"Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied "
(A Quote from the The New York Times, March 5, 2007)
A rapid conclusion of the Khmer Rouge Trial, according to international standard of justice, is the only way to guaranty the survival and the dignity of the Cambodian people
The main purpose of this web site is to bring the Khmer Rouge leaders who are responsible for the slaughter in cold blood, of more than two million innocent people, Cambodians and non-cambodians and regardless of their age or gender, to trial according to international standard of justice and not accoring to Hun Sen and the Vietnamese totally politicized and corrupt judicial system.
Secondly, it provides a set of background information on how and why the Khmer Rouge trial has been hijacked by Hun Sen, with the help of Sihanouk, and with the implicit acquiescence of some major countries in the world, and especially, by China, France, Japan, The United States of America, and by Vietnam. Finally, it proposes a roadmap of how this objective can be achieved.
Several important benefits can be derived from an early completion of the Khmer Rouge trial, for the majority of the Cambodian people.
First, the Khmer Rouge trial can give the Cambodian people and other victims of mass killing in the world, a sense of hope, and more importantly, a sense of justice that they deserve, and the expectation of a more normal life.
Second, this trial would be a cheap and wholesale treatment for the majority of Cambodians who still suffer from the Post Traumatic Syndrome Disorder (PTSD), resulting from being exposed to or having eye-witnessed the mass killing perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge.
Third, the trial can take away from Hun Sen and his CPP, the main reason for his regime to be accepted, internationally, by comparing itself to one of the worst political regimes in recent human memories.
The Khmer Rouge, from 1975 to 1978, murdered two to three million innocent Cambodian children, women, and men, and other racial groups, in cold blood and gruesome manner. Now, in 2007, there still is no Khmer Rouge leader put on trial for crime against humanity, let alone condemned for one of the most heinous crimes of the long history of human beings’ cruelty toward other human beings.
According to recent and reliable sources, the long and protracted efforts by the United Nations to bring those Khmer Rouge leaders responsible for the crime against humanity to be tried, appear to be at a dead end, resulting from internal and external factors (See the article entitled 'Talks to Save Khmer Rouge Trials' by the BBC, in 'Khmer Rouge Trial Chronology' page).
Externally, there are those countries, which do not want to see the Khmer Rouge brought to an end for fear of being exposed to uncomfortable revelations of their past behavior and collusion with the Khmer Rouge. Those countries most directly involved in the Khmer Rouge in the past, include China, Thailand, the United States, and especially Vietnam (See the article entitled, 'Khmer Rouge in Court' by RM Jenna, in 'Khmer Rouge Trial Chronology' page).
Internally, Hun Sen appears to be the main actor behind the stalling of the trial, because, he cannot afford to allow the Khmer Rouge trial to be brought to a conclusion, for fear of losing the basis of comparison for his criminal and corrupt regime. Because, only by comparing his regime to that of the Khmer Rouge, can Hun Sen's regime be more acceptable to the international community. Sihanouk also does not want to go ahead with the trial, as he may be confronted by some embarrassing and revealing information regarding his past association with the Khmer Rouge (See the article entitled 'The Political Khmer Rouge Trial by the Vietnamese, in 1979,' by Luke. Hunt, in 'Khmer Rouge Trial Chronology' page).
Therefore, the only alternative way to render justice to the Cambodian people, is to bring the Khmer Rouge trial out of the responsibility of the corrupt Cambodian justice system, which is subservient to Hun Sen’s political control and manipulations, by mandating and allowing the International Criminal Court of Justice (ICC) to be in full charge of the whole process and administration of the trial.
The (ICC) located in the Hague, the Netherlands, would be the logical organization to accomplish this necessary and demanding task. The great powers that claim to have adopted and respected the general principles normally adopted by all civilized nations, that include the respect for justice and open society, such as the United States, Japan, and the European Union, should show the courage and determination to take the lead in this important and long-delayed rendition of justice to the majority of the Cambodian people.
To succeed, this project must have the open support of as many Cambodians as possible, who feel strongly that the long awaited justice that Hun Sen, and his supporters, including Sihanouk had denied them.
Justice delayed is justice denied!
As the New York Times has reminded us in the cases of Srebrenica and Darfur, in a recent editorial that;
"Court (ICC) ruling can never compensate the survivors of these horrors. But, by strengthening the reach and authority of international law, these cases should give pause to those tempted to unleash future genocides - and to those who stand by."
Khmer Rouge Trial Threatened
Written by Susan Postlewaite
Asia Sentinel; Friday, 24 April 2009
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1841&Itemid=189
Long-delayed justice in Cambodia may be denied yet
(Comments: as expected, Hun Sen is threatening again that if the ECCC wants to bring more former Khmer Rouge leaders to trial, he said it will be civil war. In other words, Hun Sen does not want to have some of his most prominent associates in the CPP, such as Chea Sim, Heng Samrin, Sar Kheng, Keat Chhon, and Tea Banh to be tried at the Khmer Rouge tribunal. Hun Sen, a former Khmer rouge regiment commander, has repeatedly said that if the ECCC brings more former Khmer Rouge leaders to trial, there will be civil war. But, the question is who can start a civil war in Cambodia under Hun Sen? The answer is Hun Sen himself is the only one who can start any war in Cambodia, civil or otherwise.
Again, we must thank Brad Adams, the Asia director for Human Rights Watch for having the courage to call ‘A spade is a spade” when he said:
"I've said for years that Hun Sen will try at key moments to sabotage the tribunal, and sadly, yet again he has done so," Adams said. "It is ridiculous to suggest the possibility of a spontaneous security threat from former Khmer Rouge, as they have no ability to take up arms against the government. If anything happens, it will only happen with Hun Sen's
blessing."
What else can I add to that truthful statement by brad Adams.
The saddest thing about the Khmer Rouge Trial is the apparent blindness or duplicity by the international community in allowing Hun Sen to use the Khmer Rouge Trial for his own benefit and not for justice sake. The international community knows full well that Cambodia under Hun Sen, does not even have until today an anti corruption law.
How could then the international community expect the ECCC not to be corrupt, when a recently published in the German government report said that there is a widespread of corruption within the Cambodian side of the staff of the ECCC including the main Cambodian administrator in the ECCC, Sean Visoth. Hun Sen and his boss the Vietnamese only want a “show trial,” and they have got it. Naranhkiri Tith Ph.D. Washington DC. April 24, 2009)
Although the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge have been unfolding in a Phnom Penh courtroom for three weeks, a toxic mix of corruption allegations, political interference and a money shortage threaten to shut the tribunal down, even as the world reads that justice is finally being done after 30 years of inaction.
The situation hit a low point with a blunt threat by Prime Minister Hun Sen recently that if the court runs out of money it's fine with him. He said the international prosecutor's desire to arrest more Khmer Rouge leaders living freely in Cambodia is "propaganda."
"Do not believe the propaganda there will be a widespread trial," Hun Sen told reporters, adding that any more arrests beyond the five suspects in custody could create civil war. "I agree to accept the defeat of this court or the collapse of the court, but I will not let this country have civil war again," Hun Sen said. He was in the Khmer Rouge himself but defected to help
Vietnam liberate Cambodia in 1979.
Meanwhile the trial of the regime's lead torturer Kaing Guek Eav, 66, also known as Duch, was off to what prosecutor Robert Petit said was a "good beginning," with four other aging Khmer Rouge leaders in custody and supposed to be tried in 2010. The Khmer Rouge were responsible for 1.7 million deaths by starvation, torture, execution, and overwork in Cambodia
from 1975 to 1979. Petit wants more than five leaders tried, but his
Cambodian co-prosecutor does not agree.
The dispute was turned over to the judges in December along with Petit's potential arrest list of five or six names. There is no indication when they will decide.
"The trial of Kaing Guek Eav is extremely exciting and there is a sense that justice is finally unfolding for the millions of victims," said John Hall, a professor at Chapman University‘s School of Law in California. But, he said, the inability of the court to credibly investigate allegations that Cambodian court personnel had to pay kickbacks to get and keep their
jobs is fraying the patience of the donors who support the court.
"At some point the UN and the international judges must seriously consider what Judge (Marcel) LeMonde called the nuclear option - to walk away," he said.
