Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Wikipedia, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia articles
I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts.
But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972
at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine.
http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Here you remove sourced information claiming that it is not a RS (how is it not?), but you ignore the fact that the other sources in the article are saying the same thing. Instead of re-ordering the references you simply remove it.
Here you claim that the source's information is based on a fake quote, and as proof cite a letter to NYT written by someone who participated in the U.S. government (how reliable!). But the source is not based on a fake quote, so what are you going on about here?
Here you remove a sourced fact because you claim that the order is not logic. Then re-order the information, not remove it.
Here you remove a sourced information just because you think it "adds nothing", also adding that it is "out of order".
Here you claim that the source is "simply wrong" and back your allegation up with nothing.
Here you remove a key quote from the U.S. Secretary of State which is referenced in a book written by Cambodian genocide expert Ben Kiernan and published by Yale University Press. You also remove a sourced fact about the U.S. bombing of Cambodia.
And you move "United States support for the Khmer Rouge" to the POV title "Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge". What a great idea - why not also move "Holocaust" to "Allegations of Nazi mass murder"? This is apologism, pure and simple. The original title should not even have been changed, but you could also have chosen a more neutral one such as "Involvement of the U.S. in...". But no, you must remove everything which does not agree with your view.
Even nominally reliable sources have to be trimmed for readability and due weight. You apparently want to use this article as a platform to throw any number of largely unrelated allegations at the U.S., but the U.S. did not bomb the Khmer Rouge at the request of Cambodia's government as part of some secret plan to intentionally trigger anti-American blowback and bring their true communist allies to power—regardless of if you can find sources criticizing the efficacy of the bombing campaign. Kissinger's quote, in early 1975, about wanting better relations never resulted in any diplomatic relations actually being established. As written, the entire first paragraph after the one sentence on the bombing is original research implying that the U.S. supported the Khmer Rouge during the genocide, and indeed provided military assistance, which is not only wrong but also a misuse of the sources. That your text is out-of-order and incoherent is obvious, as when you jump from discussing food aid to Cambodia in 1979 back to "Operation USA provided $7 million of aid to Cambodia under Pol Pot's rule". What actually happened in 1979 is that there was a vast international effort to relieve what many feared might be the mass starvation of millions of Cambodians with humanitarian aid, a campaign William Shawcross wrote an entire book about. According to Shawcross, the aid "undoubtedly helped save thousands of vulnerable people, including children and the sick". Ben Kiernan, former Khmer Rouge apologist, then switched to being an apologist for the Vietnamese puppet regime led by Khmer Rouge defector Heng Samrin as it attempted to starve out any resistance, therefore pretending that the international famine relief effort was actually "support" for "Pol Pot."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clymer's assertion that the U.S. somehow tacitly supported Chinese and Thai assistance to the Khmer Rouge appeared to be based on a misquotation frequently attributed to Brzezinski, who of course denies ever saying anything of the kind. Certainly, it would be acceptable to use Clymer to criticize the aid campaign in 1979, though the alternative view should also be presented.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Kissinger's quote, in early 1975, about wanting better relations never resulted in any diplomatic relations actually being established." Yes, what a coincidence that Kissinger said this quote when everything else the sources describe happened! (which is obviously related and should be included) "the entire first paragraph after the one sentence on the bombing is original research implying that the U.S. supported the Khmer Rouge during the genocide" Not really - it's exactly what the references said. Every single assertion is taken from the sources. "and indeed provided military assistance, which is not only wrong but also a misuse of the sources" Whether you believe it is wrong is irrelevant. The sources are saying that - so how is it a misuse? "That your text is out-of-order and incoherent is obvious" Then re-order it - not use it as an excuse to delete information. "What actually happened in 1979 is that there was a vast international effort to relieve what many feared might be the mass starvation of millions of Cambodians with humanitarian aid" This article is based on independent reliable sources, not pro-U.S. explanation of the events. This can be explained in a "differing views" section though. "Clymer's assertion that the U.S. somehow tacitly supported Chinese and Thai assistance to the Khmer Rouge appeared to be based on a misquotation frequently attributed to Brzezinski" Clymer is asserting that the U.S. did this not discussing quotes. Either way what Brzezinski himself says is irrelevant, what independent sources say is relevant. Illyfifi2 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, buddy! I checked the US–Cambodia relations page, and there seems to be dispute in RS about US support after 1975. I'm open to persuasion otherwise, so please feel to swing me round to your view! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article's sources (before TheTimesAreAChanging deletes them). What is written here is undisputed in independent reliable sources. Also, thank you for improving the citation format, but I had to revert TheTimesAreAChanging's irrational information deletion (with no argumentation on talk page). Illyfifi2 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several RS cited at some length in the article provide unequivocal documentation of US support. The only "refutations" are the self-serving non-denial denials by Brezinsky and Kissinger, each one contradicting his own earlier statements, and Thayer saying he personally did not see any US-provided weapons used by the KR. Unless someone has RS refuting US support (other than US govt apologists, who should be noted as such but should not prevent us from listing facts as facts), we should change the title back to US support for KR.
That is a very... strange train of logic. There are countless examples of states providing aid and then turning on former allies. Look no further than US-Iraqi relations, or Sino-Soviet. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a site where anyone can revise history to how they see fit. I think most people would agree the addition of "Allegations of" is appalling and disrespectful and has no place on this page. Wamzy8047 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree, how has this not been fixed yet? Is it just an honest mistake that "Allegations of" has been left in since 2015? Why has this not been corrected yet? 136.56.45.130 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree, this article is flirting with genocide denial. I removed "allegations of" from military support, but the entire article should be renamed given everything we know for sure about the CIA's sponsoring of Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. Jester6482 (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The support the USA and Britain provided for the Red Khmer in the 1980s (when the record and legacy of the genocide was well known) is abundantly clear. Sure, they all routed their aid through 'non Red Khmer parties' but they knew full well that the Red Khmer was the only group in that 'coalition' with the manpower to do anything. It is beyond belief that some would continue to play on technicalities to contend that 'the USA did nothing to support or aid the Red Khmer' when it so clearly did. Reagan knew of the genocide, Thatcher knew of the genocide and yet they supported the Red Khmer anyway. Indirectly, to be sure, since that genocide was just a little too embarrassing to directly associated with. But it was done anyway, out of spite, since the USA was salty it had suffered a humiliating defeat in the Vietnam war.
