Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ieng Sary Dead

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ieng Sary Dead

    Somehow I missed this when it happened in march & I didn't see a thread here. It deserves one. Even by the standards of C20th mass murders Ieng Sary was a particularly loathsome man. A dedicated communist who amassed a personal fortune. A half-Chinese, Vietnamese-born Khmer who oversaw the destruction of the Cambodian Chinese community (it dropped from 425,000 in the early 70s to 61,000 in 1984). A man who helped to virtually destroy his nation for the sake of ideology, yet was happy to sell out his comrades in order to cut a deal with Hun Sen and save his own hide. A few years of relative discomfort toward the end to not even begin to atone for the evil he perpetrated. its times like these I can understand why some folk find the idea of hell somewhat comforting.


    IT WAS, he said, the greatest revolution the world had ever seen. It would be written in golden letters on the pages of history: how the Cambodian people had returned to the countryside to become pure, agrarian communists, relieved of all private property, free of all ties of family, religion and culture, devoted only to Angkar (“the organisation”) and the teachings of Mao and Stalin. When Ieng Sary, then deputy prime minister and foreign minister for the Khmer Rouge regime, sent out such messages in 1975 to thousands of Cambodian students and intellectuals living overseas, they naturally came home—to be condemned as spies, thrown in jail, tortured and killed. Few survived his propaganda.

    There were, Ieng Sary admitted—disarming Western listeners with his ready, radiant smile, as he savoured a sip of champagne—a few technical hitches along the revolutionary way. For example, the regime had to remove everyone from Cambodia’s cities, because there was not enough transport to bring in food for them. It made more sense to take the people to the countryside, where the food was. What he did not add was that these “new people”, once in the fields, became slave labour, forced into punishing manual work and so underfed that they tried to survive on grass; and that over the four years of Khmer Rouge rule perhaps 2m Cambodians, or around a quarter of the population, died from overwork, malnutrition and starvation, as well as mass killings.

    If you faced Ieng Sary with this, he shrugged his shoulders. What did he know? As the foreign minister, he had to travel all the time. He was just a secondary figure, not privy to the policies and tactics of Pol Pot, the regime’s “sole and supreme architect”, as he called him. For himself, he had killed one man—no more—and done nothing wrong. He was a gentle person, he insisted, as he sniffed delicately at the bottles of French perfume he liked to buy on first-class international flights.

    What he did not add, though most people knew it, was that Pol Pot was his chum from the elite Lycée Sisowath in Phnom Penh and his student buddy at the Sciences Po in Paris, later his brother-in-law when they married girls who were sisters. Deep down, Ieng Sary thought him a simpleton. He would bang on his door at dawn in the Latin Quarter, yelling at him to get to his Marxist studies, long before they both began, in 1963, to stir up revolts in the Cambodian countryside against the American-backed regime. Once they had seized power in 1975 Ieng Sary was “Brother No. 3”, implicated with cosy, family closeness in the torture of thousands in secret prisons and afterwards in their murder.

    As foreign minister his role was hypocritical, yet simple. He had to present a disarming face to the world, build up visceral hatred of neighbouring Vietnam and draw in help from China, the regime’s only friend, in the form of money, weapons and advisers. When the Khmer Rouge government itself was toppled by a Vietnamese invasion in 1979, he fled to Thailand; and there found fresh clothes, new sandals and a VIP air ticket to Beijing, all supplied by the Chinese embassy in Bangkok. His skilful contacts with China kept the movement going for two more decades.

    Sapphires in his hands

    You could say he was a proper revolutionary, in drab jacket, cap and scarf, railing against “economic saboteurs” who wasted food and “traitors”, undoubtedly CIA or KGB agents, who smoked Western cigarettes or had non-Cambodian blood. Yet he had been born in loathed Vietnam (his old Vietnamese name swapped for a Cambodian nom de guerre) to a Chinese mother and a rich father, and had become the very model of a hated French-speaking intellectual. Despite all that, slippery as an eel, he triumphantly survived inside the regime.

    He was also increasingly rich. The peasant-poverty enjoined by the Khmers Rouges, and practised by some, never appealed to him. In 1982 (the movement still pretending to govern Cambodia from bases on the Thai border) he gave up the job of foreign minister to become minister of economics and finance, which required China’s largesse of more than $1 billion to flow through his hands. He made deals, too, with Thai sapphire-mining and logging companies. The rough frontier town of Pailin became his bailiwick, containing his large villa and bungalows, each with a tank parked outside, for his supporters. In 1996, sensing change in the wind, he persuaded thousands of Khmer Rouge troops to defect from Pol Pot, leave the jungle and claim an amnesty from the prime minister, Hun Sen, and King Sihanouk—a man to whom he had always bowed, while feeling nothing but contempt for him.