The problems have taken on renewed urgency as the court does not have money to pay Cambodian staff salaries for April. Australia offered to release funds that had been put on hold for six months pending an investigation into the corruption allegations. But the UN blocked the release. The UN has refused to release funds since last July when allegations resurfaced by Cambodian staff that a kickback ring operates at the court and they have to pay a percentage of their monthly salaries to a middleman.
Court spokeswoman Helen Jarvis said Friday that "we're confident" that the staff salaries will be paid next week. She said she could not say what country will shoulder the expense. (Japan came in with a $200,000 "urgent" donation to pay March salaries.)
Jarvis also said the judges are still considering whether more arrests will be allowed. "They're working on it. They have given questions back to the co-prosecutors. It‘s very complex," she said.
The UN investigated last fall but refuses to release its findings. UN Assistant-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Peter Taksoe-Jensen has met three times since January, most recently for three days ending April 9, with Cambodian officials about the alleged kickbacks. But no resolution has been reached.
The court's senior Cambodian administrator, Sean Visoth, was named in November as a participant in a report by a German parliamentary delegation after their meeting with the court's UN administrator. Visoth has been sick leave since then.
Human rights groups and defense attorneys believe the corruption is widespread and could well extend to the judicial side, although they have not submitted evidence of that.
"The Cambodian judges and prosecutors receive their orders directly or indirectly from Hun Sen. They cannot act independently for fear of being removed or worse," said Brad Adams, executive director of Human Rights Watch Asia division.
"I've said for years that Hun Sen will try at key moments to sabotage the tribunal, and sadly, yet again he has done so," Adams said. "It is ridiculous to suggest the possibility of a spontaneous security threat from former Khmer Rouge, as they have no ability to take up arms against the government. If anything happens, it will only happen with Hun Sen's
blessing."
Prosecutor Petit, veteran of war crimes courts in Rwanda and East Timor, said he still hopes that the judges will agree with his request to arrest more leaders. He also said the graft allegations have to be dealt with.
"This has to go away so it no longer shares the headlines with the more important work of the court. Half the headlines are about the problem they refuse to deal with," said Petit. "It threatens the continuation of the court. It's a very real problem."
Three of the defense attorneys representing the other suspects in custody asked the court to investigate the corruption, but the court's co-investigating judges said they don't have jurisdiction.
"The corruption is like a plague where everybody gets tainted," said defense attorney Michael Karnavas who represents 82- year- old Ieng Sary, the Khmer Rouge's foreign minister. He said if the UN is "worried that Hun Sen is going to kick them out they should be out the door first."
Others pointed out that Hun Sen has the UN over a barrel because the UN doesn't want to walk away from the tribunal, but it also doesn't want to be seen supporting a court that doesn't meet international standards of justice.
Hall said as unpalatable as it would be to halt the trial, it may " be preferable than to continue to condone a court whose legitimacy has been so seriously undermined."
"Is a flawed court better than no court? Not necessarily," he said.
______________________________________________________________________
Coping with the Psychological Trauma of the Khmer Rouge
Terith Chy
(Comments: The crime of the Khmer Rouge is not only the fact they slaughtered more than two millions Cambodians and other races, but, they murdered the whole Cambodian nation, by setting such a low standard of behavior that makes any other evils (Hun Sen and the Veitnamese) look better. That is why there has been sustaining efforts by the Hun Sen and his Vietnamese patrons to "demonize the demon." On the other hand, the Khmer Rouge, not only murdered more than one third of the Cambodian population in 1975, which was around 7 million, also traumatized those who have survived, as the article posted below had pointed out.
How, can anybody expect the Cambodian people to stand up to the Vietnamese aggressions when they cannot even take care of themselves psychologically and physically, leave alone stand up and fight for their freedom. This is the real tragedy that the Cambodian people is facing. But, most Cambodians are not aware how hard it is to fight against an aggressive, well-organized, well-led, and determined Vietnam pushing very hard for the final phase of the Vietnamization of Cambodia which started in the 17th century, when king Chey Chettha II married a Vietnamese princess, and as gift to his new bride has granted the town of Prey Nokor (Today Saigon) to Vietnamese imperial authorities, to be used as a custom house to collect taxes on boats using the Mekong River. Most Cambodians still do not realize how precarious their country situation is.
In addition, with Sihanouk and Hun Sen have submitted themselves with the Vietnamese, the Vietnamization of Cambodia has entered its final phase. Vietnam is rushing, because it knows that time is not on its side, as the majority of the Vietnamese people are asking for more freedom and openness in their society. When that moment arrives, the Vietnamese people would want to take care of themselves first, before venturing into Cambodia or Laos, as Vietnam is now doing. But, this good opening that will be offered to the Cambodians can only be brought into fruition, if and only if, they can produce really honest, brave, knowledgeable, dedicated, democratic, and experienced leaders, totally different from Sihanouk, Hun Sen, or Sam Rainsy. Naranhkiri Tith Ph.D. Washington DC. May 28, 2007)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legacy of the 1975-1979 Khmer Rouge regime was one of disaster. It caused the deaths of about 1.7 million people (nearly a quarter Cambodia’s population) and left the country’s economy, infrastructure and institutions in ruins. But the hardships, suffering and fear that people experienced during the regime have not stopped today. The vast majority of Democratic Kampuchea’s survivors still suffer from some degree of mental or emotional problem.
According to a 2004 study by the Transcultural Psychosocial Organization of Cambodia (TPO), 81% of Cambodians have experienced violence, while 28.4% suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PDSD), 11.5% from mood disorders, and 40% from anxiety disorders. In the nearly three decades that have passed since the fall of Democratic Kampuchea, these victims have received little or no assistance from the state, which has little capacity for treatment. The US Department of Health and Human Services has also studied the mental health problems of the regime’s survivors who are living in the United States. It found that 62% suffer from PTSD and 51% from major depression (the comparable rates for the US population are 3.6% PTSD and 9.5% depression). This is no wonder, considering that the study concluded that 99% of these Cambodian refugees nearly starved to death, 96% endured forced labor, 90% had a family member or friend murdered, and 54% were tortured.[1]
These alarming statistics beg for action to be taken to help those who have been struggling to live normal lives for nearly 30 years, but are unable to do so. Ronnie Yimsut, whose entire family was clubbed to death, recalls his dreams about Democratic Kampuchea:
‘I still have nightmares about the massacre on that dark December night. It has never completely gone away from my mind, and I am still horrified just thinking about it. Time does not heal such emotional trauma, at least not for me.’[2]
The establishment of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal and the recent attention the media has given to mental health have helped Cambodians begin to discuss these problems. However, the Khmer Rouge Tribunal will likely cause many people to re-experience their trauma, creating further pressures on society.
The Khmer Rouge Tribunal and Re-traumatization
The leaders of the Khmer Rouge regime have enjoyed impunity for nearly 30 years, while their victims have been waiting anxiously to see some degree of justice done. With the establishment the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (the Tribunal), the day for justice may arrive soon. The Tribunal is likely to have huge impacts on Cambodia, both positive and negative. On the positive side, it will likely change the image of Cambodia from that of a war-torn country to one where the rule of law prevails. Articles in the media could attract attention to Cambodia, bringing tourists and much-needed foreign exchange. It will also offer a great opportunity to the country’s legal community, who will gain experience from international lawyers and jurists, which could be seen as a start for legal reform. Most important, however, is that the Tribunal, which enjoys wide popular support, is anticipated to bring about a degree of reconciliation among Cambodians, should justice be realized.
However, these positive impacts may only occur if the Tribunal proves to be successful, and the prospects for success are still in question. Three of the regime’s leaders (Pol Pot, Ke Pauk, and Ta Mok) have already died, and only two (Ta Mok and Duch) have ever been brought into custody. The remaining leaders are in their 70s and 80s, and some of them are in poor health. Whether those who are indicted will survive for the three-year trial period is uncertain. And although the disputes over procedural issues have largely been resolved, the Tribunal’s internal rules have still not been approved.
