| Why won't the U.S. get involved in Cambodia? If that question were to be asked to a random sample of people in the US, most people would cynically say that there are no significant fossil fuel interests in South East Asia. While this answer has some merit, it is not, I believe, the reason why Cambodia's cause does not come into the consciousness of the American people. Let's first look at Cambodia's cause to determine if it would be a good idea to step in. According to some, Cambodia's government is one of the most corrupt in the world. Some reporters have stated that Zimbabwe has nothing on Cambodia in terms of injustice and corruption. Some of the political parties' platforms in Cambodia have to officially state that they are opposed to corruption of all forms. Despite this, the corruption extends to all levels, from the very top, to almost the lowest levels (police and state lay-workers). Cambodia, for about a decade now, has been engaging in a process to bring to justice the former Khmer Rouge leaders(none to this day have been brought to justice). Every year there is some new breakthrough that leads people to believe the tribunal will start presiding, but there is always some hitch that keeps it from happening. The latest difficulty has to do with funding. Despite a 10% growth in the last five years, the economy in Cambodia is still one of the worst in South East Asia. Most, if not all, the industry in Cambodia is foreign. There are very few "self-sustaining" Cambodian owned/operated industries. The growth also comes at a huge price. It's been reported that the government "relocates" many of the poor in areas it wants to develop. I have actually seen a village that the government built for squatters, so the argument can be made that the government is trying to be humane. Earlier this year, a major news organization reported that the government used less humane tactics-midnight raids, excessive force, and burning- to relocate citizens. The average monthly salary for Cambodians is somewhere around $100. All the preceding, make a good argument for any developed nation to get involved in Cambodia. So, despite the fact that the US is aware of the problems, why do they still resist? Answer, we still have deep scars from Vietnam. Whether the Vietnam War was won, lost or tied by the US is still a raging round-table discussion. The consensus by most Americans today is that the war was lost because democracy was not established. Despite the policies and tactics the Nixon administration used, I believe the United States was not successful in Vietnam because of a grass roots problem: the people of Southern Vietnam that the US was trying to protect were "sleeping with the enemy". There are many stories of how US soldiers would go into an area, pacify it, and then come back the very next week and fight more communists. The villagers, so fearful for their lives, seemingly welcomed the communists with open arms. The people wanted the ideals of the US, but were unwilling to pay the price, so they cooperated with the communists. That's not a universal statement, but by and large this is what happened. I believe I've found the answer to the question. The US will not get involved in Cambodia, because the people-despite desiring change- cannot cooperate because it may cost them their farms, families, jobs and even lives. The United States needs to be able to depend on people who want true democracy and true freedom to do their part. And that part may cost lives. The US tries to avoid those civilian casualties, but there is always a cost for change. The main support point for my hypothesis comes from the most recent event in the world's conscience about Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge of 1975. The platform of the Khmer Rouge was for governmental change at the cost of the educated class. The party grew until there was sufficient administration, then there was a tidal effect that swept the whole nation away. I believe there could have been a larger resistance to the KR's policies and rule, but it would have cost lives, and people were unwilling to pay the cost. Instead, brother betrayed brother all in the interest of appeasement. If Cambodia is to ever experience change, and freedoms, it is the people who must decide. The people must weigh their options. If they want freedom or change bad enough, it will cost reputations, beatings, imprisonment and even lives, but these are the necessary parts of transformation. |
