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 Khmer Rouge's ideology around everyone being equal, is incredibly unrealistic given today's society. All populations at this point in time are developed with unique education, technology, personal items, and individualism. Stripping people of basic rights, physicalities, safety, and more is incredibly unethical and there is no justification. Their community failed because it forced people to live an entirely dystopian life. When it comes to international intervention, I have complex opinions. I understand why it would not make sense from a political stand point for the US to not get involved, however the horror is in the lack of humanitarian value. Being complicit and aware of the atrocities that are happening is frankly disgusting. However, is it fair for the US to constantly be expending their resources and soldiers' lives for a nation that would cause complex problems for us and with no benefit to their own nation. It is most definitely selfish, but are governments not called to act in the best interest of their own people. How responsible are governments for other nations? I think in Cambodia the line was most definitely crossed, but even still how would they approach preventative or remedial action? I think expectations of governments to intervene are quite unrealistic. Issues are extremely more complicated then it seems and as people would hope. I think the most complicated layer of this issue is the fact that the ethical line needs to be drawn somewhere before intervention is necessary. If they act too early before it's direly needed, resources could have been wasted but if they let the conflict go on to the point where intervention is beyond necessary, a lot of damage has already been done and it will be harder for a government to make legitimate progress. Therefore, it starts to become less and less “worth it” to step in if they know they won't be able to accomplish a lot and so many lives have already been lost it can be considered too late. Another point that is important to recognize is why would only the US be the point person needing to help. There are other global powers that could have stepped in but people only expect the US too. Beyond that, nations would not even need to be a global power to have an impact on a society in that state. Cambodia at this time was undergoing intense destruction. If any nations deployed basic amenities, it could have been a pivotal point and let citizens escape. There are strategies and actions that surrounding governments could have gone through with, but the US ended up being to blame for not making progress. In regards to who would be to blame for the genocide itself and holding individuals accountable, I think it makes sense for all higher-ups and masters of manipulation to be held accountable. They are the orchestrators of the whole affair and deserve to pay for their disturbing actions. All in all, I think there is no clear answer in regards to morals and ethics and defining one in a situation that is this extreme and took the lives of so many, is insensitive.

I'm really torn on the matter of what the international community could or should have done to stop the Khmer Rouge. I feel like they should have done something, especially knowing how much they ignored as an excuse to do nothing. In the third excerpt we read from 'A Problem from Hell', Twining, who was stationed at the Cambodian border, mentions that someone told him that the Cambodian refugees practiced their stories before sharing them to make them sound as tragic as possible. This is appalling, as is the international community's inaction in the face of obvious genocide. It's also mentioned that "with the country sealed tight, statesmen and citizens could take shelter in the fog of plausible deniability," so it's obvious the US and other governments didn't do anything because it was inconvenient to use resources and interfere when they don't have any self-serving reason to do so.

However, I'm torn because US intervention rarely works. I feel like this was mentioned in one of the excerpts, too. The war in Vietnam was a glaring recent reminder of how ineffective US intervention can be and how much worse it can make the situation. If the US had sent troops into Cambodia, what would have happened? Would it have been another brutal war? I think this is a fair concern, but I do know that the US government had the wrong reasons for its inaction.

This shows another core problem with humanity and the systems we have established. Similar to how communism makes sense in theory but is ineffective in practice due to human greed, US intervention makes sense in theory but most likely would not have worked in practice due to human aggression. The first - and, honestly, only - form of intervention the US government considered was sending troops to fight the Khmer Rouge. In terms of humanitarian aid, they passed the task to Amnesty International, not even considering using US resources on helping refugees. I think that if the strongest countries in the world had better aid programs set up, and that they focused on helping refugees and providing enough food instead of just shooting the enemies, intervention could have worked.

However, if US troops had tried to get into Cambodia, likely the Khmer Rouge would have shot first, and force would have been needed to take the country back. So that begs the question, what could the international community have done? Obviously, Vietnam's invasion successfully deposed the KR, but many people died in the process and Cambodia ended up under foreign rule for a while.

I think the main thing the international community should have done was acted earlier. The Cambodian people deserved the chance to figure out their own way of life after colonialism, even if they chose communism. But once the country closed its borders off, that should have been a sign that they had something to hide, and investigations should have been done (and refugees should have been trusted) to confirm the mass murder and atrocities that were being committed and do something to prevent them.

