Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge

O

Omaar

Guest
Someone told me at the pub the other week that Chomsky was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge at the time that all that stuff was going down.

Is there much truth to what I'm guessing is something of an over-simplification or misinterpretation?

I thought I might get some easy answers by probing the chomsky group brain here.
 
Pubs are notoriously unreliable venues for political discourse, the ethanol vapour notwithstanding.

"In order to bleed Vietnam, we've supported the Khmer Rouge indirectly through our allies, China and Thailand. The Cambodians have to pay with their blood so we can make sure there isn't any recovery in Vietnam. The Vietnamese have to be punished for having resisted US violence."

Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, 1993.

The basis for much of the misunderstanding concerning Chomsky's analysis of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge derive from the West's initial support for Pol Pot during the Vietnam war. Chomsky considers Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia, which terminated Pol Pot’s atrocities there just at the point that they were peaking, as a rare example of a unwittingly genuine "humanitarian intervention" with benign consequences by a military power. But the reaction to this by the West towards Vietnam was very harsh and punitive. In the case of Pol Pot, the US and Britain immediately turned to supporting the Khmer Rouge. They supported a Chinese invasion to punish Vietnam for the crime of having terminated Pol Pot’s atrocities, while also imposing very harsh sanctions.

Of course, strictly speaking, one shouldn't necessarily call Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia a humanitarian intervention. They didn’t intervene because they were trying to help people. They had their own reasons of state. In fact, in Vietnam’s case, it was really defensive. Pol Pot was carrying out atrocities inside Vietnam and along the border so it was primarily a defensive reaction.

"But the consequences were very benign. And the West reacted with extreme harshness," Chomsky concludes.

But the Western media have since turned all of this unside down - just as they subsequently did with Saddam Hussein, those (the anti-war movement, among others) who were critical of him when he was the West's ally and when he was engaging in his worst Western-funded atrocities in the 1980s now accused of being his apologist for opposing the Iraq invasion.

What manner of drink is your pub serving?
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
The article that sparked things off is here:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm
although I believe there were various subsequent writings of a similar tone. He makes a point of not judging the Khmer Rouge directly and stresses that he's making a point about the american media's reception of these reports rather than about the actual situation in campbodia. On the other hand, in doing so, he generally heaps scorn on accounts that are critical of the Khmer Rouge and praises those that are uncritical of the Khmer Rouge and emphasize the atrocities of the american invasion.

There's a lot of stuff about this on the interweb, but most of it either comes from the position that Chomsky can do no wrong and is above criticism or that he's a commie faggot and should be shot...
 
O

Omaar

Guest
Thanks for the replies, the Nation article that created this controvesy should be interesting reading.

The pub in question does serve some rather fine ales; the chomksy-khmer link was used by a new labour supporting friend from work to dismiss chomsky out of hand.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Omaar said:
Thanks for the replies, the Nation article that created this controvesy should be interesting reading.

The pub in question does serve some rather fine ales; the chomksy-khmer link was used by a new labour supporting friend from work to dismiss chomsky out of hand.
Surely you could have used his new labour support to dismiss him out of hand?

From what I've read of it, it's not a good reason to dismiss Chomsky, but it is a good reason to be fairly cautious about accepting what he says at face value without close scrutiny, just as you would from any other source. It's more useful for arguing with people who rattle on about how you shouldn't believe anything that you read in the media but then quote chapter and verse from the big C without thinking about it...
 
O

Omaar

Guest
Slothrop said:
Hmmm... Bruce Sharp has a lengthy article written from a fairly sensible anti-Chomsky standpoint here:
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

He also links to a lot of discussion from both sides at the end.

Yeah, I just printed that article out; will take a look at on my way home.

Slothrop said:
Surely you could have used his new labour support to dismiss him out of hand?

I guess that would have been a possibility ;) The trouble is, he's exceptionally good with facts and figures and has a much better knowledge of history than me. I'm just convinced that his understanding of history is completely wrong. Hence me following this up.
 

bruno

est malade
Slothrop said:
Hmmm... Bruce Sharp has a lengthy article written from a fairly sensible anti-Chomsky standpoint here:
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

He also links to a lot of discussion from both sides at the end.
thank you, slothrop. 'and so on and so forth', indeed. having read the ponchaud book (cambodia year zero), his critique of it and the author is particularly nauseating to read. very malicious. chomsky's position vis-a-vis the cambodian tragedy is a disgrace, but what is worse is that he has never put forth an honest retraction for his justification of khmer rouge actions. atrocities such as forcing an entire population from major cities, including the sick and injured. so this is the beacon of intellectual rectitude for the left! the same people that turned a blind eye to the incarceration and torture of dissidents under every repressive left-of-centre regime, that championed intellectuals fond of dictators without batting an eyelid, 'and so on and so forth'. why am i not surprised.
 
