learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

1. What fundamental problems existed in the Khmer Rouge's ideology and plan and that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia? Does this demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism or does it demonstrate the ineffective and callous interpretation and execution of the ideology by the Khmer Rouge leaders?

2. With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world both past and present, how does one draw the line as to which means are ethical and unethical for bringing about change? How much suffering is tolerable to bring about a “better society”? What should happen when it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge?

3. What could have been done, on the part of the international community, to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge between 1975-79? When, if ever, should national sovereignty be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people? How could this have happened in Cambodia and by whom?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Sources to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a description, quote or paraphrasing, from at least two of the sources in your response and please respond in some way to at least two of the question sets. You can also refer to the film, First They Killed My Father, that we watched as a class.

Excerpt 1 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: The Unknowable Unknown and Wishful Thinking)

Excerpt 2 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: From Behind a Blindfold and Official US Intelligence, Unofficial Skepticism)

Excerpt 1 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: This Is Not 1942 and and Options Ignored; Futility, Perversity, Jeopardy)

“The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by Sok Udom Deth (2009)

Rubric to Review: LTQ Rubric

I think that the destruction in Cambodia was largely due to the Khmer Rouge’s callous interpretation of communism. They took the idea of equality to an extreme, turning it into uniformity where everyone had to wear the same clothes and think the same. While they proclaimed to be providing social change, their actions were more akin to revenge, where those who had previously thrived were killed and anyone who didn’t outwardly support the movement from the very start suffered. They believed that the ends— the creation of a so-called utopia— justified the means— mass death and destruction. But the execution of what a few believe to be a utopia does not justify genocide. If you are using inhumane measures to achieve change, then you are in the wrong, regardless of the ends. But the main issue with their interpretation was the core idea that people were irrelevant. In America, someone is innocent until proven guilty and you’re supposed to have undeniable evidence that the person is guilty to punish them. Under the Khmer Rouge, it was better to kill ten innocent people that let one guilty person go. In the “This is Not 1942” section of her book A Problem From Hell, Samantha Power says that the “key ideological premise that lay behind the KR revolution was that “to keep you is no gain; to kill you is no loss.” [...] Khmer Rouge revolutionary society was predicated on the irrelevance of the individual” (Power).

This is not to say that there is an interpretation of communism that could produce a utopia. Humans simply are too selfish and greedy to make communism work as it is meant to. Whether in a communist or a capitalist society, a few at the top will always prevail at the expense of the majority. Even though the Khmer Rouge was supposed to be communist, the leaders benefited from the labor of the people. In the movie, the workers who farmed starved while the food they grew went to the few at the top.

“Certainly, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the historical context in dictating America’s response to atrocities in Cambodia”, Power states in her “Response” chapter. But I don’t think that historical context means we are innocent. As in every genocide, the U.S. has a responsibility to intervene as an influential power and as a country that presents itself as a moral compass to further our own interests. But especially in the Cambodian genocide, where the American bombing program contributed heavily to conflict and genocide, we had a responsibility to prevent the extremes of the damage.

Is it unrealistic to expect the U.S to have intervened at that time? The people, who had lost sons, husbands, and fathers in Vietnam were against it. The Democrats, who believed that Ford’s condemnation of the Khmer Rouge was just anti-communist propaganda, were against it. And the Republican government itself had lost major credibility in the region. As Samantha Power summarizes in the “Official U.S. Intelligence, Unofficial Skepticism” section, Kissinger’s past foreign policy decisions had “blackened his own reputation”, and the discrepancy between US predictions of other events in Southeast Asia and the actual events, such as the fall of Saigon, made the government seem like exaggerators. So is it unreasonable to have expected action, especially when we didn’t know the extent of the cruelty? Additionally, what about other countries? It’s not like the U.S. was the sole world power. What about France, who had colonized the area? Or Thailand, who was geographically close? Why didn’t other countries, which hadn’t been recently involved in a devastating and immoral war, intervene?

