[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Ok folks. Did any of you see me deny that the US conducted a bombing campaign on Cambodia? So why post that shit?

You forgot to edit your post so you don't appear ignorant:

From which laptop-campus of the University of Phoenix did this 'objective' reporter graduate?

Your post in which you made the text bold where it mentions the bombing of Cambodia from the 60s to the 70s, and then expressing surprise with the fact, is still up, and people can see it.

^ Brio, you owe me the 5 bucks I forced you to bet.

How does the bombing of Cambodia 40 years ago lend "context" to an article about relations today? 40 years may be too far in the past for most Americans to care about (actually it isn't, pearl harbor is still remembered and that was 70 years ago), but in the rest of the world history is verrrrry well remembered thousands of years past. 40 years is well within the lifespan of the people and politicians currently ruling Cambodia, in fact the current leader Hun Sen used to be a member of the Khmer Rouge - the very organization that was the target of US bombing raids in 1970s. His youth was spent fighting and cowering from US bombing raids. You'd think that's a relevant context eh.

Indeed, these events are as fresh in the minds of Cambodians as the Vietnam War is still a culture shock to America even after 50 years or so. In fact, it was only 3 years ago that a key member of the Khmer Rouge government was put on trial and convicted of crimes against humanity.

Former Khmer Rouge prison chief Duch has been found guilty of crimes against humanity by Cambodia's UN-backed war crimes tribunal.

SOURCE: BBC

Another thing to add to the sentiment is the fact the US backed the Khmer Rouge for an extended period of time in the hopes of exploiting Cambodian-Vietnamese animosity and rivalry to counter the North Vietnamese. Not only did we attempt to reinstall Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to power,

Washington has covertly aided and abetted the Pol Potists' guerrilla war...

[...]

[National Security Adviser] Brzezinski himself claims that he concoted the idea of persuading Thailand to cooperate fully with China in efforts to rebuild the Khmer Rouge...

The United States government pressured the United Nations to retain Pol Pot's representative as the "official" representative of Cambodia to the UN, to keep the pro-Vietnamese government out.

... we also funded and armed,

... shipment of weapons from theU.S. including M-16s, grenade launchers, and recoilless rifles.

... the Khmer Rouge and other guerrilla groups:

Although the U.S. government denies supplying the ANS and KPNLF with military hardware, a recent report claimed that KPNLF forces had received a shipment of weapons...

[...]

According to Jack Anderson, “[t]hrough China, the CIA is even supporting the jungle forces of the murderous Pol Pot in Cambodia.”

[...]

... U.S. advisers in the Khmer Rouge camps in Thailand...

[...]

... distinction between ‘direct or indirect” U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge was less clear.

[...]

... Khmer Rouge had infiltrated the military and political wings of the ANS and KPNLF

[...]

A report in the London Sunday Correspondent noted that “American advisers are reported to have been helping train guerrillas of the non-communist Khmer resistance and may have recently gone into Cambodia with them....Reports of increased U.S. involvement have also emerged from the northern town of Sisophon, where local officials say four westerners accompanied guerrillas in an attack on the town last month.“”

In fact, the US' public reason for supporting the Khmer Rouge so they could return to power and continue the genocide of the Cambodian people was for "humanitarian" reasons:

International relief agencies were pressured by the U.S. to provide humanitarian assistance to the Khmer Rouge...

[...]

The relief organizations considered supporting the Khmer Rouge inconsistent with their humanitarian goals.... Yet Thailand, the country that hosted the relief operation, the U.S. government, which funded the bulk of the relief operations, insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed.

Many Cambodians still remember how we funded and armed the Khmer Rouge so they could continue murdering and terrorizing the population, while dreaming of them actually returning to full power. I don't blame them. I imagine that the primary reason why so many Americans, like Drlee, are entirely unaware of what we did in Cambodia---from the bombings to trying to return the Khmer Rouge to power---is because much of it was entirely schizophrenic foreign policy (see backing a regime-in-exile devoted to genocide for humanitarian purposes) and the simple fact that we were backing and arming the Khmer Rouge, something we didn't want to admit at the time and something we still don't like to admit to this day.

[Duch, ] the man accused of serving as the Khmer Rouge's chief torturer testified on Monday that US policies in the 1970s contributed to the brutal regime's rise to power...

[Rich]

I was in the Army during the Vietnam war.

