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 one of the sources in your response and please respond in some way to at least one of the question sets. You can also refer to the film, First They Killed My Father after we watch it as a class on Monday.

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 3 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

The reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia represents one of the worst attempts at Communism during the entire Cold War. The complete disregard for human life, the family unit, and individual thought go beyond even dystopian fiction. Yet, Communism as an ideology has its own fundamental flaws, some of which directly resulted in the events that occurred in Cambodia.

Philosophically communism sounds like a utopian idea that cures all the ills of society by establishing equality. The issues lie in the means that are necessary to achieve such a goal. In order to create a society built around a single unified goal and collective action, there can be no tolerance for anyone who opposes or undermines the new ideas. Even without government corruption or mal-intent, the system itself does not allow for dissent since it breaks down entirely once people stop believing in the mission. In Cambodia, the KR responded by killing and torturing all those who might possibly oppose the regime. They trained children and separated them from their families to create a completely new society since otherwise there would always be those who wanted to live in the old system. Communism does indeed require a start from year 0, so the KR sought to establish this with all its available resources. Communism and capitalism alike can become dangerous once people forget there are alternatives to the status quo, but communism’s mere existence requires it.

Bringing about change unfortunately often leads to violence. Once existing institutions take a defensive position and shut out opposition completely, the only response left is overthrowing the government. While just war theory sets likelihood of victory as a criterion for taking up arms, this is often impossible for those seeking internal change. Certainly violence should be a last resort but in the context of a popular and justified revolution it can be tolerated so long as jus in bello principles are followed. Unfortunately this is highly unlikely given the military context of the modern age, but I would still consider it morally gray if it genuinely starts through a popular movement. When establishing a new order, there is never stability as certain voices will demand a return to life before and others will push for even more extreme action (take French and Russian revolutions, for example). In general, the best thing that can happen in such a society is for people to believe in the new government and make sure democratic principles are upheld without actually undoing the revolution. The alternative options often lead to extremism and then authoritarianism as people seek some sense of order. Essentially, even if economic circumstances and quality of life are not improving, the theoretical and ideological efforts of democracy and personal liberty should be prioritized.

The international community failed miserably in Cambodia despite having access to so much information. I do not personally believe that the general populace of the US can be held responsible given the lack of press coverage, the trauma of Vietnam, and the lack of attention from politicians. Still, many countries should have done more to provide humanitarian aid and assist refugees much sooner. Military intervention for humanitarian causes is a very murky subject but genocide is certainly a case where it is necessary. I think in the case of the US violating Cambodian sovereignty, intervening militarily would not have been beneficial and would have deepened regional tensions even further. We also would have been fighting a war against a bunch of child soldiers and caused even more death than there already was. Vietnam did well to intervene since it did have just cause and took on less risk than any western bloc nation, making it the appropriate country to respond to the crisis in Cambodia. I do think, however, that western countries should have acknowledged the atrocities in the region earlier and informed their people, who likely still wouldn’t adopt a hawkish stance on war anyway considering US losses in Vietnam.

This is a heavily loaded prompt, so in order to respond to all aspects of it, I will break down my response into three parts in accordance with the guiding questions:

a) It is really hard to grasp what exactly the Khmer Rouge’s ‘plan’ was, as there didn’t appear to be one, but I would describe their ideology as totalitarian, aiming to literally strip the Cambodian way of life down to the baseboards and rebuild as a self-reliant and ‘equal’ society. Based on the recounts of events that I have reviewed, I would conclude that the issue wasn’t with the communist ideal itself, but with the Khmer Rouge’s approach to it. While attempting to enact communism, the Khmer Rouge went on a killing spree, eliminating nearly ¼ of the Cambodian population and leaving tens of thousands of children orphaned without anywhere to turn. Moreover, there was no clear political plan for how the country would function following this revolution, contributing to the immense destruction caused by the Khmer Rouge. I also believe that it is worth mentioning that, although I do not believe that the communist ideal in itself is flawed, when applied to the human race, I believe that it will never be able to truly achieve utopia, as the elimination of personal desire seems impossible, and even if it were achieved, would it really feel like a utopia.

b) In itself, attempting to answer the question of “how much violence is suitable if it achieves a better society?” feels wrong, but if I were to establish a standard for how we identify when suffering has surpassed the ‘tolerable limit’ in achieving a better society, I would look at a) the incremental progress and b) those being targeted. In regards to incremental progress, this standard would establish that suffering would need to be used in incremental periods, with proof that society is improving for the general population in between these periods; the idea behind this is that a government/organization cannot simply eliminate half of their citizens and say “trust us, if you let us continue you will see the benefits”. Furthermore, examining those being targeted aligns with incremental violence as it allows us to see if there is really a motivation for the killing or if it is preexisting bias; for example, there is no world in which eliminating a religious/ethnic group would actively foster a more functioning society, but if it were protesters against the government, there could be a legitimate reason for the violence.

How we should react when it is clear a society is changing for the worse, not the better, is difficult, as there are so many international laws, and we have no way of knowing that the country that interferes will not continue contributing to a society’s decline. With this in mind, I would recommend that we leave the determination of when to interfere to neutral international organizations such as the Red Cross, and when they make the determination that it is necessary to interfere, countries with the means should engage while attempting to minimize fatalities and destruction, while promising not to overstay their welcome.

c) As an American, I recognize that there may be unrealized biases in this response, however it is my opinion after doing further reading that one way in which the international community could have ameliorated the harm done to Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge would be for other countries such as Great Britain or other european power houses to stand by the people of Cambodia. The United States continuously interferes with affairs that they shouldn’t be involved in; however, they have also done a great deal of good, whereas other countries with similar assets have not had the same impact. I believe that, as a world, we can do more to address all instances of genocide or immense suffering if more countries/groups step up and help resolve the issues. Whenever we discuss interfering with a country's internal affairs, the question of sovereignty inevitably comes up. To this, I would say that when it is clear that a) society is changing for the worse, b) innocent groups/people are at risk, and/or c) there is the potential of prolonged unnecessary violence, it is not just appropriate, but a requirement that the international community step up and step in.