As stated by the UN, one of the worst forms of political
violence is genocide. There is some
debate over the definition of genocide, and when mass murder becomes severe
enough to earn that title. According to David
J. Samuels, genocide is “a deliberate and coordinated effort to eliminate all
members of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group through mass
murder.”[1] While
many of the conditions that he lists are important factors of genocide, the
definition he presents is too narrow and excludes some instances of mass murder
that are on the same level of severity as genocide and should be judged as such.
When the Khmer Rouge took power of the Cambodian government
in 1975, they immediately imposed Mao’s idea of communism and entirely
restructured society, forcing the population to work as laborers on collective
farms[2].
During this forceful transformation, over two million people died. Many died
from “natural” (though human-created) causes, including starvation, exhaustion,
and disease. And on top of this, hundreds of thousands were systematically
targeted and killed, including racial minority groups, non-Buddhists, and
educated members of society.
This example demonstrates many of the precursors to genocide
that Samuels discusses. Firstly, ongoing civil war. Civil war deteriorates
governmental order and breeds fear and uncertainty in the population. After
experiencing two revolutions in five years, Cambodia was rife with destruction
and contention. This made it easy for the new government to use force to enter
into the lives of the citizens and murder all those whose identity or beliefs
didn’t agree with theirs.
A second important condition that supports Samuels’ idea is
“an inability or unwillingness of the international community to step in” (pg.
280). Previous Cambodian President Lon Nol was friendly with the United States,
but when he was ousted the United States did nothing to help. This wasn’t
necessarily because they were unwilling, but because they were busy fighting
the communist forces in the war in Vietnam. The superpowers’ preoccupation with
Vietnam set the stage for the Khmer Rouge to commit mass murders and injustices
in Cambodia without interruption.
A third characteristic of genocide is government pressure.
Genocide isn’t a result of one man’s lust for blood, but of an organized effort
of one group to eliminate members of another. The Khmer Rouge, similar to the
Nazi party, operated by instigating fear and only chose to keep alive those who
they wanted in their group or those who they didn’t see as a threat. Members of
the “chosen group” faced a choice. They could either refuse and risk torture or
death, or join the Khmer Rouge and keep themselves their families safe, even if
it meant killing others. This type of coercion is a powerful tool of violent
leaders, and can be used to motivate people to do almost anything.
Though these examples all support Samuels’ definition, his
definition isn’t broad enough to include the severity of the genocide that
actually took place here. According to Samuels, only those who were killed
because of racial or religious reasons would be considered a part of the
genocide. This leaves out the thousands who were specifically targeted and
killed for being a part of the educated class, and the thousands who died due
to starvation and overwork. The definition of genocide should be broadened to
read: “a deliberate and coordinated effort to eliminate all members of a
particular ethnic, religious, national, social,
or other group through mass murder, or
the initiation of conditions that lead to widespread death and demonstrate
reckless disregard for human life.” This
will ensure that groups such as the Khmer Rouge are held accountable for the
enormity of their crimes, and the deaths of those who are targeted for
non-religious and non-racial reasons or left to die in inhumane conditions will
not be downplayed.
I agree that Samuels' definition is too narrow. But I think it's a little weird that you talk about the Khmer Rouge for a whole paper without once mentioning the name of Pol Pot.
ReplyDeleteExcellent job at pointing out the strengths of his definitions as well as his weaknesses, lots of interesting points to promote thoughtful thinking, good work
ReplyDeleteSamuels' definition does seem to be exclusive, so you made a good point. I think he mostly does not want the word genocide to be too carelessly.
ReplyDelete