Conservative politicians throughout the 1960s-70s-80s supported hosts of genocidal, mass murdering and repressive regimes (dictatorships) just as long as they said the magic words 'I hate communism'... in this case, it was the magic words 'We hate Vietnamese communism' but supporting Cambodian communists who genocided 25% of the population was something conservatives were fine with.85.145.207.2 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
85.145.207.2 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with it. "We would support this." What is "this"? As used, it sounds as though "this" is "the Cambodian genocide, which between 1975 and 1979 killed nearly 25% of Cambodia's population". Is this right? Can someone check the source? Sounds pretty incredible, even if it is Kissinger. YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I'm prepared to accept a simple mistake (the person meant p. xi), but the quote reads simply, "You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won't let that stand in our way." The words "We would support this" do not appear at all on that page. What are you playing at, Illyfifi2? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"They are murderous thugs, but we won't let that stand in our way." is actually several orders of magnitude worse than "we (would) support this". It conveys clear knowledge of war crimes and a willingness to be complicit in that, so that doesn't help your argument. 136.56.45.130 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, Illyfifi2 decided to add in "We would support this" from the source Kiernan uses (p. 8 of this. Totally unacceptable, especially as at had been juxtaposed with "the Cambodian genocide, which between 1975 and 1979 killed nearly 25% of Cambodia's population". The "We would support this" is absolutely nothing to do with the genocide, nor could it have been: the Kissinger–Thai FM conversation is taking place on 26 November 1975; the genocide was 1975–79. This is totally unacceptable, Illyfifi2. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence I wrote says: "In a meeting with the Thai foreign minister, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained the position on the Khmer Rouge", not the position on genocide. The "we would support this" is unrelated to the genocide, and was added in only to preserve the full quote. Either way, it has now been removed to avoid creating confusion. Illyfifi2 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was finally able to check your incredible claim that "Operation USA provided $7 million of aid to Cambodia under Pol Pot's rule." While I stand by my initial statement that Wikipedia should not repeat blatantly false assertions from nominally reliable sources, Haas' Faustian Pact says the opposite: "Operation USA quietly provided $7 million in relief aid to Cambodians under PRK rule". That's "PRK", as in the "People's Republic of Kampuchea", the Vietnamese puppet regime led by KR defectors.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on Haas page 17 says or implies "The U.S. was instrumental in ensuring the deposed Khmer Rouge received a seat in the United Nations". Page 236 of Forsythe's Encyclopedia of Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with Cambodia (it's actually part of the bibliography for a chapter on "Right to Food and Adequate Standard of Living"). Page 97 of Emmers' Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power could only be used to support a far weaker claim than "The U.S., along with China, rejected a plan to disarm the Khmer Rouge in order to support its regional and its allies' interests" (i.e., Emmers claims the U.S. "accepted" the Chinese position due to "a need to consolidate ties with Beijing after the opening of relations in January 1979"--if the Chinese were on the opposite side of the ASEAN states, what other U.S. allies could you be referring to?) Your text is incoherent, out-of-order, and riddled with errors. As you have been reverted by three other users, I advise you to cease edit warring. There is clearly no consensus for your changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here the error is yours - Haas quite clearly highlights the role of the U.S. in acquiring Khmer Rouge's saet in the UN. The sentence that the U.S. refused the plan to disarm is sourced by both Haas and Emmers. It quite clearly is an appropriate source for this sentence: "The U.S., along with China, rejected a plan to disarm the Khmer Rouge in order to support its regional allies' interests" (allies in the region being China, this sentence should be improved). Page 236 of the encyclopaedia source quite clearly says exactly what it is used to source. Illyfifi2 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course, totally wrong of you to use one minor error as an excuse to go on with your plan of obliterating sourced information. You claim that people revert me, but perhaps you forgot what one editor said: Surely the answer is to put the relevant tag on the offending parts, then add the material to provide what you deem to be necessary balance? The sources are unquestionably RS – OUP, Yale etc. Remember, Wiki is a place to find all the points of view!! :DIllyfifi2 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TheTimesAreAChanging has for a long time been a pro-US, right-wing POV editor. The US support for the Khmer Rouge is well-proved. Everything that you removed was sourced. I would advice you to stop your clearly biased editing. If you want to edit from a pro-US perspective, that's OK. But please use Conservapedia instead of Wikipedia. Te og kaker (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've striked out the above inappropriate ad hominem attack, which contributes nothing to the above discussion and is in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. There is no consensus, so there will be no change.
I grant only that the edition of the encyclopedia that I checked did not line up with your page number, and I jumped to the wrong conclusion that you fabricated the entire citation without looking any further. (Of note, however, is that even Forsythe includes the US denial.) Haas page 17 only tells us how the US voted; Haas does not offer commentary regarding whether or not this vote was "instrumental". If you admit that one of your sentences should be reworded, I'm baffled as to why you refuse to make the appropriate tweaks.
More importantly, you are misusing your sources with your synthesis on the bombing. None of your sources say that the US bombed Cambodia to support the KR, as you lead the reader to believe they do. The blowback theory is a contested issue (Pol Pot biographer David Chandler, for example, credits the bombing with preserving the Khmer Republic for two additional years) best left to the articles that already cover it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no consensus" = "we ignore the consensus". We've been saying since 2015 this title is wrong, keeping around right wing editors with a pro US agenda specifically to avoid arriving at a rational consensus is a self-fulfilling prophecy. 136.56.45.130 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone can read everything here and see how lllyfifi2 and others were dismissed with irrational arguments that didn't hold water in the end. What is the hold up here?
Is there a good reason we're stalling on this? Because I'll gladly go ahead and make a video with all of this information from the talk page included and post it to my channel to expose this 8-year long neglect that just so happens to favor revisionist, ahistorical lies. I hate to go that route but I'm getting pretty sick of the abuse of power here at this point. 2605:A601:A6A4:9A00:83:AC92:5CAC:FC5C (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CAQ is cited as a source multiple times in this article, but CAQ's Wikipedia page states that the Mitrokhin archive revealed CAQ as a KGB propaganda operation. Cold-War era propaganda probably isn't a reliable source. Ollie Garkey (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. After two relists, there is no apparent consensus here. Both sides presented strong cases for their respective opinions (both based in policy). But, in the end neither argument was sufficiently stronger than the other to form consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★14:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, thank you! Policy references will be underlined here. The facts alone beg the name change but the name change would also happen to improve the title's naturalness and conciseness a great deal as well.
I don't know anyone who would naturally think to search for " 'Allegations of' United States Support for Khmer Rouge". It's too cumbersome. Just through the course of revisiting the page to gather information and prepare a formal request, I failed to find this page several times because I forgot to add "allegations of" and it would not show up in Wikipedia's search at all at the time if you entered this proposed title or any of the previous redirects for that matter. This may be partially a programming issue (queries for redirects should probably return the current version of the page in search, though that may not be all that doable without a good couple of weeks of code refactoring etc.) but the effect is still the same; it's harder to find the page from Wikipedia's search. Edit: just performed a recent test and this bug seems to be partially fixed ("US support" still only returns two articles so you sort of have to type out the whole country), but I noticed that when typing "United States Support for" in search, this is the only quick result that uses "Allegations of", so that it sticks out like a sore thumb in that regard is another great argument that this move would improve consistency.