    Life was good after the amnesty, as indeed it had always been for him before it. His Toyota Land Cruiser, with its darkened windows, was a common sight outside the capital’s best restaurants. Security guards protected his villa in an elegant part of town. He smoked the best cigars.

    There was the nettlesome matter of a UN-backed Cambodia tribunal investigating war crimes, which arrested him in 2007 and put him on trial four years later. But it had convicted only one person, and moved so achingly slowly that it was never going to catch him. He waited to frustrate it with his charming, duplicitous smile. Crimes against humanity? Moi?
    Ieng Sary | The Economist
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  • #2
    Rot in hell

    Comment


    • #3
      A shame he got off easier then his victims.
      To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

      Comment


      • #4
        Question: How much did the US know about Khmer Rouge atrocities as they happened? Did she not support the KR as a counterweight to Vietnam along with China?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by cataphract View Post
          Question: How much did the US know about Khmer Rouge atrocities as they happened? Did she not support the KR as a counterweight to Vietnam along with China?
          Its been a while since I've read up on this and others may correct, but my recollection is that information was sketchy. It was known that Phnom Penh had been virtually emptied and there were reports from refugees that killings were going on, but nobody really had the full picture. It was noticed that many emigres who went back - some of them very sympathetic to the KR - were never heard from again, but as DK was a closed society their fate was a matter of speculation rather than it being assumed they were dead. This ultimately led to the death of moronic communist academic Malcom Caldwell, who was not only dumb enough to go to DK (which he idealised as some sort of revolutionary paradise), but when he got there kept asking awkward questions about the fate of emigres he ad known.

          Malcolm Caldwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Some of the worst of the killings took place in the areas furthest from Western contact or fell most heavily on groups with little contact with the West. There were huge purges among cadre in the east as a result of suspicions (perhaps not completely without foundation) that Vietnam might be reaching out to unhappy party members. As noted, the ethnic Chinese community was hard hit, though they tended to flee to Thailand. The fate of groups like ethnic Vietnamese & muslim Chams - at least as hard hit as Chinese - was little known until much later.

          Broadly speaking it was known that something terrible was happening, but its dimensions & details were unknown. The first most people knew of what was happening was not details of the 'killing fields' but the terrible famine that followed the Vietnamese invasion and was probably responsible for as many deaths as the DK period.

          The issue of US & Western support for Pol Pot after the DK period is contentious. The US (along with Australia) was one of a number of nations who voted for the KR to retain its UN seat. The argument is that the new government was a Vietnamese puppet. That was true, but it is still difficult to square supporting the KR in anything. Another factor was that when Vietnam invaded Cambodia ASEAN went apeshit. They had spent the 60s & 70s fearing an expansionist Vietnam & this seemed to be it. They cheerfully supported Pol Pot as a counterweight & were happy for China to carry most of their water on the issue. China got to look like the baddie (like they cared) & everybody else got what they wanted. The US policy was neatly summarized by Carter's Sec of State. Brzezinski has subsequently denied he said this, but I'm betting he did:

          Former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on China and the Khmer Rouge, 1979:

          “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” According to Brzezinski, the USA “winked, semi-publicly” at Chinese and Thai aid to the Khmer Rouge.
          That attitude continued under Reagan. Money was poured into the non-communist Cambodian forces, but weapons & training found their way to the KR. Pol Pot & the senior leaders lived openly in Thailand & made no attempt to conceal their whereabouts. The equivalent of Hitler & the senior Nazis being openly tolerated because the Russians had occupied E.Europe.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
            The issue of US & Western support for Pol Pot after the DK period is contentious. The US (along with Australia) was one of a number of nations who voted for the KR to retain its UN seat. The argument is that the new government was a Vietnamese puppet. That was true, but it is still difficult to square supporting the KR in anything. Another factor was that when Vietnam invaded Cambodia ASEAN went apeshit. They had spent the 60s & 70s fearing an expansionist Vietnam & this seemed to be it. They cheerfully supported Pol Pot as a counterweight & were happy for China to carry most of their water on the issue. China got to look like the baddie (like they cared) & everybody else got what they wanted. The US policy was neatly summarized by Carter's Sec of State. Brzezinski has subsequently denied he said this, but I'm betting he did:



