Thu, Sep 30, 2010Op-Ed by Phalla Prum As many as two million Cambodians lost their lives during the 1975-1979 Khmer Rouge regime. Yet, nearly 30 years later, most of the victims still don’t understand why the Khmer Rouge killed so many people and they find it difficult to believe that it was possible for Khmers to kill other Khmers.
For many years after the regime collapsed, it was not possible to seek justice in Cambodian courts for atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge because the country was immersed in a civil war. The international community had turned its attention to the Cold War and did not intervene to stop the violence in Cambodia and help stabilize the country. Nearly two decades had passed before the Royal Government of Cambodia sought to establish a special court that could deliver some justice to the Cambodian people.
Justice for Cambodians is not simply about the hybrid tribunal set up by the United Nations and Royal Government in 2006 to prosecute a handful of the regime’s senior leaders. But other methods can be employed to supplement the efforts of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal and bring some measure of justice for the victims. After a brief introduction on the regime, this essay will explore the question of why the Khmer Rouge, especially the low-level cadres, killed. It closes with some ideas on how to make these criminals accountable and finally bring justice and reconciliation to Cambodian society.
Background
After French colonialism ended, Cambodia was governed by King Sihanouk’s Sangkum Reaster Niyum and enjoyed a period of peace. However, Cambodia could not escape the influence of the Cold War, even though King Sihanouk tried to retain his country’s stance of neutrality. He also seemed to support the communist countries by letting the North Vietnamese use Cambodian soil to fight with the South Vietnamese. While his reputation was declining, one of his generals, Lon Nol, staged a successful coup d’état against the king on 18 March 1970.
The Lon Nol government was caught in a bloody civil war with the communists, known as the Khmer Rouge, for nearly its entire period in power (19701-975). The revolutionaries enjoyed massive support from the poor, which enabled them to overthrow the Lon Nol government. The official name of the Khmer Rouge was the Communist Party of Kampuchea, which took control of Cambodia on 17 April 1975. Soon after they took power, the Khmer Rouge forced nearly 2 million people in Phnom Penh and other cities into the countryside to start agricultural work. Thousands of people died during the evacuation.
The Khmer Rouge held radical Communist ideals. They wanted to transform Cambodia into a rural, classless society in which there were no rich or poor people. They thus abolished money, free markets, normal schooling, private property, foreign clothing styles, religious practices and traditional culture. Schools and universities, places of worship, commercial sites, and government buildings were shut down or turned into prisons, reeducation camps, or storage facilities. There was virtually no transportation available to those who were not Khmer Rouge officials. Leisure activities were severely restricted, and only officially sanctioned entertainment was allowed; it was coupled with propaganda.
The Khmer Rouge leaders tried to change Cambodia by replacing what they felt were impediments to national autonomy and social justice with revolutionary energy and incentive. Because they believed that poor Cambodians had always been suppressed and enslaved, the Khmer Rouge sought to liberate and empower them so they would become the masters of their lives and country.
The Khmer Rouge gave privileges to the base people (those living in the areas controlled by the Khmer Rouge before 1975), most of whom were poor. The new or 17 April people were made to work harder and were often targeted for killing. The Khmer Rouge also killed many of their own soldiers and party members, who they accused of being traitors or opposing their rule. Today, the Khmer Rouge leaders still deny any responsibility for the killings. They say the low-ranking cadres killed of their own accord. However, most of these cadres say they acted under the orders of high-ranking officials.
The Reasons for the Killings
Scholar Michael Taussig developed a concept of violence by analyzing the relations between the officials of a colonial company and South American Indians. Many of the Indian workers who collected rubber for the company were forced to work day and night and were tortured (some of them were crucified upside down). The perpetrators (the whites) sometimes hacked the peaceful Indian workers into pieces and killed their children by throwing them against trees and walls. Those too old to work were killed and processed into food for the company’s dogs.
How would we, as the witnesses to these terrible actions, respond? All of us would likely say that those who committed such horrible acts should be condemned. But there is another perspective, that of the perpetrators, who felt they had a legitimate excuse. Taussig notes that the company’s staff lived in constant fear of death from Indian attacks, conspiracies, uprisings and treachery. More important, they were very frightened after hearing stories of the Indians’ cannibalism. In order to save themselves, they felt they needed to kill. Generalizing from this case, when people live in a terrifying world, the only way they can survive is by committing terror themselves. When people are confronted with death, it is a natural reaction to act to save their own lives.
This view can also be applied to the Khmer Rouge, whose cadres felt they were also victims of the regime and constantly feared for their lives. Men and women working in the same company were ready to report their colleagues in order to save themselves. Between 600 and 1, 700 comrades working in the notorious S-21 prison were killed there in a purge that began in 1977; historians believe that if the Vietnamese had not reached Phnom Penh in January 1979, the purges would likely have continued. Many Khmer Rouge cadres were worried about their fate when they saw their friends being taken away to be killed. They tried to show their loyalty to the state by committing violent crimes; otherwise, they would be branded as enemies and would be killed, just like their victims.