Despite the numerous potential positive impacts, it is anticipated that the trials will re-open old wounds and fuel resentment when survivors recall their harsh experiences during the Khmer Rouge regime. The media and NGOs have served as a catalyst in getting people to talk about their experiences during Democratic Kampuchea, which has been helping some to begin healing. Cambodia’s Director of Mental Health, Dr. Ka Sunbaunat, said that “some patients see the Khmer Rouge trial as therapy in itself. The exposure of wrongdoing helps them put their lives back together again.”[3] But this probably will not be the case for those who will be giving testimony in the courtroom, whether for the prosecution or defense. Many of those who experienced excessive levels of violence during the regime still do not want to share their past, particularly rape survivors. Taing Kim, who is the subject of a documentary film by DC-Cam, has never disclosed her rape during the regime to her children or let them see the film about her.
Witnesses and Retraumatization before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. When people tell their personal stories, it can help them heal their psychological wounds, but this can be harmful to potential witnesses. Various international courts and tribunals have developed some preventive measures to reduce this harm. The Khmer Rouge Tribunal, for example, has established a Victims Unit similar to those of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and International Criminal Court to assist and protect witnesses. Rule 33 of the Tribunal’s draft Internal Rules provides for the prohibition of self-incrimination of a witness. Rule 34 provides that the co-investigating judges themselves or through the request of one of the parties or their lawyers can order appropriate measures to protect the lives and health of victims, witnesses and their families. It further provides for such measures as concealing the identity of a witness, which includes using a pseudonym, hiding his or her address, distorting the voice and physical features of a witness, in camera proceedings, and punishment for the disclosure of a witness’ identity or address. To secure against the possible physical harm of a witness, the Tribunal could place a victim or witness in a safe residence in Cambodia or abroad.
The safety of witnesses must be taken seriously, as they can be exposed to danger as soon as they are named as witnesses. Physical danger is evident with the recent killings of two potential witnesses before the ICTY and their families during an investigation of one of the accused. Similarly, the killings of witnesses in the traditional Gacaca court in Rwanda have been increasing. In addition to physical danger, witnesses face fear: they must swear to tell the truth, and if they do not, they could be charged with perjury or contempt of court.
Although the Tribunal’s Rule 34 provides for the protection of the life and health of witnesses and their family members, it cannot shield them from psychological harm. Witnesses will face harsh cross-examination at the Tribunal, which will likely be shocking to them.
Studies of the Holocaust, ICTY and ICTR have shown that witnesses’ memories are more accurate for emotional events than for “neutral” events. But witnesses in these cases testified within a few years of the events they experienced. This will not be the case for Cambodia, where people’s memories are nearly 30 years old. In addition, the original memories of witnesses who have experienced the same event can be distorted after they talk to each other or receive new information from the media or other sources. This might call the accuracy of their memories into question during the trials. And how will they react when the defense or prosecution does so? Testifying is often a very negative experience, as a witness before the ICTY stated:
I was completely humiliated. When the defense asked me that question, I immediately looked over at the prosecutor. But he just kept staring at the papers on the table in front of him. I panicked. My heart started pounding and I felt like I was going to faint… No, I’ll never testify again in that tribunal.[4]
It is likely that at least some of the witnesses before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal would have similar – or even worse – experiences given the questionable accuracy of their memories. Thus, witnesses need to be informed of what they can expect in the courtroom and be given special psychological care before, during and after the trials.
Credibility of PTSD Witnesses. Because of the high percentage of Cambodians traumatized by the Khmer Rouge, it is highly likely that most of the witnesses at the Tribunal will suffer from some degree of mental disorder. The first danger here is that they will be asked difficult or hostile questions during cross-examination. The defense counsel, in particular, in an effort to impeach the credibility of the witnesses, will likely claim that testimonies given by PTSD victims are not reliable.
However, some academics have found that high levels of stress do not deteriorate the credibility of memory: although an extremely stressed person may not be able to remember the details, he or she will still be able to remember the important features of the events. This finding has been supported by the ICTY, which held that, “even when a person is suffering from PTSD, this does not mean that he or she is necessarily inaccurate in the evidence given. There is no reason why a person with PTSD cannot be a perfectly reliable witness.”[5]
Coping with Mental Illness
In the early 1970s, Cambodia had an estimated 450 qualified doctors; only 43 of them survived the Khmer Rouge regime. Most of the educated people in the country had either died during the regime or fled the country in its aftermath.
In addition, Cambodia’s infrastructure was nearly completely destroyed: “Cambodia had been reduced to a primitive state with no markets, no power supply, no safe drinking water, no sanitation, and no money.”[6] Rebuilding, with only a small amount of aid from Vietnam and the Soviet Union, was a massive undertaking, as a Vietnamese journalist described:
At the birth of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea [the successor regime to the Khmer Rouge] even the most optimistic observers had no idea how the new regime was going to restore life back to normal on the immense ruins of a whole society, which included the ruins of all communities and all families… The homeland of Angkor was like an anthill crushed under cruel boots, people were dazed and confused and wondered what the future held in store for them.[7]
The destruction of the health sector was no exception, and it had to begin again from nothing (professional health care was absent and scientifically formulated medicines were not available during the regime). Like other government ministries, the Ministry of Health lacked even basic office furniture and equipment.
The National Health Infrastructure Today. Even 28 years after the Khmer Rouge regime ended, Cambodia’s health sector is still among the worst in the Western Pacific Region.[8] Many people lack access to state-provided health services, and according to a 1998 Cambodian government report, “Many public health facilities in the Kingdom of Cambodia lack managerial, financial and human resources. Although nominally free, public health services carry informal fees but the quality of services remains low in general. Many people have lost confidence in public services and turn to indigenous healers and private providers for care.”[9] Although this and other reports identify the main health problems in Cambodia, they do not include mental health as one of them.
It was only in 1992 that the Ministry of Health established a Mental Health Sub-committee and began to develop strategies to deal with psychological problems. Today, however, Cambodia still has only one psychiatric hospital; it was built in 1935. In January 2006, the Cambodian government approved a National Strategic Development Plan that will allocate US $3.5 billion to all sectors over the next five years. The sectors with the largest allocations are health ($600 million), education ($550 million) and transportation ($550 million). While the health sector’s annual budget is $120 million, it remains to be seen how much will go for psychological health and to what extent this will benefit survivors of the Khmer Rouge who suffer from psychological trauma and other disorders.
Today, according to TPO, Cambodia has 26 psychiatrists, only 100 general practitioners, who have received 12 weeks of training in mental health, and 9 national and international organizations addressing mental health problems in a country with 14 million people.
NGO Efforts. Daily survival is the first priority for many of Democratic Kampuchea’s survivors, and with 35% of Cambodians living on less than US 50 cents a day, few can afford to travel for psychological help.[10] In addition, given their limited education and a lack of information, most do not realize that the nightmares that have disturbed their sleep for so many years are the symptoms of an illness.
So, people have sought help from traditional healers, herbalists, and fortune tellers to cope with their psychological sufferings. NGOs are providing assistance in a few places, but their help is limited due to financial constraints and the paucity of experts in this field. The Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam) and Transcultural Psychosocial Organization Cambodia (TPO) are two prominent institutions that have offered some psychological support to the regime’s survivors. Their two-year Victims of Torture (VOT) Project attempted to help those coping with their psychological trauma as a result of living through the horror of the Khmer Rouge. Through interviews, DC-Cam staff identified people suffering from PTSD and TPO provided them with counseling. The staff from both organizations also provided simple forms to treatment to people with emotional difficulties, including muscle relaxation techniques, breathing exercises, anger management, emotional processing of trauma memories, and Buddhist ways of coping with trauma.
During the project, 302 people from three provinces were interviewed; 95 of them were found to be victims of PTSD. The treatment included individual counseling for those with the most severe trauma, group therapy and psychiatric care. Of the 95 people identified as suffering from PTSD, only 60 could be offered treatment because of the constraints TPO’s small staff was facing (traveling to the provinces for counseling was a major burden on their time). This is a reflection of Cambodia’s lack of human resources in the field of psychological health. Even if more financial resources were available and more attention was paid to trauma victims, the small number of experts in this field would make similar efforts difficult to implement.