The Khmer Rouge based their ruling upon tension and hate riddled ideologies and plans, that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia. When Phnom Penh was invaded, The Khmer Rouge made everyone leave the city, and placed them in camps, in an attempt to create a communist revolution. People were put to work, and stripped of their identities, for The Khmer Rouge wanted to make everyone “equal,” though they held an idea of superiority over the Cambodian people. “By doing so, the leaders of DK also aimed to create a classless society, although in reality, those who joined the revolution before 1975 were relatively better off. Religion, the market economy, and family ties were all abolished. Everything belonged to Angkar Padevat (or the ‘revolutionary organization’), which was “righteous and enlightened” in carrying out the revolution that the entire population was expected to pursue with complete dedication” (The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea). The Khmer Rouge and their attempt for a communist revolution does not demonstrate that something is inherently wrong with communism, however it does demonstrate the common themes that come with the making and existence of a communist society. With many communist societies, we see that there is an intensive amount of violence and destruction that the groups take to set up their regime. “As in other communist regimes, the DK leaders were highly suspicious of enemies from within and sought to crush them at all costs” (The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea), which led The Khmer Rouge to create a plan to execute and eliminate all of the potential “enemies,” or those who they thought would bring down their regime, through the events of genocide. The Khmer Rouge leaders were going to carry out their plans of genocide regardless of them being a communist revolution based party or not, for they saw this as the only way to gain power. Communism can take many forms, but more often than not it results in the violence, destruction, and a restriction of human rights by dehumanization, and creating an “equal society,” that is not equal at all.

Changes occur in societies all around the world, regardless of their type of ruling, economic systems, regions, and all of the factors that make up their nation. However, some radical changes are often accompanied by mass violence and unethical practices and events. The Khmer Rouge wanted to create a “better society,” which they thought would come with a communist revolution. Though the people thought that their society would get better, The Khmer Rouge forced Cambodian citizens out of their homes, stripped them of their identities, and began their plans of violence and mass destruction. “They were separating children from parents, defrocking monks, killing those who disobeyed and creating an irrevocable living arrangement” (Cambodia: The Unknowable Unknown and Wishful Thinking). No amount of suffering is tolerable to bring about a “better society,” even though suffering will most likely occur. The amount of suffering that occurred in Cambodia was unnecessary for the “changes” that The Khmer Rouge wanted to bring about. Torture occurred in various forms, and the deaths of innocent people occurred every day in the region. It is hard to come to a conclusion of what to do when a struggle like this arises, but there were baseline steps that were not carried out. The United Nations goes to countries in times of struggle to keep peace, but because reporters were turned away, or even killed, there was little evidence of physical or visual representation, something that the world “needed” to see, so that they could believe that this struggle was actually occurring (Cambodia: From Behind a Blindfold and Official US Intelligence, Unofficial Skepticism).

The international community was very withdrawn from the Cambodian genocide, due to the country being in the same general region as Vietnam, a place that had been a controversial warring state for years prior to The Khmer Rouge’s uprising. Understanding that The United Nations cannot physically intervene in conflicts, and that they can only be present for “peace keeping” circumstances, this does limit the international community’s abilities to interfere, and to stop the excessive harm being done to the people of Cambodia. However, the international community took steps to remove any connections that they may have with helping those in Cambodia, from neglecting to represent it in the media, to refusing to accept the truth of the situation. The international community based its rulings of the situation in Cambodia off of the events of The Holocaust genocide, for it was the most known and understood genocide that they could compare anything to during this era. Each genocide has its own components of planning, occurrence, and motives, but the international community placed it into a box, that did not fit the understanding of genocide that they had from the events of The Holocaust (Cambodia: This Is Not 1942 and and Options Ignored; Futility, Perversity, Jeopardy). National sovereignty should be overridden during any circumstance of violence, harm, or disorder that is causing the immense suffering of people. Due to sanctions by The United Nations, as well as the parameters in which The United Nations can help warring nations, the act of international interference is hard to successfully carry out, but there were most certainly acts that could have helped to help the immense suffering of the Cambodian people.

If I want to pass a test, I need to study. I might have to study everyday for a week if it means that I pass the class. Nobody likes to study but it’s a sacrifice that we all have to make in order to succeed. I won’t be happy while I’m studying and I might even miss my friend’s birthday party but in one way or another, it would have been worth it if I got a good grade. However, if I study so much that it causes a strain in my mental or physical health, it is time for me to stop because no test will ever be more important than my wellbeing. And that is where we draw the line. When sacrifices turn into suffering, it is time to stop, and the Khmer Rouge should have stopped there as well.

