Khmer Rouge jailer says U.S. contributed to Pol Pot rise

[Coventina]

Source: Reuters

PHNOM PENH (Reuters) - Pol Pot's chief torturer told Cambodia's "Killing Fields" tribunal on Monday that U.S. policies in Indochina in the 1970s contributed to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

Duch, the first of five Pol Pot cadres to face trial for the 1975-79 reign of terror in which 1.7 million Cambodians died, said the Khmer Rouge would have faded if the U.S. had not got involved in Cambodia.

"Mr Richard Nixon and Kissinger allowed the Khmer Rouge to grasp golden opportunities," the 66-year-old former jailer said at the start of the second week of his trial by the joint U.N.-Cambodian tribunal.

Duch, whose real name is Kaing Guek Eav, was chief of the notorious S-21 prison where more than 14,000 enemies of the revolution were tortured and killed.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5351VF20090406

---

This is why the US has not exactly been happy about seeing these trials go forward.

But go forward they must! The whole, ugly truth must come out!!

[cobalt1999]

1. Sorry, the KR is responsible for their own behavior

Even if the U.S. actions allowed them a opportunity to seize power. Once they had that power, they choose how to wield it.

Blaming the U.S. sounds like a teenager blaming his parents "YOU let me get a drivers license" after being jailed on a DUI

[Coventina]

2. Of course the KR are responsible for their own actions.

I never meant to imply anything different.

However, China and the United States HELPED the KR, and are therefore at least partly responsible. Supporting Pol Pot in the UN isn't comparable to giving a teenager a driver's license.

I'd rank the guilty parties in the atrocities as:

1. Khmer Rouge
2. China
3. United States
4. Thailand

Many United States citizens are unaware of the part the United States played, and I'm hoping that these trials, while bringing the KR to justice, will also expose our own failings, so that we can at least learn from them.

on edit: grammar

[cobalt1999]

3. While I might agree with your rankings #1 - #4...

The degree of responsibility between #1 and #2-#4 is so HUGE it's almost meaningless to discuss.

[Winterblues]

8. Why did you leave Vietnam off your list?

Don't you recall the invasion of North Vietnamese forces immediately after they took over South Vietnam? They were the force that decimated Cambodia and allowed the Khmer Rouge to take power.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. The forces of re-unified Vietnam were also primarily responsible for toppling

Pol Pot and ending the genocide.

Just saying.

By the way, there was never any such country as "North" or "South" Vietnam.

[mainer]

11. Thanks for reminding us that it was Vietnam that ended the nightmare

And the U.S. had the gall to condemn them for attacking Pol Pot!

[ieoeja]

14. Of course, there was never any such country as Vietnam either.

The Viet people finally conquered the last of the Khmer and Champa kingdoms in modern day Vietnam in the 1700s. But there were four different Viet kingdoms at the time. By the 1800s the two smaller Viet kingdoms were no more, but the two big ones continued well into the century divided between the Trinh and Ngyuen. Territorially, the division was almost identical to what would become North and South Vietnam.

In the middle of the century the Ngyuen made an alliance with the French that helped them conquer the Trinh creating the first united Viet kingdom to rule over all of modern day Vietnam. This wouldn't last half a century before differences with the French led to France taking over.

So for a very brief time period there was a unified Vietnam under a Vietnamese king. But it was a in part a creation of the French.


And, of course, the US role in Pol Pot's rise wasn't in assisting him. He was NEVER an ally of the US as some conspiracy nuts seem to think. The US "assisted" Pol Pot's rise only in the fact that our engineered coup created instability that Pol Pot took advantage of against all our efforts.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Neither the RVN nor the DRV considered the 1954 demarcation

to be a permanent political boundary, and indeed, the treaty itself explicitly states that it should not be thus considered. In a very technical sense, neither country was called "North" or "South" Vietnam. That language was invented by American propagandists to mimic the feel of the Korean invasion for what was largely a continuation of the anti-colonial struggle across the whole of the territory. That said, it's certain that the northern part of Vietnam and the southern part of Vietnam have some significant cultural differences rooted in a complex history, and considering the territory of contemporary Vietnam to be a nation-state is a fragile as thinking of contemporary Italy as "one nation."

I'll just note that I made no comment on any "US role" in supposedly "assisting" Pol Pot, so that part of your post was likely aimed at somebody else, no?

[ieoeja]

17. RVN never signed a treaty.

The treaty was odd in that it was only signed by France and the Viet Minh, yet gave control of the southern half to the non-Communist forces, none of whom signed the thing.

When the Japanese forces stood down, various Vietnamese factions began fighting for control. Ho Chi Minh first concentrated on his own by purging the Trotskyites, etc until the Stalinists were firmly in control. The united Communists then turned their attention to the non-Communist Vietnamese. In the meantime, Britain arrived and took control of the region for several months until they could hand it off to France.