Recommendations
Apart from the study conducted by TPO, no survey has been conducted on mental health problems in Cambodia. This neglected subject requires a thorough study to inform the development of a national strategy for mental health. Thanks to the establishment of the Tribunal, more attention is being paid to the mental struggles of the regime’s survivors.
A Cambodian medical sociologist says that mental health problems have become an epidemic and that “The country needs a national therapy session.” A national project, if possible, would be very useful in helping people suffering from PTSD. However, it will likely not materialize soon, given the current financial and human resource constraints Cambodia faces. Assistance is needed from other countries (finance, experts and/or training) to make this national project a reality.
Increasing the number and quality of local mental health clinics throughout the country is essential. It now seems possible with the recently discovered oil and natural gas deposits off the coast of Cambodia. The exploitation of these natural resources will generate up to $6 billion by 2010; if managed properly, it could help lift the country out of extreme poverty. In addition, a government official told Radio Free Asia that a portion of the revenues earned will be set aside for improving the education and health sectors. It is expected that mental health sector would also benefit from this oil resource. In addition, Cambodia’s economy grew by 10.5% in 2006, and is projected to increase by around 9% for the next two years, and the mental health sector should benefit to some extent.
In the meantime, DC-Cam and other NGOs are looking for additional ways to provide psychological support to those suffering from PTSD. One alternative would be to offer training to local people who would then identify and refer those sufferings from PTSD to the project for assistance and to engage existing government clinics in offering services. It would also be possible to build the capacity of Buddhist monks, nuns, traditional healers and Buddhist lay practitioners in offering “indigenous therapy” to those in need of psychological support.
More information is also essential. A client of the VOT Project identified as having PTSD said, “When I was working in the rice paddies, sometimes my soul was not with me. It floated somewhere and was preoccupied with the past. I could not hear the other people talking near me. When they called me loudly, I felt jumpy and shaky.” Another said, “I know that I became angry easily and it is not always reasonable. I frequently displaced my anger toward my child or my grandchild, even if they just opened the door while I was resting or sleeping in the house.” These people did not realize that what was bothering them is a type of disease that can be cured. For this reason, information should be disseminated on symptoms, where and how to get care, and self-treatment and other ways to cope with or lessen the symptoms of anxiety and trauma. TV and radio spots, which have been effective in the fight against HIV/AIDs, SARS and other diseases, would be very helpful in this regard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terith Chy recently earned an LLM degree from Hong Kong University. This article is based on a paper he wrote for Professor Suzannah Linton’s class on Dealing with the Legacy of Human Rights Violations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nimh-02b.htm
[2] Ronnie Yimsut, “The Tonle Sap Massacre,” in K. De Paul (Ed.), Children of Cambodia’s Killing Fields: Memoirs by Survivors (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).
[3] Quoted in Tom Fawthrop and Helen Jarvis, “Getting away with Genocide, Elusive Justice and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal,” (University of New South Wales Press: 2005), pp. 142-43.
[4] Eric Stover, “The Witnesses, War Crimes and the Promise of Justice in The Hague,” University of Pennsylvania Press: 2005, p. 71.
[5] Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, ICTY, Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998.
[6] Tom Fawthrop and Helen Jarvis, op. cit., p. 13.
[7] Ibid., p. 14.
[8] http://www.nis.gov.kh/SURVEYS/CDHS2000/AboutCDHS2001.htm.
[9] Ministry of Health, Department of Planning and Health Information, Cambodia, “1998 National Health Statistics Report,” http://www.camnet.com.kh/nphri/pub-conts.htm.
[10] Seth Mydans, “Will Oil Wealth Keep Cambodia Afloat or Drown it?” The International Herald Tribune, May 03, 2007.
Ten Years of Independently Searching for the Truth: 1997-2007
Two views, one by a American Historian and the other by an Asian scholar, on how Dai-Viet (Vietnam) had committed genocide against the Cambodian people
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnamese colonialism and genocide against the Chams and Cambodian people
by Bernard Fall
"Vietnamese intervention in Cambodian affairs had begun in 1623 when Chey Chettha II, a king of Cambodia who had married a Vietnamese princess, attempted to shake Siam's overlordship with the help of the Nguyen. In exchange for that help, the Hue government requested Cambodia's authorization to send settlers to Prey Kor, and a Vietnamese general was sent with a security detachment to protect the new settlers. In 1658, a Vietnamese expeditionary force again had to intervene in the endless internecine struggles of the various pretenders to the Cambodian throne, and in 1660, Cambodia began to pay a regular tribute to the Vietnamese court."
"But the Vietnamese yoke on Cambodia was to take a shape far more direct than the highly theoretical suzerainty China still exercised over Viet-Nam. The declining Khmer state was split into three Vietnamese "residences" under the control of a Vietnamese Chief Resident at the Cambodian court at Oudong. The Vietnamese began an acculturation process that, as in the neighboring provinces and in the case of the Chams, amounted to veritable genocide: destruction of the Buddhist temples and shrines, compulsory wearing of Vietnamese clothing and hairdress, Vietnamization of city and provincial names, and, finally, abolition of the royal title of the Cambodian sovereigns. By the early nineteenth century, the queen, Ang Mey (1834-41), held a virtual prisoner in her palace, was officially referred to as merely 'chief of the territory of My-Lam.'3"
Source: Bernard Fall; The Two Viet-Nams; A military History;
On Vietnamese genocide against the Cambodian people
by Kang Po
“Just to remember what happened in Kampuchea Krom. After presenting Princess Ngoc Van, in 1630, to young King Chey Chetha II, Vietnam asked the king the permission for Vietnamese to settle in Preah Suakea (Ba Ria) and Prey Nokor (Saigon). The king Chey Chetha II had to accept the pressures made by his newly-wed wife, Ngoc Van. Thanks to this “sex and marital alliance ” tactics, which was already applied in the Kingdom of Champa with Princess Ngoc Khao, Vietnam managed to corrupt the soul of the Khmer king and to realize its demographic conquests. Once its bases strongly consolidated, Vietnam was to commit ultra atrocious violence to repress khmers’ opposition.
During the period 1813 - 1815, Vietnamese perpetrated the infamous massacre, known to every Khmer as “Prayat Kompup Te Ong”. It was the most barbarous torture style in which the Khmer were buried alive up to their neck. Their heads were used as the stands for a wood stove to boil water for the Vietnamese masters. As they were burned and suffered, the victims shook their heads. At that moment, the Vietnamese torturers jokingly said “Be careful, not to spill the master’s tea”. Other kinds of massacre were the beheading and human collective autodafé (keeping Khmers locked up in granaries and burning them alive). Thousands of Khmers were so massacred in such a human collective autodafé. In 1841, Oknha Son Kuy (Chauvay Kouy), one of Khmer Krom leaders and the ancestor of defunct Son Sann, was atrociously beheaded.
In front of such barbary, Khmer people, under the command of Sena Sous, rose up, in 1859, against the Vietnamese first in the province of Srok Kleang (today Soc Trang in Vietnamese designation). After the murder of Sena Sous by a Vietnamese undercover agent, the revolt was pursued by two other Khmer Krom leaders Sena Mon and Sena Tea. In spite of the bravery of Khmer Krom leaders, Vietnam managed to control all Khmer Krom territory thanks to military and demographic conquests. And in June 1949, France, then colonizator of Indochina, transferred Kampuchea Krom, in spite of strong opposition from the Khmers, to Vietnam then under Bao Dai government."
Source: Vietnam's Expansionism in Indochina: Strategies and Consequences on the Regional Security; By Kang P.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly (9 December 1948)
Article I. The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III. The following acts shall be punishable:
a) Genocide;
b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
d) Attempt to commit genocide;
e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV. Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
Article V. The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in Article III.
Article VI. Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Article VII. Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Article VIII. Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III.
Article IX. Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Four extremely important links for a better understanding on the role of Communism in the mass killings of people all over the world including in Cambodia and Vietnam, and on how Hun Sen has devasting the life of the majority of the Cambodian people
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Comments: Please, click the link posted below to read a review of a book written by a group of former European Communist intellectuals, edited by Stephane Courtois, a former French Communist intellectual, entitled "The Black Book of Communism." (See details of this article posted below, in this page.
