The Khmer Rouge and the west.

Shutuplaura

My interest in Cambodian history was prompted by a recent visit there. I picked up a book to read for the flight called The Last Executioner by an Irish photojournalist called Nic Dunlop.

Basically, it sumarises the authors quest to track down Comrade Duch, the guy who was in charge of the prison at Tol Sleng near Phnom Phen. He also goes into the history of the conflict for people who know very little about it - which I didn't. Suprisingly, he find him - its not ruining it, it says it on the back.

Anyway, and I'm sure that this will be a popular sentiment here, The yanks were behind it all which is great news really! The Vietnamese used a part of eastern Cambodia as a supply route to the south during the war. Nixon (and Kissenger) ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia, itself causing tousands of deaths but also destabilising the country. The upheavels drove people to support the Khymer Rouge which eventually came to power in 1975. In 1979 the Vietnamese invaded and drove Pol Pot et al back towards Thailand. The US, Thailand, and strangely China, all of whom hated the Vietnamese for different reasons say an oppertunity to turn Cambodia into Vietnams Vietnam and began to support the KR. They provided the means to enable the KR to rebuild in the refugee camps over the border in Thailand and fight back. on the diplomatic front the US refused to recognise the new government installed by Hanoi and continued to let the KR sit in Cambodia's seat in the UN General Assembly until the late 80's/early 90's. All this even after the killing fields came to light.
News to me, did anyone else ever hear of it? The cynical continuted support of the KR by western countries just to try weaken Vietnam is the most shocking aspect of all to me.

Oh, and the Brits helped train the KR too, so thats more great news for some. The irish Government to its credit got invloved in a minor way at the UN against the seating policy which legitimised the KR and our own Mary Robinson was the highest UN official to visit the country - in the late 90's.

So anyway, hurrah Ireland, boo to america, Shrugs to China cos we don't know much about them and the curses of hades on the English for doing what comes best and making a bad situation worse.

Anyway, like I said, the book is worth a read. And to make it all seem lile a question rather than a rant, Should Henry Kissenger really be allowed to die a free man?

brianthebard

I saw a documentary on the KR on TG4 last year, its chilling stuff. You're question looks like it was influenced by recent threads on the boards?

jmayo

The Chinese also invaded Vietname and got bloody nose mainly from the reserves at same time as Vietnamese army were in South invading Cambodia or Kampuchea as known then.
Actually I thik Concern were first NGO into Cambodia after fall of Khmer Rouge.

Even though Chinese backed Vietnam against US, they are long standing enemies. That is one reason the whole suposed Communist Domino affect forecasted would never have really materialised.
USSR and China did not like each other. China and Vietname did not like each other etc...

Britain and USA both befriended or rather tolerated Khmer Rouge to keep on good side of China.
I actually saw Foreign Office diplomat once admit on TV, that the fact that over 1,000,000 people were killed by Khmer Rouge was regrettable, but should not stand in way of closer links and trade with China.

USA just did not like Vietnam so your enemy is my friend motto rules.
Actualy US had Pol Pot in US forces hospital in Thailand at once stage, to the best of my knowledge. Very weird that someone that once their enemy became their friend?

US troops had operated both in Cambodia and Laos even though officially they were not in either country.
Vietnamese used both countries as bases and as part of supply routes. US bombed them and had limited ground troop operations in them.

Yet another battleground for the cold war protagonsists.

Watch The Killing Fields.
And here is piece of trivia...
Dr. Haing S Ngor who played the main Cambodian had actually been imprisoned and tortured for 4 years. He lost his wife and child because he could not let it be known he was a doctor.
As part of the Year 0 slaughter and an educated man he would have been killed. He was later shot in driveway of his home is LA by someone trying to rob him. Very ironic.

Henry Kissenger will never be touched, neither will anyone else. The US doesn't believe in International Courts for their citizens.

O'Leprosy

Shutuplaura wrote:

Should Henry Kissenger really be allowed to die a free man?

Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. Unbeleivable. How Washington swung that one I'll never know. But as jmayo says

jmayo wrote:

Henry Kissenger will never be touched, neither will anyone else. The US doesn't believe in International Courts for their citizens.

One of the best statements Noam Chomsky ever made was " If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. " http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm

Zebra3

jmayo wrote:

Henry Kissenger will never be touched, neither will anyone else. The US doesn't believe in International Courts for their citizens.

