learntoquestion ltq discussions

Armed struggle and war are a reality of life, and have been since the beginning of time. Under oppressive conditions, the human instinct is to stand up and fight back, and often violent struggle is the clear way to do so, especially to those who are experiencing trauma and are driven by strong feelings of anger and fear. War, however, is unforgiving, and often takes on a life of its own, in which goals are taken too far, and the value of others lives are pushed aside as a means to an end.

A better society should not come about through suffering or force, but through the will of a people seeking a better future, not just for themselves, but for their entire community. Effective and productive change is change that happens peacefully through organizing power and the desire of a community for a better world. Change can be revolutionary without being violent. Change should be ethically driven by a desire to aid and benefit as many people as possible and improve the current systems in which those people live.

In the instance of the Khmer Rouge, the change the regime implemented was forced, with unclear goals and intentions which harmed the majority of the population, while benefiting a small and corrupt minority. The KR ideology was not one that most Cambodians agreed with or believed in, and the means the regime used to achieve their goals and impose their values upon Cambodian society, such as torture, forced labor and indiscriminate murder, were atrocious.

There is also the matter of outside influences and perspectives. On an international scale, countries must make judgments on whether to support (or otherwise intervene with/take a stance on) movements for change. Unfortunately, countries rarely view their intervention through the lens of human rights and freedom, but through the lens of geopolitics.

In the case of US intervention towards the oppressive KR regime, Samanatha Power writes how the US considered: “Which was a lesser evil, a regime that had slaughtered some 2 million Cambodians or a communist regime backed by the Soviet Union that had flagrantly violated an international border and that now occupied a neighboring state?” Outside forces (in this case the US) decide to take a side in war by deciding on a balance of lesser evils that comes from a skewed perspective of what is just and what is not.

There are two primary reasons for this. The first is that the US had different priorities than the Cambodian people, the ones being directly affected by the state of conflict in their country. The second is a little more complex and relates to the different effects and implications of change on different people. The US had a skewed perspective on the way the KR rule was impacting different people. US diplomats and officials viewed Cambodians as eager and desirous of the change the KR was implementing, and at the same time saw Cambodian lives as less valuable than others. This meant that the US was willing to overlook the flaws in order to support their own agenda.

War is inherently unethical, and there may be a difference between armed struggle and war, but both link back to a fundamental question about justness of violence in different contexts. It is easy to condemn poor choices in a struggle for a better world, but it is far harder to put into action the principles of a fair movement for change, and this leaves humans in limbo, with no “proper” way to bring about a better world.

The Khmer Rouge had a multitude of foundational problems, but I would argue that their worst was their notion of restarting Cambodian society at “year zero.” By deciding to remake society from “year zero,” the Khmer Rouge made mass death and destruction a requirement of their regime, which is, of course, deeply flawed. In her section titled “Wishful Thinking,” Samantha Power explains that “violence was not an unfortunate byproduct of the revolution,” but rather “an indispensable feature of it”: in order to create a homogenous Cambodia at “year zero,” the Khmer Rouge had to get rid of government officials, educated people, soldiers, ethnic minorities, and anyone else who might have taken issue with this plan (Power “A Problem from Hell”: Cambodia 101). Inevitably, this meant mass murder.

In addition, the Khmer Rouge was constantly suspicious of everyone in Cambodia, including their own soldiers. Thus, they operated under the mantra “It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free” (Power “A Problem from Hell”: Cambodia 120). This was another symptom of their “year zero”plan; in order for it to work, they had to eliminate everyone who might not have been on board.

While the Khmer Rouge’s version of communism was clearly perverted, I do think there is something to the fact that every communist regime has become oppressive, and almost every communist revolution has caused the deaths of millions of people. To me, these suggest that communism is the oasis of political theories: it is enticing and exciting to consider, but when it is implemented, we see it for what it quickly becomes: violent and oppressive.

As souplover says, the Khmer Rouge “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.” In my mind, positive change should never kill anyone, and if something we think of as positive change starts killing people, we need to question whether that change is actually beneficial.

In addition, it is acceptable for people to struggle when bringing about a “better society,” because change is difficult, and even without change, every nation has its own problems. However, I do not find it acceptable that people suffer to improve society, because suffering suggests poor quality of life; if a change puts people in situations of great hardship (such as the communes in Cambodia), that change is not an improvement.

When it becomes clear that a struggle for change is making society worse (such as Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge), the leadership of the country and the international community are compelled to step in and help people.

In the case of Cambodia, it is clear that the international community should have intervened early on, but it is difficult to assess their realistic options. The American media and government could have given the Khmer Rouge’s atrocities more attention/coverage, but this would almost certainly have had no effect on the Khmer Rouge; the Americans could have bombed Phnom Penh, the KR headquarters, although this would have been difficult to justify in the wake of the Vietnam War.