And your service in the cause of freedom is appreciated by me at least. America should be proud of resisting the Communist terrorist totalitarian tyrants, whose rule was not wanted by the majority of Vietnamese or Cambodians. Personally I think its high time Britain offered an apology to America for failing to properly support America in South East Asia.

I find it highly amusing how all the Ho Chi Ming lovers whined on about Kent State, try protesting against you're government in Hanoi and see how far you get. The lefties even had the audacity to call Ho Chi Ming's Mafioso a national liberation movement - Really the guy who conspired with the French colonialists to murder the Vietnamese nationalists.

[foxdemon]

America's money comes with strings attached. The World Bank withdrew funding several years ago due to land rights violations.

There is currently talk of withdrawing (the nominal) military aid Cambodia receives.

http://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/congr ... aid-34389/

http://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/stigm ... ney-34611/

I don't think the USA considers Cambodia to be a valuable asset and prefers to pursue human rights and democracy promotion rather than foreign policy concessions.

Hmm, it would help ASEAN if America bribed Hun Sen back into the fold. I guess ASEAN is not America's concern.

I think it is fair to say Cambodia is in a difficult situation. They have put themselves in between two great powers. The Philippines is another ASEAN member that is putting itself in a difficult position. History shows us that small nations caught in the 'great game' between two large powers will suffer an unfortunate fate.

Do you really have to ask this?

Yes.

Rapidly developing state capitalist economies run by "Communist" Party dictatorships.
Despite it's history as a Soviet ally...especially under the influence of Vo Nguyen Giap....Vietnam in fact has been "anti-Maoist Maoists".

Whether they ever cared to admit it or not (after 1975 anyway), their party structure and how they waged "People's War" to win power in the first place adhered very closely to what the Communist Party of China did.....more than any other communist regime I can think of.

And yet they fought a war in 1979.

Plus all the cultural similarities between the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples.

There are indeed cultural similarities. Can you think of any differences between them?

Well ok there's Laos...which has always been regarded as a Vietnamese "satellite" anyway.
But who else then? North Korea hasn't progressed as far down the state capitalist road as China, Vietnam, and Laos has. Cuba's considering it but as of now similarly hasn't been as capitalist as those three other countries has. Maybe in the future it will be, but not now.

If we step back and apply the similarity principle more generally, there are many pairs of countries around the world that we could claim to share a lot in common. Norway and Sweden is a good example. We could cite America and Canada, or Australia and New Zealand. In fact those later pairs would be more similar to each other than Vietnam and China are similar (they speak the same language and share a recent common origin).


Taking the Norwegian and Swedish example, to understand their political interaction requires an understanding of their shared history which sheds light on why they are today separate countries. It also informs us of the perceptions the people of those two countries hold toward the other. Having talked to some Norwegians, it seems they take a rather dim view of the Swedes which goes back to Swedish control of Norway and the process of Norwegian independence. Similar they may be but the similarities tell us little of the basis of their interaction.


Perhaps over emphasizing the similarities between Vietnam and China obscures the dynamics of their relationship?

[Gletkin]

And yet they fought a war in 1979.

Indeed they did.
But the USSR isn't around anymore. So I would've thought that would've motivated Hanoi to reconcile with Beijing because the world situation had changed so much, they no longer had the luxury of going to war over Marxist ideological minutiae. Not when Marxism-Leninism was suffering decisive defeat all over the world.
But I guess not.

Anyway, often the bitterest of enemies are those who have the most in common with each other.
Counterintuitive perhaps, but it happens over and over again.
It's just in this particular case, I'm not sure why (I mean, aside from the pebble fetishes that plague East Asia these days).

Perhaps over emphasizing the similarities between Vietnam and China obscures the dynamics of their relationship?

Maybe, but I'm wondering how this nationalist feud serves the long time interests of those countries' nominally-Communist elites.
What do they have to gain by allowing their few differences to outweigh their more numerous similarities? Surely they must realize the ideal result of the current global neoliberal hegemony is the end of both of their regimes?

Don't get me wrong. The US and others are perfectly happy to do business with both Beijing and Hanoi. But that's only because realistically everyone thinks the Communist Parties' monopoly on power will continue for now. Also to both take advantage of and reward the CPs' moderate ideological course. But ideally the First World nations would prefer them to be full capitalist democracies and not just countries with capitalist economies with Communist Party dictatorships. The Cold War's pretty much over, but the CPs shouldn't get too comfortable. The number of countries that share their particular political/economic systems can be counted on one hand, and their dissidents still get a lot of sympathy from the world's last superpower.