Slothrop said:
The article that sparked things off is here:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm
although I believe there were various subsequent writings of a similar tone. He makes a point of not judging the Khmer Rouge directly and stresses that he's making a point about the american media's reception of these reports rather than about the actual situation in campbodia. On the other hand, in doing so, he generally heaps scorn on accounts that are critical of the Khmer Rouge and praises those that are uncritical of the Khmer Rouge and emphasize the atrocities of the american invasion. ...

A careful reading of the linked article (Distortions at Fourth Hand, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, published in The Nation, June 25, 1977) completely contradicts the sentiments expressed above. Nowhere in the article do Chomsky and Herman "make a point of not judging the Khmer Rouge directly", and nowhere in the article do they "heap scorn on accounts that are critical of the Khmer Rouge and praise those that are uncritical of the Khmer Rouge and emphasize the atrocities of the american invasion." Their interest is objective research and analysis, not emotive raving or personalised abuse. The article, an analysis of three books about Cambodia from three decades ago, highlights the gross distortions and selectivity of the mainstream media as a result of ideological propaganda and inherited prejudices, all at the expense of rigorous, substantive journalism when the latter reports unpalatable truths (eg Western atrocities that are much more severe than that of the supposed Evil Other). The mainstream accounts (popularised by such sentimentalised and false Hollywood film accounts as Roland Joffe's horrendously decontextualised The Killing Fields, irresponsible fiction uncritically accepted as "the truth" by audiences, still continuing) completely ignore the historical context, the US genocide in both Vietnam and Cambodia, the B-52 carpet-bombing that not only slaughtered millions, but also their "scorched earth" practices that rendered the rural - and much of the urban - landscape devastated and uninhabitable, leading to further starvation and famine. Some relevant quotes:

We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable.

It is a fair generalization that the larger the number of deaths attributed to the Khmer Rouge, and the more the U.S. role is set aside, the larger the audience that will be reached. The Barron-Paul volume is a third-rate propaganda tract, but its exclusive focus on Communist terror assures it a huge audience. Ponchaud's far more substantial work has an anti-Communist bias and message, but it has attained stardom only via the extreme anti-Khmer Rouge distortions added to it in the article in the New York Review of Books. The last added the adequately large numbers executed and gave a "Left" authentication of Communist evil that assured a quantum leap to the mass audience unavailable to Hildebrand and Porter or to Carol Bragg. Contrary facts and even authors' corrections of misstatements are generally ignored or inadequately reported in favor of a useful lesson (we note one exception: an honest retraction of an editorial based on Lacouture in the Boston Globe. We noted earlier that the Monitor editorial and other press comments built on the Lacouture review offer at best a fourth-hand account. The chain of transmission runs from refugees (or Thai or U.S. officials), to Ponchaud, to the New York Review, to the press, where a mass audience is reached and "facts" are established that enter the approved version of history.​

In this light, some of the responses in this thread are interesting, to say the least, with one poster so twisting the record in order to construct fantasy strawmen (of Chomsky and of the entire Left) guilty of being apologists for genocide, all with the aim of covering up the true historical tragedy, since then being repeated elsewhere.

Perhaps another quote is in order:

Ponchaud's book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited. He gives a grisly account of of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. He also reminds us of some relevant history. For example, in this "peaceful land," peasants were massacred, their lands stolen and villages destroyed, by police and army in 1966, many then joining the maquis out of "their hatred for a government exercising such injustices and sowing death." He reports the enormous destruction and murder resulting directly from the American attack on Cambodia, the starvation and epidemics as the population was driven from their countryside by American military terror and the U.S.-incited civil war, leaving Cambodia with "an economy completely devastated by the war." He points out that "from the time of Sihanouk, then Lon Nol, the soldiers of the government army had already employed, with regard to their Khmer Rouge 'enemies,' bloodthirsty methods in no way different from those of Democratic Cambodia" (the Khmer Rouge). He also gives a rather positive account of Khmer Rouge programs of social and economic development, while deploring much brutal practice in working for egalitarian goals and national independence.

Ponchaud's book lacks the documentation provided in Hildebrand and Porter and its veracity is therefore difficult to assess. But the serious reader will find much to make him somewhat wary. For one thing, Ponchaud plays fast and loose with quotes and with numbers. He quotes an unattributed Khmer Rouge slogan, "One or two million young people will be enough to build the new Cambodia." In an article in Le Monde (February 18, 1976) he gives what appears to be the same quote, this time as follows: "To rebuild the new Cambodia, a million people are enough." Here the quote is attributed to a Khmer Rouge military commander, along with the statement misrepresented by Barron and Paul, noted above (Lacouture changes the numbers to 1.5 million to 2 million, attributes the quote to an unnamed Marxist, and concludes that it goes beyond barbarism). This is one of the rare examples of a quote that can be checked. The results are not impressive.