In this review, the main characteristics of Communism were hilighted to show the reason why Communism had killed so many innocent peoples in the world, and how they had justified these mass killings. Most importantly, this review had shown that Communism killed on a massive scale and regardless of age, race, or religion. This is an important point, as some authors (A. Hinton) had advanced the thesis that the Khmer Rouge 'killing fields' were due to the specificity of the Cambodian character, and Communism has no role in them. Ben Kiernan went so far as to make the Khmer Rouge racists and victimizers. By doing so, he wants to demonize the demons to make his Communist friends, the Vietnamese and Hun Sen look more acceptable to the international community. I do hope that this review will allow people to look in a more objective way, at the reasons behind the mass killing of Cambodians and other races by the Khmer Rouge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism
Also, posted below, a web site link to a study done by Professor Rudolph Rummel on mass killings perpetrated by dictatorship of the left and the right ideologies, at the order of the govrenment, entitled 'Freedom, Democracy, Peace, Power, Democide, and War.'
(http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/)
Both books are highly recommended for a must read for those who to know the truth about the Vietnamese committing genocide against the Khmer Krom People.
Please, also see the article posted on the other column in this page, on the condamnation of the crimes of Communism by the majority of the European Council, entitled "MPs Vote to condemn 'Evils of Communism'." These three articles are all linked to each other, although coming from very different political background, which make them even more credible.
Finally, in oreder to have a better understand of the relations bewteen Cambodian and Vietnam, we should not forget that Vietnam is still very much a communist country (of its won admission) which continues to oppresses its own people and the minorities, especially the Cambodian minority now living in South Vietnam or Khmer Kroms. And , we should not forget that Hun Sen's CPP is still very much organized and functions as a communist party, whose members of the Central Committee were prominent members of the Khmer Rouge organization. Please, keep these facts in mind, when reading this web site.
Please, time time to carefully watch an incredible set of some twenty video clips titlted "Run for Your Life," made by a group of Australian civil rights advocates on the dreadful and tragic daily life of the majority of the Cambodian people under Hun Sen Kleptocratic dictatorship controlled by the Vietnamese. As you can see, Communist Vietnam is still committting crime against the Cambodian people (Especially the Khmer Krom) with the help of Hun Sen and his CPP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlmF6TDrDGQ&NR=1
Naranhkiri Tith Ph.D.
Washington DC. April 12, 2007)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Black Book of Communism
Reviewed by Claire Wolfe
Phone (262) 673-9745
Fax (262) 673-9746
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression
By Stephane Courtois, Mark Kramer (Translator), Jonathan Murphy (Translator), Karel Bartosek, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Panne, Jean-Louis Margolin (Contributors); Introduction to the U.S. edition by Martin Malia
Published by Harvard University Press, 1999
Originally published in France, 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examining the photos and reading their captions in The Black Book of Communism, you might expect the surrounding 700+ pages to contain a wail of outrage. The photos, though few, are as graphic and heart-rending as the worst from Nazi Germany.
But the text is no impassioned partisan cry. It's something more powerful than that; it's the facts. The Black Book has been called a catalog, an indictment, a prosecutorial manual against Communist crimes. It is a simply a dispassionate account - article after article - of the history of Communist power. Beginning with Leninist terror policies and concluding with the starvation produced by Afrocommunism, the historians of The Black Book list the events, tally the numbers, describe the conditions, name the names.
Their conclusion:
· USSR: 20 million deaths
· China: 65 million deaths
· Vietnam: 1 million deaths
· North Korea: 2 million deaths
· Cambodia: 2 million deaths
· Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
· Latin America: 150,000 deaths
· Africa: 1.7 million deaths
· Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
· Communist movements or parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths
Nearly 100 million deaths. Not casualties of war, but civilian slaughter. Deaths in gulags and concentration camps. Deaths from a bullet to the head. Most of all, deaths by starvation - the result either of planned famines, meted out as punishment to internal foes (as in Stalin's USSR), or unintended consequences of central policy.
American historian R.J. Rummell has tallied similar figures in his book Death by Government. But The Black Book is different in that 1) it focuses on death and terror in Communist regimes only 2) many of its contributors were (or are still) members of the left and 3) this book touched off an international storm when it was first published in France.
The "crime" of revealing Communist crimes
Why would this scholarly book - with its "just the facts, Ma'm" approach and its extensively documented claims - ignite a firestorm?
Partly it is because many crimes of Communism have gone unexamined, due both to bias among the intelligentsia and lack of access to archives of Communist countries. As such, this book is a shock to those who haven't been paying attention.
Partly it is that in Europe, and France especially, it is still chic to identify oneself as a Communist or Socialist. This book is an embarrassment and a shame to those who have practiced "ideological self-deception."
But appallingly, the controversy arose largely because the Black Book's authors - in particular chief editor and contributor Stephane Courtois - dare to compare the horrors of Communism to the horrors of Nazism. (The title itself is reflects the famous Black Book of Nazi crimes compiled after the Nuremberg Trials.) An unbiased scholar might consider this a natural thing to do; some political partisans considered it an offense.
In the introduction, "The Crimes of Communism," (one of just three essays that analyze, rather than merely report, the century's events), Courtois writes:
'Time and again the focus of the terror was less on targeted individuals than on groups of people. The purpose of the terror was to exterminate a group that had been designated as the enemy. Even though it might be only a small fraction of society, it had to be stamped out to satisfy this genocidal impulse. Thus, the techniques of segregation and exclusion employed in a "class-based totalitarianism" [Communism] closely resemble the techniques of "race-based totalitarianism." The future Nazi society was to be built upon a "pure race," and the future Communist society was to be built upon a proletarian people purified of the dregs of the bourgeoisie. The restructuring of these two societies was envisioned in the same way, even if the crackdowns were different. Therefore, it would be foolish to pretend that Communism is a form of universalism. Communism may have a worldwide purpose, but like Nazism it deems a part of humanity unworthy of existence.
That Courtois finds no moral distinction between the barbarities of right and left, between mass slaughter of races and mass slaughter of classes (the Russian bourgeoise and the kulaks, for example), led the left-leaning newspaper Le Monde to trot out the familiar charge of anti-Semitism and to damn the entire book by association.'
Courtois further irritated France's intellectuals (and indeed some of the book's co-authors) by concluding that Communists actually benefitted by promoting the illusion that the Holocaust was a unique crime - thus diverting suspicion from themselves and ensuring that the " t right" always appeared more heinous than its twin on the left.
Spanning time and the globe
You need not agree with Courtois, or even spend time with the book's three analytical essays, to be deeply moved - and informed.
The catalog of horrific deeds encompasses:
Nicholas Werth's 15-article section, "A State against Its People: Violence, Repression, and Terror in the Soviet Union," which details Lenin's deliberate use of terror, forced collectivization, "dekulakization," Stalinist purges, the workings of the secret police and the rise and fall of the gulag system. Werth spares no Russian leader or Marxist intellectual from 1917 to the fall of the USSR.
"World Revolution, Civil War and Terror," which traces the USSR's determined efforts to export its philosophy - and its methods - throughout the world.
"The Other Europe: Victims of Communism," which details crimes in Poland, Central and Southeastern Europe.
"Communism in Asia: Between Reeducation and Massacre," in which Jean-Louis Margolin and Pierre Rigoulot examine China (with emphasis on the catastrophic Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution), North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The authors admit that, with most Asian Communist regimes still in place, access to archives is forbidden and facts remain sketchy. Yet what they report should be enough to dispel any lingering visions of fatherly Mao and grandfatherly Ho.
"The Third World," which reveals the horrors perpetrated by Communist guerrillas or regimes from Afghanistan to Cuba and Peru to Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique..
In addition, the book is fascinating for its many insights into Communism's roots. You might be surprised to learn who these French authors consider to be the real father of Communism (hint: not Marx). And most readers would certainly be surprised to learn that Soviet leaders so greatly respected one Western saint that they erected a monument to him at the Kremlin.
The Black Book's revelations are so broad and detailed that no mere review could describe them adequately. Anyone who cares about history or truth should read this book. (Fortunately its lucid prose makes it easy to follow even the most arcane or gut-wrenching events).
Why should we care?