Unfortunately, the world has seen far too many genocides, but in each one there are signs of forming chaos. In almost all of these genocides, the majority of people have ignored the precursors. However, this genocide was a little different in the sense that “the Khmer Rouge may well have run the most secretive regime of the twentieth century. They sealed the country completely” (Excerpt 2). On its own, this should have caused some international worry. For what logical reason would a country locked itself away from the rest of the world. “The Nixon and Ford administration had cried wolf one time too many in Southeast Asia. In addition, because the KR were so secretive, America’s warnings were by definition speculative” (Excerpt 1). There were signs of a genocide about to unfold but the Khmer Rouge was so careful about hiding their actions that it felt like speculation. So in this case, it is up to the leaders of the Khmer Rouge to identify when enough is enough. The increasing death toll should have been proof that what they were doing was wrong. The Khmer Rouge were desensitized from the deaths because they saw it as the survival of the fittest. The moment where your people start to become your biggest obstacle is when you should rethink the ways of society. The actual suffering of other humans on a physical or mental level should never be tolerated even when it is for a “better society.” Such harm can never produce something worth living for.

Now the question comes up; is it communism that causes such harm? The short answer is no. Communism is a political theory that has many flaws, but there is no perfect political ideology. There are many countries today that haven’t necessarily achieved communism, but are trying to. However, those countries aren’t violently killing people each day or stripping people of their fundamental rights. The Khmer Rouge represented communism poorly through their excessive violence and intolerance. However, the United States has also interpreted communism incorrectly that it has become pernicious. If someone told you that a puppy was this ferocious animal that preys on blood and you saw a small fluffy friend, you would be confused. So imagine the reaction when “the U.S. government had said the Communists were poorly trained, Schanberg noted, but the journalists had encountered a well-disciplined, healthy, organized force” (Excerpt 2). The United States makes it seem like communists are disorganized so when people saw something that didn’t represent this, they didn’t know how to react with this false association. The Khmer Rouge went about communism the wrong way, but the United States did not help with how they represented it in the media.

There were many things that went wrong during this genocide. The Khmer Rouge didn’t know when enough was enough and made it easier for them to commit such heinous acts due to their secretive tactics. The harming of other people became so normal during this time and it made them lose sight of what they wanted to achieve through communism. However, the United States did not help because they portrayed communists as different and barbaric people. The truth is, that communism is an ideology with many flaws, but the people who try to achieve it don’t look much different than people who believe in capitalism. It’s important to know what is worth sacrificing when it comes to a better society and how we should portray others.

(Q1-2) The Khmer Rouge’s ideology was absolutist and believed that any outside influences were a danger to their society (ex. Western ideas/capitalism). The paranoia and black and white thinking of the Khmer Rouge caused them to act with no respect for human lives, as their main goal was to eliminate anyone that opposed Angkar, which was reinforced by their strict one party rule.The fact that they enclosed themselves and cut off all communications with the outside world meant that they were able to commit heinous crimes without any interference or punishment from outsiders. As said by Powers, “The sternly secretive Khmer Rouge bewildered even the most informed Cambodia observers” (The Unknowable Unknown). The Khmer Rouge’s actions were shrouded in mystery, but when people discovered what they were doing, they were so in shock that they could not bring themselves to take decisive action against the horrors they were committing. The dichotomous thinking of the Khmer Rouge led them to undergo an extremely radical and rapid transformation (Kampuchea), where they eliminated all opposition to their communist regime. This transformation also led people to settle on communes where there was a strong us vs them mindset and intentions to eliminate all “enemies.” The way the Khmer Rouge interpreted and practiced their communist regime did not align with what communism looks like in theory. Their interpretation of communism was built on the foundation of creating an us vs them, even though they claimed they were making everyone equal. They believed that to bring about radical change and rebuild society meant that they had to eliminate the supposed enemy, so they used extreme measures to achieve this. As souplover says, “But the execution of what a few believe to be a utopia does not justify genocide. If you are using inhumane measures to achieve change, then you are in the wrong, regardless of the ends” (souplover). They are saying the ends do not justify the means, which is something I think all political leaders/groups need to recognize. Change does not need to be radical and violent, the Khmer Rouge should not have murdered so many innocent people in cold blood to achieve their goals. The Khmer Rouge brought about much suffering and death, and a line must be drawn, but the line between ethical and unethical is sometimes so blurred that it is impossible to do this. A solution to this is a written global consensus on what is ethical and unethical, and these laws/standards should be reinforced by police or some sort of global governance in order for nations to follow the guidelines. In a perfect world, no suffering would be needed to bring about a “better society,” but the reality is that nearly every revolution tries to eliminate the supposed enemy, which means there is definite suffering. It is human nature to divide and fight each other for survival, but in the modern era, it has turned into an intense xenophobia that leads to terrible war and conflict. When a struggle for change is clearly making society worse, I think it is our duty as onlookers to take action and advocate for intervention from other countries. The global community must acknowledge the problem, understand it, and take action to combat and rectify these issues. However, this is often not what happens when countries are struggling with totalitarian regimes/genocide. In Cambodia, during the “merciless exodus” and the genocide of minority groups, although there was “very factual evidence of the bloodbath that is in the process of taking place,” the US hesitated to take action until they waited for the full story, and they did not “get emotionally or politically involved until it was too late” (From Behind a Blindfold). People are hesitant to do anything that is “too political” or anything that would provoke backlash, so politicians and governments are extremely precise and meticulous about how they address these atrocities and how they respond to them. This highlights an omnipresent issue in our society, which is that we are too scared to go against the majority and take a stand for what is right. I believe that we must be willing to stand up for what we believe in and defend those that cannot defend themselves.