            That attitude continued under Reagan. Money was poured into the non-communist Cambodian forces, but weapons & training found their way to the KR. Pol Pot & the senior leaders lived openly in Thailand & made no attempt to conceal their whereabouts. The equivalent of Hitler & the senior Nazis being openly tolerated because the Russians had occupied E.Europe.
            By ASEAN, I assume you mean Thailand specifically? AFAIK they enjoy the closest relations with China in the region, besides Cambodia. To be fair, Vietnamese expansionism in the mid 1970s was a real threat to Thailand, more than anybody else. Even so, how was it that the Thais supported the KR instead of the royalists, who could be supported openly even by the US?

            If Brzezinski's quote is true, then the US track record in the region stands at two condoned genocides in as many years. And that's just in the SE Asia region.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
              Some of the worst of the killings took place in the areas furthest from Western contact or fell most heavily on groups with little contact with the West. There were huge purges among cadre in the east as a result of suspicions (perhaps not completely without foundation) that Vietnam might be reaching out to unhappy party members. As noted, the ethnic Chinese community was hard hit, though they tended to flee to Thailand. The fate of groups like ethnic Vietnamese & muslim Chams - at least as hard hit as Chinese - was little known until much later.
              It's also interesting to note China's blatant disregard for ethnic Chinese civilians in Cambodia and abetting their wholesale slaughter. I guess the PRC didn't learn to value its emigre populations until they started pouring money into China post-liberalization.

              Comment


              • #8
                The KR was the only viable military challenge to Vietnam. Actually, only the Chinese and the Thai Armies were a challenge to Vietnam but it was a hell of a lot easier to bleed Cambodian blood.

                Vietnam was a real headache for China, spawning a refugee crisis. The Han-Chinese were evicted from Vietnam either by foot walking north into China or out to sea. A few made it Hong Kong. A lot drowned. It took the 1979 Sino-VN War to end the refugee crisis for China.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It must be very comforting for religious people that such scum as Sary rot in hell. For me, I would wish he and his ilk more pain in this life...
                  In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                  Leibniz

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                    By ASEAN, I assume you mean Thailand specifically?
                    No. All of them. In 1979 ASEAN consisted of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore & the Philippines. When Vietnam invaded DK they all freaked out. Thailand, Malaysia & Singapore felt more threatened, but all of those nations had dealt with or were dealing with communist insurgencies. Malaysia had several, one of which ran until the late 80s. Philippines was the same, as was Thailand . Rightly or wrongly they all felt threatened by Vietnam.

                    AFAIK they enjoy the closest relations with China in the region, besides Cambodia.
                    That may be so now, but not in the 70s. Remember that China was a major backer of nth Vietnam & the primary backer of DK. Thailand sent tens of thousands of troops to Vietnam, was a major US staging point and the Khmer Rouge had actually attacked Thai villages. Thai-Chinese relations actually got closer as a result of their co-operation in helping Pol Pot.

                    To be fair, Vietnamese expansionism in the mid 1970s was a real threat to Thailand, more than anybody else.
                    'Vietnamese expansionism' only ever threatened Laos - and I suspect that was more to do with denying China a flank than anything else. Vietnam wasn't the slightest bit interested in taking over Cambodia. When the Khmer Rouge launched bloody attacks on Vietnamese border villages Vietnam launched a punishing raid (in which KR cadre were picked up, including Hun Sen). Unfortunately Pol Pot actually thought he had won and continued the attacks - he actually claimed much of southern Vietnam for Kampuchea. That is what prompted Vietnam to invade. There was also a fear of having an aggressive Chinese-backed enemy on one flank. I've never seen any evidence that Vietnam planned to 'expand' any further. Had DK been ruled by sane human beings Vietnam would have stayed home. They had decades of war to recover from.

                    Even so, how was it that the Thais supported the KR instead of the royalists, who could be supported openly even by the US?
                    They supported both, but as the colonel pointed out, in terms of military force the KR was the only game in town. The Royalists and remnant Republicans had been gutted by the Civil War & the Khmer Rouge. They were never a serious fighting force. In fact, they hadn't even been a serious fighting force when they respectively controlled the country.

