Genocide and the KR

There werent a lot of Vietnamese left in Cambodia at that time, as many had fled after persecution by Lon Nol, and those that remained were expelled en-masse after the take-over. There was a policy to wipe out all the Vietnamese in Vietnam, but it came to no good. The Chams were only targeted after they staged a rebellion.

Of the Vietnamese that were not expelled, unlike any other ethnic group in Cambodia, 100% of them perished, targeted due to their ethnicity. Regardless of why the Cham were targeted, they were targeted for extermination as an ethnic group.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>true but couldn't it also be said that the 'new people' (previous city dwellers, middle to upper classes, the educated) were targeted compared to the 'old people' and were a particular social group...?<hr></blockquote>
Interesting thought, though the new people were not treated this way with uniformity. And though about twice the percentage per capita of new people perished as opposed to base people, the base people still suffered hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Why the continuing fascination with the KR.
It was 30 years ago. The nation and the people have moved on.

Do they still discuss Hitler in the German section of the West Europe thread?

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Why the continuing fascination with the KR.<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps because the first real trials of Khmer Rouge leaders for crimes against humanity are just beginning in Cambodia.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Do they still discuss Hitler in the German section of the West Europe thread? <hr></blockquote>

Are they in the process of starting UN trials right now in Western Europe?

Regarding the people having "moved on" - some have, some haven't.

cross posted with FP...

Just to put a little context to the discussion, here some comments from Philip Short, author of the most extensive biography of Pol Pot to date, Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare. Mr. Short made these comments earlier this year:

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Did Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge commit genocide?

No, not if words have any meaning. I think it's dangerous to make words elastic; to stretch their meaning to cover whatever you want them to cover. Genocide has a concrete meaning: it means an attempt by one group to exterminate another group because of who they are, not what they are. The Nazis exterminated Jews because they were Jews, not because they were bankers. That didn't happen in Cambodia. Pol Pot didn't cause the deaths of a million Cambodians because they were Cambodians. So crimes against humanity yes, but genocide no.

Then "genocide," in your opinion, is one of these "elastic words?"

It's the peculiar characteristic of spin doctors, totalitarian regimes and propagandists of every sort to deform the meaning of words to buttress a political case. Who first used the term genocide on Pol Pot? The Vietnamese, for eminently political reasons. This was swallowed by Western scholars and part of the international legal fraternity. It doesn't help the cause of truth.

Should they be charged with genocide?

If they're charged with genocide, I would argue there is an extremely strong case for acquittal. Pol Pot, for all his abominations, did not set out deliberately to exterminate the Cambodian people, and to pretend otherwise is to fall into the same trap that made the [1979 People's Revolutionary Tribunal] such a farce. Cambodia deserves better. Unless the tribunal establishes clearly what the Khmer Rouge leaders did and what they did not do, the closure that so many Cambodians hope for will remain a mirage. <hr></blockquote>

Fools,

Out of curiousity, how much of a stir is being made over there related to the transfer of You Bun Leng from the genocide tribunal?

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>It was 30 years ago. The nation and the people have moved on.<hr></blockquote>
Most people with experience in mental health or refugee health fields would disagree with the idea that people move on very well from a holocaust, mass murder, or genocide situation. In fact, the effects ripple down through generations. Even just being in combat has lasting effects.

b_c (CK)

Genocide as a legal term is bound to the UN convention signed in 1946. It was written by a Polish Jewish jurist (Lenski) and necessarily reflects the fresh horrors of WWII and the holocaust.
I agree with Hankor and Foolsprogress that within these limitations, the only possible case for a charge of genocide could be with reference to the Chams and, perhaps, Vietnamese. It will be very difficult to prove anyway. There is a much more solid base for the charge of crimes against humanity.

#9 Dancingroads: it seems that the policy of targeting former city dwellers was not implemented with uniformity throughout the country (same as with the Cham BTW), and since only the top leaders are likely to be indicted, thay could claim that it were the local cadre that acted that way on their own, not after precise instructions from the centre. In any case it would be difficult to argue that city dwellers were a different ethnic - racial - religious group.

Moe: that judge has not been transferred (removed) from the KR tribunal. He's got an additional appointment, at least for the time being. I'd say, wait and see.

SG