I can maybe understand a compromise position here like "United States Proxy Support for the Khmer Rouge" but "Allegations of" is not only clunky and lengthy, but misleading in a pretty significant way, and it's certainly a lot less concise. I admit consistency could maybe be taking a hit here (since there are so many titles that have "Allegations of"; some appropriate, many not) but prefixing articles with "allegations of" should not be the default response to any topic that turns out to be controversial anyway. Many of these articles should have more clarifying, more concise titles instead, not just this one. Jester6482 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partly off-topic comment: the article can be made easier to find by creating redirects for various possible search terms. For example, I just created a redirect at US support for the Khmer Rouge. Now, if you type "US support" in the search box, that link shows up in the list immediately (as the 4th item). — BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The proposed changes are POV-pushing and reduce accuracy, principally for the POV that it is the US that is responsible for the Cambodian Genocide. The article does recite allegations, that are disputed as seen in the article-content. In reality the entire article needs a massive edit and is basically just a POVFORK of Cambodian–Vietnamese War. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations are "disputed" by the US Government and the CIA. Do we trust soviet sources that dispute information about the USSR? No we dismiss them outright, so it at once becomes clear who's position is pushing a particular POV. 2605:A601:A6A4:9A00:4B6A:6E14:79F3:365B (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that the allegations are disputed by the US government and the CIA is an enormous conflict of interest. I have made my argument on the basis of both historical facts and Wikipedia's Title policy, so I would appreciate it if someone here would engage with the substance of this formal request instead of trying to deflect in all of these various ways. Jester6482 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The academic sources say the US collaborated, not that there was allegations of collaborations. The counter claim states that "I never once encountered aid", not that aid didn't exist. If we're going to stay true to the source, we should remove the "allegations".Stix1776 (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Multiple statements in the article are factual and undisputed and correspond to US support of the Khmer Rouge:
1) U.S. voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) to retain Cambodia's United Nations (UN) seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam. = diplomatic US support
2) I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.= diplomatic US support has admitted by a member of the then US government (quoted here from the NYTimes source of ref 20)
I will not even go on investigate the claims of political scholars quoted in the wiki article since this much is already tantamount to US support. NokGradten (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.– robertsky (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't take well to the arguably bad faith accusation that I "sidelined" an allegedly apparent consensus (that did not exist). In hindsight, the last discussion should've been plainly closed as "not moved", given that the oppose !vote was the only one truly rooted in policy. The nominations there and here appear to be rooted in a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mindset. While occasionally a noble effort, 'righting great wrongs' is not a reason to request a move. estar8806 (talk) ★19:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly hesitated to use that word tbh, but for me the consensus above is clear so whether it is out of carelessness or what not it doesn't matter. I don't mean to say you are editing in bad faith but I can't understand why you stalled and closed the discussion.
Additionally let me quote WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS "So, if you want to:[...] Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or [...]...you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses. [...] if you have the reliable sources to support it, then [...] if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles".
My point about RIGHTGREATWRONGS wasn't an accusation- it was a comment on appearances. The problem is that even if reliable sources support 'righting a great wrong' to some degree, we have to remain neutral. I personally do not have the breadth of knowledge about this specific topic to judge whatever POV may be overrepresented, hence why I won't !vote or express an opinion in favor or opposition to the request. I am, however, concerned that neither this discussion (as of yet) nor the last one have properly addressed the NPOV concerns raised by other editors. NPOV will trump (almost) any other policy, unless a relatively strong consensus forms for a WP:POVTITLE, which clearly did not happen last time.
I appreciate you pointing out that you didn't mean to say that I was editing in bad faith. Yet, claiming that I sidelined consensus, potentially out of "carelessness", and that I "stalled and closed the discussion" very much sound like you're trying to say just that. As for the stalling point, the discussion had been open for 23 days, longer than we leave most open for. Apart from the single 11th-hour support !vote, the discussion had been stale for eight days, so there was very much no stalling of the discussion. estar8806 (talk) ★04:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estar8806 says: "neither this discussion (as of yet) nor the last one have properly addressed the NPOV concerns raised by other editors." What? Reliable sources generally treat "United States support for the Khmer Rouge" as a matter of fact, not as allegations. I already provided four high-quality sources that document this; two are authored by relevant expert academic scholars (Maguire and Kiernan), and the other is an acclaimed journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Cambodia (Brinkley).
If anything, I'd argue that the current title of "Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge" violates WP:NPOV; "allegations" make it appear as if there is no proof when the majority of reliable sources state in the affirmative that "United States support for the Khmer Rouge" indeed occurred. Skornezy (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support: @NokGradten makes a very good point, those statements are indeed factual. Moreover, the literature do not appear to treat "United States support to the Khmer Rouge" as mere allegations, but rather a matter of fact:
The United States gave $85 million to the Khmer Rouge between 1980 and 1986. The Carter administration donated more than half (at least $40 million) during the crucial years of 1979 and 1980. President Carter’s ambassador to Thailand, Morton Abramowitz, attempted to justify supporting a genocidal government in exile: “The real question is whether the United States should have bullied the Thais and Peking not to help the Khmer Rouge but to intern them. We never considered this a serious option because (1) we thought the Vietnamese were wrong in Cambodia; (2) the Thais and the Chinese were our friends; (3) they had greater interests in Southeast Asia than we; and (4) we might not have succeeded. What would have happened if we had said to the Thais ‘Take the Khmer Rouge weapons away’ and then the Khmer Rouge had resisted?” Abramowitz seemed unconvinced by his own rationalizations: “Still, I have asked myself a thousand times whether that is what we should have done.” Established in 1980 by the United States, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore,the Kampuchea Emergency Group provided essential nonmilitary aid to the resistance “coalition” from a field office just across the border in Aranyaprathet. From 1979 to 1981, China and the United States pushed King Sihanouk to head an anti-Vietnamese resistance movement that included the Khmer Rouge and rightist Son Sann. The KEG enabled the United States to maintain an arm’s-length relationship with the Khmer Rouge while officially assisting Cambodian refugees in border camps. ... Ronald Reagan’s election as U.S. President in 1980 meant continued support for the Khmer Rouge as part of his worldwide anticommunist crusade. The new CIA chief, William Casey, according to biographer Bob Woodward, was “willing to dance cautiously with the devil.” ... Vietnamese general Nguyen Vo Giap best described America’s strange new alliance with the Khmer Rouge and China as “an arranged marriage” and quoted a Vietnamese saying about such alliances: “The couple share the same bed but they have different dreams.” A film crew ... happened to be in the Khmer Rouge camp, Site 8, when a Thai helicopter landed and former CIA deputy director Ray Cline emerged from it. The film crew ambushed him in a remarkable 60 Minutes–style interview.When asked why he was in a Khmer Rouge camp, Cline claimed that he was now an academic and produced a card from Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies: “My trip to Southeast Asia is practically to just restore my own knowledge, to bring it up to date, and naturally I will report my impressions and my finds about the international problems here to the whole group that is going to be suggesting policies to the president-elect.” When the East Germans asked, “Do you think that it is still advisable to recognize the Pol Pot regime and to support them?” the senior American spy (who had once asked, “Must the United States respond like a man in a barroom brawl who will fight only according to the Marquis of Queensberry rules?”) broke into spontaneous laughter. ... [Senior Khmer Rouge member] Ieng Sary ... broke down the international geopolitical situation for the East Germans in 1980: “First are the aggressors and expansionists headed by the Soviet Union, and the other part is the movement of struggle for independence against the expansionists. It is good that the U.S.A. and China are agreed here. We too are on this team!” Ieng Sary espoused the Reagan Doctrine with a zeal that would have pleased the Gipper himself: “We set our hopes on the Reagan government, that it will implement its declaration to act uncompromisingly with regard to the Soviet Union and only negotiate from a position of strength. That would help us a lot.”
Brinkley, Joel (2011). Cambodia's Curse: The Modern History of a Troubled Land. PublicAffairs. pp. 59 63.