I do think national sovereignty should be overridden if it is causing the mass suffering (and especially mass death) of citizens. However, as I previously mentioned, I'm not sure what the best way to do that is without resulting in more death and completely destabilizing the country's economy. I think the UN should work on putting a system in place specifically for scenarios in which a regime should be overthrown: one that will take care of the citizens and not start an all-out war.

I think there was a clear fundamental problem in the coercion of communism under the Khmer Rouge. In the film, “They First Killed My Father,” Loung was subjugated to multiple sorts of hard labor even at the young age of 8 years old. Throughout the film, the depiction of the drastic nature of the Khmer Rouge was repeatedly shown in the form of “restarting” society from year zero. The problem with this implementation is the scale by which the KR attempted to do this. The capacity of a full nation being regressed in terms of technological advancement and moral values. It is simply unrealistic to expect a nation to progress from a point of no basic food, no structure, or adequate implementation of a political system. I believe communism isn’t the correct way to run a nation but I think the KR is just an extremity among the examples of communism we have seen in history. Another point I’d like to touch on is mentioned in Excerpt 3 Chapter 6 of A Problem From Hell which describes the iconic quote of the KR that “to keep you is no gain, to kill you is no loss.” I think this quote perfectly summarizes the problem with the Khmer Rouge. The most practical sense of ideology when running a nation is the priority of the citizen. If you disregard a nation’s people, you create corruption, a lack of identity, and the rise of an uprise. This idea of merciless killing and a lack of sentimental value from your people is not sustainable for a nation. The Khmer Rouge had no true structure behind their sense of communism which showed when Thailand began to attack their borders in 1979. Communism relies on the idea of equality among all social classes. However, this idea of resetting society under the impression that progression unless under Cambodia is useless, creates a backwards sense of thinking among people. I think it was also unreasonable to rid Cambodians of European clothing and use. I believe in a way the Khmer Rouge relied on psychological techniques in order to shift the mindsets of their own people. Throughout the film we see many kids embrace the Khmer Rouge ideology and identity. This is presumably because it is all they have ever known since they were born. Instilling this mindset among younger children, like Loung did, allows for systematic change at a faster rate. When talking about armed struggle and the war, the lines to whether bringing about change is ethical or not comes down to intention and motivation. The extermination of a group or race for their sole being of their race is not ethical whatsoever. The idea of bringing change must be clear and thoughtful. The Khmer Rouge exterminated the line when they began killing innocent civilians for the sake of “year zero.” The line can also be considered as subjective. I think different nations hold different ethical values. The extremity of one’s religion or values can extend the line to a certain point. I think the sole purpose of the UN was to draw these lines in a way that addressed crimes against humanity and general crimes against the innocent. Ultimately, I believe this ethical line must be drawn between the intentions of a nation and their actions that go based off those intentions. The KR had a fundamental problem of disregarding the value of their own people, leading to genocide and the line of ethicality to be broken.

The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 was one of the worst genocides in history. It attempted to bring a Communist society to the nation by taking away class divisions and destroying institutions like schools and religion. It in turn caused the mass suffering and death of around two million people. It raises the question about if the problems in the attempt to bring communism to Cambodia was because of the ideology itself or because of the way that they tried to enforce it. One problem with the Khmer Rouge’s idea about communism is that they wanted to change society to communist seemingly instantly. The plan of action forced millions out of cities and into farms in the rural areas in order to farm and live together. Anyone that was seen as going against the Khmer Rouge’s ideology such as intellectuals were seen as enemies and targeted. This ideology ignored moral values and treated people as tools of the Khmer Rouge. As describe in A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power, the international community did not have correct information of what was happening and te scale of the atrocities. This allowed the Khmer Rouge to continue the policy for years without intervention from other nations. The genocide does not necessarily prove that communism is violent but it showcases ow it can become dangerious when interpreted in an extreme way. They believe that their method would create an agrarian society but pushed this through mass executions and starvation. They showed little to no regard for human life and believed that suffering was acceptable in order to achieve their goals This prevented them from seeing that their actions were actually destroying the country. The period also raised questions about change and struggle. Many movements have tried to use violence throughout history in order to go up against oppression. The situation in Cambodia shows the issue of allowing ideology to justify mass suffering. It began to harm the people it said it would help which showed how unethical the method was to begin with. The drive for a utopian society led to intense starvation and killings which showed how the struggle was making society worse instead of better. Many countries also had limited knowledge about what the Khmer Rouge was doing but there were still signs that issues were occurring there. There was lots of hesitation from other countries to intervene which allowed for a slow response from major powers. If there was more pressure internationally and humanitarian intervention there may ahve been a reduced version of the genocide. When governments commit crimes against humanity in their own nations there should be a responsibility for foreign powers to step in and put a stop to it. The Khmer Rouge serves as a picture of how ideology combined with power and disregard for morality can lead to immense consequences. The genocide in Cambodia shows us how poltiical shstems should be judged based on how ethical and moral they are instead of the goals that theys serve.