I know. Absolutely sick that he's paraded around by some as some sort of international statesman for good.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pol-Pot-NIghtmare-Philip-Short/dp/0719565693/ref=pd_bowtega_1/203-6985553-8671136?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179933896&sr=1-1

Excellent read, but takes quite a while to get through it.

O'Leprosy

John Pilger the outstanding Australian journalist was one of the main people who broke the whole story with his documantary Year Zero. Altough shown around the world, the American networks were one of the few countries not to show it. He went to America and approached a network to show it. Although disturbed after watching it, one of the TV executives said to him " Sorry, these are difficult days under Reagan. Your film would have given us problems." Free speech how are you.

jmayo

For a country that so ardently fights about the right ot free speech, there is very little dissention within the media.
Probably due to fact the media is controlled by big business that is so linked to the politicos.

Look what happened to anybody that dared question Ronnies little wars in Central America, Ed Asner was one such person. His TV show was cancelled and he had problems getting work.
Look at the hoopla over the Dixie Chicks and how dare they condemm or question the president.

Regarding Cambodia it was unfortunate that the Khmer Rouge was friends with China and the west have been bending over backwards over the last 30 years to accomodate them so that they could open the 1 billion market.
There are still high ranking members of Pol Pots regime alive and kicking. Will they ever be dragged in front of International Tribunal? Hell no.
After all they may spill beans about where they got aid from.

These also leads to question why Sadam was not tried in International Court like Milosevic. Surely they had enough to get him on during Iran/Iraq war or Kuwait invasion?

Zebra3

jmayo wrote:

These also leads to question why Sadam was not tried in International Court like Milosevic. Surely they had enough to get him on during Iran/Iraq war or Kuwait invasion?

Saddam was tried in Iraq for one reason.

To ensure America's stooges restricted the trial to a very limited parameter and to ensure the role of the west in supporting Saddam was not brought up again.

O'Leprosy

jmayo wrote:

For a country that so ardently fights about the right ot free speech, there is very little dissention within the media.
Probably due to fact the media is controlled by big business that is so linked to the politicos.

Look what happened to anybody that dared question Ronnies little wars in Central America, Ed Asner was one such person. His TV show was cancelled and he had problems getting work.
Look at the hoopla over the Dixie Chicks and how dare they condemm or question the president - Regarding Cambodia it was unfortunate that the Khmer Rouge was friends with China and the west have been bending over backwards over the last 30 years to accomodate them so that they could open the 1 billion market.
There are still high ranking members of Pol Pots regime alive and kicking. Will they ever be dragged in front of International Tribunal? Hell no.
After all they may spill beans about where they got aid from.

These also leads to question why Sadam was not tried in International Court like Milosevic. Surely they had enough to get him on during Iran/Iraq war or Kuwait invasion?

What's the story on the Dixie Chicks ? Not into country music but despite the sterotypes it should not come as a surprise that country music people are anti establishment. Johnny Cash is a fine example. As regards censorship, well John Pilger made a great observation - I filmed secretly in Czechoslovakia, then a Stalinist dictatorship. The dissident novelist Zdenek Urbánek told me, "In one respect, we are more fortunate than you in the west. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and watch on television, nothing of the official truth. Unlike you, we have learned to read between the lines, because real truth is always subversive."

Still, our great wee republic doesn't practise censorship. I mean we never had Section 31 banning people from speaking did we. Even a Tyrone footballer talking about a match he played in - only in Ireland. Good question though about Milosevic and Saddam.

cgf

The majority of the leadership were also educated in Paris during the 50s

jmayo

O'Leprosy wrote:

What's the story on the Dixie Chicks ? Not into country music but despite the sterotypes it should not come as a surprise that country music people are anti establishment...

Still, our great wee republic doesn't practise censorship. I mean we never had Section 31 banning people from speaking did we. Even a Tyrone footballer talking about a match he played in - only in Ireland. Good question though about Milosevic and Saddam.

Good God man Country Music is the most pro Establishment God fearing group in America. One of the few real mavericks was/is Steve Earle.
It is not cool in country music to have multiple wives, be done for drug abuse and multiple weapons charges. Ok last one maybe ok.

Most fans of country music would be good white, God fearin, Republican, pro Life, Southern folk. Could also say same for Nascar. Spotting a black Nascar fan is about as likely as finding a black guy at KKK rally.

I actually don't have problem with banning groups that epouse terrorism or hatred. You have to have limits on what people are allowed broadcast.
The weird thing about the ban in Ireland/UK was it meant someone could not talk about soemthing totally different because they belonged to particular organisation or their words could be heard by public only if overdubbed by an actor???

