Last edited Fri May 31, 2013, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Khieu Samphan was "president of the state presidium", i.e. head of state (Same as Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and the President of the US), but real power was held by the head of the Communist Party of Cambodia, Pel Pot (Just as in the United Kingdom, real power is in hands of the Prime Minister).
We, Americans are use to the Head of State also having the power of the state behind him, that is NOT true in a lot of Countries. The Queen is the Head of State of the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and other former colonies of the United Kingdom, but REAL power is held by the Prime Ministers in most of those countries.
Stalin was NEVER the head of state of the Soviet Union, he was just the head of the Communist Party, a much more powerful position in the old Soviet Union, This practice was adopted by a lot of other Communist countries. including Cambodia. Thus the real issue is how much power did Khieu Samphan as "president of the state presidium" actually held? He was clearly a yes-man to Pol Pot and part of the ruling clique of the Khemer Rouge, but could he overrule Pol Pot? Could he mitigate the affect of Pol Pots's Policies?
If you read the history of Cambodia and the treatment of the Communist opposition in the 1960s, the Cambodia Communist party either had to dissolve under the pressure, or become a group of people who were so dependent on each other, opposition to any one of them by any one of the group was impossible (the best example of this is among Holocaust survivors, they tend to refuse to admit to any fault among each other and if one of them makes a claim they will support that claim even if it is clearly false). This "Group think" is well know among people who survive a common hardship, and that is what the clique around Pol Pot became due to the pressure on them in the 1960s. Thus when Pol Pot decided it was time for radical action, none of the other members of that Clique were willing to object to the plan.
I bring this up, for we have to understand what was going on, who held power, and what this person's position was within that power structure before we can completely condemn him. If he had NOT been in the same group during the 1960s, and still participated in the crimes of the 1970s, that would be a different situation. In such a situation it would have been easier for him to object, undermined and even prevent the crimes. The problem was he had been a member of that clique, and clearly suffered from that group-think as being one of the few Survivors from the repression of the 1960s and as such was incapable from a Psychological point of view of stopping what Pol Pot wanted done.
This is a tough decision, do you punish him for doing what most people in his situation (including the group think due to repression of the 1960s) would have done OR do you punish him as if he did NOT suffer those pressures in the 1960s? i.e. punish him as if he had a real choice in objecting to what Pol Pot wanted. He is NOT an innocent person, but he is NOT the monster people are trying to paint him as. In many ways he is as much of a victim as the people who died.
I hate to say this, the best solution is some sort of Show Trial followed by a Pardon. The Show Trial to point out what had happened and why. Such a trial will permit people to get to the truth of what happen and set up a system so it does NOT happen again. Once the trial is over, a pardon should be granted for any form of punishment of these defendants would NOT be adequate to prevent something like this in the future (If Pol Pot was still alive, that would be a different story, he clearly had the ability to choose and did when he gave out his orders that lead to the mass killings in Cambodia).
An alternative would be a "Truth Commission" as was done in South Africa after the end of Apartheid. No punishment if you tell the complete truth to the Commission. Please note, most of the people who would had been in a position to prevent the abuse that occurred under Apartheid were dead by the time Apartheid was abolished, thus by the time Apartheid ended you had a situation much like in Cambodia today, the people who ORDERED the crimes are dead and we are left with the peons who carried out those orders. A Truth Commission or a Trial followed by a Pardon is the best way to handle those cases. Either way WHAT happened would be made public, at the same time we are not punishing people, who were mere peons themselves when others, now long dead, held the real power. We need to punish the people who ordered or could have stop such crimes, not people who did not have the ability to stop such crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khieu_Samphan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
= new reply since forum marked as read
