learntoquestion ltq discussions

A fundamental problem that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology is that they tried to enforce communism in a way that everyone below the people who had superiority were equal, and those who are higher than them are able to take things away from them in order for the all knowing being, Angkar. This was shown in the movie First They Killed My Father as the soldiers took away Loung’s family car as they tried to make it seem like Angkar needed it. In addition to this, another problem that added onto the death of civilians is that the soldiers treated the civilians worse and gave them worse conditions to survive on, due to the fact that they were working for the cause of bringing up the society and giving back to Angkar. The third excerpt that we read also shows this as it gives a description of their long working hours and how they had to survive off of scraps in return. I don’t think that this makes communism inherently wrong since in a perfect communist society everyone would be equal to each other and would have a functioning society where everyone has the same benefits, but the Khmer Rouge’s interpretation of communism is where the issues spark up. Since the Khmer Rouge treated the civilians like they were prisoners in a way, it was almost as if they didn’t have a fully communist society as the soldiers and Angkar were above the civilians and had more superiority.

I feel like it’s a bit hard to say what could’ve been done on the international part to try and stop this sooner as some feared U.S. intervention would worsen the situation, but on the other hand I also feel like there should’ve been more intervention. There were clear signs of the horrors that were going on in Cambodia as there were many recounts on it, but majority of the time they were ignored. This was also touched on in the third excerpt as they said that there were numerous amounts of evidence showing the brutality of what was going on, and that people still thought that these recounts were exaggerations or rehearsed. I feel like the fact that many people assumed that they were exaggerating or rehearsing what to tell the public sounds like an excuse for people not to do anything to help them out. A start to aiding the Cambodians could be that they can start believing what journalists, diplomats, and relief workers were telling them instead of being skeptical about what they were hearing. Believing them comes with acceptance of the horrors that are occurring, and this could possibly lead to change as they accept that it is going on and something needs to be done. I think that the U.S. could’ve done more to stop the Khmer Rouge by finding ways to intervene in the way they were treating Cambodians, but also it’s complicated as Cambodians were being convinced that they needed to fight for the Khmer Rouge to protect themselves from the enemies, as shown in the movie when Luong was being trained. I think that if many countries came out and acknowledged what was going on there could be more change as there are more powers getting involved. But there are also downsides as too many countries trying to get involved can make it worse for the country and the people.

In my opinion, the Khmer Rouge’s vision for the future was flawed from the start, but their problem was that they were communist. The main problem was making people return to how they lived in the countryside, making them give up their homes, and modern technology was a very bad idea. This modern technology, which saved lives, also made them produce more food to keep them alive. With the inundation of people into the countryside, they knew they would have people starve to death; the amount of food required to feed the whole country would be impossible to produce. I feel it demonstrates the brutality and the madness associated with the vision that KR presented. Creating a police state from a regular society takes time, as seen in other societies. This creates a fear state, where people don’t like the regime and become against it.

Throughout the history of the world, change has always had some backlash associated with it, often negative, even when the change is a perceived positive for society. One example of this was the civil rights movement, where a certain group of people were against a movement that was positive for society. I feel that ethical change requires some sort of consensus, a group of people or the majority to decide to make change in society. An example of this would be a democratic vote on the process of such change, and have it run through and for the people. However in Cambodian society under the Khmer Rouge, there is no voice of the people, only Angkar. We can see this in the movie FIrst They Killed My Father“, Angkar”, which controls where the people go and how they live. This is an example of an unethical change, the leadership or government forces people to vacate and completely switch around their lifestyle so the government's vision of society is completed is an unethical change. For me, the line about how much suffering is tolerable starts at the harm of individuals in society. Once we compromise the safety of the well -being of any individuals of society, that is when the change should be stopped, even when the change is “good”. I feel when the struggle for change is making society worse, the change should be stopped.

During the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge, I felt that the international community would have had only one option: go into Cambodia and overthrow the Khmer Rouge government and set up a new government. This would have posed many problems, particularly in finding a country, or countries to vote for having their troops go into a foreign country. I feel that it would be almost impossible for any country with a large military at the time, particularly one with a democratic form of government, to get behind a resolution or agreement to invade Cambodia. I feel that national sovereignty is very important, and shouldn’t be overridden for just any reason, and I don’t know that it necessarily should be violated, and I think that is for the UN to decide and the UN to decide to go into a country, its the organization’s job as a collective.

