Cambodia

[Guest fountainhall]

Like many prominent political leaders from Indo-China, including the man who replaced him and led the infamous Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, Norodom Sihanouk was educated in Paris. There, in 1941 the Vichy French pro-Nazi government by-passed his father and instead crowned Sihanouk king, in the hope that the 18-year old could be better manipulated in their continuing colonial ambitions once the war was over.

 

Back in Camobodia, Sihanouk started an international campaign to rid his country of its French rulers, finally achieving success in 1953, a time when the French were struggling in Vietnam and where they were eventually to be routed at Dien Bien Phu a year later.

 

A wily and popular political figure, Sihanouk still reverted to repressive measures to counter domestic rivals. Economically, he could not drag Cambodia out of its poverty, though. As the US became drawn into the quagmire that was the Vietnam War, Sihanouk held to a middle path, siding with neither the US nor the communist forces which he knew were infiltrating his own land west of the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

 

Even when the US started its secret and unauthorised war within his Kingdom, Sihanouk continued to turn a blind eye. The tipping point was his overthrow in favour of General Lon Nol in 1970. Convinced that this had been a covert act by the US (which it was), Sihanouk switched his allegiance to the newly emboldened Khmer Rouge. When the communists marched into Phnom Penh in 1975, forcing all the inhabitants into the countryside and thus the Killing Fields, Sihanouk was held captive in the Royal Palace for four years before being freed during the Vietnamese invasion. He was then forced into exile in Beijing. Whilst there, he continued to act in support of the Khmer Rouge murderers for another 12 years, giving them a fig-leaf of international respectability as they tried to raily against the Vietnamese invaders. He returned in 1991 to a rapturous welcome. Yet he was never to retain more than notional power in the Kingdom he had helped destroy.

 

Speaking to William Shawcross for his excellent book Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia, Sihanouk claims –

 

“If the United States had refused to help Lon Nol after the coup, he would have collapsed. Sihanouk * would have returned and stopped the war. It didn’t happen because Nixon and Kissinger did not want Sihanouk back. Nixon called Cambodia his ‘best investment’. Kissinger hated me. For most of the war, he refused to see me – until the Khmer Rouge were so strong it was too late.”

 

* In interviews Sihanouk frequently used his name instead of ‘”I”.

 

In 1978, Shawcross asked why Sihanouk continued to speak on behalf of the Khmer Rouge who had slaughtered up to 2 million of his countrymen. “Because, despite its abuses of human rights, it is the genuine and only government of Cambodia. It sprang from popular resistance to the United States and Lon Nol. If I fought against it, I would be a traitor”

 

Asked at the same time about the lessons of recent history, Sihanouk said that there was no one country to be blamed for the state of his nation. “There are only two men responsible for the tragedy in Cambodia today. Mr. Nixon and Dr. Kissinger. Lon Nol would was nothing without them and the Khmer Rouge were nothing without Lon Nol. Nixon and Kissinger . . . created the Khmer Rouge.”

 

Sihanouk seems to have been a man filled with his own self glory, often blind to the realities of international politics. As the late Michael Leifer, a former South East Asia expert, wrote in 2001: “The record of the man would suggest a greater facility for reigning than for ruling. He has been more at home with the pomp and circumstance of government than with its good practice.”

 

More at

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-19943963

Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross published by Simon & Schuster

[KhorTose]

 

Sihanouk seems to have been a man filled with his own self glory, often blind to the realities of international politics. As the late Michael Leifer, a former South East Asia expert, wrote in 2001: “The record of the man would suggest a greater facility for reigning than for ruling. He has been more at home with the pomp and circumstance of government than with its good practice.”

 

 

Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross published by Simon & Schuster

 

Sounds like a great book, but I think his assessment of Sihanouk is far to generous. The man was an opportunistic snake who supported Pol Pot while he killed millions of his countrymen. Sihanouk was not the only corrupt Asian leader, I can think of others, but he was definitely one of the worse. Now for the worst news. Not only did China support Pol Pot, but so did we out of anger towards the Vietnamese. I would like to know what Shawcross says about that. Have you read the book?

[Guest fountainhall]

Yes, I have read the book - three times, and the book quotes are from my looking them up and not from the obituaries. Unfortunately, it was published in 1979 and so does not relate to events after that date. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that the last para - the one you quoted - was from today's New York Times obituary which is the first of the links I inserted, and not from the book.

