The National Bank of Cambodia in Phnom Penh was demolished with explosives in 1975 by the new Khmer Rouge government as a symbol of their rejection of capitalism.
Photograph by Ben Kiernan, 1980.
Some historians argue that US intervention was primarily responsible for the Khmer Rouge coming to power and the share some responsibility for the subsequent suffering of civilians in Cambodia. How valid is this argument? Use evidence to support your position.
2 responses so far ↓
The United States of America provided a circumstance that would allow the Khmer Rouge to overthrow Lon Nol’s government and as a result they share in the responsibility of the suffering of Cambodian civilians. While the dictatorship of Lon Nol was corrupt and unfavourable to some citizens, Nixon’s bombing campaign was a catalyst for not only a social change in Cambodia in favour of the Khmer Rouge, it also impacted heavily on agriculture in the area. This powerful instigation effectively allowed for Cambodia to be ruled by an oppressive and tyrannical power.
As is already clear, the secret bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail by the Nixon government led to a set of social conditions in favour of the Khmers. Outrage over this attack in Cambodia led to an increased support towards the Khmer Rouge and they were very literally able to walk out of the forest to take over the country. Shawcross explains that the “Khmer Rouge were born out of the inferno America did very much create,” and further goes to explain that the “the bombing was impetus for a Khmer takeover of the countryside.” In his words it can be seen how important the spread of the conflict was for a Khmer Rouge takeover, as consequential result it is explained how vital the US attacks were for creating this basis for Khmer Rouge in their takeover of Cambodia.
The attacks on agricultural areas caused a widespread migration of displaced person to capitol cities, Phnom Phen increasing in population four times the normal. This led to an advantageous circumstance for the Khmer Rouge; the agricultural supplies in Cambodia began to deplete and antagonism toward the Lon Nol government erupted in conjunction with the Khmer Rouge revolt. Historian J Cooper places particular importance on this issue, claiming “The Khmers would never have the support base they had if Phnom Phen was supplied with rice.” This shows a particular importance on the particular target the US bombed, especially the rice fields, as a catalyst for Khmer Rouge victory. The decline of agriculture as a result of US attacks had a monumental impact on the Khmer Rouge takeover and hence, the suffering of Cambodians rests partly with the US.
As can be seen the US have a valid involvement with the results of the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia. Due to their bombing campaign, the Khmers were able to take advantage of beneficial circumstances and as a result they come to power to apply a tyrannical regime over Cambodia. The US, while not directly responsible for the torturous regime, have to answer to the fact that the Khmers were able to take power from the results of US intervention, a valid argument for historians.
As with many historical events, it is false to argue that any one factor could be the single cause of an incident such as the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps on a very broad scale, US intervention in Indochina could be viewed as the cause of conflict in Cambodia, but this would be devaluing the complex domestic political environment that followed Cambodia’s independence. Specifically, the US bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail encouraged a deep desire for victory among Cambodian revolutionaries. This effect was not limited to those soldiers; instead, it was passed on through the indoctrination of new fighters and the next generation. The ignorance of the outside world to the plight of the Cambodian population during the three-year reign of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge meant that Cambodia received little assistance; this can certainly be seen as a lesson to the USA and the rest of the world. It could be argued that US bombing of northern Cambodia became the catalyst for the rise to power of the Khmer Rouge, though anything further than this would be neglected other, equally important factors.
As important as the US intervention were the political and economic factors involved in Cambodia and Indochina. The government of Norodom Sihanouk was corrupt and eccentric; Sihanouk himself spent much of his time producing and acting in his own movies. His election as Prime Minister and subsequent dismantling of the Democratic Party damaged any hopes of Cambodia developing a stable and mature political system following independence. This structural fault allowed Sihanouk to mismanage the economy without being deposed, and provided the communist revolutionaries with a strong base for popular revolution. Sihanouk’s rejection of US aid in favour of closer ties with China and North Vietnam meant that Lon Nol’s desperate requests for assistance from the US were ignored; though it is doubtful whether the Khmer would have been halted that even with this help. Additionally, the Cultural Revolution in China inspired many city-based Cambodian leftist intellectuals to believe that a similar change could occur in Cambodia. This climate of unrest in South-East Asia coupled with the poor economic and corrupt political situation in Indochina resulted in a nation ready for revolution and in need of change.
In his book A History of Cambodia, historian David Chandler notes that for many Cambodians the first seven months under Khmer rule were a relative “golden age” when Cambodia was not at war, squashed between the corruption of Sihanouk and the brutality of life in Democratic Kampuchea. Chandler suggests that perhaps “Cambodia’s problems were so severe as to require revolutionary solutions”. It was the continuation of the revolution with purges of the former intelligentsia, forced labour and disease instigated by a soon corrupt “angkar padevat” (“revolutionary organisation”). The radical nature of the Khmer Rouge ideology left no room for the compassion and rational planning required to rebuild Cambodia. While believing that “family life, individualism, and an ingrained fondness for what they called feudal institutions” stood in the way of the revolution, the Khmer Rouge created an agrarian society that did not aid the plight of the poor further than giving them some power and multiplying their number. The faulted Khmer ideology, driven by corrupt officials, was undeniably the main reason for the horrific suffering of civilians in Cambodia.
This said, it is clear that without US intervention in the Indochina region and Sihanouk’s subsequent diplomatic manoeuvrings, the Cambodian economy and political structure would have been much more stable, and the Khmer Rouge revolution may not of occurred. By extension, the suffering and deaths of millions of Cambodians could be linked to the USA and to a certain extent Cambodia’s allies, but in essence the blame must lie with Cambodians themselves, whom committed the atrocities upon their own people.
Leave a Comment