In cases such as the Khmer Rouge, I think national sovereignty needs to be overridden to end the immense suffering of people; of course, the idea of overriding a nation’s sovereignty is very dangerous, and a decision to do so demands irrefutable evidence both of the given nation’s crimes and the ineffective nature of other solutions. This unfortunately makes situations such as KR-ruled Cambodia even more complex.

The haunting legacy of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia serves as a grim reminder of the complexities surrounding the idea of communism, and the radical was that a group of people are able to manipulate into something else.

The atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge regime under Pol Pot’s leadership were undeniably heinous, resulting in the deaths of millions of Cambodians through forced labor, starvation, execution and brutal murders. There was an obvious and inherent flaw within their ideology, however, it is essential to distinguish between the twisted interpretation and execution of communism by the Khmer Rouge leaders and the broader principles and ideologies of communism itself. While the Khmer Rouge’s actions were extreme and reprehensible, they are not representative of communism as a whole, rather, they reflect the dangers of totalitarianism and ideological extremism when coupled with absolute power and manipulation.

The ethics of revolutionary struggle come into focus when looking at the entire tragedy and regime as a whole. Armed conflict has historically been a means of challenging oppressive regimes and addressing social injustices. But, a question arises: How much suffering is justifiable in the pursuit of societal change? How far can one go to reach a goal? The Khmer Rouge’s ruthless and inhumane pursuit of their vision led to unimaginable suffering for the Cambodian people, rising the profound ethical questions about the responsibility of revolutionary movements to prioritize the wellbeing of citizens and adhere to ethical standards even amidst conflict--something that the Khmer Rouge failed to do, and rather, do to the complete opposite of.

Furthermore, the international community's response, rather, the LACK of it in response to the Cambodian tragedy reveals the complexities and difficulties in regard to humanitarian intervention and the principle of national sovereignty. Samantha Powers writes “Options ignored; futility, perserverity, jeopardy - the tragic cycle of inaction”, further showcasing the detrimental outcome of inaction within a genocide. And, despite the widesprad awareness of the genocide and the numerous journalists trying to shed light on the issue, political considerations and Cold War dynamics hindered effective action or even any action at all. Not only this, in “...every Cambodian's mind, it was the concrete features of a horrifying, immediate war that won out over the more abstract fear of the unknown. The toll of the civil war on Cambodia's civilians had been immense.” The failure of the international community to intervene decisively to stop the atrocities highlights the limitations and challenges of upholding human rights on a global scale.

The tragedy of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime underscores the importance of responsible governance, ethical revolutionary struggle, and international solidarity in preventing human rights abuses and promoting social justice. These atrocities were a STARK warning of the dangers of totalitarianism and ideology extremism, but they do not condemn communism as a whole as it was something completely different and extremely radical. Instead, they remind us of the imperative need to uphold human dignity and rights in ALL societies, and the need for international intervention to act collectively in the face of humanitarian crises, and more importantly, rising genocides.

The Khmer Rouge’s ideologies and plans were rooted in the hatred of certain minorities and the fact that all things had to go their way in order to continue. Basically, if they weren’t in total power, they would not succeed, and nobody can be in total power all of the time, so their regime was bound to fall eventually. According to ‘The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea,’ “the leaders of DK also aimed to create a classless society,” which is the structure of communism, and on the surface it looks like it would be beneficial to make sure people are equal and everything is fair, but communism has never proved to be effective, and most societies have moved to either facism or a mixture of communism with another form of government, such as China. I think that communism inherently seems like a good idea, but because of the interpretation of one or a small group of leaders, it always ends up being taken too far by power hungry individuals. This is seen in the Khmer Rouge, where they tried to make communism where everyone works and nobody is unique, they eliminated religion and freedom of expression, which does not benefit a society.

It is difficult to draw a line between what is ethical and unethical when bringing about change, especially because it wholeheartedly depends on the situation and the context and history behind something. While suffering to bring about a better society seems like it is a bad idea, there are some examples in history where it did bring about a better society. For example, the civil rights movements came with much suffering. However, this could have been avoided if the people in power were not trying to differentiate themselves because of their fear of another group of people. In the Khmer Rouge, the elites and guards and people in power were afraid of becoming workers and abused, and so they conformed to do what they were told. They did not want to be the lowest group so they caused others to suffer, which is seen throughout many genocides and oppressions such as the Holocaust or the systemic racism in America. It also is an incorrect utilization of communism and is more fascist, because they are not all equal, but rather there are two classes and one is treated inhumanely.

‘Seeperspective’ made a point that “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.” I agree with this statement because the claim that arresting 10 people to serve justice for one person is completely missing the point of justice. It is not getting justice to harm 10 people in order to send one to jail, and that idea being perpetuated is harming the justice system that is already so messed up, especially because the Cambodian trials are so difficult to run.