Over time charges made the rounds that some of the American aid, $215 million so far, was finding its way to the Khmer Rouge. Congress demanded an investigation, and Tom Fingar, who was in charge of the relevant division in the State Department’s Bureau of Intel ligence and Research, dispatched investigators to have a look. Sure enough, they found some leakage—including sharing of ammunition, joint defense of a bridge, and using one truck to transport both “noncommunist” and Khmer Rouge fighters to a fight. But Fingar saw this whole enter prise as a typical Washington fury about nothing, an “epi-phenomenon in a flea circus.” His investigators, he said, “were trying to sort out exactly what was happening,” while he and others “were also asking: Isn’t the larger objective here defeating the Vietnamese puppets in Phnom Penh? Why are we providing aid? Isn’t it to defeat Hun Sen?” ... Finally, on July 18, 1990, Secretary of State Baker announced a change in American policy—a complete reversal. The United States would end its political and tacit military support of the Khmer Rouge more than eleven years after they had fallen from power, a decade after it had become perfectly clear that Pol Pot and his minions had murdered “at least 1.7 million” people, 25 percent of Cambodia’s population.
Kiernan, Ben (1998). The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-79. Yale University Press. pp. xii.
Indeed, from 1979 to 1992, the United Nations, at the insistence of China and the United States, had legitimized Pol Pot's anti-Vietnamese cause and supported his exiled Khmer Rouge as Cambodia's representatives.
Kiernan, Ben (2004). How Pol Pot Came to Power: Colonialism, Nationalism, and Communism in Cambodia, 1930-1975. Yale University Press. pp. xxix.
China's position [on backing the Khmer Rouge] enjoyed US support. ... US officials pushed through international aid to Khmer Rouge-controlled camps on the Thai border.
Nate Thayer, the only opposing/denying source cited in this article, writes that "I never once encountered aid given to the [non-communist resistance] in use by or in possession of the Khmer Rouge," yet even the U.S. State Department—which would have every motivation to downplay/deny the connection—"found some leakage" in aid. Thayer is clearly the minority/fringe viewpoint here. Skornezy (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's the name reliable sources use. Besides, "United States support for Democratic Kampuchea" wouldn't even be correct: "Democratic Kampuchea" refers to the Khmer Rouge government that lasted from 1976 to 1979; the US supported the Khmer Rouge after Democratic Kampuchea was overthrown by Vietnam, so Democratic Kampuchea didn't exist during the period of US support. Skornezy (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support—As has been pointed out, there are multiple instances in the article where the United States clearly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge, and I think that Skornezy has convincingly shown that there is (at least) substantial support in the literature for treating US support as a (perhaps temporally bounded) fact. While I recognize that some editors might feel that it is an NPOV issue, I don't think there is an option that avoids taking a POV. As the debate surrounding the title demonstrates, many interpret the current title as itself bearing a denialist POV. Unless more scholarly literature presenting a contradictory opinion is unearthed, ignoring both the text of the article and the scholarly literature is imposing a WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Oppose. The situation is unclear enough that I can't support this move. Having read the article and the above evidence, the military and financial support is not very clear-cut and certainly falls in the realm of "allegations". "Leakage" of support from other groups to the Khmer Rouge is not the same as supporting them directly, for instance. Voting to maintain Khmer Rouge control of the UN seat might count as support, but when I tried to verify the sentence Owing to Chinese, U.S., and Western support, the Khmer Rouge-dominated CGDK held Cambodia's UN seat until 1993, I noticed that the source [1] doesn't mention any of this, and I have now tagged it with "failed verification". The last close of "no consensus" was appropriate. Toadspike[Talk]14:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources that treat "United States support for the Khmer Rouge" as mere allegations?
"Voting to maintain Khmer Rouge control of the UN seat might count as support, but when I tried to verify the sentence Owing to Chinese, U.S., and Western support, the Khmer Rouge-dominated CGDK held Cambodia's UN seat until 1993, I noticed that the source [1] doesn't mention any of this, and I have now tagged it with "failed verification"."
While publicly condemning Khmer Rouge brutalities, Washington still led the Western nations in support of the DK seat in the United Nations. The U.S. saw the Khmer Rouge as indispensable, the only efficient military force fighting the Vietnamese. Washington helped pressure Prince Sihanouk, who had earlier harshly condemned the genocidal Khmer Rouge rule and might have preferred to cooperate with the Heng Samrin regime, to follow China’s policy and worked with the Khmer Rouge. Sihanouk told the press that U.S. Ambassador in Beijing Leonard Woodcock said to him in late 1979: "What do you want? We do not like the Khmer Rouge, but they are the only credible fighting force in the field".
The United States will support the seating of Pol Pot's "democratic Kampuchea" regime in the United Nations again this year despite its abhorrent record on human rights, Secretary of State Edmund S. Muskie announced yesterday.
Strong Oppose - Per WP:POVNAME, WP:CONSISTENT, and WP:ACCURACY. This is POV pushing. People on the far left, having supported the Khmer Rouge during the early-mid 1970's, have, since the revelation of the killing fields, gone to the POV of considering the Khmer Rouge to have been US-backed. The basis for this is support for an umbrella organisation resisting Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and opposing the Vietnamese invasion, but this was never support for the Khmer Rouge per se. This is also a tendatious reading of the evidence, where we see again and again the same thing - support for the coalition that opposed the occupation (of which the Khmer Rouge was just part) and opposition to the invasion of Cambodia (which is not the same as support for the political party that rule Cambodia at the time). A quote where Brzezinski literally says that the US could not support the Khmer Rouge is not evidence that the US supported the Khmer Rouge. Money donated to an organisation that was not the Khmer Rouge is not support for the Khmer rouge. Votes against seating the Vietnamese-backed government are not support for the Khmer Rouge - it just goes on and on like this.
Additionally, a complete article on this topic would discuss the many instances of US opposition to the Khmer Rouge. This article discusses it to an extent which makes the proposed title inaccurate, since its scope (necessarily, for this not to just be a POVfork) also includes opposition to the Khmer Rouge. FOARP (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What POV pushing? The new title is more representative of what the reliable sources say.
"People on the far left, having supported the Khmer Rouge during the early-mid 1970's, have, since the revelation of the killing fields, gone to the POV of considering the Khmer Rouge to have been US-backed. ... This is also a tendatious reading of the evidence"
Huh? "The United States will support the seating of Pol Pot's "democratic Kampuchea" regime in the United Nations again" is from The Washington Post; "Washington still led the Western nations in support of the DK seat in the United Nations" is from Yale University; "The United States gave $85 million to the Khmer Rouge between 1980 and 1986" is from academic Peter Maguire. "China's position [on backing the Khmer Rouge] enjoyed US support. ... US officials pushed through international aid to Khmer Rouge-controlled camps on the Thai border" is from preeminent historian Ben Kiernan, who was even contracted by the U.S. government in the 1990s to document the Khmer Rouge's atrocities! None of these sources are "far-left" or "tendatious" [sic].