But with Communism in collapse nearly everywhere, and even China (so the media tells us) on the road to capitalism, why should anyone other than a historian or a crusader for justice care about any of this? Yes, it was awful, but isn't it just about over? Shouldn't we simply nod in acknowledgment, feel sincere sorrow, an appropriate degree of horror perhaps - and move on?
But of course we should care for many reasons - above all because trust in the Omnipotent State is still with us, still waiting to darken humanity again. For that is the essence of both Nazism and Communism - the belief that the state (whether claiming authority from The Culture, The Ideology, The Class, The Race, The People or some yet-to-be-concocted Authority) is supreme. This leads first to the assumption that individuals and groups who don't fit the collective ideal are irritants, then enemies - then that they should be disposed of "for the good of the whole."
If we are not careful and aware, this pervasive evil may spring in a new form. If we point fingers only at "right" or "left," depending on our own inclinations, we may fail to oppose the same phenomenon when it arises wearing a new face - a face that looks friendly, perhaps even familiar. We must study both the Nazis and the Communists, leaving aside the fundamentally meaningless distinctions of left or right, nationalist or universalist, race-hating or class-hating, and know the shared soul of the beast within.
For anyone who wants to protect the future by knowing the past, this book is a Very Important Read.
But could such horrors ever really come to our own doorsteps? At first blush, it seems not. Reading this book I was often struck by how foreign the recounted events are. It's impossible to imagine a Pol Pot-style agrarian "utopia" imposed upon a modern U.S. or Britain. Clearly, the savageries of Peru's Shining Path guerrilla's are uniquely Peruvian. Clearly Afrocommunism arises in part from tribal roots, so unlike ours. Clearly, the ACLU would prevent the development here of conditions described by Black Book contributor Pascal Fontaine - Nicaraguan prisons so crowded that inmates had to sleep standing up, with so little water that prisoners drank their own urine to survive, with such non-existent sanitation that cells and even hallways ran thick with excrement.
No, we can assure ourselves, such third-world horrors couldn't happen here. And there's a certain amount of truth in that. Even at its height, Communism gained power almost exclusively in nations with entrenched, institutionalized class divisions or nations in extreme stress (like Cambodia caught between U.S. bombardment and threats from Vietnam).
But similar tyrannies, we already know, have risen even from the "civilized" West. At times, you read the dispassionate words of The Black Book and you feel a chill of familiarity.
Controlling the language
Above all, there are the passages about the Communist's skillful manipulation of language for political purposes.
This manipulation took two forms, both of which are in use in American and Europe today: The first is a demonization and dehumanization of everyone unpopular with the regime. It was not people the Communists killed. It was "capitalists," "running dogs," "enemies of the people," "saboteurs," "the bourgeoise," or "wreckers." Just as Nazis didn't exterminate Jewish human beings but "maggots," "menaces to society," "parasites" "corrosive influences on Aryan culture" and "masters of the lie." Just as today government and the media do not merely disagree with, but demonize and marginalize "militia nuts," "right-wing extremists," "haters" and "religious fanatics." (And just as it might be "fags," "knee-jerk liberals" or "godless humanists" shoved to the fringes if politicians of a different viewpoint got into power.)
Of course no sane person would declare that the political manipulation of words in first world countries has reached Stalinist danger levels. Nevertheless, as Richard W. Stevens has pointed out, official or quasi-official margnialization of groups is an early stage in a deadly process. As the Black Book says:
'Terror involves a double mutation. The adversary is first labeled an enemy, and then declared a criminal, which leads to his exclusion from society. Exclusion very quickly turns into extermination. [The] idea [of a purified humanity] is used to prop up a forcible unification - of the Party, of society, of the entire empire - and to weed out anyone who fails to fit into the new world. After a relatively short period, society passes from the logic of political struggle to the process of exclusion, then to the ideology of elimination, and finally to the extermination of impure elements. At the end of the line there are crimes against humanity.'
The other form of language manipulation noted in the Black Book is a simple denial - putting a prettier face on ugly realities. Concentration camps become "reeducation" centers. Millions were forced from their farms and livelihoods in a process of "voluntary collectivization" (language reminiscent of the compulsory "volunteerism" forced upon many American students as a graduation requirement). Political opponents receive "therapy" for their "mental illness." (Do you suppose they take Prozac or Ritalin?) Even today, in China political inmates are called "students" in token of the fact that their punishment is designed to force them to accept the ideology of those they oppose.
Related to these forms of manipulation is the institutionalized use of terms that simply by being spoken or written perpetuate political assumptions. For instance, the word "kulak" in the USSR began as an insult; it quickly became the only acceptable word to describe the independent farmers who were fighting for their land and livelihood; thus every time they were spoken of they were implicitly damned. In our own culture we have near-universal (media-inspired) use of the term "gun violence." Simply by speaking the phrase, one perpetuates a set of suppositions: that guns, not people are responsible for crime, that guns are inherently more violent than objects such as hammers or knives; that they are in a special class that must be rigidly controlled. We talk of "hate speech," and thereby convey that the speaker has no legitimacy; he is simply motivated by incomprehensible loathsomeness; everything he believes, says or does should be disregarded or condemned. If you are a "redneck" you are no doubt the epitome of both "gun violence" and "hate speech" and nothing more needs to be said of you. Those whose "self-esteem" is so damaged by your "insensitivity" that they can't function may have to collect their "entitlements" (which is quite unlike the shame of going on welfare, accepting a handout or collecting a dole).
With such loaded terms, no debate is possible. The assumptions have been imposed in the very words.
Another aspect of language control is simply imposing certain terminology upon everyone through social or political pressure - even if the terminology itself is value neutral. One day, you may say "crippled." The next, you're insensitive: the proper term is "handicapped." The next, you're out of the intellectual loop: Everyone knows the politically correct word is "disabled" (then "differently abled," then "physically challenged"). One day your neighbors are "Negro." But the next you're a bigoted rube if you fail to say "Black." Then you can't be sure: Is it "Black" or "Afro-American" or "African-American" and what if your neighbor is from Jamaica, not Rhodesia, is she still "Afro-hyphen"? One day, even Dan Rather says "Red China." The next, suddenly everyone makes an abrupt switch to praise our friend "The People's Republic," as if the term "Red China" had never existed. I'm not speaking of the natural flow and change of language - which in English is rich, abundant and one of our great cultural treasures. I'm not speaking of the clubby, ever-changing jargon of various social groups. I am speaking of imposed language which ensures that only those "in the know" (as defined by an elite group) can ever feel confident discussing, or even thinking about, politically sensitive topics. Common people lose power over political issues because they fear they can't speak safely or astutely about them. They fear they will be ridiculed, that their views won't be taken seriously. Since they aren't sure of the acceptable terminology, they often assume they must also be lacking salient facts. They shut up. They become submissive to the intellectual dictates of interest groups - which is often exactly the intent. Note that such language is nearly always imposed when government is in the process of taking more control in a given area. It does not just happen.
In this latter case, the terms themselves are less important than the fundamental question: Who shapes the language? As Orwell observed so powerfully in more than one of his works, when you control people's language, you control how they think - and ultimately how they behave.
Denial of responsibility
Another curious echo between Communism and our world arises in the concept of absolute power without even minimal responsibility. One example from The Black Book: "On March 2, 1930 all Soviet newspapers carried Stalin's famous article 'Dizzy with Success,' which condemned 'the numerous abuses of the principle of voluntary collectivization' and blamed the excesses of collectivization and dekulakization on local bosses who were 'drunk on success.'"
Of course we now know - as The Black Book explains so well - that the "abuses" of agricultural collectivization - including the millions of deaths by famine that followed - were deliberate, and were planned by Stalin himself.
Yet as Vasily Grossman details in his poignant novel, Forever Flowing, the public continued to believe Stalin's claims of innocence. If only someone could tell the great, caring leader what was really happening, they believed, he would put a stop to the horror. Thus, they put their utmost trust in the very agent of the catastrophe.
Stalin's denial of responsibility was no isolated case. Later, in his 1956 "Secret Speech" openly discussing Stalin's evils for the first time, Nikita Kruschev very carefully failed to mention that he himself, as head of the Communist Party in the Ukraine (the focus of the famine), played a role in implementing Stalin's policies of collectivization and deliberate starvation.