One fundamental problem that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was that they were willing to kill anyone for almost anything. When watching the movie, Cambodians were forced to leave their homes and give up all that was personal to them to serve Angkar. If someone didn’t comply, was a “political enemy”, rumored to be disloyal to Angkar, had western ideas, or many other things, they would be forced to be “reeducated”. In a quote from A problem from Hell, the KR stated, “‘It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free’”(Excerpt 3) This demonstrates the ineffective and callous interpretation and execution of the ideology of the Khmer Rouge leaders. They effectively took the entire country hostage by using this method. Their methods are simply the most extreme case of communism which does demonstrate that there is something wrong with communism in the first place.

To create a better society, change is inevitable but suffering shouldn’t be. For change to affect society in a positive way, it must be at a steady pace. Change too fast will cause the suffering that the Cambodians experienced. The Khmer Rouge deported millions of individuals from their cities, towns and villages, for years moving themselves into luxury apartments and things of that nature. The Khmer Rouge killed millions of people by torturing, starving, and executing them. That is beyond the amount of suffering tolerable for a “better society”. A quote from A Problem from Hell reads, “The Cambodians had heard the howls of their starving infants. They had watched KR cadres use plastic bags to suffocate Buddhist monks. They had seen their loved ones murdered by teenage warriors who mechanically delivered the blow of a hoe to the back of the neck”(Excerpt 3). Cambodians were stripped of their individuality, torn away from their families, forcibly removed from their homes, and so much more in the span of 4 years. This was in the name of communism, to bring about change in the country. But the way the KR went about their road to change was unethical, and went far past any line that could have been drawn in metaphorical sand.

The international community could have intervened by sending aid to the people of Cambodia. It is clear that no one wanted to get involved with the situation because of lack of information and any losses acquired recently. But doing nothing is the wrong answer. When such a large number of people are being systematically killed, there shouldn’t be one reason why the international community can’t step in. National Sovereignty should be overridden when a group of people are being exterminated. As soon as it starts, it should be when the world intervenes. When there is undeniable evidence of the start of a genocide, should be when the world intervenes. Because China was connected to the KR, they were in no position to want to help the Cambodian people so it had to have been another neighboring country with an army strong enough to defeat the KR and dissolve the organization for good.

The Khmer Rouge ideology planned for a communist takeover of Cambodia that would implement a very Maoist approach to the utopian idea. However, due to, among other factors, the harsh relationship between the Khmer Rouge and Lon Nol’s government, as instituted by the United States, the Khmer Rouge became hellbent on trying to rid the country of any Western influence. As written by Samantha Power in “A Problem from Hell”, “The KR even propagated the adage, “It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free””. This mentality of removing potential threats by any means necessary caused so much wide scale destruction and disruption that the promise of a utopia eventually faded into obscurity. On one hand, it might be immature to call all of communism a failure because of one or a few instances without success, but on the other hand, we must ask ourselves how many times we are willing to try communism before we throw in the towel given the cost in human suffering that it results in each time. That being said, Vietnam, a self-proclaimed communist nation itself, was the only country who intervened to impede the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge regime. So perhaps it matters how the communist ideas are implemented to some extent. Even then, Vietnam was, at the time, far from the utopian promise that communism puts out. With limited access to different goods, thanks to a plethora of sanctions, on top of a dysfunctional economy, conditions weren’t all that great.

