home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=89TT1138>
- <title>
- May 01, 1989: America Abroad
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989
- May 01, 1989 Abortion
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- WORLD, Page 47
- America Abroad
- The Killing Fields Revisited
- </hdr><body>
- <p>By Strobe Talbott
- </p>
- <p> The Bush Administration inherited a policy toward Kampuchea
- that increased the chances of a return to power by the Khmer
- Rouge, who killed nearly 2 million of their countrymen between
- 1975 and 1979. Now, with the Vietnamese preparing to pull out
- of that tortured country and the U.S. pondering whether to send
- new American arms to guerrillas in the countryside, the
- Administration could end up compounding both the danger for
- Kampuchea and the disgrace for the U.S.
- </p>
- <p> Under Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, the U.S. gave
- priority to evicting the Vietnamese troops, who invaded
- Kampuchea a decade ago. But to that end, Washington backed an
- unholy alliance of resistance forces, linking two non-Communist
- groups with the Khmer Rouge. Those genocidal ultra-Maoists are
- the best organized and best armed of the guerrillas, not to
- mention the most ruthless. So there has always been the
- possibility that they would come out on top after the Vietnamese
- withdrew.
- </p>
- <p> On April 5, Viet Nam finally announced that it would pull
- its troops out of Kampuchea by the end of September, leaving
- behind a pro-Hanoi regime. The decision presented the Bush
- Administration with a chance to turn, unambiguously, to
- preventing the Khmer Rouge from moving into power. Instead, the
- Administration is now giving priority to bringing down the
- Communist regime that the Vietnamese installed in Phnom Penh --
- though that regime seems to be rebuilding the country.
- </p>
- <p> The Administration repeatedly, and no doubt sincerely, says
- it does not want the Khmer Rouge to "dominate" a new Kampuchea.
- But it endorses the idea of a four-part coalition government
- that would embrace and thereby, it is hoped, co-opt the Khmer
- Rouge. Speaking of the prospective coalition, Secretary of State
- James Baker told the Senate last month, "You're going to have
- the Khmer Rouge there . . . That's a fact of life." That is true
- only if the U.S. and the Khmer Rouge's principal patrons, China
- and Thailand, make it so.
- </p>
- <p> What is, alas, all but inevitable is more civil war after
- the Vietnamese pull out. With their record, the Khmer Rouge can
- hardly be expected to submit to elections or to participate in
- a peaceful democracy. If they and the non-Communists remain
- aligned against the Phnom Penh leaders, the three-against-one
- combination will probably end in the defeat of the odd faction
- out; that will allow the Khmer Rouge to turn their guns on the
- other two.
- </p>
- <p> President Bush could make the nightmare all the more likely
- if he decides -- as some of his aides and key Congressmen are
- urging -- to start sending U.S. arms to the non-Communist
- resistance forces. Under present circumstances, and under
- current U.S. policy, that "lethal assistance" would be directed
- against Phnom Penh, not the Khmer Rouge.
- </p>
- <p> Despite Baker's apparent fatalism, the U.S. does have
- another choice. It could back a three-part coalition that
- includes the two non-Communist factions and the leaders in Phnom
- Penh but forcefully excludes the Khmer Rouge. Not unless and
- until the two non-Communist groups accept that realignment
- should Washington provide them with arms. The result would be
- a different three-against-one equation that might lead to the
- eventual disintegration of the Khmer Rouge. And that would be
- a far happier fact of life for Kampuchea -- as well as a
- consequence for U.S. policy of which Americans could, for a
- change, be proud.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-