 

I agree with your views on Sihanouk - and so does Shawcross. At the start of the 3rd chapter, he describes Sihanouk thus -

 

"Norodom Sihanouk presided feudally over Cambodia from 1941 to 1970, as King Chief of State, Prince, Prime Minister, head of the main political movement, jazz-band leader, magazine editor, film director and gambling concessionaire, attempting to unite in his rule the unfamiliar concepts of Buddhism, socialism and democracy. His exercise of power was so astonishing and so individual that he came to personify his country and its policies abroad as well as at home. He was a vain, petulant showman who enjoyed boasting of his sexual successes. He would not tolerate criticism or dissent, and he treated his aides like flunkies. He could be generous with those who served him well, but everyone feared his temper."

 

Yet Shawcross balances this with -

 

"At the same time he had enormous political skill, charm, tenacity and intelligence. After an uncertain beginning he exploited all these qualities in the interests of one overriding cause - the preservation of Cambodia's peace and its independence from further encroachment by its neighbours. This concern inevitably won him enemies abroad just as his own autocracy created them at home. Indeed, his relations with his own people and with foreign powers - in particular with the United States as it came to replace France as the dominant power in Indochina - are an essential part of the history of Cambodia's destruction."

 

As for the comments about China and the Vietnamese, we need to recall that Vietnam (as the invaders of Cambodia - or, as we would say, the saviours who kicked out Pol Pot's murderers) historically had very bad relations with Cambodia, just as it had with China. Indeed, when I first arrived in Asia in 1979, Vietnam and China were fighting another of their border wars - known as the Third Indo-China War. Historically, therefore, China (in common with many western and other powers) would not support the Vietnamese “occupiers” of Cambodia in the UN. Thanks to many of the world powers agreeing, the Khmer Rouge disgracefully kept Cambodia's seat at the UN for 15 years!

[Guest]

The Vietnamese deserve a lot of credit for deposing the Khmer Rouge.

[Guest fountainhall]

I totally agree with z909. But we should perhaps not forget that neither the Khmer Rouge nor the Vietnamese have totally disappeared from Cambodia. The country's Prime Minister (indeed one of the longest serving Prime Minsters anywhere in the world), Hun Sen was, after all, a Khmer Rouge leader. As a result of internal purges, he and his men escaped to Vietnam in 1977 where he became one of the leaders of a rebel army. The Vietnamese later installed him as puppet Foreign Minister. When they withdrew, his political maneouverings saw him "elected" as Prime Minister and over a period of years successfully seeing off his opponents.

 

In an article headed "10,000 Days of Hun Sen" in the New York Times on May 31, Hun Sen responded to a question about the fall of Qaddafi in Libya -

 

“I not only weaken the opposition, I’m going to make them dead ... and if anyone is strong enough to try to hold a demonstration, I will beat all those dogs and put them in a cage.”

 

The article continued -

 

. . . Often overlooked in discussions about the world’s most notorious autocrats, on Friday Hun Sen will join the '10,000 Club,' a group of strongmen who through politically motivated violence, control of the security forces, massive corruption and the tacit support of foreign powers have been able to remain in power for 10,000 days . . .

 

Today Hun Sen rules Cambodia with an iron fist, a fact that no Phnom Penh diplomat would dispute, but few confront . . . At 59, Hun Sen is the youngest member of the 10,000 Club. He has said that he wants to rule until he is 80. After all the pious post-Arab Spring diplomatic talk about confronting dictatorships, Cambodians can be forgiven for asking why no one seems to be paying attention while Hun Sen begins work on his next 10,000 days.

http://www.nytimes.c...of-hun-sen.html

[Guest]

Hun Sen may be far from perfect.

However, the Khmer Rouge were a good candidate to be considered as the most evil regime of the 20th century anywhere on the planet. Replacing them has to be a great improvement.

[Guest fountainhall]

No one can disagree that the present regime in Cambodia is a great improvement over the Khmer Rouge regime. In wiping out up to 2 million (25%) of his fellow citizens, Pol Pot and his henchman are right up there with the most evil monsters in history. But in the bloody chronicle of the 20th century, would it qualify as "the most evil"?

