Leaders of the Khmer Rouge on Trial for Cambodian Genocide

College Confidential Community
1

<p>[‘History</a> cannot be hidden’ as Khmer Rouge leaders tried - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-09-15-1Acambodia15_CV_N.htm]'History”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-09-15-1Acambodia15_CV_N.htm)</p>

<p>“Sophal Ear, a Cambodian-American political economist in Monterey, Calif., pointed to the 2009 appointment of Helen Jarvis of Australia as head of the tribunal’s victims unit as an example of political bias. According to Ear, Jarvis once wrote with her husband: “We, too, are Marxists and believe that ‘the ends justify the means.’ … In time of revolution and civil war, the most extreme measures will sometimes become necessary and justified.””</p>

<p>Short, interesting article regarding the trial and prosecution of leaders of the Khmer Rouge, which was the Communist Party in Cambodia that took control of the country in the mid 1970s. </p>

<p>The issue raised is obvious: what role, if any, should the international community have in prosecuting human rights abuses and genocide? Due to international anarchy and the absence of an international court that can enforce its decisions, can justice for crimes such as genocide be achieved?</p>

<p>The UN has no role in domestic disputes, as per its Charter. The ICC has no means to enforce its rulings. </p>

<p>Can a country that still has members of the Khmer Rouge in its leadership attain justice in the prosecution of 5 of its members?</p>

<p>Essentially, what, if anything, should be done in Cambodia?</p>

<p>The crimes are well documented, the genocide, in terms of percentage of population, is the worst documented case in history. It is not a case of potential abuses. </p>

<p>Should the international community intervene in the hopes of attaining justice, or should we allow Cambodia to have exclusive jurisdiction?</p>

<p>The points this raises for me is that of natural rights, and whether, or rather, how they can be protected while respecting state independence. Perhaps there could be an international constitution, but the practical tie up would be how those rights could be enforced- ie court, militarily.</p>

2

<p>Nothing; it’s Cambodia’s problem. They have been a basket-case for most of recorded history; let them mind their business while we mind ours.</p>

3

<p>I gaurentee that someone is going to call you heartless. </p>

<p>I can see it both ways. International meddling typically aggravates preexisting conditions, but some countries lack the capabilities to enforce justice. I am a non interventionist, but I thought it would be interesting to see people’s views.</p>

<p>If intervention is desired, the issue becomes at what point is it appropriate to intervene. </p>

<p>I am guessing the argument is going to center on moral obligations, and whether it is our duty as humans to stop atrocities and ensure justice. The morality question is interesting, because many people that I have talked to say we are morally obligated to stop genocide, but they don’t think it’s okay to be morally opposed to something like abortion. It confuses me. It’s okay to use morality in some instances, but not others. </p>

<p>Regardless, the people in Cambodia are too afraid to raise concerns over the trials for fear of persecution by leaders who are connected with the Khmer Rogue.</p>

4

<p>Cambodia befallen by genocidal dictator, killing millions. International community does nothing after western powers withdraw from Southeast Asia in the 1970s.</p>

<p>I bet my bottom dollar that if Cambodia got hit with an earthquake, the international community would be in there like white on rice, a la Haiti. </p>

<p>What a world we live in. Leave them be, I say. They cast their lot in with the communists in 1960 and paid the price. We were even there to fight them, but we left. We are not going back.</p>

5

<p>Hey tiff, just out of curiosity because of your recent string of political threads… you DO realize we have a politics forum on here, right? Just curious.</p>

6

<p>1) I am not a parent.
2) Any time they figure out you’re not a parent, they whine about your presence in their forum. Even when things are moved to their section. I think there should be a college section for politics, as different issues interest both parties.</p>

7

<p>Even ignoring the moral justifications, we have an absolute legal obligation to intervene in matters of genocide. The problem is that any intervention which negatively affects our economy, or puts American troops in danger is unpopular. We withdrew in Somalia because we couldn’t stomach less than 50 American troop deaths; meanwhile, estimates of civilian deaths are in the hundreds of thousands. After the Rwandan genocide began, the US lobbied in the UN to have UNAMIR troops withdrawn. In my opinion, it’s absolutely ridiculous.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, the UN has its own resolution that if they declare anything a “genocide”, they have to intervene. The UN has decided that no conflict or incident since the holocaust has been a genocide, but rather, a “severe violation of human rights”, so they aren’t obligated to do anything. The whole organization is a joke.</p>

9

<p>That’s not entirely true. Some conflicts are referred to as genocides after the fact, but the UN, and leading UN countries refuse to call them genocides when they’re at a point where they would need to intervene. Samantha Power documents rather extensively in “A Problem From Hell” the US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher’s refusal to allow anyone in his office to refer to Rwanda as a genocide, for fear that the US would then have to intervene. </p>

<p>Don’t expect to see Darfur or North Korea identified as genocide any time soon. The US congress didn’t recognize the Bosnian crisis as a genocide until 2005, 10 years after Srebrenica.</p>

<p>EDIT: Said Samantha Powers, her name is Samantha Power. My aunt’s surname is Powers, easy mistake :blush:</p>