Eventually, the non-Communist and Communist Vietnamese called a truce among themselves to concentrate on the French. This ultimately led to the compromise between the French and Viet Minh. As part of the agreement, Communist military forces were supposed to head north; non-Communist ones, south. The bulk of them did (Ho Chi Minh, himself, was a southern Nguyen who went north). And non only the military factions as over two million Vietnamese migrated from the north seeking relative freedom in the non-Communist south.

One large Communist military faction stayed in the south which would have been the first violation of the agreement. But just as none of the non-Communist forces signed the Treaty, neither did any of the Communists who stayed behind. So they were violating an agreement to which they had never agreed.

Whether RVN considered the demarcation permanent or not, we have no way of knowing. Maybe, had the non-Communists factions already been united, they would have tried taking possession of the entire country. But they had not, so it was the Communist forces that moved first when the south refused to participate in nationwide elections. And the non-Communists certainly had no intentions of surrending to the Communists without a fight.


The Pol Pot comment was just about the thread in general. So not aimed at you, yes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. You're certainly right

that the RVN was constituted in direct violation of the explicit terms of the treaty. It only took trucking Bo Dai back from the French Riviera and the totally legitimate 99.6% election of Washingtonian Ngo Dinh Diem to formalize that completely forthright arrangement. It's also clear that the vast majority of Viet Minh regrouped according to the treaty as directed. Had Diem not begun decapitating their hapless relatives with his roving guillotine squads, it's not clear when they would have decided to head back south.

[Winterblues]

25. How about North or south Korea?

:shrug:

[SOS]

27. The KR took power in 1975

Vietnam did not invade until November of 1978.
Vietnam ended the KR genocide.

Carter, Reagan and Bush all recognized the exiled KR as the legitimate government of Cambodia until 1989.

[On the Road]

13. Thank You for Posting:

I am still learning things about Cambodia in the 70s beyond the succession of leaders:

Prince Sihanouk
Lon Nol, Leader of Military Coup
Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge
Heng Samrim, put in by the Vietnamese

I had not known the US actually allied itself with the Khmer Rouge. They did have a lot to do with their taking power, notably

(1) carpeting-bombing eastern Cambodia to attack Viet Cong, thereby weakening government control and increasing support for the Khmer Rouge, and
(2) Instigating a military coup that had zero popular support and further strengthened the rebels.

Chomsky has been vilified for years by claiming that the outrages of the Khmer Rouge have been overblown in an attempt to exonerate the US. It's hard to know the truth of the matter, but his viewpoint is very instructive.

[marshall]

20. China is WAY more responsible for the KR than the US

China was the only link to the outside world that Pol Pot's government allowed--they were the only force that could have done anything to stop the atrocities.

The US holds some responsibility, but that will never come to light. China would have to admit its part (which is tenfold) in the whole mess and that will never happen.

[Coventina]

26. ITA. I put the US third, but it's a distant third. n/t

[Chulanowa]

4. Yes, because we had nooooooo idea what the results might be

Allow me to correct your teenager metaphor. What the US did in Cambodia was basically handing keys and a bag of coke to an already drunk-off-his-ass teenager.

[Tempest]

6. BINGO!

Damn, I wish I would have come up with your analogy.

[ieoeja]

18. Since we did not hand the keys to Pol Pot, both metaphors fail.

A better metaphor would be the US as a father who taught his children to disrespect their mother and then left the younger, weaker son in charge of protecting their mother from his older, abusive sibling.

[paulk]

24. how could they have known?

I mean, really. Who would have suspected that they were that fanatical - to kill 2.5 million people (out of a population of 17.5) to kill their teachers, their artists - to move everyone out of the cities and into the countryside - where they would be peasants, working the land.

When I went to Cambodia, a part of me, knowing the history, was fully prepared to blame the US - but it was just too big, too overwhelming - the level of atrocity. In the final cut - it was Cambodians killing other Cambodians. There was something in their culture that unleashed a beast so vicious that it ate itself.

That's what I came away with - yes, perhaps some of the blame falls on the US for creating a situation that allowed the Khmer Rouge to come to power - but the final blame rests with the Cambodian people themselves.

[Chulanowa]

30. Where else can we apply that logic?

How could we have known what our demolition of Iraq's government and infrastructure would have had?
How could we have known what our mindless backing of Israel would do to the Palestinians and Lebanese?
How could we ever have forseen that our economic blackmail could have such massive effects in Africa and Latin America?

Do not ever give me the line "How could they have known?" These situations do not take a genius to figure out, Paulk. The exact results may be a mystery... But we can get some surprising detail just from basic application of logic, historical pattern, and social theory.

Take your pick. Either we can be a force in the world that has a nasty habit of fucking up other people when we think it might be in our benefit, or we can be a collective of clueless idiots with no knowledge of politics or history, who for some reason are still one of the most influential and powerful nations i nthe world.

