Cambodia genocide denial law open to abuse, say critics
Survivors of the Khmer Rouge's genocidal regime welcome a beefed-up Cambodian law that forbids denying the movement's atrocities, but rights advocates and academics warn it could also stifle legitimate dissent.
Enacted last month ahead of this week's 50th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge seizing the capital Phnom Penh, the law threatens hefty jail sentences and fines for anyone who denies the genocide that killed around two million people between 1975 and 1979.
The atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge are widely accepted by Cambodians save a dwindling group of ageing former cadres and soldiers who live mostly in the remote northwest.
The hardline Maoist group led by "Brother Number One" Pol Pot reset the calendar to "Year Zero" on April 17, 1975 and emptied cities in a bid to create a pure agrarian society free of class, politics or capital.
About a quarter of the population died -- of disease, starvation, overwork or by execution -- in the disastrous social engineering experiment memorably chronicled by the 1984 Oscar-winning movie "The Killing Fields".
Some activists, however, say former prime minister Hun Sen is using the law to burnish his legacy and stifle any opposition to his son and successor, Hun Manet.
The government is trying to "reinforce state narratives rather than to genuinely encourage historical accountability", said Sophal Ear, associate professor at Arizona State University.
"In practice, it could be another tool to silence dissent," he said.
Political analyst Ou Virak called the law a "mistake", adding: "A population that is afraid to discuss will be even more afraid to ask questions."
- 'I am the peacemaker' -
Now 72, Hun Sen was a commander under Pol Pot before he fled to Vietnam in 1977, joining other Cambodian defectors to lead the Vietnamese army's assault that drove the Khmer Rouge out of Phnom Penh.
In the more than 30 years Hun Sen ruled Cambodia he stifled dissent, critics say, equating opposition to his leadership as support for those he replaced.
"Hun Sen wants to impose his vision of things, saying: 'I am the peacemaker'," said Adriana Escobar Rodriguez of the French National Centre for Scientific Research.
One form of genocide denial tended to downplay Vietnam's role in ousting the Khmer Rouge, she said, but another stemmed from the fact that some "people still can't believe that Khmers could have killed other Khmers" -- referring to Cambodia's majority ethnic group.
Hun Sen has defended the stricter law, comparing it to similar legislation against Holocaust denial in Europe.
The 2013 law it replaced stemmed from a case involving one of Hun Sen's main opponents that took place just before national elections.
Kem Sokha was accused of describing notorious Khmer Rouge prison S-21 -- where an estimated 15,000 people were tortured to death -- as a Vietnamese fabrication.
He has spent lengthy periods in prison on various charges since, and is currently under house arrest on treason charges and banned from politics.
Chum Mey, one of a small handful of people who emerged alive from S-21, sells books describing his experiences outside the former prison, which was turned into the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum.
He says it would be stupid for anyone to deny the Khmer Rouge's atrocities.
"There is evidence," the 94-year-old said.
"They killed my four children and my wife."
ah-suy-sjc/fox/slb/sco/dhw
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Born to Rant: Springsteen's Truth to Power Screed Is the Rallying Cry We Need
Shakespeare knew it centuries ago: 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks.' Trump's response to Bruce Springsteen's warnings given from a stage in Manchester came quick—loud, erratic, and dripping with grievance. Was this the voice of presidential confidence, or was it the howl of a man watching the walls close in? When power is secure, it whispers. When it's scared, it shouts. And Trump's over-the-top denials say the quiet part out loud: he's terrified. — On January 19, 1967, inside the cavernous walls of Studio One at EMI's Abbey Road Studios, John Lennon and Paul McCartney sat side by side, piecing together what would become the final track of 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.' Lennon, hunched over his acoustic guitar, sang the haunting opening lines of 'A Day in the Life,' while McCartney accompanied him on piano. When he reached the line 'I'd love to turn you on,' the two young songwriters shared a knowing glance. They were fully aware that this phrase would raise eyebrows and likely provoke the BBC, who indeed banned the song for its perceived drug references. Yet, for the Beatles, this line was less about promoting drug use and more about signaling a cultural awakening — a call to consciousness that mirrored the societal shifts of the 1960s. This shift helped fuel a movement that forced the United States to abandon the war in Vietnam — unable