|Home | Reviews | Blog | Daily | Glossary | Orrin's Stuff | Email|
It is difficult to describe how a friendship grows,
for it often grows from seemingly contradictory roots--mutual needs, overlapping
The growing hysteria of the administration's posture
on Cambodia seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what
the fall of
This book is for the most part a reprint of the story that Sydney H. Schanberg wrote for The New York Times Magazine (January 20, 1980), which subsequently became the basis for the Oscar-winning film, The Killing Fields. In structure it seems a simple enough story of one man's heroic survival and another's personal redemption : insensitive Western journalist (Sydney Schanberg) badly miscalculates the danger that his Man Friday (Dith Pran) is in as the Khmer Rouge take over Cambodia; Sydney escapes deteriorating situation but Dith Pran can not leave; Sydney conducts a ceaseless rescue effort, while Dith Pran survives unimaginable horrors, before finally fleeing the country; they are reunited and all is forgiven. Mr. Schanberg makes this portion of the story more compelling by being relatively honest about his shabby treatment of Dith Pran and by revealing just how guilty he felt about what he had done. It thus becomes a story of recompense, of how he initially did wrong by Dith Pran but then did his best to set things right, and eventually everything worked out okay.
However, this simple tale leaves out a much larger story of betrayal and moral blindness, one for which Mr. Schanberg never takes any responsibility and for which no one can ever grant him any absolution. Mr. Schanberg was a member of a Western press corps in South East Asia during the Vietnam Era which disastrously misjudged the intentions of both their own country and of those we were fighting against, with catastrophic results for the native populations. Writing in the pages of the New York Times on April 13, 1975, just five days before the final fall of Cambodia's capital, Phnom Penh, to the Khmer Rouge, Mr. Schanberg wrote that for the :
...ordinary people of Indochina Ö it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.
Over the next several years, once the Americans were gone, the Khmer Rouge would either intentionally murder or starve through gross incompetence some 1.7 million citizens out of a population of just seven million.
How could a journalist for one of the world's leading newspapers, who is supposed to have at least some minimal understanding of the story he's covering, have misjudged the situation so badly? Well, when Mr. Schanberg explains why he and Dith Pran decided to stay on in Cambodia to witness and report on the triumph of the Khmer Rouge, he says :
Our decision to stay was founded on our belief--perhaps,
looking back, it was more a devout wish or hope--that when they won their
Wasn't 1975 awfully late in the 20th Century to still be harboring such placid delusions about the nature of Communism? Where was the nation that such advocates for communist takeover could point to which had enjoyed such a peaceful transition and "reconciliation"?
Though it is conservatives who are most often accused of viewing other cultures and peoples through chauvinistic eyes, it seems apparent that this was a case of folks like Mr. Schanberg and Mr. McGovern (see above) and others on the Left seeing in the Khmer Rouge what they wished to see, a gentle rebuke to Western imperialism, rather than listening to what the Khmer Rouge made it abundantly clear that they really were, Leftist revolutionaries determined to remake their society by destroying it. We can give folks like Mr. Schanberg some benefit of the doubt and assume that they did not fully comprehend that their own political philosophies eventually had to end in killing fields and charnel heaps, but the Left's utopian assumption that Man was essentially "good" in the State of Nature, until he was corrupted by various social institutions and political philosophies, virtually begs people to seek a return to those halcyon days and as Mr. Schanberg describes the actions of Pol Pot :
There is no doubt that the Khmer Rouge are turning
Cambodian society upside down, remaking it in the image of some earlier
In this the Khmer Rouge were merely realizing the dreams of Jean Jacques Rousseau, a State of Nature where Man had "neither houses, nor huts, nor any kind of property whatever" and returning society to the blessed status that Marx and Engels spoke of in The Communist Manifesto when man enjoyed a "primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership". How futile and disingenuous then to express shock when the Khmer Rouge proceeded to return Cambodia to this kind of primitive "Year Zero."
Yet, while Mr. Schanberg goes to great lengths to demonstrate his genuine remorse at the life-threatening danger in which he had placed Dith Pran, the book is utterly devoid of any contrition for the at least partial role his journalism, and that of many of his fellow pressmen in Southeast Asia and his colleagues at the NY Times, played in getting America to abandon Cambodia and leave its people to the predictably ungentle ministrations of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. It is quite touching when Dith Pran and Mr. Schanberg are reunited, at a refugee camp in Thailand, and all is forgiven. But the seeming closure that this affecting scene provides to the story is unfortunately false. Even as we are thankful that Dith Pran made it out of the killing fields alive, we must be ever cognizant of the fact that nearly two million of his countrymen were not so fortunate. This is a holocaust for which America must bear some responsibility, not merely, as Mr. Schanberg wishes to have it, for being involved in Cambodia in the first place, but for bugging out when the going got tough. Surely some day the Left faces a reckoning for its century-long dalliance with homicidal Marxist regimes, but Mr. Schanberg does not begin that process here.
The book is still worthwhile, because the story of Cambodia and of Dith Pran and the events to which he bore witness must never be forgotten. But there's a hollowness at the book's core, due to Mr. Schanberg's unwillingness, or inability, to perceive the true extent of his own culpability for the killing fields.