                    If Brzezinski's quote is true, then the US track record in the region stands at two condoned genocides in as many years. And that's just in the SE Asia region.
                    Which two were you thinking of? The US didn't 'condone' what happened in DK. It actually opposed it. That it gave de facto support to the KR afterward may be morally reprehensible, but it isn't quite the same as doing it at the time. I can think of 3 better examples in the 60s & 70s in Sth & Sth East Asia that fit your description, but not this one.

                    Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                    It's also interesting to note China's blatant disregard for ethnic Chinese civilians in Cambodia and abetting their wholesale slaughter. I guess the PRC didn't learn to value its emigre populations until they started pouring money into China post-liberalization.
                    It is indeed interesting, especially as treatment of ethnic Chinese was one of the reasons given for invading Vietnam in 1979. I guess China was (and still is) all about the realpolitik. As to your last point, I'm not the one to ask - others may know more.
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      The KR was the only viable military challenge to Vietnam. Actually, only the Chinese and the Thai Armies were a challenge to Vietnam but it was a hell of a lot easier to bleed Cambodian blood.

                      Vietnam was a real headache for China, spawning a refugee crisis. The Han-Chinese were evicted from Vietnam either by foot walking north into China or out to sea. A few made it Hong Kong. A lot drowned. It took the 1979 Sino-VN War to end the refugee crisis for China.
                      Yet, as cataphract perceptively pointed out, China showed little concern for the more dire fate of Chinese in Cambodia. Only about 20% of the community remained in Cambodia after Pol Pot was finished. Interesting double standard.
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                        Yet, as cataphract perceptively pointed out, China showed little concern for the more dire fate of Chinese in Cambodia. Only about 20% of the community remained in Cambodia after Pol Pot was finished. Interesting double standard.
                        He kept the Cambodian Han-Chinese in Cambodia.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          He kept the Cambodian Han-Chinese in Cambodia.
                          I don't quite understand sir. Like BF said, that is a double standard.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No, it's the one single standard. He kept Cambodia's problem with the Han-Chinese in Cambodia and not toss it back to the Chinese. The 1979 Sino-Vietnam War did not help the Han-Chinese in Vietnam one single bit. It merely tossed the problem back to Vietnam's lap by closing the border.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                              No. All of them. In 1979 ASEAN consisted of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore & the Philippines. When Vietnam invaded DK they all freaked out. Thailand, Malaysia & Singapore felt more threatened, but all of those nations had dealt with or were dealing with communist insurgencies. Malaysia had several, one of which ran until the late 80s. Philippines was the same, as was Thailand . Rightly or wrongly they all felt threatened by Vietnam.



                              That may be so now, but not in the 70s. Remember that China was a major backer of nth Vietnam & the primary backer of DK. Thailand sent tens of thousands of troops to Vietnam, was a major US staging point and the Khmer Rouge had actually attacked Thai villages. Thai-Chinese relations actually got closer as a result of their co-operation in helping Pol Pot.



                              'Vietnamese expansionism' only ever threatened Laos - and I suspect that was more to do with denying China a flank than anything else. Vietnam wasn't the slightest bit interested in taking over Cambodia. When the Khmer Rouge launched bloody attacks on Vietnamese border villages Vietnam launched a punishing raid (in which KR cadre were picked up, including Hun Sen). Unfortunately Pol Pot actually thought he had won and continued the attacks - he actually claimed much of southern Vietnam for Kampuchea. That is what prompted Vietnam to invade. There was also a fear of having an aggressive Chinese-backed enemy on one flank. I've never seen any evidence that Vietnam planned to 'expand' any further. Had DK been ruled by sane human beings Vietnam would have stayed home. They had decades of war to recover from.
                              Vietnam had ambitions to dominate all of French Indochina. Communist or not, if successful, they would be a major regional rival to Thailand.

                              They supported both, but as the colonel pointed out, in terms of military force the KR was the only game in town. The Royalists and remnant Republicans had been gutted by the Civil War & the Khmer Rouge. They were never a serious fighting force. In fact, they hadn't even been a serious fighting force when they respectively controlled the country.
                              Fair enough.

                              Which two were you thinking of? The US didn't 'condone' what happened in DK. It actually opposed it. That it gave de facto support to the KR afterward may be morally reprehensible, but it isn't quite the same as doing it at the time. I can think of 3 better examples in the 60s & 70s in Sth & Sth East Asia that fit your description, but not this one.
                              The first one is Bangladesh in '71. Cambodia would be the second if the US did know about it, beginning in '73. What were your three examples?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X