In the Khmer Rouge’s ideology, there weren’t any specific flaws that could be pointed out that led to the destruction of the Cambodian people. It is more in line to say that the flaws lay in their ways of carrying out their plans based on those ideas. The Khmer Rouge failed to think about how they would carry out communism. Though this also goes to show that in the first place, communism would, in any case, fail in actual practice. It shows that when attempting to share food “equally”, there would always be corruption of any sort, developing the question of what truly equal sharing of food could even be, how it should be handled, and every other piece of logistics necessary to run a society. The text mentioned that people were only allowed small portions of rice, and that anyone who dared to complain would be murdered. This is a symbol of a society that will be clearly unable to last, a symbol of the poor interpretation of communism by the leaders of the Khmer Rouge. Additionally, their specific targeting of the “intellectuals” was something misconstrued from the goals of absolute equality, where education and knowledge is necessary for all aspects of society. It demonstrates that intellectuals would destroy this incredibly confusing and restrictive society in some manner.

To answer the question of how much suffering must be tolerated for a better society, it first must be seen that a “better society” is defined. Then, to that point, it seems that a better society is one in which people are suffering less and prospering more. If, in the process of “suffering less” people suffer more, it is true that there will have been no point to it at all. For example, in the last text, it was shown that a child’s family was divided completely by the Khmer Rouge, and they would have been unable to reach that “better society”. To obtain a better society with cruelty and death creates a world that has to deal with great amounts of pain from loss, ultimately leading to further suffering. In realizing that this sort of change has more adverse effects, it should ideally be shut down by the government itself. Of course, it is not as if outside viewers had attempted to reverse this kind of genocidal rule either. This does also lead into the question as to who should intervene, and how they should do so.

In the specific case of the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia, the US had already made the issue prevalent in its bombing. So, does the US have responsibility for the consequences of those bombings? It seems that yes, they do. The immense suffering of people was caused by the US, and so it should therefore intervene. For the situation with the US, it seems that it is necessary for direct reparations for any losses caused by bombings should be repaid, in order to help. But in situations different to this, the question becomes “who has the right” to decide what society should intervene against, instead of being able to figure it out for themselves. A nation has the right to develop on its own, without external influence, though that is growing increasingly difficult in the increasingly interconnected world.

Some fundamental problems that were apparent in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology would be the mantra of “it's okay to kill innocents, in fear of leaving a single enemy alive”. This seems to be a pretty extreme interpretation of communism, especially compared to the USSR, Vietnam, and China. Killing 25% of your population also seems very extreme, and while there were mass killings in other countries, it wasn’t as extreme as killing 1 in 4 people, with the Khmer Rouge being recognized as extreme and warranting intervention from Vietnam, another communist country. While I do not support Communism, I think that its interpretation and implementation in Cambodia were absolutely disastrous. While there are some examples of countries that are still technically run by the “Communist Party”, the countries have adopted some form of capitalism-blend by today. I am also under the impression that Cambodia was on the path to becoming a “North Korea-like state”, with the Year Zero and totalitarian regime.

With armed struggle and war as a reality of life for people around the world, past and present, I think that sometimes, some form of armed resistance is necessary, but only in extreme cases. I think people should try to minimize bloodshed when possible. Suffering must have a good reason and lead to good outcomes; having people starve or be purged doesn’t seem like the way to me. For instance, in history, there is one instance where I wouldn’t mind having a dictator. That’d be Lee Kuan Yew, who transformed Singapore from a third-world country to a first-world country, through some strict rules and quotas and laying down the law, but he got results. I think that if the ends justify the means, then some sacrifice is worth it, but there is no need for needless killing. If there is a clear struggle for change, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, there should be some attempt at reform first, then some support for the resistance of the Khmer Rouge.