The international community’s efforts were far too lackluster during the Khmer Rouge rule. To start at the bare minimum, there should not have been any support for the CCP or the Khmer Rouge on the part of powerful countries like the United States. Geopolitical advantage should never take precedence over the humanitarian point of view. In a practical sense, one way that I believe sovereignty can be overlooked without diminishing the power of the state is in simply making it forbidden to block humanitarian aid packages. If this prospective law were forgone, the international community would have a justification for more drastic measures. As for physical measures that can be taken, a good first step, especially before the genocide has taken place, would be to take those economic sanctions later imposed on Vietnam, and place them instead on the growing Khmer Rouge party. Then later, if more is necessary, one could undergo a justified invasion, though finding a nation willing to do so might prove difficult. Regardless, all in the UN should provide aid of some sort to the invading nation. The bigger problem in seeking a solution for this issue is garnering enough of a response from the people. With limited media coverage of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia known as VLCs, or “very lost causes” as stated by the three remaining news sources in the area (Power 110), the American people at least would never push the government to do something about the atrocities. Perhaps that is what the president wanted anyhow since the U.S. was far from seeking another war to involve themselves in.

The Khmer Rouge began its reign over Cambodia flawed. Fundamental problems existed in the Khmer Rouge's ideology and plan and that caused the destruction of so many lives were included in the idea of starting from year zero, as people were forced to resettle and begin re-education similar to that of “pure peasants” through agricultural collectivism. As this ideology grew so did the list of aspects in regular life that became banned. The Khmer Rouge became a closed society restricting many important pieces of a person's life. The Party banned religion, money, modern technology, family relationships, private property, travel, reading, education. All of which caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia, because if a party member believed a citizen was retaliating against these rules their lives would be taken. So, their plan had been flowed from the start as there is an inability for humans to resettle on untouched land, have every aspect of their identity taken away from them, become re-educated in the ways of the party, and not become targets of attack as they would seek out ethnic minorities, Cham, Buddhist monks and anyone who was believed to stand with Western values. Although many of the aspects in the Khmer Rouge were flawed solely because of prejudice it also demonstrates something inherently wrong with communism. In the article, “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by Sok Udom Deth it describes the starvation of the people in a community in which their main goal was to produce rice. Rather than these generous amounts of rice feeding the people it was “exported abroad in exchange for military weapons,” which left the starved community with “virtually nothing to eat.” This is an aspect of communism that is inherently wrong when implemented in society. The outcome of a communist regime has never been properly executed. When people are forced to work in order to gain their rations, which are then shared with outside areas due to the idea of making everything “equal” it creates a sense of inequality. This same problem was seeing other communist countries such as the Soviet Union with their famine. There will always be an unfair way of rationing food. Even in the movie “First They Killed My Father” one can see the unequal food distribution and Loung was given more food while training as a soldier than she was given in her prior camp with her family. Along with this is the enforcing of rules. People living in Communist countries are more restrictive in their rulings creating censorship of the people. In Excerpt 1 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide titled “This Is Not 1942” tying back to the starvation the author writes of a witnesses named Twinning experience with a Cambodian refugee as he asked “the amount of rice the Khmer Rouge fed them each day.” The response the refugee gives is the portion size “that would have filled about half of their palm sized implement.” Meaning, the portions were terribly small. After Twinning states life could not be sustained on these portions the refugee agrees but then states, “anybody who complained was dragged away.” Showing not only the harm and terror in the Khmer Rouge but the censorship of the people found in Communist societies. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the United Nations should step in and stop the destruction. As challenging as this could be, it must be done for the protection of harmed people. The Cambodian people were faced with genocide and no escape, and the United States decided to side against them and with the Khmer Rouge. Vietnam, the sole country at war against the Cambodians, was faced with more UN economic sanctions for the invasion. There should also be attention brought onto these genocides and awareness raised in order for the inexcusable actions of genocide to be seen and therefore gain a following who aims to save the country. Which in turn creates more pressure on the UN to aid the country in danger.

Through each historical occurrence of a sudden change towards communism, there have been millions of deaths as a result, due to famine, violent leaders, and poor planning. Derived from Karl Marx, communism is a post-class-war society where property is publicly owned, and everyone works for a collective. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge’s actions, while roughly reflecting these ideals, did not at all live up to what Karl Marx had envisioned.

