Cambodia Confronts the "G" Word

The horrors of the Khmer Rouge's rule may be in the past, but the question of whether its crimes amounted to genocide lingers on.

BY BRENDAN BRADY | JANUARY 8, 2010

The Khmer Rouge liked to say, "When pulling out weeds, remove the roots and all." Fulfilling this dogma, the ultra-Maoist regime killed the babies of supposed traitors of the revolution and "smashed" -- its euphemism for executed -- pregnant women carrying the children of men whose loyalty was in question. The term genocide is often used reflexively to describe the Khmer Rouge's rule of terror that led to the deaths of at least 1.7 million Cambodians from overwork, starvation, and murder from 1975 to 1979. It was not, however, one of the charges former Khmer Rouge leaders had faced in the three-year-old U.N.-backed war crimes tribunal. This is changing, though, and the new move is controversial.

The hybrid Cambodian-U.N. tribunal has been trying five former top regime officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Its first trial, of Kaing Guek Eav (alias Duch), the warden of a prison code-named S-21, where an estimated 15,000 prisoners deemed enemies of the revolution were tortured before being executed in the nearby "killing fields," concluded in November. A verdict is expected in March. Last month, the tribunal added genocide as a charge against the four remaining defendants for their alleged role in the slaughter of ethnic Vietnamese and Cham Muslims in Cambodia. The charges need to be finalized in the court's closing order, but it is widely thought that they will all be included in the formal charges against the defendants.

Duch admitted to his role in overseeing the S-21 prison. But the regime's chief ideologue, Nuon Chea (known as "Brother No. 2"), former President Khieu Samphan, former Foreign Minister Ieng Sary, and his wife and social affairs minister, Ieng Thirith, have all denied culpability for the charges they face. By all reliable accounts, however, they were the chief architects of the regime's catastrophic experiment to forge an agrarian utopia by methods that included forcing the population onto rural collectives; abolishing money, schools, and religion; and exterminating perceived enemies of the revolution.

In 1999, U.N. experts concluded that the Khmer Rouge should face charges for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. They said there was strong evidence -- including Khmer Rouge statements, eyewitness accounts, and the nature and number of victims of each group -- pointing to genocide against the Cham and Vietnamese as ethnic groups and against the Buddhist monkhood as a religious group.

In light of the denial and obfuscation of the former regime's leadership, the court's role in clarifying the historical record is now especially important. "That is part of the healing process," says David Scheffer, a former U.S. war crimes ambassador, "to confront these charges head-on inside the courtroom rather than see them abandoned forever." It was for this purpose of direct confrontation that the tribunal included an innovative "civil party" system allowing victims into the courtroom to air grievances and question the defendants.

Many advocates of minority rights applaud the addition of genocide charges as a way for these groups to reaffirm their rights in Cambodian society. Lyma Nguyen, a lawyer representing a group of 17 ethnic Vietnamese survivors, says the genocide charge would allow her clients to formally pursue the truth about why they were targeted and, in the process, "reconstitute their identity." Lawyer Lor Chunthy said the more than 200 Cham Muslim civil parties he represents are still consolidating their place in Cambodian society. "There is still discrimination against the Cham, so this sends an important message that Muslims in Cambodia are part of the country," he notes. Both lawyers said the groups they represent unequivocally think they were singled out because of their ethnic or religious identity.

Cambodian advocates of the charge also say it carries enormous symbolic weight that will help the tribunal receive local support. "The addition of genocide charges reflects what the millions of Cambodians who survived have wanted since 1979," says court spokesman Reach Sambath. The charge resonates with all Cambodians, he says, because, according to their understanding of the term, it best describes the crimes inflicted upon them. The Khmer term for genocide is pralaay puch sah, as it approximately sounds transliterated from Khmer, and literally means to "destroy from the root" or "kill the seed of the race." Given the Khmer Rouge's maniacal obsession with cleansing society of unwanted elements, it is not hard to see why Cambodians frequently use this particular expression to describe the regime's policies.

But genocide, in an international court, has a strict definition and is notoriously hard to prove. There is little doubt the Khmer Rouge led a campaign to wipe out groups it considered incompatible with the revolution. The question is whether the groups were targeted first and foremost because of their ethnic or religious identities, or because they represented perceived political and economic enemies of the state -- categories that fall outside the crime's definition. The fact that certain ethnic or religious groups suffered disproportionately and sustained severe repression of their practices does not necessarily constitute genocide.

VOISHMEL/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: JUSTICE, SOUTHEAST ASIA
 

Brendan Brady is a journalist based in Cambodia who writes for the Los Angeles Times, Global Post, and IRIN, among other publications.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

BOREDWELL

6:04 PM ET

January 9, 2010

cide by type

Genocide is a term which needs to be revisited and revised. Geno, the root word of genocide comes from the Greek meaning family/tribe or race. Governments that institute murder for any of its citizens en masse for ANY REASONs should be considered guilty of genocide. Genocide is almost universally understood as "planned government policy to murder people because of their indelible group membership/national/religious identity" (Slavs, Jews, Roma, Armenians, Tutsi, Chams, Tamils, American Indians, et al.) Democide is any murder by government which includes genocide and often politicide (mass murder of political enemies as practiced most egregiously by Stalin and Mao.) And there is culturocide in, for example, China's intrusive Han-ification of Tibet wherein native language, customs, religious beliefs and traditional culture are suppressed and prohibited in an intensive effort to "kill endemic culture." America's colonization of Hawaii and its forced acculturation of Native Americans included proscriptions against using native languages (English was mandatory), wearing native costumes and teaching tribal customs: it was a form of "geno" cide via extirpating the groups cultural identities. Genocide must be qualified singularly as crimes against humanity in order to encompass all the various aberrant forms it can take. All of the 1.7 million human beings murdered in Cambodia are victims of genocide regardless of their affiliations. It's morally feckless to pretend otherwise. It's time for the world community to wake up and take responsibility for punishing those who would commit these crimes.