"A quote where Brzezinski literally says that the US could not support the Khmer Rouge is not evidence that the US supported the Khmer Rouge. Money donated to an organisation that was not the Khmer Rouge is not support for the Khmer rouge. Votes against seating the Vietnamese-backed government are not support for the Khmer Rouge"
You may not think this, but academics and historians do. Let's focus on what reliable sources, rather than our own interpretation of the historical record. If you have any reliable sources that treat "United States support for the Khmer Rouge" as mere allegations then cite them. Skornezy (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single example you raise above are examples of the US opposing the Vietnamese invasion, not supporting the Khmer Rouge per se. Some academics recast funding for the umbrella group that opposed the invasion as funding directly for the Khmer rouge, but the money was never given directly to the Khmer Rouge. We should be able to identify POV when we see it. "China's position" is Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge, not US support for the Khmer Rouge. The fact that Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge, let alone Vietnamese support for the Khmer Rouge, both of which actually existed, are redlinks, should tell you everything about what the real objective is here. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Every single example you raise above are examples of the US opposing the Vietnamese invasion, not supporting the Khmer Rouge per se."
You might view it as just "the US opposing the Vietnamese invasion", but the cited reliable sources view it as tantamount U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge.
"Some academics recast funding for the umbrella group that opposed the invasion as funding directly for the Khmer rouge"
You say "some academics" as if they are in the minority, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
"We should be able to identify POV when we see it."
According to WP:NPOV we must be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If the consensus of reliable sources is that there was U.S. support, either direct or indirect, the article title should thus reflect that. That's why I've been asking you if you have any reliable sources that treat "United States support for the Khmer Rouge" as mere allegations. If not, then the new title would not violate NPOV. I'd argue that the current title of "Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge" violates NPOV since most of the reliable source (as of now) do not treat the support as an allegation, but rather a matter of fact.
"China's position" is Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge, not US support for the Khmer Rouge."
Yes, that's true, but China's position was backed by the U.S. and historians have adduced that that amounts to indirect or tacit U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge.
"The fact that Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge, let alone Vietnamese support for the Khmer Rouge, both of which actually existed, are redlinks, should tell you everything about what the real objective is here."
Tantamount support is still not support, is it? Which is the entire issue here - you're proposing to erase a distinction that most sources make. The fact that Chinese and Vietnamese support for the Khmer Rouge, which are undisputed and far more evidenced, are not handled in an article with a title that stakes a specific position on what they did, but instead under a neutral descriptive title, shows the proposed title is not WP:CONSISTENT with other titles. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tantamount support is still not support, is it? Which is the entire issue here - you're proposing to erase a distinction that most sources make."
Indirect support is still very much support, and the reliable sources are clear on this; at least tacitly, the U.S. government gave its support to the Khmer Rouge. Why are you arguing semantics? Moreover, why have you not provided any reliable sources that treat "United States support for the Khmer Rouge" as mere allegations, in line with the current title?
"The fact that Chinese and Vietnamese support for the Khmer Rouge, which are undisputed and far more evidenced, are not handled in an article with a title that stakes a specific position on what they did, but instead under a neutral descriptive title, shows the proposed title is not WP:CONSISTENT with other titles."
All that means is that those articles should be created. Are you proposing that this article should be deleted because a "Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge" article doesn't exist yet? Skornezy (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying this article should have a title WP:CONSISTENT with the titles of the articles where Chinese and Vietnamese support for the Khmer Rouge is described - i.e., a descriptive, NPOV title which doesn't stake a particular position on the topic (i.e., that US actions were not just "indirectly"/"tantamount to" support for the Khmer Rouge, but were support for the Khmer Rouge).
Additionally, it clearly isn't an accurate title covering the article scope, which necessarily should include US opposition to, and criticism of, the Khmer Rouge. Otherwise this is just a POVFORK of Cambodian–Vietnamese War. What you're trying to do is present a particular POV as something undisputed (the US directly funded and supported the Khmer Rouge) as a consensus position when in fact the sources are normally careful to qualify any such claim because it is in fact very much disputed (e.g., by the CIA which stated that they were "without basis in fact").
You seem to want to run a WP:COMMONNAME-style argument here, but this is not a common-name, there is no common-name for this subject and so we should chose an NPOV, fully-descriptive title, which the proposed title is not.
"Additionally, it clearly isn't an accurate title covering the article scope"
What's inaccurate about it? Direct and indirect are both forms of support and the reliable sources are very clear about this.
"which necessarily should include US opposition to, and criticism of, the Khmer Rouge"
But you've continued to dodge my requests for reliable sources on this. So I ask again: Where are reliable sources that treat "United States support for the Khmer Rouge" as mere allegations, in line with the current title? Besides, just because the U.S. government criticized the Khmer Rouge's human rights record doesn't prove that there wasn't U.S. support for them. Unless you have reliable sources that are explicit on this, this is just a form of original research to justify keeping the inaccurate current title.
"Otherwise this is just a POVFORK of Cambodian–Vietnamese War."
I fail to see it that way. For example, we have Iran–Iraq War, but we also have United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War and Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war because multiple reliable sources exist on those topics, same thing applies here; many reliable sources have written on U.S. support to Khmer Rouge. And even though the Iranian government has publicly adopted an anti-Zionist stance and explicitly denied that it was supported by Israel during this time, the article is not titled "Allegations of Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war" because the majority of reliable sources don't treat it as an "allegation," again, same thing applies here; most reliable sources do not treat U.S. support to Khmer Rouge as "allegations."
"so we should chose an NPOV, fully-descriptive title, which the proposed title is not."
"I'm saying this article should have a title WP:CONSISTENT with the titles of the articles where Chinese and Vietnamese support for the Khmer Rouge is described - i.e., a descriptive, NPOV title which doesn't stake a particular position on the topic"
"What's inaccurate about it?" - Because the US also opposed the Khmer Rouge, which is part of this article scope.
"you've continued to dodge my requests for reliable sources on this" - The sources are literally the ones you've put forward as indisputably supporting your position, but instead typically qualify any support the Khmer Rouge received as "indirect" or "support of Chinese/Thai support" (so not support from the US per se).
"just because the U.S. government criticized the Khmer Rouge's human rights record doesn't prove that there wasn't U.S. support for them" - That criticism/opposition is necessarily part of the scope of this article, and as such the proposed title, which seeks to exclude criticism from the scope of the article, is a bad one.
How is the current title NPOV when the consensus of reliable sources is that there was U.S. support? - because reliable sources typically caveat that this was not direct support of the Khmer Rouge per se. to pick one example, US Foreign Policy towards Cambodia is careful to use speech-marks around 'support' and qualify Carter-era policy as "implicit"-support at the bottom of p. 30:
"In essence the US support for ASEAN, with its enormous trade potential, was unconditional and, therefore, the ASEAN principle of non-intervention, coupled with its anti-Vietnamese stance, meant that implicit support for the Khmer Rouge, by the United States, was inevitable. Vance admitted that the decision to 'support' Pol Pot was primarily the result of ASEAN lobbying
And at p. 70 it describes the policy of the first Reagan administration, including in the votes over DK being seated, as support for the CGDK, not the Khmer Rouge per se:
"Although the decision was difficult there was really no alternative given the government's foreign policy goals. In the hierarchy of US foreign policy interests anti-Sovietism stood high on the list and since Cambodia had become a Soviet client, albeit once removed, it was, therefore, necessary to oppose Cambodia. It was also necessary to back the resistance movement against Cambodia, despite the fact that one of its members was the Khmer Rouge, a client of China which was now an ally against the Soviet Union. Finally, ASEAN, the United States' major economic partner in the region, had actually sponsored the DK recognition resolution - the political and strategic reasons for continuing recognition were overwhelming.