Anyway back on topic of our red friends. The Khmer Rouge were able to get away with it because it was politically expedient for the powers that be within the UN (big joke). It is not what you do but whose your friend.

How high is the plight of Tibet now on the world's agenda. It is still an occupioed country but of course it's occupied by the world biggest potential market and the provided of cheap goods for western companies.

O'Leprosy

jmayo wrote:

Good God man Country Music is the most pro Establishment God fearing group in America. One of the few real mavericks was/is Steve Earle.
It is not cool in country music to have multiple wives, be done for drug abuse and multiple weapons charges. Ok last one maybe ok.

Most fans of country music would be good white, God fearin, Republican, pro Life, Southern folk. Could also say same for Nascar. Spotting a black Nascar fan is about as likely as finding a black guy at KKK rally.

I actually don't have problem with banning groups that epouse terrorism or hatred. You have to have limits on what people are allowed broadcast.
The weird thing about the ban in Ireland/UK was it meant someone could not talk about soemthing totally different because they belonged to particular organisation or their words could be heard by public only if overdubbed by an actor???

Anyway back on topic of our red friends. The Khmer Rouge were able to get away with it because it was politically expedient for the powers that be within the UN (big joke). It is not what you do but whose your friend.

How high is the plight of Tibet now on the world's agenda. It is still an occupioed country but of course it's occupied by the world biggest potential market and the provided of cheap goods for western companies.

Fair enough, I should have said " that some country music people are anti establishment... "

As for "I actually don't have problem with banning groups that epouse terrorism or hatred. ". Would you beleive that should be applied to Bush and Blair since they are probably the two of the leading terrorists in the world today or I'm sure " It is not what you do " hypocracy applies in your case ?

jmayo

O'Leprosy wrote:

Fair enough, I should have said " that some country music people are anti establishment... "

As for "I actually don't have problem with banning groups that epouse terrorism or hatred. ". Would you beleive that should be applied to Bush and Blair since they are probably the two of the leading terrorists in the world today or I'm sure " It is not what you do " hypocracy applies in your case ?

Now now O'Leprosy not getting into the usual bashing cr**, we all know here where you stand and what your believes are.
No, I don't think it should apply to Bush and Blair but that doesn't mean I agree with what they have done and what their governments policies are.

Anyway this discussion is moving away fom Cambodia, although what is new there.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote:

Oh, and the Brits helped train the KR too, so thats more great news for some.

So anyway, hurrah Ireland, boo to america, Shrugs to China cos we don't know much about them and the curses of hades on the English for doing what comes best and making a bad situation worse.

Fratton Fred, do you fell that people are predjudiced against you ?

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote:

Fratton Fred, do you fell that people are predjudiced against you ?

no, but I do feel some people need to get rid of their prejudices.:rolleyes:

Shutuplaura

brianthebard wrote:

I saw a documentary on the KR on TG4 last year, its chilling stuff. You're question looks like it was influenced by recent threads on the boards?

Yes it was tbh. Its sunch a case of black and white, unlike the other examples of genocide and war crimes mentioned here. Oh, I wasn't balming the British, only joking, sorry if I offended Fred. English involvment was minimal, and all down to Maggie Thatcher, a person most British people also have the good taste to dislike. its also pretty unreasonable to blame anyone(even americans!) for the actions of their governments.

The whole Cambodia thing is so ****ed up its unbelievable. Pol Pot and his fallowers were according to another book I read on it (Getting away with Genocide) probably the best educated group of revolutionaries in south east aisa, yet they were responsible for so much grief. John Pilger and Naom Chomskey also suggest that the American government consistantly overestimates the number of death cambodian deaths attributable to Pol Pot in an effort to minimise the deaths casulties caused by the B 52 bombings. As someone else said, the Thai government provided safe areas and even let the thai military guard KR leaders whenever they were in Thailand.

Anyway, I strongly recommend the book, an enlightening read.

phaze

I worked in Cambodia for 6 months and read anything I could lay my hands on. Found these two to be the most informative if anyone wishes to know more:

'When the War was Over' by Elizabeth Becker
'Sideshow - Kissinger Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia' by William Shawcross.

O'Leprosy

Shutuplaura wrote:

English involvment was minimal, and all down to Maggie Thatcher, a person most British people also have the good taste to dislike. its also pretty unreasonable to blame anyone(even americans!) for the actions of their governments.

