Genocide and the KR

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Why the continuing fascination with the KR.It was 30 years ago. <hr></blockquote>

The Khmer Rouge were around as an organization till 10 years ago.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>The Khmer Rouge were around as an organization till 10 years ago.<hr></blockquote>

Some of them are still running the place.

In SaNiTy wE trUst

Just as a note

#19 it was Raphael Lemkin, not Lenski who created the term and pushed for what became the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide.

Also, as noted by others, the definition of genocide relates to four groups of people- national, ethnical, racial and religious. Political groups are notably absent from this rigid definition, mainly due to the need for all Members of the Security Council at the time (1948 if I remember correctly) to ratifiy this. Including political at the time would have meant that Russia/USSR would never have agreed to it. There is a great account of all of this in Samantha Power's book A Problem from Hell. Had this been a apart of the definition then many things that occurred in Cambodia during that period would have undoubtably been considered genocide, but I think that #16 makes some really good points. Genocide is a narrow legal definition that is often used to refer to all sorts of acts that are not, by that definition, genocide.

As another aside, what can be defined as genocide can actually be what could be considered quite small scale acts. Anyone interested can view it here (one of many places it can be found). For those that are interested, note when the USA signs the threaty. The number of reservations that it places on it's acceptance of this Convention are also interesting.

gun convention on genocide, 1948

i know most of the readers will hate me, and probably this post will be deleted from the branch, but still i want to give some ideas for consideration:

- history is always written by the winners
- the Khmer Rouge liberated the country from a horrible regime
- under the conditions that Vietnam had occupied large parts of Kampuchea, that Vietnam had an army several times stronger and much better equiped, how could the Khmer Rouge fight on for 20 years if they hadn't the support of the people?
- an egalitarian community, without money, without exploitation, that was the ideal of many, many people around the world in the 1960th and 70th.
- many people died during the rule of Khmer Rouge, but the reason was not the Khmer Rouge but the destruction of the country by American bombs and the subsequenty poverty (comparible to Iraq, but Campuchea had no oil it could exchange for food).
- yes, the Khmer Rouge executed people, but many (most?) were guilty of terrible crimes, for example landloards that treated peasants like slaves.

I am not hating you LaoSichuan but what's the point of what you wrote? Are you trying to justify Khmer Rouge's atrocities? Or finding excuses?

If you had read some history books, you'd know history is not always "written by the winners". Many foreign scholars have written comprehensive books about Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge regime. Have you read some of them?
The Khmer Rouge liberated from a horrible regime? Tell me, what did they replace it with? How many people died before the Khmer Rouge regime and how many during their regime?
You're talking about the 60s and 70s "ideals". That's interesting. And what ideals were put in place when those people took power?

I guess you feel very confortable in Australia. Maybe you could use your time reading some books. You may become slightly wiser.

Amazing, who'd have thought we'd still have apologists for the Khmer Rouge wandering about even now. I'm at a loss for words...

LaoSichuan's post is very disturbing.

Whether or not you agree with applying the term genocide to the Cambodian experience of mass murder depends on whether you take the UN Convention's definition to be the be all and end all or not. The Convention was drawn up and passed by countries that were concerned that mention of action carried out with intent to destroy political groups and social classes would incriminate themselves.

In my opinion, what happened in Cambodia was not genocide, but only because it is so poorly defined. We could call it democide or politicide, but I'd rather that we got past the politically curtailed GC definition.

Interesting post #23, and sure to stir up some reaction.

To address some of the points:

Yes the Khmer Rouge replaced a "horrible" regime, with the Lon Nol government committing numerous crimes against people and opponents. Mind you, Lon Nol had replaced Sihanouk who also was not above the elimination of political opponents and the suppression of dissent within the country. But are you suggesting that because the replaced one regime that they are somehow better? By that logic you could say the same thing about Lon Nol to some extent... which tends to negate your argument.

As for your comment "history is always written by the winners", well that is one of those lovely cliched sayings that people like to bandy around all of the time. History is much more complex than something as simple as this. If you had noticed the "history wars" in Australia over the early Australian settlers and their clashes with the Aborigines recently you would have seen that history is a contestable space. Revisionists, historians approaching history from different perspectives, it is not one monolithic idea that is passed down and accepted by all. And as for winners, who are you referring to? The Vietnamese?

As for the Khmer ROuge fighting on for 20 years, can I suggest that you may like to look at any number of history books on Indochina in this period, or the book I mentioned in an earlier post, Samantha Power's A Problem frm Hell. It is quite interesting to note that once the Vietnamese had occupied Cambodia that the USA supported their claims to a seat at the UN over any government installed by the Vietnamese. That has nothing to do with the people of Cambodia. Likewise, the Khmer Rouge were tolerated and supported by the Thais as they were a part of a barrier against the perceived threat of Vietnamese expansion during this period. So once again, hardly the support of the people of Cambodia as a whole. International support was much more important in the continuation of the Khmer Rouge's continued fight during the 1980s and 1990s.

In terms of the executions of numerous people, can I just ask, have you been to Tuol Sleng? Or Chhoung Ek? Because it defeats me how babies being dashed against trees can be regarded as justifiable. Likewise, the execution of people because they were of a certain class in society, or because they were educated, or because they 'looked' like they were educated (ie wore glasses) would hardly be considered a crime in most just societies. And even by your own argument, how is treating someone like a slave a justification for execution?

I think Laosichuan that you need to go and read some more (much more) about the period. And if you are afraid of "winners history" you might like to note that some of the most emminent historians in regards to this area of history, like Ben Kiernan, were early supporters of the aims and goals of the Khmer Rouge, but have changed there opinion on this markedly.

Perhaps you should as well.

I guess that cretin isn't going to respond, but man it was really amazing and disturbing to read that post.

Moe

I was amazed also about the post. There are some positives in a post like that, though. It gets us to look at what we know about things and justify our own ideas and beliefs for ourselves. It is really easy to say "the Khmer Rouge were evil and terrible" without actually knowing anything about what went on. Kind of like the sweeping generalisations made by the poster ("history is written by the winners").

But it will be interesting to see if they reply... it's not that they haven't been around.

g