Today, in U.S. politics, we have "leaders" who demand ever greater power, while at the same time taking less and less responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This is true on both a policy level and a personal one.
They are not accountable for bombings of Sudanese pharmaceutical factories or Balkan hospitals. Likewise, they cannot even consider that their intervention could be a cause, not the cure, of "crises" in health care, education or poverty. Every act of official violence or overkill is dismissed as the doing of some low-level functionary on the scene - and even that person usually escapes punishment (ala Lon Horiuchi) due to his status as a government employee. Even when an authority figure "takes full responsibility" - as Janet Reno did for the Waco debacle - she can do so safely, knowing there are no consequences.
On the personal level, when caught in wrongdoing, politicians at most admit they "made mistakes," "gave the appearance of wrongdoing," or were helpless to know right from wrong in the absence of "controlling legal authority." But actually accept moral or legal responsibility and act accordingly? Not they. You may go to prison for committing similar acts. They are exempt.
Again, nothing that has occurred in modern America even begins to approach the devastation or the sheer cruelty described in The Black Book. But we must question the intentions of politicians who demand ever more power with less accountability. Down that road - the road of complacency or downright State Worship - lies ruthlessness for leaders and helplessness for ordinary people.
Perpetual war
To justify their harshest measures, Lenin and Trotsky early on developed the concept of perpetual war. That is, anyone who opposed them was not merely an opponent, but an enemy - of the state, of the proletariat, of Communism, therefore of all that was good and progressive and desirable. Thus it was necessary not only to argue against opponents, but to crush them utterly. Trotsky wrote:
'The question about who will rule the country - that is, about the life or death of the bourgeoisie - will be decided on either side not by reference to the paragraphs of the constitution, but by the employment of all forms of violence.'
As writer and critic Tzvetan Todorov elaborated:
'The enemy is the great justification for terror, and the totalitarian state needs enemies to survive. If it lacks them, it invents them. Once they have been identified, they are treated without mercy. Belonging to the [enemy] class is enough; there is no need actually to have done anything at all.'
It is important to read The Black Book to get the full impact of what it means to wage perpetual war against one's own fellow citizens. But we're already seeing the beginnings of it in America today.
Is it any coincidence that we now not only have such things as Wars on Poverty, Wars on Illegal Immigration, Wars on Crime and a perpetual War on Drugs but - irony of ironies - that we set up "czars" to conduct them?
And no one should imagine that "war" is merely a catchy metaphor. In this case, when politicians use a word, they mean it. Because our nation is at "war" with drugs, we see increasing use of military equipment and militaristic tactics in law enforcement. Instead of two uniformed officers knocking at a door to present a non-violent suspect with a warrant, we now send a 20-strong, ninja-clad SWAT team armed with German MP5s to kick down his door in the middle of the night, screaming, hurling flash-bang grenades, and shooting his children, his parents or himself if, in the confusion, they either move when ordered to halt or fail to move fast enough when ordered to move. We have roadblocks with random, warrantless searches of automobiles. We have courts that send people accused of drug trafficking to prison on the word of criminal informants - without even requiring hard evidence of drugs or drug transactions. We have Supreme Court decisions that discard the Constitution in favor of "overriding government considerations." Increasingly, we are approaching conditions like the one The Black Book describes prevailing in Cuba:
In 1978 a law was adopted to prevent criminality before it actually happened. What this meant in practice was that any Cuban could be arrested on any pretext if the authorities believed that he presented a danger to state security even if he had not committed any illegal act. In effect the law criminalized any thought that did not accord with the ideas of the regime, turning every Cuban into a potential suspect.
Even in America, we have nearly reached a point where certain suspects - usually in drug, weapon or political crimes - are simply enemies to be expunged, not citizens with rights.
Other rings of familiarity
In other areas we can also see echoes of Communist-style mega-state power. U.S. officials today:
Encourage children to inform on their parents; encourage teachers, neighbors and friends to inform on others based on barest suspicions of wrongdoing
Promulgate laws criminalizing everyday activities, and even discussion of certain outlawed activities
Decree ever-harsher punishments for non-violent crimes (and harsher punishments yet when those laws fail to end the problem)
Allow secret trials in some cases (involving non-citizens suspected of political crimes)
Encourage widespread dependence on the state, with concomitant disconnection from family and community
Belong to a professional political class rather than a citizen government
Extend control over the basics of life (such as education, the food supply and health care),
Increase their control over industry (in our case, via regulation and subsidy, rather than outright ownership)
Promote constant "crises" as an excuse for seizing more power
Foster a belief (now almost universally held) that no problem can be solved without federal intervention
Imposition of Utopia
The Black Book of Communism begins to show us that totalitarianism is totalitarianism, whether we call it, Communist or some other name. Totalitarianism's central feature is a state that desires total control and assumes the right to impose that control at any cost. If you already know the nature of tyranny, read this book to vindicate your wisdom and provide yourself with intellectual ammo against those who believe that a little statism is a harmless thing. If you don't already know, read and be glad that these authors speak so dispassionately; otherwise your heart would break.
We should never forget that we, too, are vulnerable to this danger - and are perhaps most vulnerable when we believe "it can't happen here." in the end, Courtois reminds us, terror can (and does) grow out of even the most heartfelt idealism:
'Why should maintaining power have been so important that it justified all means and led to the abandonment of the most elementary moral principles? The answer must be that it was the only way for Lenin to put his ideas into practice and "build socialism." The real motivation for the terror thus becomes apparent: it stemmed from Leninist ideology and the utopian will to apply to society a doctrine totally out of step with reality. ... In a desperate attempt to hold onto power, the Bolsheviks made terror an everyday part of their policies, seeking to remodel society in the image of their theory, and to silence those who, either through their actions or by their very social, economic, or intellectual existence, pointed to the gaping holes in the theory. Once in power, the Bolsheviks made Utopia an extremely bloody business.'
Read The Black Book of Communism and join the Holocaust cry: Never again
HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?*
By R.J. Rummel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that I completed this study in November 1993 while still engaged in collecting democide data. Not all the democide totals I mention here may be complete, therefore. For final figures on communist megamurderers, see my summary Table 1.2 in my Death by Government. For all final estimates, see the summary table in Statistics of Democide. RJ. Rummel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the passing of communism into history as an ideological alternative to democracy it is time to do some accounting of its human costs.
Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide. It is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood. Yet there has been virtually no concentrated statistical work on what this total might be.
For about eight years I have been sifting through thousands of sources trying to determine the extent of democide (genocide and mass murder) in this century. As a result of that effort** I am able to give some conservative figures on what is an unrivaled communist hecatomb, and to compare this to overall world totals.
First, however, I should clarify the term democide. It means for governments what murder means for an individual under municipal law. It is the premeditated killing of a person in cold blood, or causing the death of a person through reckless and wanton disregard for their life. Thus, a government incarcerating people in a prison under such deadly conditions that they die in a few years is murder by the state--democide--as would parents letting a child die from malnutrition and exposure be murder. So would government forced labor that kills a person within months or a couple of years be murder. So would government created famines that then are ignored or knowingly aggravated by government action be murder of those who starve to death. And obviously, extrajudicial executions, death by torture, government massacres, and all genocidal killing be murder. However, judicial executions for crimes that internationally would be considered capital offenses, such as for murder or treason (as long as it is clear that these are not fabricated for the purpose of executing the accused, as in communist show trials), are not democide. Nor is democide the killing of enemy soldiers in combat or of armed rebels, nor of noncombatants as a result of military action against military targets.
With this understanding of democide, Table 1 lists all communist governments that have committed any form of democide and gives their estimated total domestic and foreign democide and its annual rate (the percent of a government's domestic population murdered per year). It also shows the total for communist guerrillas (including quasi-governments, as of the Mao soviets in China prior to the communist victory in 1949) and the world total for all governments and guerillas (including such quasi-governments as of the White Armies during the Russian civil war in 1917-1922). Figure 1 graphs the communist megamurderers and compares this to the communist and world totals.
