Khmer Rouge & CambodiaNoam Chomsky interviewed by George McLeod

March 31, 2009

By Noam Chomsky Source: The Phnom Penh Post

March27, 2009 -- Top Khmer Rouge (KR) leaders are going on trial in Cambodia. Youhave some history with Cambodia and have written extensively on the KR. Do youbelieve a United Nations trial is the best way forward, or should it be left to theCambodian people?

I think it should be left to the Cambodian people. I can’t imagine a UN, international trial. But then itshouldn’t be limited to the Cambodians – after all, an international trial that doesn’t take intoaccount Henry Kissinger or the other authors of the American bombing and the support of the KRafter they were kicked out of the country – that’s just a farce – especially with what we now knowabout the bombing of Cambodia since the release of the Kissinger-Nixon tapes, and the release ofdeclassified documents during the Clinton years. There has been a very different picture of the scaleand intensity of the bombing and the genocidal scale of it. For an international trial to omit thiswould be scandalous.

How far down the chain of command should the prosecutions go?

I think that’s a decision for Cambodians to make – the questions should be: should [theprosecutions] be limited to KR criminals, or should it include criminals from the Lon Nol regime, orlater, but those are decisions the Cambodian need to make.

You can make a case for an internationally-run trial, but as I said, it would be absolutely farcical if itwas restricted to Cambodians.

The records say that the US wanted to “use anything that flies against anything that moves” [duringthe bombing of Cambodia] , which led to five times the bombing that was reported before, greaterthan all bombing in all theatres of WWII, which helped create the Khmer Rouge.

So to try to excuse their crimes from the broader picture may be sensible for Cambodians who aretrying to find some internal justice and reconciliation, but for the broader picture, it’s simply farcical.

So you think US leaders should be tried in connection with the crimes of the DKregime?

Not just in the context of the DK regime—that’s afterwards, I think supporting the KR after theDemocratic Kampuchea regime, after they were kicked out – or supporting the Chinese invasion topunish Vietnam for the crime of driving them out, that’s a crime in itself. But the much worse crimewas by Kissinger-Nixon, and its pretty hard to disagree with analysts like Ben Kiernan … whoreleased the documentation during the Clinton years – their conclusion was that this bombing, which

released the documentation during the Clinton years – their conclusion was that this bombing, whichreally had genocidal intent –anything that flies against anything that moves – essentially changedthe KR from a small group into a mass army of what they call enraged peasants bent on revenge.How could you omit that when you are discussing the Khmer Rouge atrocities?

Are you saying the KRT is a show trial?

These trials altogether have a very strange character – the most serious of all the tribunals sinceWWII was the Nuremberg trials, and that was a well-designed, carefully executed legal proceeding.

But if you look at it closely, it was a farce – that was implicitly conceded to allow the Nazi warcriminals to be tried. They were some of the worst monsters in history – and there is no doubt theywere guilty – they had to define a notion of war crime, and it was post-facto – they were being triedfor crimes after they committed them.

The trial had a very clear definition of war crime – it was crimes that you committed, and that [theallies] didn’t.

So for example, the bombing of urban centers was not considered a crime and the reason is veryexplicit – the allies did more of it than the Germans.

The bombing of Japan frankly leveled the country and was not considered a crime because [theallies] did it. In fact, German war criminals were able to exonerate themselves if their defense wasable to demonstrate that their counterparts in the West did the same thing.

For example, a German submarine admiral who did commit war crimes by normal standards wasfreed from those charges when he brought into evidence testimony from an admiral in the Britishand American navy saying ‘yeah that’s what we did too’. This was recognized, and chief prosecutorJackson, he made a very eloquent speech to the tribunal where he said we were handing thedefendants here a poisoned chalice, and if we sip from it, we must suffer the same punishment orelse the trial is meaningless.

Well, we have sipped from that chalice numerous times since – the chief crime was the crime ofaggression – the supreme international crime, and count the times the US and Britain have beenguilty of outright aggression. Have they been tried?

It’s a farce – victor’s justice – and if you run through the rest of the trials, they pretty much have thesame properties. In fact, I can’t think of one that has been honest in this respect – the only ones Ican think that have been honest are the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions like in South Africa, ElSalvador or Guatemala, where they brought out what happened and identified the perpetrators. Andin many cases, it was done very honestly, and by the victims – they’re the ones that testified.

Then why are the KR on trial and not other murderous political leaders? Some Israeligenerals for example have been accused of crimes against humanity as well.

An Israeli general would never be tried because they are backed by the US. These things reflectpower systems. Very often the people that are tried deserve to be tried and sentenced, but thestructure of the trials has exonerated the powerful.

In fact the position is extreme – the US is the most powerful country in the world and it’s also themost extreme in rejecting any form of judicial control – the US is the only country that rejected aWorld Court decision that rejected the unlawful use of force. And that’s why an Israeli general can’tbe tried – if an Israeli was brought to the Hague, the US might invoke Europeans call TheNetherlands Invasion Act. The US has legislation authorizing the President to use force to rescueany American brought to the Hague.

So you’re saying that this trial is not about justice?

So you’re saying that this trial is not about justice?

There is an element that it’s about justice … You take Nuremberg again; there is no doubt that theaccused were guilty – but is it justice? You take the foreign minister Ribbentraup – one of the crimesfor which he was sentenced, was that he supported a pre-emptive strike against Norway. Well, at atime Norway was a threat to Nazi Germany of course, and he ordered a pre-emptive strike. But whatdid Colin Power do? Iraq was no threat.

You were heavily criticized for some of your views of the KR, and some accused youof being favorable to the KR. Were you unfairly criticized?