And again on page 90, where the fact that the Regan admin actually opposed the KR, and were trying to set up an alternative in the NCR (something the proposed title would totally obfuscate), is discussed:
"A major difficulty for the CGDK was the lack of total US acceptance of the complete entity. Reagan himself was keen to point this out in May 1984. He said, 'the United States does not recognize the Khmer coalition as a government. We welcomed it as a vehicle to press for a settlement based on the ICK ... principles.' Throughout this period the US, at least publicly, pledged all its support for the NCR. Despite the official US position they remained reluctant to provide the military aid necessary for the success of the NCR factions. ASEAN asked the US to become the major arms supplier to the NCR in an attempt to redress the imbalance held by the Chinese supplied KR. The problem for the US seemed to be that China, with arms, and Thailand, with sanctuary, would have continually restored the imbalance and the NCR could have become a financial sink-hole.
Notably the above disputes the claim that Chinese/Thai support for the KR was actually something that the US actually wanted and constituted "support" from the US. The author returns to this theme again on page 119 where he discusses the US policy of not opposing (rather than supporting per se) Thai/Chinese assistance to the KR.
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War - This is an interesting example because it does two things the proposed title does not do - firstly it centres the support on the country, not the political party, and secondly, it provides a specific context for the support (i.e., the Iran-Iraq War) rather than making it sound like the US always supported Iraq. The proposed title would be like calling this article "United States support for the Baath party".
"The sources are literally the ones you've put forward as indisputably supporting your position, but instead typically qualify any support the Khmer Rouge received as "indirect" or "support of Chinese/Thai support" (so not support from the US per se) ... because reliable sources typically caveat that this was not direct support of the Khmer Rouge per se"
Again, support is support; U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge was done through intermediaries and I'm still not convinced how that undermines anything. Ultimately "The United States gave $85 million to the Khmer Rouge between 1980 and 1986" (Maguire 2005); there is no other way to characterize that.
"That criticism/opposition is necessarily part of the scope of this article, and as such the proposed title, which seeks to exclude criticism from the scope of the article, is a bad one. ... Because the US also opposed the Khmer Rouge, which is part of this article scope."
Sure, we can include that in the article, but it does not undermine the fact that there was U.S. support to Khmer Rouge. Just like it does not undermine that there was Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war even though both Iran and Israel presented themselves as bitter enemies to one another.
"US Foreign Policy towards Cambodia is careful to use speech-marks around 'support' and qualify Carter-era policy as "implicit"-support at the bottom of p. 30"
The speech-marks around the word "support" is because it's a quote from Cyrus Vance, who is then blockquoted at length. I wouldn't put much weight on it. Your excerpt is in line with other reliable sources that there was U.S. support: "US support for ASEAN, with its enormous trade potential, was unconditional and, therefore, the ASEAN principle of non-intervention, coupled with its anti-Vietnamese stance, meant that implicit support for the Khmer Rouge, by the United States, was inevitable." U.S. support to ASEAN meant support to the Khmer Rouge.
"the policy of the first Reagan administration, including in the votes over DK being seated, as support for the CGDK, not the Khmer Rouge per se"
Support to the CGDK is support to the Khmer Rouge since the Khmer Rouge is a member of the CGDK.
"And again on page 90, where the fact that the Regan admin actually opposed the KR, and were trying to set up an alternative in the NCR (something the proposed title would totally obfuscate), is discussed"
That's not my reading of that excerpt. My reading is that it seems like the U.S. had limits to the amount of support it'll provide because it could "become a financial sink-hole."
"Notably the above disputes the claim that Chinese/Thai support for the KR was actually something that the US actually wanted and constituted "support" from the US. The author returns to this theme again on page 119 where he discusses the US policy of not opposing (rather than supporting per se) Thai/Chinese assistance to the KR."
You're being selective in how you cite the author. This is an excerpt from page 119, it's describing Congressional hearings with U.S. officials:
Sigur prevaricated before Solarz came to the rescue and stated, 'to be very clear about it, our policy is not to urge the Chinese and Thais to terminate their support for the Khmer Rouge prior to withdrawal by Vietnam 'l'" (emphasis added). Sigur continued to bluster until a specific exchange with Atkins exposed the primacy of the Vietnamese withdrawal in US regional policy. Atkins asked Sigur whether the US' commitment to pressing the Thais and Chinese to end their assistance to the Khmer Rouge [was] predicated on Vietnamese withdrawal. In the absence of that withdrawal we are not objecting to any aid for the Khmer Rouge'. Sigur answered, 'I don't like to put it quite that way', and Atkins responded, 'But that is the way it is.' This form of question and answer continued for some time until Solarz refocused on the moral dilemma. He reasoned that the administration found it difficult to respond effectively to the questions because they could not 'permit [them]selves to be in a moral posture where [they] were sort of winking at strengthening these genocidal fanatics [Khmer Rouge]'. Jackson immediately retorted, 'We are not winking at strengthening these genocidal fanatics. If I thought such was the case, I would resign my office right now.' They were, and he did not.
Per the author, the U.S. were "winking at strengthening" the Khmer Rouge! Why did you not include that part? Furthermore, go to page 44 and you'll find this: "The United States, then, had settled into a matrix of geopolitical alliances at various levels with China, ASEAN and the Khmer Rouge while simultaneously attempting to remain rhetorically neutral and even-handed at the UN."
{{tq|"This is an interesting example because it does two things the proposed title does not do - firstly it centres the support on the country, not the political party, and secondly, it provides a specific context for the support (i.e., the Iran-Iraq War) rather than making it sound like the US always supported Iraq.
"The proposed title would be like calling this article "United States support for the Baath party".""
That's because the Ba'ath Party is the political party that governed Iraq, so naturally we would just say Iraq.
"United States support for the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea" ... Cambodia–US relations (1975-1991) ... "US involvement in the Cambodian–Vietnamese War"
I'd have to oppose these for now because it would require overhauling the entire article. Right now it only focuses on U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge. Moreover, "Cambodia" implies the government of Cambodia, which the CGDK/KR were not. Skornezy (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Again, support is support; U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge was done through intermediaries..." - CGDK was not an "intermediary", it was an over-arching group with multiple members. Similarly Thai/Chinese aid was not US aid.
"Winking at strengthening" is not unambiguous support, or even support per se, however much you bold and underline the text - it's highly ambiguous language designed to describe a highly ambiguous set of circumstances.
"Support to the CGDK is support to the Khmer Rouge since the Khmer Rouge is a member of the CGDK" - no, support for the CGDK was not support for the Khmer rouge per se. Support for the CGDK was support for the CGDK, an organisation that included but was not the same as the KR since it included other members. Really, the idea that these were the same thing is a distinct POV that this source entirely dismantles since it distinguishes between support for members of the coalition - particularly the NCR.
"Right now it only focuses on U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge" - Not only does it do that, but it repeatedly elides support for the CGDK into support for the KR, or opposition to Vietnamese invasion into support for the Khmer Rouge per se, when these are quite different things.