 

Mao is streets ahead of Pol Pot. His disastrous Great Leap Forward campaign between 1958 and 1962 resulted in deaths variously reported as between 20 million and 46 million. Before then, 1 million died as a result of land reform and up to 3 million were killed in the Counter Revolutionaries campaign. The number actually killed in the Cultural Revolution is not known, but is thought to be between 500,000 and 3 million, with tens of millions of other lives ruined.

 

In terms of numbers, Stalin is also way ahead, with conservative estimates laying 20 to 30 million deaths directly at his door though famine, terror, collectivization and mass population transfer.

 

But Hitler surely still rules that particular roost of evil. Outright murder of Jews, gays, prisoners, gypsies, the handicapped and other civilians is estimated at around 20 – 25 million. Add in the number of deaths in the European theatre of World War II and the total rises by another 42 million.

[ChristianPFC]

Outright murder of Jews, gays, prisoners, gypsies, the handicapped and other civilians is estimated at around 20 – 25 million.

 

Where did you get that number from? Furthermore, it's important to distinguish between people who where killed and who died.

[Guest]

If you measure evil by the number of people killed, then the Khmer Rouge cannot compare with the others.

However, killing 25% of their own population is one hell of a strike rate. Also, it seems even young children were not spared. Also, they made life a total misery for almost all of the remaining 75%.

 

Was Hitler more evil than Pol Pot? Or did he just have a bigger industrial base to allow him to scale up his efforts?

[Rogie]

Cambodia's war crimes tribunal releases former Khmer Rouge leader

 

Cambodia's war crimes tribunal set free a former leader of the Khmer Rouge on Sunday, upholding a decision that has outraged survivors seeking an explanation of the mass killings committed more than 30 years ago.

 

Ieng Thirith, 80, who has been declared mentally unfit for trial, was driven out of the UN-backed tribunal's compound by family members. She made no comment to reporters.

 

The Sorbonne-educated Shakespeare scholar served as social affairs minister during the Khmer Rouge's rule from 1975-79, during which an estimated 1.7 million people died of execution, medical neglect, overwork and starvation.

 

The tribunal initially announced its decision to free Ieng Thirith on Thursday, saying medical experts had determined there was no prospect for her to be tried due to a degenerative mental illness that was probably Alzheimer's

disease.

 

Survivors of the Khmer Rouge called Ieng Thirith's release shocking and unjust. They said they had waited decades for justice and found it hard to feel compassion for her suffering.

 

"It is difficult for victims and indeed, all Cambodians, to accept the especially vigorous enforcement of Ieng Thirith's rights taking place at the [tribunal]," said Youk Chhang, director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, a group that researches Khmer Rouge atrocities.

 

In a statement on Sunday,, he noted the irony of Ieng Thirith receiving "world class health care." As social affairs minister she was "personally and directly involved in denying Cambodians even the most basic health care during the regime's years in power," he said.

 

The tribunal began in 2006 – nearly three decades after the fall of the Khmer Rouge – following years of wrangling between Cambodia and the UN. The lengthy delays have been costly and raised fears that the former leaders could die before their verdicts come.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/khmer-roughe-leader-released

[Bob]

Furthermore, it's important to distinguish between people who where killed and who died.

 

Could you clarify that a bit more? If you're talking about a little old lady who happened to die of old age for no particular reason, I can understand not counting that person; however, if you're attempting to suggest that somebody who died of starvation or disease or even an early death due to stress in a camp or a bombed-out village was any "less murdered" than those shot in the head or gassed, then we view such things quite differently.

[Guest fountainhall]

Where did you get that number from? Furthermore, it's important to distinguish between people who where killed and who died.

 

I'm totally with Bob on this one. The source provides a series of estimates from a wide range of scholars

 

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

[ceejay]

I always try to avoid "was Stalin worse than Hitler/Pol Pot/whoever" discussions. Too often, you find the hidden agenda that if "A was worse than B, then B can't have been so bad after all". Not so. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and many others were all monsters. The differences in numbers arise from differences in opportunity rather than any in the perverted wills of these beasts.

[ChristianPFC]

Don't mention the war!