Of course, eventhough systematically determined and calculated, all these figures and their graph are only rough approximations. Even were we to have total access to all communist archives we still would not be able to calculate precisely how many the communists murdered. Consider that even in spite of the archival statistics and detailed reports of survivors, the best experts still disagree by over 40 percent on the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis. We cannot expect near this accuracy for the victims of communism. We can, however, get a probable order of magnitude and a relative approximation of these deaths within a most likely range. And that is what the figures in Table 1 are meant to be. Their apparent precision is only due to the total for most communist governments being the summation of dozens of subtotals (as of forced labor deaths each year) and calculations (as in extrapolating scholarly estimates of executions or massacres).
With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.
Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.
In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.
Figure 2 shows the major sources of death for those murdered under communism and compares this to world totals for each source for this century. A few of these sources require some clarification. Deaths through government terrorism means the killing of specific individuals by assassination, extrajudicial executions, torture, beatings, and such. Massacre, on the other hand, means the indiscriminate mass killing of people, as in soldiers machine gunning demonstrators, or entering a village and killing all of its inhabitants. As used here, genocide is the killing of people because of their ethnicity, race, religion, or language. And democide through deportation is the killing of people during their forced mass transportation to distant regions and their death as a direct result, such as through starvation or exposure. Democidal famine is that which is purposely caused or aggravated by government or which is knowingly ignored and aid to its victims is withheld.
As can be seen in the figure, communist forced labor was particularly deadly. It not only accounts for most deaths under communism, but is close to the world total, which also includes colonial forced labor deaths (as in German, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies). Communists also committed genocide, to be sure, but only near half of the world total. Communists are much less disposed to massacre then were many other noncommunist governments (such as the Japanese military during World War II, or the Nationalist Chinese government from 1928 to 1949). As can be seen from the comparative total for terrorism, communists were much more discriminating in their killing overall, even to the extent in the Soviet Union, communist China, and Vietnam, at least, of using a quota system. Top officials would order local officials to kill a certain number of "enemies of the people," "rightists", or "tyrants".
How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government--the Communist Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world.
Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler and an utterly racist Nazism. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths. The irony of this is that communism in practice, even after decades of total control, did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made their living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the greatest famines have occurred within the Soviet Union (about 5,000,000 dead during 1921-23 and 7,000,000 from 1932-3) and communist China (about 27,000,000 dead from 1959-61). In total almost 55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from democidal famine. This is as though the total population of Turkey, Iran, or Thailand had been completely wiped out. And that something like 35,000,000 people fled communist countries as refugees, as though the countries of Argentina or Columbia had been totally emptied of all their people, was an unparalleled vote against the utopian pretensions of Marxism-Leninism.
But communists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong. After all, did not Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Mao say that. . . . In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it had its crusade against nonbelievers.
What made this secular religion so utterly lethal was its seizure of all the state's instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all independent sources of power, such as the church, the professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course, the family. The result is what we see in Table 1.
But communism does not stand alone in such mass murder. We do have the example of Nazi Germany, which may have itself murdered some 20,000,000 Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Yugoslaves, Frenchmen, and other nationalities. Then there is the Nationalist government of China under Chiang Kai-shek, which murdered near 10,000,000 Chinese from 1928 to 1949, and the Japanese militarists who murdered almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Indochinese, Koreans, Filipinos, and others during world War II. And then we have the 1,000,000 or more Bengalis and Hindus killed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 by the Pakistan military. Nor should we forget the mass expulsion of ethnic Germans and German citizens from Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, particularly by the Polish government as it seized the German Eastern Territories, killing perhaps over 1,000,000 of them. Nor should we ignore the 1,000,000 plus deaths in Mexico from 1900 to 1920, many of these poor Indians and peasants being killed by forced labor on barbaric haciendas. And one could go on and on to detail various kinds of noncommunist democide.
But what connects them all is this. As a government's power is more unrestrained, as its power reaches into all the corners of culture and society, and as it is less democratic, then the more likely it is to kill its own citizens. There is more than a correlation here. As totalitarian power increases, democide multiplies until it curves sharply upward when totalitarianism is near absolute. As a governing elite has the power to do whatever it wants, whether to satisfy its most personal desires, to pursue what it believes is right and true, it may do so whatever the cost in lives. In this case power is the necessary condition for mass murder. Once an elite have it, other causes and conditions can operated to bring about the immediate genocide, terrorism, massacres, or whatever killing an elite feels is warranted.
Finally, at the extreme of totalitarian power we have the greatest extreme of democide. Communist governments have almost without exception wielded the most absolute power and their greatest killing (such as during Stalin's reign or the height of Mao's power) has taken place when they have been in their own history most totalitarian. As most communist governments underwent increasing liberalization and a loosening of centralized power in the 1960s through the 1980s, the pace of killing dropped off sharply.
Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.
MPs vote to condemn 'evils of communism'
Swedish member calls for victims' memorial day
Left says Council of Europe motion 'neo McCarthyism'
Jon Hinley, Paris
The Guardian, London; Thursday, January 26, 2006
(Comments: This condemnation of Communism misdeeds in Europe is a clear example that the process of demonizing the Khmer Rouge is to make the Vietnamese Communists and their Cambodian servants under Hun Sen and Sihanouk even more obvious as a means to to deviate the real objective of Vietnam colonialism in Cambodia. Only, by making the Khmer Rouge worst than they are can Vietnam and Hun Sen look more acceptable to the international community. However, this rewriting of history by Vietnam can happen only with the help and the betrayal of Sihanouk by collaborating with Hun Sen and his CPP. Naranhkiri Tith, Ph. D. Washington DC. May 18, 2007)
For some it was a vile capitalist plot aimed at rewriting the recent history of half of Europe, transforming wartime resistance heroes into villains, and denying the laudable ideals and legitimacy of a great political movement.
For others it was a long-overdue denunciation of a couple of dozen thoroughly evil regimes who wrecked their nations' economies, tortured their citizens, and between them were responsible for up to 100 million deaths.
But, by a clear majority, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe yesterday backed a controversial motion demanding that the continent's 46-member human rights watchdog formally condemns "the crimes of totalitarian communist regimes".
More than 60 members of the body's 315-seat assembly, made up of MPs from Europe's parliaments, were due to speak in a debate on a report by the conservative Swedish MP Goran Lindblad, which argued that 15 years after the collapse of the eastern bloc international condemnation of its governments' activities was "urgently necessary".
Mr Lindblad's motion also called for an international conference on the issue and urged former communist states to "revise school books to reflect what happened, establish museums documenting these crimes, and introduce a memorial day for the victims of communism".
The MP adopted the 100 million victim figure arrived at by Stéphane Courtois in his 1997 Black Book of Communism. The count includes 65m in China, 20m in the Soviet Union, 2m in North Korea, 2m in Cambodia, 1.7m in Africa, 1.5m in Afghanistan, 1m in Vietnam, 1m in east Europe and 150,000 in Latin America. (Mr Courtois puts the number of deaths due to Nazism at about 25m.)
Mr Lindblad listed communist regimes' crimes as "assassinations and executions, concentration camp deaths, starvation, deportation, torture, slave labour and other mass physical terror", saying they should be condemned like Nazis' crimes.
Council officials said 99 of the MPs present voted in favour of the motion, 42 opposed it and 12 abstained. Communist parties, mainly in western Europe, had reacted fiercely, saying the report deliberately failed to distinguish between the ideals of communism and its application by totalitarian regimes.
The Belgian Communist party, the PCB, called the motion "a violent attack on history, present and future of communism". The Greek KKE called it "a declaration of war and persecution against all communist parties", and Germany's PDS said it was "neo McCarthyism".
Mikis Theodorakis, the Greek composer, said: "In the name of our dead comrades, of
those who passed through the hands of the Gestapo and the death camps ... shame
on those who want to turn victims into executioners, heroes into criminals and
communists into Nazis."
French communists said the motion "banalises the Holocaust" and "ignores the
communist role in fighting fascism".
André Guerin, a Lyon MP, told Le Figaro that the council's idea was to "definitively bury the values of communism" and "make believe they are outmoded and that the only alternative is Capitalism".
Protests were vigorous in Russia, where a survey found 50% of Russians felt Stalin had played a "positive role" in their history and 42% thought "somebody like him" would be helpful in Russia today.[End]
_______________________________________________________________________