Why do we have an article that pretends that the US's role in the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia can be summed up as "support of the Khmer Rouge"? All you're doing is highlighting the central problem here: the article fails NPOV and does not sufficiently cover the breadth of the topic. We should not be seeking to make this POV problem worse by introducing a POVNAME. FOARP (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"CGDK was not an "intermediary", it was an over-arching group with multiple members."
I was referring to ASEAN and other intermediaries such as the Kampuchea Emergency Group which provided nonmilitary aid to the Khmer Rouge and other groups affiliated with the CGDK.
"is not unambiguous support, or even support per se, however much you bold and underline the text - it's highly ambiguous language designed to describe a highly ambiguous set of circumstances."
Reliable sources would disagree with you there. You selectively cited page 119 as if it undermines U.S. support (you said page 119 "disputes the claim that Chinese/Thai support for the KR was actually something that the US actually wanted") when it's actually in line with it, i.e., the author says the U.S. were "winking at strengthening" the Khmer Rouge via China and Thailand; the author affirms U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge as have other reliable sources. Now you're shifting the goal posts back to your original claim that it's not actually support, even though the author clearly says that it is support multiple times in the book. What ever you think it is, it has no relevance to what reliable source say.
"Not only does it do that, but it repeatedly elides support for the CGDK into support for the KR, or opposition to Vietnamese invasion into support for the Khmer Rouge per se, when these are quite different things."
Support to the CGDK is support to the Khmer Rouge since the Khmer Rouge is a member of the CGDK; reliable sources are clear on this. Why is this hard for you to grasp?
"Why do we have an article that pretends that the US's role in the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia can be summed up as "support of the Khmer Rouge"?"
"All you're doing is highlighting the central problem here: the article fails NPOV and does not sufficiently cover the breadth of the topic. We should not be seeking to make this POV problem worse by introducing a POVNAME."
You're always free to establish consensus to make any changes you feel are necessary. However, I don't see any major NPOV violations, if anything the article is slightly biased in favour of the U.S. government, article name notwithstanding. The minority view of Nate Thayer that there was no U.S. aid reaching the Khmer Rouge is pretty well elaborated upon, including being mentioned in the lead which presents a WP:FALSEBALANCE that the dispute is solely between Michael Haas and Thayer, when it's actually not (until I recently added Maguire 2005 to the article).; Thayer is actually the one in the minority. Skornezy (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I was referring to ASEAN" - If CGDK is not the Khmer Rouge, then even less so was ASEAN.
" the author says the U.S. were "winking at strengthening" the Khmer Rouge via China and Thailand" - "Winking" at China and Thailand strengthening the KR is not "supporting" it, the author has chosen their words carefully but you then attempt to wipe out all nuance by forcing it in to a framework where the only thing that matters to you about this topic is "proving" that the US is responsible for the Khmer Rouge. This is righting-great-wrongs territory.
"Support to the CGDK is support to the Khmer Rouge since the Khmer Rouge is a member of the CGDK" - No, support for the CGDK is support for the CGDK, particularly when the US had opposed (and continued to oppose) the Khmer Rouge vis-a-vis other members of the CGDK.
"The same reason why we have United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War - We don't have an article that's titled "United States support for the Baath party", the title you've proposed is the equivalent of that. FOARP (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If CGDK is not the Khmer Rouge, then even less so was ASEAN."
They're intermediaries for "United States support for the Khmer Rouge," as documented by reliable sources.
"No, support for the CGDK is support for the CGDK"
Of which the Khmer Rouge is a member of, hence "United States support for the Khmer Rouge."
"Winking" at China and Thailand strengthening the KR is not "supporting" it, the author has chosen their words carefully but you then attempt to wipe out all nuance by forcing it in to a framework where the only thing that matters to you about this topic is "proving" that the US is responsible for the Khmer Rouge. This is righting-great-wrongs territory."
You might not think the U.S. "Winking" at China and Thailand constitutes U.S. support, but the author, as well as most reliable sources do. Reliable sources, particularly those of historians and other academics, is what matters here, not your own interpretation of historial events. You say: "the author has chosen their words carefully," and yes, the author has chosen his words carefully to say multiple times that there was U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge. Nowhere on page 119 does it say that the U.S. "opposed" China's efforts in backing the Khmer Rouge, as you tried to claim earlier (it seems like you've tacitly backtracked on that claim now).
"particularly when the US had opposed (and continued to oppose) the Khmer Rouge vis-a-vis other members of the CGDK."
Opposing them by funneling aid to them? Other than in public rhetoric, which does not undermine support, in what way has the U.S. "opposed" the Khmer Rouge? Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war is still called "Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war" even though both the Israeli and Iranian governments opposed each other in rhetoric. Moreover, You have not provided any reliable sources to support your assertions; the one source you cited actually supports that there was U.S. support: "implicit support for the Khmer Rouge, by the United States, was inevitable ... The United States, then, had settled into a matrix of geopolitical alliances at various levels with China, ASEAN and the Khmer Rouge"
"We don't have an article that's titled "United States support for the Baath party", the title you've proposed is the equivalent of that."
"They're intermediaries..." - This isn't what US Foreign Policy towards Cambodia says, where instead ASEAN support for the Khmer Rouge may have been something that the US may have been aware of, did not condemn, did not oppose, but also did not directly take part in. Note also the discussion about the US supporting NCR and the Thais/China support the Khmer Rouge.
"Of which the Khmer Rouge is a member of.." but wasn't the direct target of the support, which is why the real topic here is support for the CGDK, not the Khmer Rouge. The degree to which support for the CGDK equated to support for the Khmer Rouge should be discussed within an article with that title and scope.
"Opposing them by funneling aid to them?" - was aid to the NCR "support for the Khmer Rouge"? No, but it was support for the CGDK, which is why trying to elide one with the other is such obvious POV.
" United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War deals with U.S. support to the Ba'ath Party... - it very clearly doesn't, because support for a government (even a government in exile, which is what the CGDK was) is not the same as support for a specific political party within that government. The US never actually supported the Baath party, and trying to frame support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war as support for the Baath would be POV-pushing. But this is exactly what you're trying to do in this case. FOARP (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This isn't what US Foreign Policy towards Cambodia says, where instead ASEAN support for the Khmer Rouge may have been something that the US may have been aware of, did not condemn, did not oppose, but also did not directly take part in. ... but wasn't the direct target of the support, which is why the real topic here is support for the CGDK, not the Khmer Rouge."
Author very clearly treats it as U.S. support, you don't. But we only go by what reliable sources say, not you.
implicit support for the Khmer Rouge, by the United States, was inevitable.
He reasoned that the administration found it difficult to respond effectively to the questions because they could not 'permit [them]selves to be in a moral posture where [they] were sort of winking at strengthening these genocidal fanatics [Khmer Rouge]'. Jackson immediately retorted, 'We are not winking at strengthening these genocidal fanatics. If I thought such was the case, I would resign my office right now.' They were, and he did not.
The United States, then, had settled into a matrix of geopolitical alliances at various levels with China, ASEAN and the Khmer Rouge
"The degree to which support for the CGDK equated to support for the Khmer Rouge should be discussed within an article with that title and scope."
I already told you that you're free to try to seek consensus on changes you want made to the article.
"was aid to the NCR" ... No, but it was support for the CGDK, which is why trying to elide one with the other is such obvious POV.