There were many problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia such as taking away essentials for people such as memories of the past, family, and even tools that can only benefit them. Their whole vision depended on erasing anything personal or individual, which meant people were treated like pieces in a system instead of human beings. The Khmer Rouge claimed they were building a classless society, but they twisted communist ideas into something extreme and violent. Pol Pot believed that suffering proved the revolution was working, and Samantha Power shows in her writing that even reports of starvation and executions reached the outside world, the regime insisted that everything was necessary to “progress.” This was not a failure of communism in theory. But it is a failure of leaders who used ideology to justify cruelty and total control. Armed struggle has always been part of history, but the line becomes clear when violence stops protecting people and starts targetin them. A movement can claim it wants a better society, but if the path to that society requires mass suffering, then the movement has already failed and lost its purpose. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge kept saying the pain was temporary and justified, but the country was collapsing. No amount of suffering can be considered acceptable when the people that you claim to fight for are the ones being destroyed. When it becomes obvious a struggle is making society worse, the leaders have a responsibility to stop or change direction. The Khmer Rouge never did that, they pushed forward even as millions starved, were separated from their families, or were killed for reasons that made no sense. What makes this even clearer is that the Khmer Rouge did not just cross the ethical line by accident. They built a system where cruelty was normal and even encouraged. They believed that any sign of weakness or hesitation meant betrayal, so they kept escalating the violence. At that point, the struggle was no longer about improving society, it became about protecting that power of the people in charge. Ethical change should focus on reducing harm and giving people more control over their own lives. The Khmer Rouge did the opposite, they took control away from everyone and treated suffering as a tool. Once a movement reaches that stage, it is no longer a revolution, it is just another form of oppression, and the only ethical response is to stop it before it does more damage to people. The international community could have done far more to reduce the harm. Power’s excerpts show that the United States and other countries had enough information to know something terrible was happening, but they doubted the reports or did not see Cambodia as important to their interests. The Cold War shaped everything, and governments cared more about political alignment than about people suffering. Even after Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979, the United States and China still supported the Khmer Rouge’s seat at the United Nations, which slowed aid and made it harder for survivors to rebuild. National sovereignty matters, but it should not protect a government that is killing its own people. When a state commits mass violence, the international community has a responsibility to step in through pressure, sanctions, humanitarian aid or even anything they can do. In the case of Cambodia, earlier action could have saved lives. This tragedy happened because of an extremist ideology that was carried out by leaders who valued control over human lives and because the rest of the world chose not to act until it was too late.

The Khmer Rouge, a revolutionary regime, between 1975 and 1979 killed almost two million people. This was done through torture, starvation, and the displacement of people from the city to the rural countryside. They had to build everything up from scratch because ‘Angkar’ forbade the use of Western materials. Throughout those four years, the international community looked the other way as fear crept into their states.

The involvement of the international community to ameliorate the harm caused by the Khmer Rouge towards the Cambodian people is a controversial topic. This is because one wrong move can lead to an external conflict. Per the UN Responsibility to Act, the norm is that everyone who signed the document must use all of their resources to stop genocide if the UN Security Coucil calls for an intervention. While this is a legally binding document, countries are afraid of violating the sovereignty of the given country. However, the genocide was an internal affair meaning it was legally a domestic event even if they wiped out almost 25% of their population. Another point of view that was stated in an excerpt from “A Problem From Hell…” states that if they drew attention “to the slaughter in Cambodia (it) would have reminded America of its past sins”. The excerpt also mentions that “The media did not lead with these reports, and the politicians did not respond to them, but the stories did appear”. These two quotes show that if America got itself involved, they would be losing money and that was not in their best interest despite people’s lives on the lines. The press was posting stories about the situation but more involvement outside of the United States tired everyone out. In conclusion, there was a possibility of intervention through more awareness through the media but the countries were too afraid to violate the nation's sovereignty.

Through no intervention occurring, lots of suffering occurred to the Cambodian people. It’s very hard to determine which means were ethical or unethical for bringing about change. At the beginning of the year, we learned that the Jus In Bello and Jus In Bellum are two documents that highlight what is just and not during war. Specifically to this situation, I believe that it is ethical to target the military infrastructure and different operation forces. What is unethical is an intentional targeting of civilians, schools, hospitals and religious sites. Under the Geneva Convention, any mode of killing civilians even if it is a domestic affair is considered as a war crime. If the Khmer Rouge wanted to change the government, they could have done that without starving their civilians to death to promote change. They did not achieve anything with removing two million civilians, it was purposeless, only creating suffering for later generations and the history books. In the process many resources began to spread thinly. This argument can be countered as different people define what is unethical versus ethical differently. People’s moral, religious, and personal values all vary causing disputes about ethical methods.

We may never come to a full to a full agreement about the Cambodian Genocide however, these conversations are vital in deepening our understanding of world history both past and present.