So I don't know what's going inside the heads of the CP leaders of those countries if they still hate each other that much.

Taking the Norwegian and Swedish example, to understand their political interaction requires an understanding of their shared history which sheds light on why they are today separate countries. It also informs us of the perceptions the people of those two countries hold toward the other. Having talked to some Norwegians, it seems they take a rather dim view of the Swedes which goes back to Swedish control of Norway and the process of Norwegian independence. Similar they may be but the similarities tell us little of the basis of their interaction.

Those are just residual historical memories.
What serious rivalry exists between Norway and Sweden today?

[Drlee]

You forgot to edit your post so you don't appear ignorant:

Bubba Jones. Pay attention. There will be a test. Edit what? You are the one tilting at windmills.

I said: Ok folks. Did any of you see me deny that the US conducted a bombing campaign on Cambodia? So why post that shit?

Can you show me where I denied that?

You need to work on understanding what is clear and plain English.

You said: Your post in which you made the text bold where it mentions the bombing of Cambodia from the 60s to the 70s, and then expressing surprise with the fact, is still up, and people can see it.

Google "Editorializing"

Google. Objectivity.

Read what I wrote again.

Tell me where I denied that the US bombed......


Good Lord

[foxdemon]

Indeed they did.
But the USSR isn't around anymore. So I would've thought that would've motivated Hanoi to reconcile with Beijing because the world situation had changed so much, they no longer had the luxury of going to war over Marxist ideological minutiae. Not when Marxism-Leninism was suffering decisive defeat all over the world.
But I guess not.

Anyway, often the bitterest of enemies are those who have the most in common with each other.
Counterintuitive perhaps, but it happens over and over again.
It's just in this particular case, I'm not sure why (I mean, aside from the pebble fetishes that plague East Asia these days).

....

Maybe, but I'm wondering how this nationalist feud serves the long time interests of those countries' nominally-Communist elites.
What do they have to gain by allowing their few differences to outweigh their more numerous similarities? Surely they must realize the ideal result of the current global neoliberal hegemony is the end of both of their regimes?

I'm going to use a very simplified way of explaining why I think they behave as they do. I think this will address the later part of your post also. Please bear in mind that it is a bit simple. OK, so there is an attitude amongst some Chinese to view the Vietnamese as their 'little brothers'. The Vietnamese would see things differently but I am going to use the two brothers example as an analogy.


Lets say China is the condescending big brother and Vietnam is the feisty little brother. The little brother will do everything he can to not only resist the dominance of his big brother but also he will try to assert his equality with his big brother. The brothers might cooperate at times but they will also fight. Often the big brother might not see the fight coming, as the little brother decides what issue he feels threatens his equality with his big brother while the big brother isn't thinking along those lines.


Vietnam has a long history of resisting Chinese dominance. It might be said that a large part of being Vietnamese is not being Chinese. Maybe making a comparison with some of those other pairs of countries I mentioned in my last post would help to bring out this point.


When I meet someone with a north American accent, I ask them if they are Canadian rather than asking what part of America they come from. This is because Canadians get upset if someone thinks they are American while Americans don't mind much if they are mistaken for a Canadian. Canadians tend to aggressively assert their difference from Americans. The same is true for New Zealanders. They get offended if mistaken for an Australian. So I try to avoid giving offense by asking a stranger with the accent in question if they come from the little neighbour rather than the larger neighbour.


And so it seems to be with the Vietnamese. Suggesting they are the same as Chinese, however similar they might be in reality, is probably a good way to offend them. So I wouldn't use my big brother/ little brother analogy in conversation with some one from Vietnam.


Once again, bear in mind my explanation is simplistic. It might be of some use in understanding why Sino-Vietnamese relations work the way they do but there is more to it than that. For example Vietnam is actually two distinct groups, north and south. There have been times when Vietnam was united and times when they formed two separate kingdoms. So there is a lot more to the subject.

[Drlee]

I think you may be on to something with that little brother business.