Ponchaud cites a Cambodian report that 200,000 people were killed in American bombings from March 7 to August 15, 1973. No source is offered, but suspicions are aroused by the fact that Phnom Penh radio announced on May 9, 1975 that there were 200,000 casualties of the American bombing in 1973, including "killed, wounded, and crippled for life" (Hildebrand and Porter). Ponchaud cites "Cambodian authorities" who give the figures 800,000 killed and 240,000 wounded before liberation. The figures are implausible. By the usual rule of thumb, wounded amount to about three times killed; quite possibly he has the figures reversed.

More significant is Ponchaud's account of the evacuation of Phnom Penh in April 1975. He reports the explanation given by the revolutionary government: that the evacuation was motivated by impending famine. But this he rejects, on the ground that rice stocks in Phnom Penh would have sufficed for two months, with rationing (what he thinks would have happened after two months, with no new harvest, he does not say). He gives no source for this estimate, and fails to observe that "According to Long Boret, the old Government's last Premier, Phnom Penh had only eight days worth of rice on hand on the eve of the surrender" (Agence France-Presse, Bangkok; New York Times, May 9, 1975). Nor does he cite the testimony of U.S. AID officials that Phnom Penh had only a six-day supply of rice (William Goodfellow, New York Times, July 14, 1975).

In fact, where an independent check is possible, Ponchaud's account seems at best careless, sometimes in rather significant ways. Nevertheless, the book is a serious work, however much the press has distorted it.

As noted, Ponchaud relies overwhelmingly on refugee reports. Thus his account is at best second-hand with many of the refugees reporting what they claim to have heard from others. Lacouture's review gives at best a third-hand account. Commentary on Lacouture's review in the press, which has been extensive, gives a fourth-hand account. That is what is available to readers of the American press.

As an instance, consider the Christian Science Monitor editorial already cited, which gives a fair sample of what is available to the American public. This editorial, based on Lacouture's review, speaks of the "reign of terror against the population" instituted by the Khmer Rouge. Lacouture, like Ponchaud, emphasizes the brutality of the American war, which laid the basis for all that followed. These references disappear from the Monitor editorial, which pretends that the current suffering in Cambodia takes place in an historical vacuum, as a mere result of Communist savagery. Similarly, an earlier editorial (January 26, 1977), based on Barron and Paul, also avoids any reference to American responsibility, though there is much moralizing about those who are indifferent to "one of the most brutal and concentrated onslaughts in history" in this "lovely land" of "engaging people."​
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
hundredmillionlifetimes said:
A careful reading of the linked article (Distortions at Fourth Hand, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, published in The Nation, June 25, 1977) completely contradicts the sentiments expressed above. Nowhere in the article do Chomsky and Herman "make a point of not judging the Khmer Rouge directly", and nowhere in the article do they "heap scorn on accounts that are critical of the Khmer Rouge and praise those that are uncritical of the Khmer Rouge and emphasize the atrocities of the american invasion." Their interest is objective research and analysis, not emotive raving or personalised abuse. The article, an analysis of three books about Cambodia from three decades ago, highlights the gross distortions and selectivity of the mainstream media as a result of ideological propaganda and inherited prejudices, all at the expense of rigorous, substantive journalism when the latter reports unpalatable truths
But firstly, to show that the media is being selective based on propaganda and prejudices, they have to show that they aren't being selective based purely on the quality of scholarship. To this end, they comment that "Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources" whereas Bruce Sharp points out that "the book makes no mention of public executions. It makes no mention of the forcible separation of children from their families, no mention of the separation of husbands and wives, no mention of the repression of ethnic minorities, no mention of restrictions on travel, or the abolition of the mail system."

Furthermore, although they question Ponchard's accuracy based on his reliance on refugee sources, according to Sharp, Hildebrand and Porter's "last fifty footnotes, from the chapter on "Cambodia's Agricultural Revolution," provide an excellent case in point. Out of these 50 citations, there are 43 that pertain to the Khmer Rouge regime. Of these, 33 can be traced directly to the Khmer Rouge sources. Six more come from Hsinhua, the official news agency of Communist China, i.e., the Khmer Rouge's wealthiest patron. Two come from an unnamed source, described only as "a Cambodian economist." And the remaining two references? Both come from Le Monde: one is a dubious estimate of future rice production, and the other simply notes that, in the future, large rice paddies would be subdivided, "giving the country the appearance of an enormous checkerboard."" But "Ponchaud's book lacks the documentation provided in Hildebrand and Porter and its veracity is therefore difficult to assess." It's hard to see how this tallies with your description of the article as "objective research and analysis."