It's the public who elect the governmants. How are they not respondcible ? If little Ireland had an army/air force the size of the US and it was doing the same things as the Americans or their sidekicks the Brits were doing throughout the world, I haven't the slightest doubt that the majority of the great Irish public wouldn't care a damn. They would do just as they have done at the last election, vote in any sort of yes man that they somehow preceive will leave their little pockets slightly better off over the next 4 years i.e. Beverly Cooper Flynn, and out with a decent politican like Joe Higgins.

I wonder how many Irish people were in any way concerned about the US army's use of Shannon when going to vote ??? Effectively zero I'll bet.

Fratton Fred

Shutuplaura wrote:

Yes it was tbh. Its sunch a case of black and white, unlike the other examples of genocide and war crimes mentioned here. Oh, I wasn't balming the British, only joking, sorry if I offended Fred. English involvment was minimal, and all down to Maggie Thatcher, a person most British people also have the good taste to dislike. its also pretty unreasonable to blame anyone(even americans!) for the actions of their governments.

What was the British involvement, I thought France were the main factors (In term of European involvement), I didn't realise Britain were involved in anyway outside of their role in the UN.

As for Thatcher, I couldn't stand her. but I have to say, when I see the grip the unions have on some parts of this country, maybe a bit of her leadership could be adopted here

Shutuplaura

British involvement? Not to much, really, just said that to wind someone else up. Basically, from what I read the British supported yank efforts in the UN but also sent SAS guys over to help train the KR special forces. Nation building i suppose! France - not sure how or if they were involved but their actions in general in indo-china were pretty shameful.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote:

British involvement? Not to much, really, just said that to wind someone else up. Basically, from what I read the British supported yank efforts in the UN but also sent SAS guys over to help train the KR special forces. Nation building i suppose! France - not sure how or if they were involved but their actions in general in indo-china were pretty shameful.

Ah, poor old Fred, the forum's very own british bulldog Seems some people cann't help but to wind you up ! Still, if there's a complete messup in the world - the brits HAVE to be invovled somehow.

Capt'n Midnight

Lets not forget that our own government recognised Democratic Kampuchea for a long time after they were defeated by the Vietnamese.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote:

Ah, poor old Fred, the forum's very own british bulldog Seems some people cann't help but to wind you up ! Still, if there's a complete messup in the world - the brits HAVE to be invovled somehow.

I actually think you fancy me.

five out of your six posts have been direct attempts at winding me up and have had no bearing on the thread.

PHB

Lads, let's try keep it on topic please.

donaghs

I think you're letting your anti-Americanism run away with you. In the 60s the US viewed Communism in itself as the main threat. The "domino theory" was based on this. As well as fighting the Communist North Vietnamese, the US also back efforts to fight the Communist groups in Laos and Cambodia (e.g. including the Khmer Rouge). To an extent, the much rubbished domino theory came true, Cambodia and Laos fell to Communism soon after Vietnam.

What was missing from the theory was detail of the divisions within the Communist world. As the Sino-Russian split grew, Vietnam choose Russian backing. Vietnam also had it own reasons to distrust China. The Khmer Rouge went with China.

Here's where America come in: Kissinger and Nixon at this time were trying to take advantage of the the Communist split, so they tried to cozy up to China. In the process this involved supporting the Khmer Rouge against their old enemy Vietnam. All of the above is still morally repugnant, but it is still a tad more complicated then saying the US are worse than Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pt.

jmayo

...To an extent, the much rubbished domino theory came true, Cambodia and Laos fell to Communism soon after Vietnam.

What was missing from the theory was detail of the divisions within the Communist world. As the Sino-Russian split grew, Vietnam choose Russian backing. Vietnam also had it own reasons to distrust China. The Khmer Rouge went with China.

Here's where America come in: Kissinger and Nixon at this time were trying to take advantage of the the Communist split, so they tried to cozy up to China. In the process this involved supporting the Khmer Rouge against their old enemy Vietnam. All of the above is still morally repugnant, but it is still a tad more complicated then saying the US are worse than Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pt.

Vietnam had been getting backing all along from the Soviets but chose to stay with them since the Viets and Chinese were not the best of friends historically. The Khmer Rouge were getting Chinese backing and were peeing off the Vietnamese so eventually the Vietnamese invaded. China saw a chance and invaded the North of Vietnam thinking that the reserve troops would be a push over. They got a bloody nose and a little surprise.