It’s ridiculous – in fact, there has been a massive critique of some of things that Edward Herman andI wrote – and my view is that they were some of the most accurate things that were written inhistory.

Nobody has been able to find a missed comma, which is not surprising. Before we published thechapter – we had it reviewed by most of the leading specialists on the topic, who made somesuggestions, but basically nothing.

Our main conclusion was: You have to tell the truth – don’t lie about our crimes denying them, anddon’t lie about their crimes exaggerating them. In fact, what we actually did ... the main thesis is acomparison between Cambodia and East Timor. And it’s a natural comparison – massive atrocitiesgoing on in the same part of the world – the same years – East Timor went on for another 25 yearsafterwards, and relative to population, they were about at the same scale. And what we found wasthat there was massive lying, but in opposite directions. In the case of East Timor, it was ignored anddenied. In the case of Cambodia, it was wild accusations without a particle of evidence. So what wasthe fundamental difference between the two cases – in Indonesia we were responsible, and we couldhave done something. But in the other case, an enemy was responsible.

But at the end of the East Timor occupation in the Clinton years, didn’t the US urgeIndonesia to pull out of East Timor?

Absolutely not – those are some of the most grotesque propaganda lies of the current period – theUS supported the invasion fully – it provided decisive support for it, military, diplomatic and so on,and the British joined it, and it started to peak in 1978, and the massacres escalated in 1999, rightbefore the referendum, the US continued to support it fully, Britain continued to support it fully, andthey were much worse than anything reported in Kosovo at the same period. And the US continuedto support it, even at the height of the massacres in Dili in late August, 1999 – finally, Clinton cameunder such intense domestic pressure – much from the right wing and the Catholic Church, that hejust told the Indonesians quietly, “okay, the game is over” and they went home – instantly. Thatshows what could have been done for the past 25 years. And Britain lagged – it kept supplyingIndonesia with military hardware, even after the UN peacekeeping force went. I mean, these are themost outrageous claims.

A major trade delegation recently visited Cambodia from Israel. Should Cambodia beembracing this, or do you back a boycott of Israeli trade and investment?

It’s the same moral issue that arises all the time – even with the trials. I mean yes, Israel is doingterrible things. Why? Because the US is supporting it – its like Indonesia and East Timor – as soon asClinton told the Indonesians that its over—they didn’t have bomb or boycott – they just told them itsover,. They withdrew instantly. If the US stopped providing decisive military, economic, ideologicalsupport, Israeli couldn’t do what it’s doing. Well why doesn’t anyone talk about boycotting the US?Because it’s too powerful.

You seemed to defend the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1979, despite UNresolutions passed against the Vietnamese. In contrast, you criticise the Israelis for

resolutions passed against the Vietnamese. In contrast, you criticise the Israelis fortheir occupation on the grounds of UN resolutions passed against the Israelis. Whywere you able to look the other way with the Vietnamese?

I didn’t defend it, I criticized it. If you look at that same book that Herman and I wrote in 1979 – itcriticizes the invasion. It’s not a very harsh criticism because it did have a very positive consequence– it got rid of the KR, and if you look at it, the Vietnamese had plenty of provocation – the KR wereattacking across the border and killing Vietnamese. By our standards it was fully justified,nevertheless, we did criticize it. If you want to look at humanitarian interventions since the war – Imean interventions that had a humanitarian consequence whatever their motive was – there arereally only two major examples. The Indian invasion of East Pakistan in 1971 and the Vietnameseinvasion of Cambodia. And they are never touted because the US was against them.

You have obviously been one of the top critics of US policy – do you think the Obamaadministration marks a change from past administrations?

I can’t see anything – I mean he is escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I mean Bushstarted it in 2004, but he is continuing it – there is no indication that I can see. I mean the Bushadministration was kind of off the spectrum – they were extreme in their arrogance and brazencontempt for the world. But the second Bush term kind of moderated it – they kicked out the moreextreme people – Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and it sort of went more towards the centrist position.

And Obama is moving forward toward the familiar centrist position – he is very misinterpreted. Imean, you can’t blame him – for example, it is claimed that he was a principal opponent of the Iraqwar – but was he? His criticism of the war was that it was a strategic blunder – you could have readthat in Pravda [newspaper] in 1985 about the invasion of Afghanistan.

What do you think the Obama administration is up against with the economic crisis?How bad do you think it will get?

Nobody really knows – a lot of the sophisticated money managers think it may level off by the falland start recovering. On the other hand, there are sensible economists that think it will go muchdeeper. And the Obama administration is being very delicate in the moves it is making. It is movingin ways that don’t interfere with the basic structure of the system that created the crisis. You cansee with the bonuses that are enraging everyone. I mean there is a way to deal with the bonuses –the way that congress is dealing with it to tax them, it’s probably unconstitutional.

But there is a very simple way of doing it – the government basically owns AIG by now – it hascontrolling shares. It could simply divest the financial section that is responsible for the crisis andseparate it from AIG, and keep the functional part going. And the other part can just fend for itself,and the executives can try to get their bonuses from a bankrupt section – that ends that problem.But that would interfere with the corporate structure, which Obama won’t do.

Do you believe it turn will turn into another great depression?

I think that’s very unlikely it would go that far – for one thing, there are built-in safeguards from theNew Deal period. However, it’s not certain. This morning in the financial press, China is calling forreplacement of the dollar as the reserve currency.

Nobody really knows what is going to happen.

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance LivesURL: http://www.zcommunications.org/khmer-rouge-and-cambodia-by-noam-chomsky