to sustain a battle both abroad and at home, America gave in, leaving Vietnam to the Vietnamese. This moment in the studio encapsulated the Beatles' evolving role as not just musicians but as commentators on and catalysts for change. Their music was beginning to reflect a deeper engagement with the world around them, challenging norms and encouraging listeners to question not only their parents, but the status quo. This spirit of defiance is also evident in George Harrison's 'Taxman,' a biting critique of the British government's taxation policies. Frustrated by the exorbitant taxes levied on the band's earnings, Harrison channeled his discontent into a song that pulled no punches in excoriating Great Britain under Harold Wilson, laying bare the inequities of the system. 'Taxman' stands as an early example of the Beatles using their platform to address political issues, setting the stage for the more overtly socially conscious music that would follow. Fast forward through the decades, and the echoes of that Abbey Road rebellion grew louder. From the psychedelic haze of the '60s to the hard-edged protest anthems of the '70s, '80s, and beyond, artists have kept their fingers on the pulse of unrest — using music not as a soothing balm but as a blaring siren. Jimi Hendrix's 'Machine Gun' wasn't just a song; it was a searing lament for Vietnam, a raw, electrified howl of anguish that warned of the blood-soaked cost of war. The Clash's 'Guns of Brixton' captured the clenched fists and breaking glass of racial tension and economic despair in Thatcher's Britain, a warning shot fired not from a rifle, but from a Fender Precision Bass landing in a collective of record players and ricochetting in the heart of the streets, lighting torches of awareness held high by both kids and adults. Bruce Springsteen, ever the chronicler of the American condition, has long carried that torch. His 'Death to My Hometown' is a bitter reckoning with the economic devastation wrought by greed and indifference, while 'The Ghost of Tom Joad' resurrects Steinbeck's specter of the dispossessed, a haunting reminder that the struggle for dignity and justice is far from over. These songs don't just warn—they witness. They record the heartbeat of rebellion, the collective refusal to let power go unchallenged. And they remind us that music, when wielded with purpose, can shake the foundations of the 'system'. And that foundation wasn't just shaken — Bruce rocked it. On May 14, 2025, at Manchester's Co-op Live Arena, Springsteen opened his 'Land of Hope and Dreams' tour with a fiery denunciation of Donald Trump's administration, labeling it 'corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous.' He implored the audience to 'raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring,' warning that America's foundational values were under siege. He accused the administration of rolling back civil rights, stifling free speech, and aligning with dictators over democratic allies. These remarks were not offhanded—they were recorded and released days later as part of his live EP, 'Land of Hope and Dreams,' which also featured a cover of Bob Dylan's 'Chimes of Freedom,' reinforcing his message of resistance. Trump's response was swift and vitriolic. On Truth Social, he lashed out, calling Springsteen 'a pushy, obnoxious JERK' and a 'dried-out 'prune' of a rocker,' even mocking his appearance. He demanded that Springsteen 'KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country,' and later suggested investigating him and other artists like Beyoncé and Oprah for their support of Kamala Harris's 2024 campaign—alleging, without evidence, that they were illegally paid for endorsements. But Springsteen wasn't alone. Artists like Neil Young and Eddie Vedder rallied to his defense, denouncing Trump's attacks and affirming the importance of free expression. The American Federation of Musicians also stood in solidarity, emphasizing that musicians have the right to speak out against injustice. — In the aftermath of 9/11, musicians came together at the Concert for the Heroes — their voices unified, rallying beneath the flag of freedom. They sang not just for America, but for the shared humanity that terrorism tried to shatter. I often wonder: if Jimi Hendrix were alive, what would he have made of it all? His blistering, feedback-laden 'Star-Spangled Banner' at Woodstock wasn't just a national anthem—it was a battle cry, a raw, unflinching 'f-you' to anyone who threatened our American ideology. Today, we're fighting a different kind terrorism — one that doesn't come from distant shores, but rises from within. It erodes truth, fans the flames of hate, and chips away at the foundation of democracy itself. Who better to sound the alarm than Bruce Springsteen? His voice is the call to arms we need — a reminder that freedom isn't just a flag we wave, but a fight we must wage. The post Born to Rant: Springsteen's Truth to Power Screed Is the Rallying Cry We Need | Guest Column appeared first on TheWrap.