False!
The United States gave $85 million to the Khmer Rouge between 1980 and 1986. The Carter administration donated more than half (at least $40 million) during the crucial years of 1979 and 1980.
(Maguire)
the United States, had legitimized Pol Pot's anti-Vietnamese cause and supported his exiled Khmer Rouge as Cambodia's representatives.
(Kiernan)
US officials pushed through international aid to Khmer Rouge-controlled camps on the Thai border.
(Kiernan)
"it very clearly doesn't, because support for a government (even a government in exile, which is what the CGDK was) is not the same as support for a specific political party within that government. The US never actually supported the Baath party, and trying to frame support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war as support for the Baath would be POV-pushing. But this is exactly what you're trying to do in this case."
Laughably false! (Let's try to stay on topic though, this is about Cambodia, not Iraq)
"United States support for Ba'athist Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, in which it fought against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, military intelligence, and special operations training."
I was skimming through Kenton Clymer's 2004 book. Clymer is Distinguished Research Professor of History at Northern Illinois University, an excellent source. BTW, Clymer says the CGDK was actually controlled by the Khmer Rouge, so that even further bolsters my argument.
Clymer, Kenton (2004). The United States and Cambodia, 1969–2000: A Troubled Relationship. Routledge. pp. 135–143. ISBN978-0415326025.
the United States joined ASEAN and China in voting again to seat the Khmer Rouge in the United Nations. The United States also continued to support the Khmer Rouge with humanitarian assistance. Everyone knew that the Khmer Rouge survived only because of food they received from the international community, aid which the Thais in particular insisted they must have, but aid which the United States also supported. The feeding program along the border unquestionably resuscitated the Khmer Rouge (and also helped build up the less important, non-communist resistance groups), thus paving the way for much stronger armed resistance against the PRK during the 1980s. ... Instead of disarming the Khmer Rouge, the Carter administration secretly supported Thai and Chinese efforts to provide military assistance to them. The Chinese had determined to rebuild the Khmer Rouge almost from the moment they were driven out of Phnom Penh. Just exactly when the United States decided to lend its support is not yet clear. ... Two years later the United States helped engineer the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK), a “coalition” controlled by the Khmer Rouge. ... the Carter Administration had decided to encourage China and Thailand to support the Khmer Rouge remnants (even to supply them with weapons) and to use Pol Pot’s forces as a counter to the Vietnamese who had liberated Cambodia from their clutches. ... Unable to remove the Vietnamese by persuasion or force, the Chinese, working with the Thais, set about resuscitating the Khmer Rouge in the hope that they would eventually be able to force the Vietnamese out. The United States explicitly encouraged them and, at the very least, assisted the Khmer Rouge with relief aid. ... In addition to the covert assistance to the NCR, American actions also benefited the Khmer Rouge. They certainly benefited from overt American assistance along the Thai border, something that Holdridge acknowledged in his testimony to the House Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs in 1982.. ... By one account, from November 1983 to March 1985 some 85 percent of American funds for food relief along the border went to the Khmer Rouge army.
This is what Clymer has to say on covert U.S. military aid to the Khmer Rouge, I think it's very interesting:
Except, perhaps in deeply secret ways. Although the administration acknowledged that the Khmer Rouge benefited from border relief funds, it adamantly denied providing them with military assistance. ... The majority of scholars and other writers find little evidence to support accusations of American complicity in providing military supplies to the Khmer Rouge. But there are a number of “anomalies,” as Craig Etcheson puts it, suggesting the possibility, perhaps even the probability, that there was unreported American assistance to the Khmer Rouge. In November 1980, for example, Reagan adviser Ray Cline visited a Khmer Rouge camp in Cambodia. ... Another anomaly involved the respected Congressional Research Service which informed Jonathan Winer, counsel to Senator John Kerry, that the Reagan administration had provided about $80 million to the Khmer Rouge between 1981 and 1986, the amounts diminishing each year. When the state department disputed this, the Congressional Research Service said it could not replicate the figures, and Winer himself later retracted his report – though in doing so he noted significantly that until 1985 it was not illegal to aid the Khmer Rouge. Stories persist of secret American connections with the Khmer Rouge, and former state departments, military officials, and missionaries occasionally make assertions of American support. Given the lack of substantiating documentary evidence, these assertions cannot be proven, though it is at least suggestive that scholars who have tried to obtain relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act for the years 1981 to 1985 have been singularly unsuc cessful, whereas they have been able to obtain documents before 1981 and after 1985. ... But perhaps the most persuasive indication that the United States may have supported the Khmer Rouge prior to 1985 was U.S. Public Law 99–83, which made it illegal to spend any funds to bolster the Khmer Rouge’s military capacity. This was part of the legislation that ultimately allowed lethal assistance to the NCR; it was introduced in the House by Solarz. Why, one might ask, was such a law needed if aid had not been getting to the Khmer Rouge? Even more significantly, one section of the act “deobligated” funds already “obligated but not yet expended” to promote the Khmer Rouge’s military capabilities. Though not entirely conclusive, the passage of this law suggests, as Etcheson puts it, “that the United States has in fact provided military assistance to the Khmer Rouge, and that the conventional wisdom about U.S. policy toward the Khmer Rouge is wrong.” ... In any event, any military aid provided to any elements of the resistance was very secret. ... Speculatively, one of Solarz’s concerns was that he might have known about deeply secret CIA efforts to support the Khmer Rouge in the early 1980s – aid that would have been consistent with the visceral anti-Vietnamese feelings of Brzezinski and Casey – and that he wanted this brought into the open and stopped. Covert assistance to the Khmer Rouge might also explain why the Reagan administration was reluctant to support an overt aid program to the ineffective NCR.
It seems to me that U.S. support to Khmer Rouge in the form of nonlethal aid is without doubt, however whether the U.S. provided military aid to the Khmer Rouge is what's murky. There is testimony that from "former state departments, military officials, and missionaries" that say the U.S. maintained connections with the Khmer Rouge, supported by corroborating "anomalies" that suggest the U.S. indeed provided military aid to Khmer Rouge. However, no direct documentary proof of this has been found and the U.S. government has been secretive by refusing to declassify pertinent records relating to the matter. Very interesting stuff that should 100% be in the article. I'm going to add this in later when I have some time. Skornezy (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's no point continuing with a discussion where Chinese/Thai support is "US support", where money donated to CGDK is "support for the Khmer Rouge", where aid that went to refugee camps (albeit camps that the KR controlled) was "aid to the Khmer Rouge", and where reliable sources regularly caveating and using phrases like "winking at strengthening" is simply presented as them endorsing a specific point of view without qualm. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we can let the consensus process play out then. But I still must note that you're in opposition to the view point held by most of the relevant reliable sources. I just read from Clymer 2004 that the CGDK was actually controlled by the Khmer Rouge, which only bolsters the argument that U.S. support to the CGDK was U.S. support to the Khmer Rouge. Skornezy (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:Cambodia has not been notified and took me 5 seconds to confirm that they weren't. I just notified them, but it seems like their talk page is kind of dead so it probably won't get any attention. A bit of a shame as this topic directly affects them more than anyone else. Skornezy (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had mistaken the notice on their page from last year's discussion for a notice for this year. Thanks anyway for correcting my error. FOARP (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