 

I distinguish between killed and "just" died the following way:

 

Reinhard Heydrich was killed by Czech guerilla (technically he died some days later in hospital), and as retaliation the majority of the population of Lidice was killed by German forces (1942).

 

People in Hamburg, Dresden, ... Hiroshima, Nagasaki "just" died (which does not make them less dead) during Allied bombings, they were at the wrong time at the wrong place.

 

About 10,000 collaborators (or assumed collaborators) in France were killed after the war (by their own countrymen, often without trial, sometimes under circumstances that make a KZ look a cosy place).

 

The majority of German soldiers in the Stalingrad pocked "just" died from cold and starvation, the majority of the survivors "just" died as prisoners of war from cold and starvation.

 

This is an extremely difficult subject, and people like to forget that the UK and France declared war on Germany, and the USA de facto declared war on Germany by supplying weapons to the UK.

[Guest]

Don't mention the war!...............

This is an extremely difficult subject, and people like to forget that the UK and France declared war on Germany, and the USA de facto declared war on Germany by supplying weapons to the UK.

 

Fawlty Towers....

Elder Herr: "Will you stop talking about the war?"

Basil: "Me?! You started it!"

Elder Herr: "We did not start it!"

Basil: "Yes you did, you invaded Poland!"

 

And for what it's worth, I do think the Germans are about the best behaved and nicest people in Europe right now. Despite having to subsidise the southern half of it.

[kokopelli]

People in Hamburg, Dresden, ... Hiroshima, Nagasaki "just" died (which does not make them less dead) during Allied bombings, they were at the wrong time at the wrong place.

 

I cannot disagree more regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki or, for that matter, Hamburg or Dresden. The populations of these cities were targeted for death by aerial bombing; they were deliberately killed whether instantly or as a result of their wounds and radiation. Slaughtered is a more descriptive word than killed.

[Guest fountainhall]

The past is the past. The important issue for all future generations is to try and learn from it. We can argue till the cows come home who was responsible for what when it comes to all manner of 'declared' wars. It just happens that in war no-one wants to lose. And that often means taking actions which deliberately destroy morale - both military and civilian. Yes, Dresden was fire-bombed with about 25,000 deaths; but then so were London and Coventry much earlier in that war. Yes, Tokyo was fire-bombed. Being basically a city built out of wood, much of it was totally destroyed and up to 100,000 civilians killed.

 

War is a ghastly state. Our ancestors were inculcated with the belief that it was the only way to reach solutions. How may times do we read in history about a war being "a just war" or an individual having "a good war"? War is hell, pure and simple! Hopefully most of us in the 21st century are now much more enlightened - despite the Bush/Blair doctrine.

 

After all wars, the world has to move on. Wounds have to heal, even though this may take generations. I am of a generation that never saw war, never had to don a uniform, never had to fight, never had to kill another human being. My father was a prisoner of war in Germany for 5 years, not seeing his new daughter till she was almost 5 years old. I tried to learn from him. He never once held any grudge against the German people. Indeed, he had immense admiration for the way they picked themselves up after the war and got on with the job of rebuilding the country and prosperity. Perhaps for that reason, I have always enjoyed my many visits to the country as well as a close friendship with some of its people.

 

And even though Japan has never formally acknowledged its atrocities all over the Asia-Pacific, only a small group of fanatics have not learned from the war years. Again, Japan is one of the countries and cultures and peoples I love.

 

Going back to the monsters highlighted earlier in the thread, surely what marked all of them out, including Hitler, was their systemic massacre of many millions of their own peoples? British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, German, Hapsburg, Russian and other European armies may have killed countless millions in official wars through the centuries. Only a handful of monsters have massacred their own peoples in such numbers.

[ceejay]

Despite having to subsidise the southern half of it.

I don't know what gives you that idea. Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria both have economies that are amongst the most prosperous and innovative in the world.

[Guest fountainhall]

I'm pretty sure z909 was referring to the southern half of Europe - the economic problem nations of Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal - and not Germany.

[ceejay]

You are right, Fountainhall. Mea culpa, and apologies to Z909. I shouldn't post in a rush - my excuse is that I am buzzing around the house getting it ready for later today - when the taxi comes to pick me up to go to Heathrow for the flight to Thailand. B) B)

[Guest fountainhall]

Have a safe and relaxing flight - you'll need all your energy when you're here