Washington Post
11 hours ago
- Washington Post
Why it's wrong to call Israel's war in Gaza a ‘genocide'
Norman J.W. Goda is the Norman and Irma Braman Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Florida. Jeffrey Herf, the author of 'Three Faces of Antisemitism: Right, Left, and Islamist,' is a university professor of history emeritus at the University of Maryland at College Park. Recent weeks have seen a flood of new genocide accusations against Israel. The trigger has been Israel's recent blockade of aid to Gaza (now lifted), as well as its latest military actions there. But in fact, the charges of genocide began shortly after the Hamas massacres of Oct. 7, 2023. The accusations can be found everywhere from podcasts to TV interviews to op-eds to social media posts. Accusers include politicians, activists and influencers, and hail from the Middle East, Europe and North America. Many today insist that it is critical — even morally required — that we use the word 'genocide' to describe Israel's war in Gaza. No other term will do. Those not joining the chorus are allegedly complicit in genocide. Those questioning the nature of the accusation are labeled genocide deniers. Why this insistence? Efforts to delegitimize Israel as colonial and racist began before the state was declared in 1948. Genocide, meanwhile, is the crime of crimes; a state committing genocide is forever illegitimate. Given this history and gravity, we should pose some questions. Israel's war against Hamas in the urban environments of Gaza has led to thousands of civilian casualties. But is genocide really the correct way to describe the war? Do the accusers define genocide accurately in terms of law, or have they stretched the definition of the crime? Is their evidence reliable? Finally, can we say that the genocide accusation, made against Israel and its supporters in this way, is antisemitic? Genocide is a political as well as a legal term. Columbia anthropologist Mahmood Mamdani once called it 'a label to be stuck on your worst enemy, a perverse version of the Nobel Prize, part of a rhetorical arsenal that helps you vilify your adversaries.' In this context, the internationally accepted legal definition of genocide ensconced in the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948 has been frustrating for some. Physical destruction of a group based on ethnicity, religion or nationality is the heart of the crime. The definition excludes other actions, such as the movement of civilians from their homes and certain infractions that some call 'cultural genocide.' There have been efforts to stretch the definition since the 1960s. In 1967, the Russell Tribunal, an unofficial court of intellectuals and activists, found the United States guilty of genocide for its war in Vietnam. Among other acts, the movement of Vietnamese civilians to strategic hamlets was said to have constituted genocide, because it disrupted social and cultural structures. Today's academic theory of settler colonialism redefines genocide further as a structural process that destroys indigenous peoples either through resettlement or assimilation. It is the centerpiece of many genocide accusations, including that by the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Francesca Albanese, who thinks that litigating this argument against Israel will bring freedom for indigenous people everywhere. But this is activism, not law. What is the difference? Few know the name Alice Wairimu Nderitu. From 2020 to 2024, the Kenyan human rights advocate was U.N. special adviser on the prevention of genocide. Kofi Annan, secretary general from 1997 to 2006, created the office, which collects information on rights violations that might lead to genocide. After Israel began its response to the Oct. 7 attack, Nderitu would not say that it was committing genocide. Such a determination, she insisted, was legally and factually complex; it demanded detailed examination by a competent court with proper jurisdiction. Nderitu was pressured and received threats. One called her a 'Zionist rat' who supported the 'rape and murder of little kids by your bestial masters.' Her mandate was not renewed. Even without stretching the definition, many genocide accusations have problems. The June 1 Sunday Opinion column by Post columnist Shadi Hamid, 'A genocide is happening in Gaza. We should say so.,' was emblematic. No one thinks that the movement of Gaza's civilians away from military operations has not been dire. But Hamid sees purposeful ethnic cleansing, which he then uses to build his argument for genocide. His most important evidence is recently leaked comments by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that discuss prohibiting civilians from returning to the places from which they came after receiving aid from distribution centers, as they would mix with Hamas. But Maariv, the newspaper reporting these rather confusing comments, notes that they contradict statements by Israeli defense officials, which would allow return. The argument for genocide relies heavily on casualties among noncombatants in Gaza. Hamid cites a January 2025 study in the British medical journal the Lancet, which argues that the Gaza Ministry of Health has underreported civilian mortality figures by more than 40 percent. Those accusing Israel of genocide have long played a confidence game with casualty figures, proceeding initially from those provided by the Hamas-controlled health ministry. The ministry refuses to distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths, and it has inflated the numbers of women and children killed. The Lancet article expands these figures further based on an algorithm applied to casualty lists, in order, it says, 'to provide an estimate of deaths not appearing on any list.' It does not take a statistician to imagine problems here. From the beginning of this terrible conflict, Israeli leaders made it very clear that their war is against Hamas, not the people of Gaza. On Dec. 29, 2023, Israel's legal representative Tal Becker, in his opening statement to the International Court of Justice, offered arguments that those who lob the word genocide ignore. These bear repeating. Hamas, Becker said, was pursuing 'a reprehensible strategy of seeking to maximize civilian harm to both Israelis and Palestinians, even as Israel seeks to minimize it.' He added that, 'if there have been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, then they have been perpetrated against Israel. If there is a concern about the obligations of States under the Genocide Convention, then it is in relation to their responsibilities to act against Hamas's proudly