What should have been done by the international community was to support the intervention/support for the toppling of the Khmer Rouge regime. Normally, I’m very anti-intervention, but I think that in very extreme circumstances like these, one could argue that there’s a justification for intervening in another country. The international community shouldn’t have condemned and sanctioned Vietnam for invading Cambodia, as they clearly did the right thing and saved many lives from the Khmer regime. If countries chose not to intervene directly, I think they could have attempted to give supplies/ bring attention to the issues that were happening in Cambodia. For instance, in one of the excerpts, only Gerald Ford gave some form of acknowledgement about Cambodia, and coverage about Cambodia by US News channels was very minimal. National sovereignty should be violated when there is undeniable proof or evidence that mass human suffering and killing are occurring. There could have been some intervention by the US or other countries in combination with Vietnam, or some aid with refugee camps.

The tragedy of the Cambodian genocide shows how a political ideology with extreme leadership and international inaction can lead to huge consequences. Under the rule of the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, Cambodia attempted to make a radically new society based on an extreme interpretation of communism. Instead of creating equality and property, the policies of the Khmer Rouge led to suffering and the deaths of millions of people. The Cambodian case shows not necessarily that communism is flawed, but that the Khmer Rouge's rigid and violent interpretation of the ideology, with unrealistic goals, led to insane amounts of instability. One of the fundamental problems in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was their belief that society could be restored by getting rid of institutions and social structures. They tried to make what they called the “Yero Zero,” where cities were emptied, and people were forced to work in rural agricultural collectives. Intellectuals and anyone associated with the former government or foreign influence were treated because the regime believed they threatened the purity of the new society. This extreme social engineering ignored basic human needs. According to Samantha Power in A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, many international observers struggled to understand what was happening in Cambodia because reliable information was very hard to find, and the Khmer Rouge isolated the country. This isolation led the regime to construct its policies with little outside influence at the beginning of its rule. However, the destruction in Cambodia was not just the result of communist ideas alone. Communism, as a political ideology, has been expressed differently in many countries, some being more extreme than others. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge leadership used the ideology extremely and uncompromisingly. They believed that any suffering in the present was just to help achieve their vision of a perfect agricultural society. This way of thinking removed moral limits from their actions and made human life seem terrible. The problem was not just the ideology itself, but the way it was interpreted and enforced by leaders willing to sacrifice millions of people to achieve what they wanted. Another important issue raised by Cambodia is the role of the international community. During the years of the Khmer Rouge rule, many governments had some information suggesting that serious abuses were taking place, yet meaningful action was limited. Political concerns during the Cold War, uncertainty about the accuracy of reports, and the difficulty of intervening in another country all contributed to the slow response. Samantha Power describes how some policymakers dismissed early warnings or hoped the situation would become better on its own. As a result, the suffering of Cambodian civilians kept going until Vietnam invaded Cambodia and removed the Khmer Rouge from power. This creates an important question: when should the international community stop respecting national sovereignty to stop extreme human suffering? Usually, countries are expected to respect each other's independence, but when a government is clearly harming its own people on a massive scale, strict respect for sovereignty can allow atrocities to continue. In Cambodia, earlier international pressure or stronger diplomatic action might have lowered the scale of the disaster. At the same time, intervention is complicated because it can also lead to conflict or consequences. The challenge is finding a balance between respecting national independence and protecting basic human rights.

Ultimately, the events in Cambodia show how dangerous it can be when leaders pursue ideological purity without regard for human life. The Khmer Rouge believed they were building a better society, but their extreme policies destroyed the country’s economy and population. The tragedy also shows the responsibility of the global community to pay attention to the warning signs and act when governments commit severe abuses against their own people. By studying cases like Cambodia, societies can understand how ideological extremism and international action can combine to create humanitarian disasters, and hopefully work to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

In the Khmer Rouge there were many problems that existed. Many people were forced out of their homes in the city and had to move into the country. Many people that were deemed as “higher”, like being educated, were targeted heavily. Since the KR wanted everyone to be equal, they didn’t want anyone to act like they were better just because they have more education. The KR even started to make everyone call their peers comrade so it could stimulate equality and no social hierarchy. I think it does demonstrate that there's something wrong with communism. The extreme lengths that the KR went through just to attempt to make Cambodia classless was very harmful to their society.

I feel like no matter how much suffering it shouldn’t be tolerable to make a “better society”. I think that when the struggle is obviously making the society worse, someone should intervene. I think that the UN could've definitely helped. Since they are obligated to be peacekeepers and promote human rights, they could’ve helped many of the refugees gain a new home, and even maybe bring over people to help the peacemaking. I think what the community could have been done to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia, was being more public about it. I feel like if the people of Cambodia were seen in the public eye and media way more during the KR rule, than acknowledging the problem would've helped them way earlier. I wonder if anyone during the KR rule tried to rebel and if it almost worked? I think that sovereignty should be overridden when it comes down to genocide. I think that the UN should have intervened. They have a lot of power to at least help the people of Cambodia.