-ESSAY : Cambodia (Sydney Schanberg)
-ESSAY : Have Federal Judges Lost Touch With Reality? : Judges Exempt Selves From Law With Strange Internet Decision (Sydney H. Schanberg, Dec. 15, 1999 , APB Online)
-ESSAY : Raymond Kelly: The Insider's Insider (Sydney Schanberg, March 24, 2000, APB Online)
-INTERVIEW : Role Models with Sydney Schanberg (Columbia Journalism Review)
-DISCUSSION : Online NewsHour: Pol Pot's Legacy -- June 18, 1997 (PBS)
-DISCUSSION : Online NewsHour: Pol Pot Dies - April 16, 1998 (PBS)
-VIDEO : Author Sydney Schanberg reacts to Pol Pot's death (CNN)
-PROFILE : Print Legend Sydney Schanberg Online (December 14, 1999, Online Journalism Review) Ý
-ESSAY : The Erasing Fields (William J. Bennetta, The Textbook Letter for September-October 1997)
we can gfive (CBSnews.com Producer Jarrett Murphy, April 2000)
-ESSAY : Pol Pot's Cheerleaders : Over a quarter a century ago, American leftists cheered, justified, and denied as the communists plunged Cambodia into a nightmare of atrocity. In the end, they failed to whitewash Pol Pot's record. They will not succeed in whitewashing their own. (Jeff Jacoby, April 24, 2001, Capitalism)
-ESSAY : Don't Blame America for the 'Killing Fields' (Stephen J. Morris, Wall Street Journal | May 3, 2000)
-ARCHIVES : "sydney Schanberg" (Find Articles)
-REVIEW : of ÝReporting Vitetnam: Part One: American Journalism 1959-1969 and Part Two: American Journalism 1969-1975 (Jonathan Z. Larsen, CJR)
-REVIEW : of Reporting Vietnam (Maurice Walsh, New Statesman)
-REVIEW : of Crimes of War : What the Public Should Know edited by Roy Gutman and David Rieff (JOHN T. SLANIA, Book Page)
-REVIEW : of Crimes of War (David L. Ulin, LA Weekly)
DITH PRAN :
Few people deny the contributory role played by France in the draconian Treaty of Versailles in the rise of Hitler, but few people recognise central role played by the US bombing campaign in the rise of Pol Pot. Be honest and look into the history of your country, instead of indulging in this exasperating selective amnesia!
- Nov-08-2005, 07:06
'... Whenever a Khmer spoke to e in English, it put me in a bad mood straight away. Not because of the dramatic events in Vietnam; for many local peasantry attached to their traditions and resistant to their ideologies, the Communist revolution was a disruption to their way of life. Rather, it was the American's uncouth methods, their crass ignorance of the milleu in which they had intervened, their clumsy demagogy, their misplaced clear conscience, and that easygoing, childlike sincerity that bordered on stupidity. They were total strangers in the area, driven by clichés about Asia and they behaved accordingly.'
- Francois Bizot
- Nov-08-2005, 07:01
To the last two respondents, thank you for setting the reviewer straight. His references to those 'we were fighting against' suggests that he sees the US at the time as being some morally noble entity, and it shows the ignorance of the majority of the American public at large of the foreign policy decisions, overt and covert, and their consequences. The bombing campaign from 1969 to 1973, which resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Cambodian peasants, radicalised peasants, particularly in the east of the country. The KR would not have got the support they did and the backing from China to prosecute a war against a corrupt US-backed government which had overthrown Sihanouk, forcing the King to side with the Communists. Nixon and Kissinger (especially Kissinger!) are even viler than Pol Pot and his cronies.
So get you facts right before you write reviews.
Hand back the Nobel Prize Henry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Don't believe American lies!
- Nov-08-2005, 06:09
Your criticism of Sydney Schanberg and other reporters in Southeast Asia during the 1960s and 1970s makes no sense to me. Yes, plenty of people were wrong about the Khmer Rouge and were stunned by their genocidal regime. But to blame the reporters for what happened in Cambodia makes no sense. You seem to be suggesting that the reporters caused the United States to abandon Cambodia. No, it was the U.S. government, specifically the Ford administration, that abandoned Cambodia. Just as in Vietnam, where the reporters did not cause the United States to fail in its aims, neither did the reporters cause the United States to abandon Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge.
Your suggestion that the genocide was somehow a result of the reporters' sympathy for Communism is a shallow analysis. The Communism of the Khmer Rouge was fanatical and bizarre and genocidal, far more so than any of the other versions of Communism that took root in Asia. Other versions of Communism, such as Vietnamese Communism, were repressive, yes, and they denied individual liberties, yes. But Vietnam did not experience the genocide of Cambodia. Nor did Laos. Today Asians are experiencing what some have called the quiet walkaway from Communism, and Vietnam today has a Communist government running an increasingly capitalist economy. And we must not forget that it was Communist Vietnam that toppled the Khmer Rouge, with opposition from both the United States and Communist China. China then turned around and invaded Vietnam in retaliation for Vietnam invading Cambodia.
There has never been just one Communism; there have been different Communisms in different countries. The Khmer Rouge were among the most horrific rulers the world has ever witnessed. Perhaps American reporters were naive about the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps American political leaders were naive about them. But to blame American reporters for the Khmer Rouge's mass slaughter of the Cambodian people is absurd.
- May-12-2005, 12:35
Yes, the failure in SE Asia had nothing to do with the actions of Nixon, et. al. Well, this and engaging in a secret war, without the knowledge of the Congress (who holds the primary war-declaring power in the U.S. - of course respecting the Constitution was never a strong trait of the Nixon administration).
- Jean Limintour
- May-08-2004, 16:15