declared agenda of annihilation, which is not a secret, and is not in doubt.' Those accusing Israel of genocide avoid describing Hamas's exterminatory ideology and the genocide, commenced on Oct. 7 and then interrupted, that followed from it. They also avoid facing the now extensively documented facts regarding the genocidal nature of actions of Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023. Further, the genocide accusation made from the earliest days of the war was an effort to force Israel to end, Becker said, 'operations against the ongoing attacks of an organization that pursues an actual genocidal agenda.' Becker further described Hamas's cynical strategy of waging war amid civilians who were denied access to the safety of its massive underground tunnel system, and he observed that 'the appalling suffering of civilians — both Israeli and Palestinian — is first and foremost the result of this despicable [Hamas] strategy; the horrible cost of Hamas not only failing to protect its civilians but actively sacrificing them for its own propaganda and military benefit. And if Hamas abandons this strategy, releases the hostages and lays down its arms, the hostilities and suffering would end.' Those accusing Israel of genocide fail to point to the responsibility of the aggressor, Hamas, for starting and continuing this war. Given the depth of these distortions, the question must be asked: Are today's accusations antisemitic? The genocide accusation hurled against Israel draws on deep wells of fear and hatred, both conscious and unconscious, that lurk in radical interpretations of both Christianity and Islam. These currents view Jews as uniquely evil and murderous. The Gaza genocide accusation has shifted opprobrium from Jews as a religious/ethnic group to the state of Israel, which it depicts as inherently evil. And in fact, genocide charges against Israel litter the records of the United Nations throughout Israel's existence, from 1948 to the present. In 1983, Israel was charged with poisoning Palestinian girls in the West Bank as part of a genocidal plan. In 1997, it was accused of infecting Palestinian children with the HIV virus, also said to be part of a genocidal campaign. Mass poisoning and especially the depraved killing of children are among the oldest antisemitic tropes. The latter has been used liberally today by Palestinian and other nongovernmental organizations, which argue that Israeli snipers deliberately target Palestinian children with shots to the head. All such accusations are false. The genocide accusation also threatens diaspora Jews. During episodes of actual genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s, no one attacked Serbs living in Germany or Hutus living in Belgium. But the lethal implications for Jews are now plain, with the brutal May 21 murders in Washington of two Israeli Embassy staffers, one of whom, Sarah Milgrim, was a U.S. citizen. The alleged killer, Elias Rodriguez, referred to the allegations of Israeli genocide. His last letter proclaimed: 'Those of us against the genocide take satisfaction in arguing that the perpetrators and abettors have forfeited their humanity.' Susan Abulhawa, a noted Palestinian American writer whose books are read on university campuses, was unapologetic. 'Now,' she complained, 'we're supposed to feel bad for two genocide cheerleaders after watching these colonizer baby killers slaughter people by the hundreds every day for two years.' Abulhawa added: 'No genocidal Zionist should be safe anywhere in the world.' As historians, we conclude with a cautionary note. Today, no one has an accurate figure of how many people have died in this war, how many deaths are those of Hamas fighters, and how many of Gazan civilians. The world press readily repeats casualty figures and predications of starvation made by the Gaza Ministry of Health. It needs to practice more humility and skepticism. There is no reason to view a Hamas-controlled entity as a credible source regarding ongoing events, especially since Hamas has for years used the civilian casualties that its mode of warfare brings about as a central element of its political warfare against Israel. Historians, journalists and governments should view every assertion made by this proudly antisemitic terrorist organization with great skepticism, and they also should give weight to the assertions of the government of Israel, which, unlike Hamas, must face a political opposition and a free press. This is not to deny that this war has brought enormous suffering to the people of Gaza. But the central cause of that suffering is the war that Hamas began and, as Tal Becker observed 18 months ago, refuses to end.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Efforts to Boost Crop Sales to Asia Bearing Fruit in Vietnam
(Bloomberg) -- US efforts to increase exports of agricultural products to Asia, excluding China, look to be bearing fruit, with Vietnam pledging to buy more American goods to strengthen trade ties with Washington. Where the Wild Children's Museums Are Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move At London's New Design Museum, Visitors Get Hands-On Access LA City Council Passes Budget That Trims Police, Fire Spending Hanoi is expected to sign deals with Washington to purchase more than $2 billion worth of agricultural, forestry and fishery products, according to a statement posted on the Vietnamese government's website. The nation has vowed to increase buying of American goods, and offered to remove all tariffs on US imports to secure a trade deal and avoid high tariffs. The Southeast Asian nation is already scooping up more grains from the US, especially corn, as shipments have become more attractive than South American supplies. The development comes at a time when demand from China has collapsed following trade tensions between the world's two biggest economies. A 50-member delegation led by Do Duc Duy, Vietnam's agriculture and environment minister, is in Iowa to sign five memorandums of understanding between the Vietnamese feed industry and private American companies, the Iowa Corn Growers Association said in a post on its website. Two of the MOUs, covering the export of 900,000 tons of US corn and 250,000 tons of dried distillers grains, or DDGS, have already been signed, the association said. Vietnam is seen importing 12.7 million tons of corn in the 2025-26 season, making it the world's third-largest buyer of the corn, according to data published by the United States Department of Agriculture. --With assistance from Isis Almeida, Francesca Stevens and Nguyen Dieu Tu Uyen. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
