Amnesty International Wank :>)

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
The big one, let's say this relatively small organization is the catalyst to stopping the Cambodian genocide and stopping it early. But that still isn't really viewed as a clear victory because afterall 50,000 people were killed for God's sake and only occasionally does an academic points out, hey, you know, it easily could have been a whole lot worse.

So, other things are viewed as clear victories for the organization.

In addition, Amnesty International is listed along with the Internet and a relatively short list of other things as examples of the decentralized approach working.

Open field. Please feel free to jump in. :)
 

mlp

I am planning an invasion(led by US allies in Asia, but not US) into Cambodia in one of my TLs, where TTL they turn against Thailand rather than Vietnam. Perhaps Amnesty can work with them to get something? Establish HQ in Taiwan/South Korea, perhaps?
 

alspug

All I'm going to say is that amnesty international is an organisation to be admired and supported , other then that will not respond .
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Okay, relatively early on in Cambodia you had teenagers with guns who felt and who were told they were more pure believers than were most of their elders. That's a bad situation regardless of the ideology, but the back-to-the-land aspect of some strains of communism probably didn't help either.

I have a hard time seeing how something other than military force could help, but maybe it could be buffer armies with check points rather than an army of occupation. Or, maybe an organization like doctors without borders could come in to teach basic first aid with additional medical training available to people really into it and who show talent. Maybe engineers could come in as part of a humanitarian effort. And get the teenagers involved in more positive things than just lording over people. But past the first couple of months, I think military force would need to be part of it.

Amnesty International could have gotten the situation the attention it should have had. Basically, they would do first line journalism, and maybe political theater?
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
I don't take the view that this genocide was somehow inevitable. For example, I remember reading that early on that the Khmer Rouge told people in the countryside that they would bring back Prince Sihanouk if in power, which was one way they got support. So, in many ways it was a messy, chaotic, fluid situation which could have gone any number of ways.

One book which I read a lot of but not all of several years ago was . . .

Golden Bones: An Extraordinary Journey from Hell in Cambodia to a New Life in America, Sichan Siv (former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations), HarperCollins, 2008. (this was not the source where I learned the above aspect about the promise to bring back Prince Sihanouk)
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Other flight of fancy for Amnesty:

They're able to address the situation in the former Soviet Union where the authorities imprisoned political dissidents in psychiatric hospitals, which as you think about it is a pretty damn abusive situation. Maybe they address it by giving the Soviets some kind of face-saving out?

The Dec. 7, 1975, invasion of East Timor by Indonesia, and the resulting occupation where a bunch of people died. Noam Chomsky has used this example a lot. And he's caught hell for it, as if he's saying the Cambodian genocide is not that serious. I don't think that's what he's saying at all. One of his points is that so-called journalists hugely take their cue from the establishment as far as what they cover and what they don't. And he compared the two, Cambodia lavishly covered, East Timor all but ignored. Well, that's a blunder to begin with. Cambodia may have received lavish media coverage, but not enough to lead to effective action. So arguably, this was not exactly a presidential statement on Noam's part. But, that's too high a standard. What he talked about and wrote about should have led to a better and more effective conversation.

and moving into the 80s, the Guatemalan military killed an awful lot of native peoples with the label that they were 'communist' when they perhaps didn't get with the program and were merely uncooperative. There was a rebel army, but as in most cases, the government army was responsible for many more human fatalities. And what I hear is the theme of John Sayles' Men With Guns. Once either side comes to the village, and you give them the minimum amount of food to get them the hell out of the village, the other side is going to think you're sympathizers and whatever. Plus, there may have been an ethnic cleansing component to this whole conflict. Very bad situation all the way round.

=================

What can Amnesty International do? Well, human embarrassment is a very strong motivating factor. If you're part of the reference group, or understand what it is, or can think two steps ahead like a seasoned poker player. You maneuver the person into making public statements or beginning a public seemingly trivial action, and then they're at risk of being embarrassed. And potentially like the Soviet example above, sometimes it's better to flash the ace than play it.
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Amnesty International started off in the early 60s, a British lawyer was angry about two Spanish students who made a toast to freedom and were then given a seven-year prison sentence. And his idea for political dissidents in general was to cause more negative publicity while they're in prison than while they're out.

Most likely AI does respond better to some situations than others.

The initial idea of this thread is that this rather small organization is a main catalyst in effectively responding during the beginning stages of the Cambodian genocide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top