Against a backdrop of violence and conflict, fears and suspicious also took root among the Khmer Rouge leaders. As Bun Chan Mol said, they did not trust those who worked with them. They were afraid their colleagues would kill them and take their positions. The purges of Khmer Rouge leaders that took place between 1977 and 1978 were the result officials’ fear of a coup, so they began arresting their enemies. Thus, they drew a clear line between “we” and “they” to ensure that “we” survived.
In the case of Democratic Kampuchea, “we” referred the nation, people in the peasant class, the revolution and its army, and the collective system. “They” included those judged to be imperialists and members of the feudal-capitalist class such as royalty, those serving the Lon Nol regime, the rich, and those who lived in the city or a provincial town. In the eyes of the Khmer Rouge, this latter group was dangerous and had to be annihilated if the regime was to survive for a very long time.
In order to commit so many killings, they likely acted in a way suggested by Appadurai, who said that it was first necessary to reduce the enemy to a subhuman status. By creating a distance between themselves and their victims, it was easy to view them as garbage or lower forms of life. The perpetrators of S-21 prison helped transform their victims to a sub-human status. They smelled bad, had skin diseases and lice, and were emaciated; in this condition, they were different enough that it was easy for the cadres to consider them to be less than human. The interrogators and guards called the prisoners vea, a pronoun that is considered insulting because it is applied to animals. Sometimes, prisoners were forced to pay respect to the image of a dog (which Khmers consider to be a low-class animal). When the prisoners did this, it allowed the interrogators to conclude that they were “inferior.”
Essayist Susan Sontag argued that prisoners have been humiliated in every culture. We know this happened in Nazi concentration camps but it also occurred in Iraq’s Abu Ghrab prison, where Americans did what “they are told, or made to feel, that those over whom they have absolute power deserve to be humiliated, tormented.” They committed atrocities because they were made to believe that the prisoners they were torturing were members of an inferior race or religion.
Justice for the Cambodians
Justice is understood differently by different people. Some would define justice prosecuting people for the crimes they committed. Others see justice as a process that could end the suffering they have been enduring. It has been almost thirty years now since the Khmer Rouge were defeated. But not one member of the Khmer Rouge has yet to be charged for crimes they committed, much less brought to justice. This is because there have been conflicts on the issue of whether they should be prosecuted under an international or domestic court.
In addition, Cambodians are still living with few human rights. Scholars Judy Ledgerwood and Kheang Un found that none of Cambodia’s governments – whether the country was ruled by the French, the King, the Communists, or the Republic – allowed people a life under which human rights were respected. Even the senior leaders of the current government give priority to meeting basic economic needs over human rights; they also claimed that the effort to bring the former Khmer Rouge to justice would provoke another civil war, thus making the human rights problem one of national security and stability. This issue became a trigger point: many people argued that the hybrid (international and domestic) tribunal would not provide enough justice for the Cambodian people since the government had earlier hesitated to prosecute the Khmer Rouge and that it wanted to influence the tribunal. In addition, some Cambodian officials have stated that the interests and ideologies of the superpowers caused them to forget truth, justice, and human rights, and to ignore the infamous regime that killed millions of Cambodians.
Craig Etcheson has noted that the government’s stance has shifted more than once. In 1995, the ruling Cambodian People’s Party reaffirmed its long commitment to bring the perpetrators to justice. Because of the weaknesses of the domestic judicial system, on 21 June 1997 the first co-prime ministers, Prince Rannaridh and Hun Sen, sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General requesting international assistance in setting up a tribunal. But once most of the Khmer Rouge leaders had surrendered to the government, the Prime Minister changed his mind, declaiming that Cambodians should “dig a hole and bury the past.” However, after seven years’ of negotiation, the government agreed to a tribunal.
Some scholars have noted that weaknesses in the tribunal may mean that justice is not assured in some cases. Steve Heder and others have voiced their concern about the political influences on the tribunal. Heder stated that past judgements of the Cambodian courts, in which decisions were determined before a trial, indicate that bias will be present in the tribunal. Citing the examples of hybrid tribunals in East Timor and Sierra Leone, Charles T. Call has raised the issues of low capability and political influence, and stated that Cambodia’s hybrid tribunal may not produce real justice.
Some people are pessimistic, feeling that the trials will never occur because the Cambodian government will block the process or cease cooperating with the United Nations. In any case, it is clear that the government intends to prosecute only a handful of Khmer Rouge leaders. What should be done, then, about the cadres who tortured and executed people during the regime?