If nothing else, Chomsky and Herman are distorting the reality of the levels of scholarship of Hildebrand and Porter's book to fit their thesis. In my view, though, this sort of analysis also makes an implicit commentary on what is actually happening in Cambodia, simply because one can't discuss bias in the media response to something without having some sort of opinion on what that something is, nor is it easy to assess accounts of a set of events without making some judgement of your own on the events themselves.

I've not read After the Cataclysm, so I only have Bruce Sharp's account of the position on Cambodia stated in that. However, a couple of his points seem hard to argue with:

This theme is consistent throughout the book: the widely accepted view of the Khmer Rouge was based on dubious evidence. Chomsky and Herman begin painting their alternative picture in the book's Preface:

"The ferocious U.S. attack on Indochina left the countries [of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia] devastated, facing almost insuperable problems. The agricultural systems of these peasant societies were seriously damaged or destroyed... With the economies in ruins, the foreign aid that kept much of the population alive terminated, and the artificial colonial implantations no longer functioning, it was a condition of survival to turn (or return) the populations to productive work. The victors in Cambodia undertook drastic and often brutal measures to accomplish this task, simply forcing the urban population into the countryside where they were compelled to live the lives of poor peasants, now organized in a decentralized system of communes. At heavy cost, these measures appear to have overcome the dire and destructive consequences of the U.S. war by 1978."(34)
The reference to "brutal measures" suggests that Chomsky and Herman were beginning to back away from the stance in their Nation article, which had implied that Hildebrand and Porter's "very favorable picture" of the Khmer Rouge was more accurate than Barron and Paul's and Ponchaud's negative views. Nonetheless, Chomsky and Herman still seemed unaware -- or unwilling to admit -- that the regime had been an unmitigated disaster. Moreover, they seemed determined to deflect blame away from the Khmer Rouge. Thus, they imply that the Khmer Rouge were forced to implement these "drastic" measures in part because foreign aid had been terminated. They neglect to mention that the foreign aid was terminated by the Khmer Rouge. Francois Ponchaud pointed this out in Year Zero, noting that the Khmer Rouge even refused a transport plane which had been previously loaded with urgently needed medical supplies.
The quoted section of After the Cataclysm also seems to undermine the claim that the book is an analysis of the media response that doesn't claim to say anything about the actual situation. He also quotes from AtC
If a serious study of the impact of Western imperialism on Cambodian peasant life is someday undertaken, it may well be discovered that the violence lurking behind the Khmer smile, on which Meyer and others have commented, is not a reflection of obscure traits in peasant culture and psychology, but is the direct and understandable response to the violence of the imperial system, and that its current manifestations are a no less direct and understandable response to the still more concentrated and extreme savagery of a U.S. assault that may in part have been designed to evoke this very response, as we have noted. Such a study may also show that the Khmer Rouge programs elicited a positive response from some sectors of the Cambodian peasantry because they dealt with fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the imperial system with its final outburst of uncontrolled barbarism."​
Despite the evasive use of 'if' and 'may', it's really quite hard to read this as anything other than an apologetic.

I have a lot of respect for Chomsky - he's an invaluable commentator, and without him a great deal of important stuff would go unreported and a great deal of misleading or misrepresented information would go unchallenged. However, it does seem that he skews his presentation of evidence to support his thesis, and it would be a mistake to assume that his presentation and analysis is entirely even handed or to accept everything he says at face value.
 
Slothrop said:
In my view, though, this sort of analysis also makes an implicit commentary on what is actually happening in Cambodia, simply because one can't discuss bias in the media response to something without having some sort of opinion on what that something is, nor is it easy to assess accounts of a set of events without making some judgement of your own on the events themselves.

What is fundamentally problematic about this is the ontological assumption that the reality of the "events themselves" are somehow, are in some unmediated way mysteriously accessible quite independently of reports and accounts of such events. Chomsky's and Herman's judgements are based for the most part on reports, and their subsequent responses to the alarmist criticisms of their article can be perused here (Chomsky) and here (Herman).

But perhaps one of the better defences of Chomsky's stance on Cambodia and the Khymer Rouge can be found in none other than a well-argued 1985 article [ The Chorus and Cassandra, Christopher Hitchens, Grand Street Magazine, Autumn 1985 ] by Christopher Hitchens, at a time long before his ideological "conversion". Even more controversially, Hitchens also defends Chomsky's absolutist freedom of expression beliefs with respect to l'affaire Faurisson, a position I have problems with - contrast this blind 1st Amendment fundamentalism from over twenty years ago with the recent racist Danish cartoons fiasco, a comparison where irreconcilable contradictions concerning incitements to racial hatred still ominously prevail.
 
Top