student and teaching collection.

One of the major problems in the writing of Philippine history stems from inadequate knowledge of historical conditions in the rural Philippines. The problem is further complicated by a tendency to treat society as a monolithic structure susceptible to outside influence and change at a uniform rate. Consequently, it has proved difficult to judge accurately the impact on Philippine society of such phenomena as colonialism, the Revolution of 1896 and national politics in the twentieth century.