One example of the Khmer Rouge’s corruption was illustrated in the beginning of the film, First They Killed My Father, when the rebels first ushered the Cambodians out of the city. An ideal carried forth by the Khmer Rouge was the removal of all Western influences of wealth, vanity, and intellectualism. In order to force this upon the people of Cambodia, the officers took all of their valuable belongings. They justified this by saying that it was necessary for Angkar, however, the officers in reality needed money to maintain their efforts. The rebels stayed well fed throughout the genocide, while they starved the Cambodians, and attempted to kill off minority groups. All of the Khmer Rouge’s actions violate the original definition of communism, showing that the issue was a flaw of the Khmer Rouge.

The Khmer Rouge’s slaughter of more than two million people clearly showed their ulterior motives in staging a revolution. While the Khmer Rouge kept their operations secret to an extent, other countries certainly had the ability to intervene. However, it is difficult to determine whether it is ethically right to get involved in situations like this. The U.S. was certainly aware of the potential catastrophe, as President Ford “predicted a ‘massacre’ if Phnom Penh fell to the Khmer Rouge” (Power 102). A select amount of journalists were also able to collect information on what was going on in Cambodia. There were many reasons why the U.S. specifically did not get involved, but the main one was the proximity in time to the end of the Vietnam war. Due to the strong response of Americans to the Vietnam war, there was extreme caution in deciding whether or not intervention was necessary. The U.S. did not want to send in any armed forces, and risk more casualties. Later in Power’s A Problem From Hell she also states that Americans would have thought that reports on the Khmer Rouge’s killings were simply a ploy for the U.S. to engage itself in another proxy war.

Sovereignty is crucial to establish an order of international equality between nations, but when is it breakable? Cambodia has a right to sovereignty, but in reality, countries like the U.S. have never respected other nations rights in this way. The U.S. in particular, breaks rules of sovereignty only when it benefits the country and the government’s self centered interests. For this reason, the rule of sovereignty was merely used as an American excuse for inaction, and it would not have been wrong for America to intervene with the Khmer Rouge’s genocidal rampage.

The Khmer Rouge perhaps best demonstrate the perversion revolution can take especially in communism. Promising to rid Cambodia of Western influence and restore a strong national identity, they instead removed the most important parts of Cambodian culture such as Buddhism, and the ability for Cambodia to compete with other countries by banning education. Promising to give the means of production to the people, the Khmer Rouge actually shipped produce grown on the farms to Khmer officials. And when promising that "Angkar will take care of you", they instead killed you in Angkar's name. The root of the issue, and with all unethical change movements, was that there were no positive goals alongside the negative purges, and so the society and its people slowly wasted away; violence formed the core of their ideology, rather than a necessary evil.

In movements for social change, remaining ethical requires keeping healthy discourse alive regarding tactics of change. So while violence does not inherently denude a movement of its ethics, once violence becomes the norm, and the unquestionable norm, a movement has gone to war. Furthermore, if a movement becomes more focused on hating the oppressor than lifting up the oppressed, there is a tendency to flip the script and become the oppressor. Often this is accompanied by a gaslighting of the “oppressor”, now a victim. One sees the most extreme example of this in the manuals at Tuol Sleng, where inmates were told “Don't be a fool for you are chap who dares to thwart the revolution” (Powers). Even when being tortured and killed, the victims were still told it is they who are trying to suppress a liberty-inducing revolution.

Journalists should’ve done more to share the horror stories under the Khmer Rouge, which may have forced the US or other countries to take military action against them. Newspapers ran few to no stories about Cambodia even at the height of the genocide. Samantha Powers explains how “the typical editorial neglect of a country of no pressing national concern was pounded exponentially by the “Southeast Asia fatigue” that pervaded newsrooms in the aftermath of Vietnam” (Powers). Essentially, journalists knew both left and right wing factions of the American public were sick of American intervention in Southeast Asia and would react adversely to stories calling for more US involvement. However, journalism should not obey the whims of the people: it should report on the truth. Of course, at first it was difficult because very few journalists who stayed were able to report. However, once refugees began sharing their words, newspapers should have run more stories.

Furthermore, this “Southeast Asia fatigue” clearly did not apply for long, as the US will back the Khmer Rouge in order to gain a strategic alliance with China. If the US truly wanted to stop intervening in South East Asia, they should not have aligned themselves with the KR.