America backed their old enemies, the Khmer Rouge, not just to pee off the Vietnamese but to cosy up to their new potential market and slave labour location, China.
So did Britain.
The US have indulged in lots of shenangigans over the last 60 odd years. If you include Central America, Chile, Venezuela, Cuba, Indonesia, Zaire/Congo, Angola, Indochina, Iran/Iraq and the Middle East in general it makes a not so impressive list of dirty tricks and very dirty wars fought by their despots.

Shutuplaura

donaghs wrote:

I think you're letting your anti-Americanism run away with you. In the 60s the US viewed Communism in itself as the main threat. The "domino theory" was based on this. As well as fighting the Communist North Vietnamese, the US also back efforts to fight the Communist groups in Laos and Cambodia (e.g. including the Khmer Rouge). To an extent, the much rubbished domino theory came true, Cambodia and Laos fell to Communism soon after Vietnam.

What was missing from the theory was detail of the divisions within the Communist world. As the Sino-Russian split grew, Vietnam choose Russian backing. Vietnam also had it own reasons to distrust China. The Khmer Rouge went with China.

Here's where America come in: Kissinger and Nixon at this time were trying to take advantage of the the Communist split, so they tried to cozy up to China. In the process this involved supporting the Khmer Rouge against their old enemy Vietnam. All of the above is still morally repugnant, but it is still a tad more complicated then saying the US are worse than Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pt.

Hmm - i take it you mean my anti-americanism? I fully understand why the US did what it did and you seem to too but doesn't mean i condone their actions one bit - do you? Bombing Cambodia, a country caught between a rock and a hard place, back into the stone age - literally. They are not conspiracy theories. They heavily bombed Cambodia to destroy VC supply lines. It did kill tens; possibly - in fact probably - hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It destabilized the region. It installed a puppet dictator that they hoiped would co-operate and ensured he was too weak to hold the country together, maintain order and defeat the KR. When the KR came into power they did nothing and when the KR started fighting the Vietnamese in western Cambodia they supported them. They continued doing so until quite recently. When they stopped doing so the KR insurgance petered out quite quickly. They denied support to the anti-KR government - as imperfect as it was it was not genicidal because the Vietnamese did support it. They encouraged the world to do the same. They supported Communist China and ultra maoist KR factions against communist Vietnam in an effort to stop a proverbial domino falling and millions died in the process. They supported a proven genocidal regieme. You really think thats alright? Thats not far off supporting the Nazi's because they fought communism so i don't feel to bad about invoking Godwins Law. And by the way, its the American government not the American people i have a problem with about this.

As far as I know the Irish government for once showed a bit of oomph and jointly suggested (with Sweden?) at a meeting of the UN in 1980 that the Cambodian seat should be left vacant instead of recognising the KR as a government in exile.

donaghs

I think you've definitley misinterpreted my post. From your first one, you gave the impression that the US backed the Khmer Rouge from the beginning. I was simply trying to show the complexity behind what occurred.

I terms of how much sympathy I'd have with the American position:-
I can understand the American wish to keep Communism out of South Vietnam. Its unfortunate that they could not have reached an amicable agreement with Ho Chi Min a decade (or two) earlier. As it happened, apart from the initial revenge and re-education, Vietnamese Communism did not turn out as bad as other regimes.

Similarly I can understand the wish to keep Communism out of Cambodia and Laos. However I abhor the methods used. I have no sypmpathy for the Nixon/Kissinger strategy towards China and Cambodia.

Snickers Man

Shutuplaura wrote:

British involvement? Not to much, really, just said that to wind someone else up. Basically, from what I read the British supported yank efforts in the UN but also sent SAS guys over to help train the KR special forces. Nation building i suppose! France - not sure how or if they were involved but their actions in general in indo-china were pretty shameful.

I remember reading many years ago that the SAS had helped train KR forces. I'm pretty sure it was in an English newspaper (probably the Guardian).

As for France's involvement: she used to own the place. Before WWII Vietnam and Cambodia were known collectively as French Indo-China. The
Japanese occupied it in WWII and when it was all over, apparently the Americans initially wanted to grant it independence but the French, enthusiastically supported by the British, insisted that it be returned to them.

Which only gave the communist Viet Cong the additional support among the people as the wagers of a war of national liberation.

eoin5

I dont think anybody has mentioned yet that the american press such as the new york times etc. covered The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot extensively, whereas at the same time East Timor was invaded by Indonesia carrying US made arms and got almost zero coverage. No surprise there. The level of atrocity in both cases is very similar.