Kissinger and Khmer Rouge
Sir: Taki should stick to writing about social matters. His well-intentioned comments on Cambodia (10 November) were thoroughly misleading, and unfair to the present critics of Kissinger.
William Shawcross's argument is not that the Khmer Rouge were 'gentle souls' until provoked by American intervention. Rather, the essence of his case is that the Khmer Rouge — led by a small introverted group of French-educated intellectuals — had little support among the Cambodian people before the American bombing.
The bombing had two major effects. First, it undermined the authority of the Lon Nol government, which became more than ever the puppet of American power. Secondly, the Khmer Rouge at once began to attract the support of patriotic interests. This is surely the normal way to react when one's country is being bombed by a foreign power, for whatever reason, and the Khmer Rouge were the only political force at the time who seemed to be representing Cambodian independence — hence Prince Sihanouk siding with the Communist leaders, his old enemies.
So, the Khmer Rouge did profit directly from the American bombing. By exploiting the political vacuum and the abuse of Cambodian sovereignty, they could pose as patriots first, and ideologues second. The reverse was always true.
It is to Sihanouk's shame that he knew this, and yet still gave the Khmer Rouge nominal support, a crucial factor in winning popular support for the communists. It is to Kissinger's shame that he now shows so little humility. Cambodia cannot be discussed simply in terms of the Vietnamese war. It was just this attitude that produced the American policy.
Christopher Wood Dormy House, Virginia Water, Surrey
Previous page