The purpose of the law that established the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia “is to bring to trial senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those most responsible for crimes and serious violations of Cambodian penal law, international humanitarian law and custom, and international conventions recognized by Cambodia, that were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979.” Steve Header has concluded perhaps 60 people will be brought to trial: 10 senior leaders and 50 “most responsible” persons. However, there are less than 10 people who are still alive who could fit into the category of “senior leader” and it seems that the “most responsible” category is too large. Perhaps a dozen or less cases will be brought to the court.
One thing is clear: the tribunal’s jurisdiction does not extend to low-level cadres who killed others. Again, this presents a dilemma, depending on whether the problem is being viewed from the perspective of the cadres or victims. Many cadres lived in fear during the regime; afraid that if they did not obey or made mistakes, they would be tortured or killed. This perspective would lead to the promotion of what is called “restorative justice,” where people would be helped to understand that these cadres were also victims, and acted because they were brainwashed by propaganda or in an attempt to save their lives.
But looking at this problem from the victims’ perspective, one could say that such people always claim they were acting on orders from above in order to escape punishment. For example, former S-21 guard Him Huy said that his chief asked him to kill a few people in a effort to show that he was loyal. He said he had no choice about killing those prisoners in order to save his own life.
Promoting reconciliation is one way to deal with such a complex question. Religion would help greatly in this process. Most Khmers practice Theravada Buddhism, which teaches forgiveness, reconciliation, forbearance and compassion. The Buddha said, “Hatred never stops hatred, but by love alone heals.” Society has interpreted this concept to mean that people should be sympathetic toward wrongdoers and help them to walk on the correct path. In the words of Venerable Yos Hut Khemacarao, “Buddhism teaches us to win over bad deeds by doing good deeds, to win over a grudge by not bearing a grudge, to embrace love, forgiveness and pity, to win greed by being kind, and to win falsehood by always speaking the truth.” Samdech Preah Sokinthea Thibdei Bour Kry, supreme head of the Sangha of the Thommayut Nikay, explained that reconciliation is permissible. He gave an example of Ang Kuli Mear, a cruel man whose goal was to kill 1000 people. After he had killed 999 people, he decided that his mother would be his final victim. The Buddha interrupted him and stopped him from committing this evil act. Following this example, Bour Kry urged reconciliation, saying that if the Khmer Rouge were educated in appropriate social ways, all people can live together. To him, education means teaching people to give up bad deeds and practice good deeds.
A number of scholars have pointed to several mechanisms that would allow transitional justice to cope with the problem of reconciliation. These include truth commissions, reparation, vetting, memorials and traditional ceremonies, historical projects and writing, and activities at the community level.
A truth commission is necessary to complement criminal trials, especially in Cambodia, where many people still do not understand much about the regime. A truth commission is simply a way to uncover the truth about what happened. Its main task in Cambodia would be education, since many people want to know the truth.
Many people believe that traditional ceremonies are the essence of the reconciliation process. Ritual ceremonies are very important in the daily life of people in all countries. They have become important for most countries that are emerging from conflict and use them in dealing with their legacies. In Cambodia there are a few important ceremonies that could help healing people’s social wounds.
One of these is Pchum Ben (Ancestor Day). In this important Buddhist celebration, people dedicate acts of merit to their ancestors. Because people believe that even though their ancestors are dead, their spirits still remain with their families to protect them from bad things such as cruel diseases. But sometimes, the spirits punish their families or community for ignoring them. So, people hold this ceremony to prevent a bad blessing. Once they hold the ceremony, they receive good fortune and their ancestors’ spirits will make a peaceful journey in the cycle of life and death. Thus, such a ceremony would allow people to move on emotionally by reconciling among themselves. The next steps would be to reconcile with their neighbors as a community and then move toward national reconciliation.
For example, when I asked many survivors who they have reconciled after the Khmer Rouge regime, they responded that they always pray for their relatives who disappeared. Even many Cambodians living abroad send money to their relatives to pray for their lost family members.
Bangskaul is another ceremony that people use to transfer merit to their ancestors’ spirits. People offer alms to monks, who then perform a ceremony to transfer merit. This ceremony could be very important for people whose relatives died in the Khmer Rouge regime, for those who died did not receive a death ceremony. People believe that as a result, those ancestors would become malicious ghosts. Thus, this ceremony is one of the best options to Cambodians could use to calm those spirits and prevent them from disturbing the life of the community.
In terms of reparation, the ECCC and Royal Government of Cambodia have not indicated that the victims would receive monetary compensation. But it would be very welcomed by the victims, who are poor and need this kind of support. As Prince Rannariddh and Hun Sen said, economic need is the most important one for the Cambodian people. However, it would be impossible to give reparations in Cambodia, where almost every single family lost one or more loved ones. Therefore, collective reparation such as education, health, and infrastructure, would be helpful in improving peoples’ standards of living.
-----------------------------
Phalla Prum is pursuing his master’s degree at Rutgers University in the USA.
.jpg)
.jpg)