Consider. The Vietnamese, the Cambodians and the Indonesians are the three shortest nations in the world. (The Philippines would be in there too but people only live there long enough to train as nurses, gardeners telemarketers and mail order brides so I eliminated them.) The US is into world domination so we are simply going with who's ass is easiest to kick. As the Vietnamese are a full 7/10" (several millimeters as if someone cares about millimeters) taller than the Cambodians, we just went with normal human behavior. Pick on the small people. Smart and life affirming. This is why we are nice to the Dutch. even though they vie with the French and Russians for being the most annoying people in the world. The Dutch are 1.9" taller than we are and damned smug about it too. As there are only 16 million of them we can still kick their asses in a war but hey, mano-a-mano they could be formidable. We in the US would be taller except we let a lot of Mexicans into the country and they are the 20th shortest nation in the world. (This is also why we import shovels from China now rather than make them. The handles are of course shorter, but then I digress.)

Now you all know the truth. If you don't believe me ask Cartertonian. He is a medical man, doctoral candidate and an admin. He knows this stuff better than anyone.

[foxdemon]

Oh well, umm, actually I was speaking figuratively rather than literally.

The take home message is that Vietnamese leaders will try to assert their equality as well as their independence when dealing with China. So I would expect there to be times when an negotiation is stalled simply because the Vietnamese side feels the need to make the Chinese side take them more seriously. Such an episode would seem inexplicable to an outsider without considering the nature of the relationship between the two cultures in question.

Of course I could be wrong. This 'little brother/ big brother' idea might prove false.

[AFAIK]

One thing that China and Vietnam have in common is that they are both one party states that suppress debate and protest.
Promoting a lot of nationalistic barking about some islands allows the public to let off steam in a manner that doesn't weaken the party's rule or question any of its policies.

[Gletkin]

When I meet someone with a north American accent, I ask them if they are Canadian rather than asking what part of America they come from. This is because Canadians get upset if someone thinks they are American while Americans don't mind much if they are mistaken for a Canadian. Canadians tend to aggressively assert their difference from Americans. The same is true for New Zealanders. They get offended if mistaken for an Australian. So I try to avoid giving offense by asking a stranger with the accent in question if they come from the little neighbour rather than the larger neighbour.


And so it seems to be with the Vietnamese. Suggesting they are the same as Chinese, however similar they might be in reality, is probably a good way to offend them. So I wouldn't use my big brother/ little brother analogy in conversation with some one from Vietnam.

I'm aware of that dynamic and history....I'm just surprised that such sentiment is strong enough to actually be acted upon in foreign policy.
Canadian-American and Australian-New Zealander relations are generally pretty good despite some popular jibes against each other based on historical rivalries.
Your earlier example with the Scandinavians is probably better though because unlike Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc. there's no real ethnic differences between Canadians and Americans or Australians and New-Zealanders.

I'd say though that the Chinese probably feel that way about all East Asians.
It seems just about everyone in the region originally came from "China" thousands of years ago.

[Far-Right Sage]

What do they have to gain by allowing their few differences to outweigh their more numerous similarities? Surely they must realize the ideal result of the current global neoliberal hegemony is the end of both of their regimes?

Actually, more in Hanoi may be fine with that then we could both imagine.

There are now McDonald's chain outlet restaurants in 120 or so countries, and Vietnam is slated to be the next country, with a McDonald's planned to open in former Saigon now Ho Chi Minh City, if you can believe it or not.

I can't believe it's the same Vietnam. More than any other place in the world, I've had this grim irrational desire to return there as of late to stare the difference in the face.

[Drlee]

^^

Me too. Should be interesting. I have no idea what it must be like.

[Rich]

There are now McDonald's chain outlet restaurants in 120 or so countries, and Vietnam is slated to be the next country, with a McDonald's planned to open in former Saigon now Ho Chi Minh City, if you can believe it or not.

This is terrible. Their chips are fucking awful! I don't mind Burger King, but McDonalds is the pits.

[foxdemon]

This is terrible. Their chips are fucking awful! I don't mind Burger King, but McDonalds is the pits.

Nor sure about MacDonald's but KFC have a better menu in Indonesia than Australia. They have a few rice dishes, different sauces, etc. KFC is much better with a rice side dish in my opinion. Pizza Hut isn't too bad in Asia either. Much better than Australia. Oh, and there is Hoka Hoka Bento (Japanese fast food). I don't think we have that one in Australia.

[Drlee]

Nor sure about MacDonald's but KFC have a better menu in Indonesia than Australia.

That's because dogs and dingos look more like chicken than they do hamburger.