The Khmer Rouge’s reign over Cambodia from 1975 to 1970 stands as one of the 20th century’s most devastating exercises in ideological extremism. Examining what went wrong, and why the world largely stood by and watched, reveals uncomfortable truths about revolutionary politics, international responsibility and the limits of sovereignty. The Khmer Rouge’s ideology wasn’t simply poorly applied communism, it was communism weaponized through paranoia and disfigured past any recognition. Pol Pot envisioned “Year Zero,” erasing absolutely all of Cambodia’s existing past society in favor of an agrarian utopia. Cities were evacuated overnight, currency abolished, hospitals emptied, and intellectuals executed, sometimes for no more than wearing glasses. As Sok Udom Deth observes in “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea,” the Khmer ROuge dismantled almost every institution of civil society while also demanding rice production quotas that were seemingly impossible to meet, engineering mass starvation as a consequence of the policies that they put in place. This is not the failure of communism as a broad tradition, but it’s the catastrophic result of an ideology that got rid of its stated purpose of improving the lives of the people and instead became an instrument of control, purifying society. All ideologies can become genocidal when its leaders treat human life as an acceptable loss in the service of “improving their society.” This raises the harder question of means and ends. What Cambodia demonstrates is that when a movement’s methods are clearly destroying the population it claims to be liberating, and when the death toll comes not from an external opposition, but from the movement directives within, the moral case for keeping it going collapses entirely. A struggle for change that makes society 100% worse has ceased to be a struggle for change at all. In reality it's the struggle to destroy society itself. The failure of the international community to assist the people of Cambodia is equally as troubling. Samantha Power’s account in A Problem from Hell shows that information about the Khmer Rouge’s atrocities was available, as refugees were testifying and journalists were reporting, but Cold War politics prevented any meaningful response. The United States, still reeling from Vietnam, had almost no appetite to engage, and some officials were quietly relieved to see that Vietnam was being checked by the Khmer Rouge’s rise. National sovereignty was being used to onlookers from the genocide that was being preserved undisturbed. When Vietnam finally invaded in 1978, ending the Khmer Rouge Rule, much of the international community condemned the intervention for violating the sovereignty of Cambodia, a perverse outcome in which the only effective action was criticised while the genocide itself was completely tolerated. National sovereignty Can;t be absolute when within the borders the government is systematically destroying its own people. The mechanisms for intervention existed in theory but they failed due to selfish political self-interest. A more honest international community could have given economic pressure, spread the voices of refugees, and pursued complete intervention much earlier. Nothing that happened needed to happen. It was a choice to not intervene, made repeatedly, by governments that prioritized strategic conveniences over the millions of lives being lost in Cambodia. Under the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia became a case study showing compounded failure, using an ideology that devoured its own people, and did it with the whole world sitting there watching.

The fundamental problem in Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan is that they executed everything purely in violence and were not remotely communist. They had the concept of everything belonging to a community however that community was only their own upper class that they made. The point of communism is that everything is of the people for the benefit of the people and I don’t think there is a way to realistically do that. It is not an inherent flaw in communism but ideologically there can not be any government, anyone upper class, etc. yet that doesn’t work realistically as a system. The fundamental problems within Khmer Rouge’s ideology lie in the interpretation of communism which is fully wrong and their execution of their goals which were horribly violent. I do not think change must come with violence and I do not think violence has ever brought change only the aftermath of it. No amount of suffering is tolerable in a “better society” but with everyone’s different ideas of a better society there truly is no answer. Fundamentally a better society would involve equality and rights for everyone but to some their better society is the opposite of that so there is not a good way to execute a better society. In a case where the struggle for change is making things worse there is a responsibility to stop that, to replan and reformat how change should come about, and how that change would better society. In the case of the Khmer Rouge there should have been more concern, more intervention, and more justice served. Instead we wrote off survivor stories, didn’t take any warning signs seriously, and took far too long to intervene when we did accept the truth. National sovereignty should always be overridden when people are being executed, when people are being displaced, when people are being starved, when there is oppression of any kind. I don’t know who would intervene in Cambodia specifically but I definitely think America should have done more in the beginning, taken refugees seriously, garnered public support, call what was happening to the Cambodian people what it was which was genocide. The Cambodian Genocide only occcured due to the lack of support and belief around the situation and the Khmer Rouge only collapsed due to their flawed leadership and system.