[paulk]

35. it's too easy

I guess that's my point. It's too easy to blame the USA for all the evil in the world.

One thing I learned in my travels in Asia is that there is plenty of evil to go around.

[Chulanowa]

36. Leave the straw man behind, Dorothy

Nobody here is "blaming the USA for all the evil in the world."

We are instead blaming the US for shit the US did. I know that's a highly offensive and incomprehensible notion for some, but there you go.

[paulk]

37. but then we're back to the original argument, aren't we?

you are blaming the US for the Khmer Rouge and their atrocities, I'm saying that , while the US policies at the time played a role, the lion's share of the blame belongs to the Khmer Rouge and the people of Cambodia.

It is hardly a highly offensive and incomprehensible notion for me that the US is responsible for it's share of "shit", speaking of strawmen, but there definitely is a certain segment on the left who does blame the US for everything that's wrong in the world.

I should know, I used to be one of them - but I've come to realize that there has been a lot of good to go along with the bad.

[Chulanowa]

38. I'm saying without the US' involvement, the atrocities wouldn't have happened

And that while the US planners wouldn't have known specifics, they would have known that their actions would have resulted in nothing but problems for Cambodia. Was the US crawling through the killing fields and tossing bodies in pits? No. But it was our guys who made such things possible.

Again, it's like handing the keys to a drunk person and then trying to take no responsibility when he plows down a sidewalk.

Definitely a certain segment on the left? Like who? Do tell, O convert.

[Tempest]

5. The point is

The KR would have never gotten into power if it wasn't for the U.S. bombing in their country.

The Cambodian government had strong support of the people and the KR were a small rebel force that was completely ignored by the population.

It wasn't until the Cambodian government gave tactical approval of the U.S. bombing, and then failed to condemn them when scores of civilians were being killed that the people turned to the KR and they got the power to overthrow the government.

[western mass]

31. Let's add: the US bombing campaign directly contributed...

to the mass death that followed the KR takeover in 1975.

"The Khmer Rouge murdered 2.5 million Cambodians" that's repeated without fail when we talk about the KR (just look further up in this dicussion) is the propaganda version of what happened. What really happened is:

The Khmer Rouge murdered some of those people.
Most of those people died.

Why did they die? A combination of KR policies and the fact that 5 years of US carpet bombing left a devastated infrastructure, destroyed harvests, and cities overcrowded with peasant refugees that led to food shortages, famine, and disease.

[eridani]

32. Without the intensive bombing of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge would have had no support n/t

[flamin lib]

7. I'd move the United States up on that list of 1-4.

Reagan was even more complicit in the Killing Fields. That administration actually gave aid and comfort as well as money and arms to them. Why? Because the enemy of your enemy is your friend and the KR was fighting the Vietnamese communists.

From the Global Policy Forum: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/polpot.htm

"Direct contact was made between the Reagan White House and the Khmer Rouge when Dr. Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the C.I.A., made a clandestine visit to Pol Pot's operational base inside Cambodia in November 1980. Cline was then a foreign policy adviser to President-elect Reagan. Within a year some fifty C.I.A. and other intelligence agents were running Washington's secret war against Cambodia from the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok and along the Thai-Cambodian border. The aim was to appease China, the great Soviet foe and Pol Pot's most enduring backer, and to rehabilitate and use the Khmer Rouge to bring pressure on the source of recent U.S. humiliation in the region: the Vietnamese."

Just google Reagan + Khmer Rouge.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Tell me something I didn't know when I woke up this morning

[ConcernedCanuk]

16. I now have a swarm of junkos at my bird feeders

.
.
.



:silly:

didn't know THAT now didja! ??

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Well duh.

Didn't the Carter administration actually support the Khmer Rouge in their invasion of Vietnam?

[B Whale]

21. This is not news to most but thanks for posting

[NM Independent]

22. And once again that arrogant fuck, Kissinger, refuses to admit any wrongdoing.

"After Pol Pot's death in 1998, Kissinger defended the decision to bomb Cambodia as part of the Vietnam War and said it could not be linked with Pol Pot's killings later on."

Excuse me while I "blame America first."

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. And after all that wailing and gnashing of teeth, they let the old mass murderer

die in his bed! I wonder why?

I always bring that up when right-wingers start on about Pol Pot. The only reply I've ever got was: "Yes, that was shameful." But no attempt at an explanation.

[Coventina]

28. Your question is probably rhetorical, but I'll answer in case

there are those reading who don't know:

The United States didn't want to see any war crimes or humanitarian crimes trials go forward against PP because that would involve prominent US figures (i.e. Kissinger) being called as witnesses for the defense.

on edit: spelling

[sarcasmo]

29. Kissinger, imagine.

[harun]

33. Creating problems to sell solutions.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. what else is new?