Cambodian and Holocaust ideologies
...n superiority. Similarly, the Khmer Rouge developed a class system like that of the Nazi class system. Under the Khmer regime “old people” were given racial superiority to the “new people”. The “old people” were seen as rural dwellers under the control of the Khmer Rouge regime before the end of the war, whereas “new people was seen as were, or city dwellers forced under the control of the Khmer Rouge after the evacuation of cities. Both examples of class systems exemplify the fascist thought because they include a main principle of fascism concerning the distinction of superior races and subsequent denial of equality to the specific segments deemed inferior. The differences between the Nazi and Cambodian genocides are reflected in their ideologies of the motivations and general organization of genocide in each regime. Although the Khmer Rouge believed their acts to be in the best interest of the people, the reality of the regime was one of a corrupt version of Communist revolution. The Khmer Rouge’s communist motivations differ from the Nazi’s fascist motivations in the search for purity. While the KR sought a pure communist society the Nazi’s hoped to attain a pure racial society. The importance of this factor arises when one views the intent of each regime. “Michael Vickery, David Chandler, and Serge Thion argue that the Khmer Rouge leadership never intended to use its revolution as a mechanism for destroying particular groups of people (Kiernan and Gellately 309.)” The verification of this argument arises in Khmer Rouge’s total evacuation of Phnom Penh. At this point there were no victims of hierarchy; instead the entire capital was emptied regardless of race or ethnicity, since they sought to de-urbanize cities in order to create a self-sufficient agrarian communist society. Contrary to the KR regime, the Nazi party indicated signs of mass murder and genocide from the very onset. The intricate system of extermination camps illustrates the degree to which the genocide of the Nazi regime was planned. In short, the important differences between the two regimes reflect the inherent communist and fascist ideologies of each party. Importantly, the differences and similarities between the KR and Nazi genocides provide arguments for the strengths and weaknesses of the UN definition of the term genocide. According to the 1948 Convention, the United Nations defines genocide as, “…acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group…” (Power 57.) One example of the strength of the genocide definition is its broadness. Thus, many similar aspects of the KR and Nazi regime fall under this definition. Another example of strength arises in the relevance given to the motives of perpetrators. This is important because the somewhat unintentional KR genocide would go overlooked if not for this stipulation. Overall the UN definition embodies positive strengths regarding its implication to the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide. Conversely, a major difference between the KR and Nazi use of political enemies weakens the UN’s definition. Since the execution of political groups does not fall under the UN definition, the KR regime is seen as mass homicide rather than genocide (Power 57.) To conclude, the KR and Nazi regimes illustrate clear examples of genocide under different ideologies. Further, the similarities and differences of the two genocides leads one to closely examine the accuracy of the definition of the word genocide. The United Nations convention on genocide has been a longstanding source of controversy. Reasons contributing to the delayed invocation of the convention include ambiguity of text, definitional problems, and the lack of protection for certain groups. In light of these reasons, the United State’s choice to ratify the convention leaves itself with certain unavoidable pitfalls. Many controversies and counterarguments have arisen throughout the quest to achieve US ratification. Senators and other statesmen were hesitant to ratify the treaty for a variety of reasons. First, the text of law within the genocide convention created legitimate grievances as to the specificity and clarity of the meaning of the term genocide. Many aspects of the term were left ambiguous including the specific nature of violence needed to trigger a global response. Further, since the text of the genocide convention failed to clear up confusion of the term another grievance including the definitional problems of the convention was brought forth. This problem dealt with the argument of numbers. The UN convention provided a definition stating that mass killings were considered genocide when it affected the existence of the group as a whole (Power 66.) The question then arose as to exactly how many people had to be murdered in order for the killings to affect the group; thereby constituting genocide. Arguments provided against the notion of adding concrete numbers reveal a fear of manipulation of the system. Clearly, when numbers are established it becomes easy for a terrorist regime to purposely limit the number of killings in order to avoid the label of genocide. While ...