 

MARC

12:50 PM ET

January 11, 2010

death by US bombs

If the Khmer Rouge committed a genocide in Cambodia - wouldn't it be accurate to say that Nixon and Kissinger's illegal bombing of that country should be considered an equivalent crime?

Put Kissinger on trial also.

 

NORBOOSE

10:48 AM ET

January 10, 2010

Whats the Difference Between Genocide and Mass Murder?

Lots of totalitarian states have executed huge numbers of people. In many, think Soviets and Maoist Chinese, the murder was not motivated by ethnicity, but a simple desire to mantain power at all costs, and often against imagined enemies. The term Genocide seems misconceived from early on. It was originally used about the holocaust, which fit the description perfectly, but the Stalinist purges and Mao's cultural revolution were not about identity or background. Though old stereotypes about non-ethnic Russians and non-Han Chinese caused those groups to suffer somewhat more, it was not about wiping them out. Plenty of majority citizens were also executed, basically randomly. Why dont we just use a general title for greivous crimes against humanity? Isnt Mass Murder Mass Murder no matter its motivation? An atrocity by any other name would leave the same anonymous mass graves.

 

BACKSTREET BOY

6:35 AM ET

January 11, 2010

Against Humanity

I agree, killing is killing no matter be it genocide , democide or holocaust and any form of it is against humanity and the perpetrators deserve maximum punishment.

 

CARDENAS697

11:05 AM ET

January 11, 2010

Why can't we prevent this?

Some point of facts that I have included as a comparison between Mass Murder and Genocide. It does not matter which definition you care to use.

Genocide- The legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Mass Murder - Political mass murder or the killing of a particular political group within a country, such as Béla Kun's ethnic cleansing against Turkish and Crimean Tatars and other minorities in 1921-22, White and Red Terrors, Stalin's Great Purge, Mao's Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, massacres at the partition of India, or the Hama, Jallianwala Bagh, Tlatelolco massacres, and the mass killing of communists by Suharto's New Order.

It is sad that in our world history with the deaths of over 1.7 million in Cambodia that we have no real mechanism to prevent this from ever happening again. It is a dark mark in our world history. We all have a moral responsibility to prevent this from ever happening again. Why did we fight WWII and create the United Nations?

 

MOHAIR.SAM

4:30 PM ET

January 11, 2010

Reminiscent of the Power book, A Problem from Hell ...

Good points raised by the commenters here. The pressing question, to me, is why does it still happen? Why does no one intervene? And the answer seems to come down to some combination of war fatigue on the part of the usual interveners (U.S./NATO, UN, African Union peacekeepers, et al.), fears of violating sovereign boundaries and thus starting an even bigger war (as happened in the Congo), indecision about when mass murders/democide rises to the "g-word" level (the debate over Rwanda was notorious for this), and a certain level of interventionist inertia. Plus, fears of long-term occupation and the toll that takes (including counterinsurgency fatigue, the peculiarities of international politics, etc.) always enters into the discussion, too, it seems. I don't think there is a good single answer, and I don't think we'll ever be able to stop it categorically.

One thing I've been thinking about, though, is the use of small mercenary units to fill the gap here. UN peacekeeping missions have been, to put it very charitably, a mixed bag. Considering the success of EO in stopping rebel atrocities in Sierra Leone (and the fact that the UN considered contracting with them to stop the Rwanda genocide), that might be the only way to stop such events in their tracks—and, of course, that entails potential disasters all its own.

Just no obvious answer to this. Maybe no answer at all.

 

SHAKIR

5:35 PM ET

January 12, 2010

War crimes

i wonder when that day will come in my country USA when BUsh/Chenny and co would be tried for the war crimes agianst Humanity ??

I wonder if there is no brave, consciousfull person or Human rights group who has filed a -petition aginst them in the international court?

Where is Amnesty International sleeping??

 

HYMANBEN

8:49 PM ET

January 14, 2010

Good article.

It brings to light the legal distinctions we often make to classify evil. Perhaps Stalin was not responsible for genocide, but he certainly "destroyed the roots" of those minority groups (intellectuals, ethnic groups, city dwellers) that he felt were a threat. If we define genocide the way it is understood in Khmer, then perhaps Cambodia's experience constitutes an auto-genocide.....

 

MIKULASDOWN

4:47 AM ET

January 23, 2010

In light of the denial and

In light of the denial and obfuscation of the former regime's leadership, the court's role in clarifying the historical record is now especially important. "That is part of the healing process," says David Scheffer, a former U.S. war crimes ambassador, "to confront these charges head-on inside the courtroom rather than see them abandoned forever." It was for this purpose of direct confrontation that the tribunal included an innovative "civil party" system allowing victims goose comforter sets into the courtroom to air grievances and question the defendants. This is horrible act folks, they have to change.