Post-Gazette Editorial – 10/4/06

This page was last updated on October 7, 2006.

New Cambodia / The discovery of oil brings fresh opportunities; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; October 4, 2006.

The editorial could have been about U.S. private enterprise benefiting a third world country. Instead, it misrepresents history to bash the U.S. for events that took place more than 30 years ago.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“U.S. relations with Cambodia, distorted for decades by the Vietnam War and its aftermath, seem on the verge of what is likely to be startling improvement.

“The reason is the Southeast Asian country of 14 million, formerly part of French Indochina, has discovered that it has initial reserves of 700 million barrels of offshore oil. The American giant Chevron-Texaco has the concession for the main bloc in the Gulf of Thailand, where the company has already drilled exploratory wells. There may be more to be found.

“One astonishing aspect of the development is that Chevron-Texaco appears to have stolen a march in Cambodia on the oil-hungry Chinese, the strongest economic power in the region. The corporation’s mastery of the complex technology of the sort of field in question three to five years ago gave it a leg up on competitors.

“Cambodia may also have onshore oil. Some other offshore deposits it claims near its 265-mile coast are disputed by Thailand.

“U.S. relations with Cambodia nearly came unhinged in 1973 when North Vietnamese use of Cambodia as a transit route for military supplies to the Viet Cong in South Vietnam led the United States to drop more than 100,000 tons of bombs on the country. It took Congress to call a halt to the assault.”

[RWC] Bombing of the North Vietnam Army (NVA) in Cambodia began in 1969, not 1973 as the editorial appears to allege. When Congress disallowed bombing of the NVA in Cambodia, it gave the enemy safe haven to resupply. This is only one example of fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back.

“The chaos and political disorder that ensued in Cambodia led directly to a takeover in 1975 by the murderous Khmer Rouge. That group’s brutal rule resulted in the death of some 2 million Cambodians, which many Americans became aware of through the film ‘The Killing Fields.’”

[RWC] In case you missed it, the PG just blamed the U.S. for the Khmer Rouge and its killing spree. Let’s fill in some of the gaps in the PG’s version of history.

The Khmer Rouge (official name: Communist Party of Kampuchea) was a Cambodian communist group funded by the NVA and Vietcong during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The NVA also provided arms and shelter. It was that relationship that allowed the NVA use Cambodia as a supply route. Does anyone care to guess why the PG failed to mention the Khmer Rouge was communist?

“The chaos and political disorder that ensued in Cambodia …?” The editorial implies all was well in Cambodia until 1973. In fact, Cambodia had a civil war in progress since 1970 led by the Khmer Rouge.

“Most Cambodians, 95 percent of whom are Buddhist, never held America’s bombing or its support of the Khmer Rouge against the United States. America, China and Thailand continued to tolerate the Khmer Rouge because the Vietnamese, who were victorious in war, opposed them, a truly appalling U.S. policy example of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’”

[RWC] “America’s … support of the Khmer Rouge?” Where on Earth did this come from? When Congress cut off bombing of the NVA in Cambodia, Congress also cut off financial aid to Cambodia.

Red China didn’t simply “tolerate” the Khmer Rouge, Red China backed the Khmer Rouge led “exile” government of Cambodia and provided funding even after the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1979.

The “Vietnamese … opposed [the Khmer Rouge]?” Only after they had used the Khmer Rouge for their benefit during the Vietnam War.

I admit it was 30+ years ago, but at no point do I remember the U.S. treating the Khmer Rouge as anything but an enemy. I didn’t trust my memory, though, and did some quick checking on the Internet. The only allegations I found indicating U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge were on America-bashing websites and those endorsing conspiracy theories. I found no such claims on credible websites. As a result, I don’t have a clue where “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” comment came from. Obviously, if the U.S. had helped the Khmer Rouge, that would have been wrong.

The editorial implies the U.S. should have actively intervened in Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge. How on Earth was that going to happen? Remember, the U.S. left succeeded in stopping the U.S. from fighting communists in Vietnam and the dismantling of the military and intelligence services was well underway. Does the PG expect us to believe it would have been remotely possible for the U.S. to then go next door to Cambodia to fight communists?

“In recent years, the United States has bought 90 percent of Cambodia’s principal export, clothing, which represents 85 percent of its export revenue, although that relationship risks being torpedoed in 2008 when U.S. quotas on competing Chinese apparel exports are scheduled to end.

“Oil should save Cambodia’s economy, however, supplementing its earnings from clothing exports and from growing tourism there. Cambodia offers Angkor Wat, a spectacular 12th- century temple, and other charms. If its oil turns out to be as considerable as it appears, Cambodia’s gross domestic product of $4.8 billion should grow by another $1 billion within three to four years.

“The new oil wealth will create problems in its own right, but they will be the kind of problems Cambodians need and deserve after nearly four decades of extreme hardship.”

[RWC] It doesn’t take a genius to understand why the editorial failed to admit the “nearly four decades of extreme hardship” were brought on by communists.