[Peace] Pt.2: Cambodia, political analysis

[parenti susan rose]

Again, these are things I've been thinking since my visit last month to
Cambodia. Once more, sorry for the length---e mail just isn't the place
for lengthy writings. But where else, if I want to talk to you, my
neighbors?
Susan
-------
Why? Why did genocide happen to/in Cambodia?

This question 'why' arises strongly if you're thinking while you're in
Cambodia. The people seem especially unwarlike. The history is horrible.
These last two statements, put together, don't make sense.

The explanations for the 'why' constantly point to Pol Pot and the Khmer
Rouge, and very rarely mention the US or other countries.

I don't trust the question 'why'.  Why?  (ahem...errr, whoops,
walked into my own trap). Herbert Brun was more interested in the results
of the question  'when', than in 'why'. 'Why' is answered by means of
'because','when' is answered in terms of specifying conditions. ---not
'why was there genocide', but 'when does genocide happen'?

If it was Pol pot and the Khmer Rouge who killed all the people, then
under what conditions could this have happened?

When does genocide happen? Under which conditions?
------------------------
Wilhelm Reich, in his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism, proposes that
an analysis of a problem needs to contain (in its language and logic) a
way OUT of the problem. (And he tries to tackle his own mandate, in that
book. It's really something).

Visiting cambodia, hearing how peopIe talked about the terrible situation
in the past, I was reminded of my previous year's visit  to
Israel/Palestine and, earlier, to Serbia/Croatia. In all three visits, I
had been with a humanitarian clowning troupe of very good-hearted,
intelligent people. Yet I noticed that we all accepted what I now call the
'evil leader/feuding groups' analysis/pattern.

About all three countries, there is one pattern to what's said by mass
media, and thus, by most people:

(the following is NOT what I say, but what I've heard said);
What's said #1:
"In all three countries (Yugoslavia, Israel/Palestine, Cambodia)
the trouble is internal,factions fighting with one another, with a long
previous history that's terribly complicated". (kind of like a political
version of the medical world 'pre-existing conditions' phrase).

What's said #2:
"There is an evil man at the center of it, whose behavior can not be
explained in any other way except to say he is an evil monster". (this is
not said with Israel/palestine, but certainly with Milosevich in
Yugoslavia, and Pol Pot in Cambodia)

What's said #3--or actually, what is NOT said:
3." While we're aware that the US, NATO, transnationals wield a huge
amount of bullying power in the world, they have had played a minor role
in the murderous conflicts in these countries. In the case of Yugoslavia, we
were actually helping out those barbarous people".

------
I look at those two things said, and connect them to the last thing,
unsaid. I maintain that things said #1 and #2 are said as plausibilities,
to prevent people from investigating the role of US, NATO,
transnationals. Things #1 and #2 are "cover stories".

Does the evil man/feuding groups  analysis enable us to NOT repeat
the situation in cambodia, yugoslavia, and the continued situation in
palestine/israel? What do we learn from such an analysis and its langauge?
Never to allow evil men to be leaders? Hmm, I don't know if it's just me,
but looking at the current constituency of world leadership, umm...err...

In Michael Parenti's book on Yugoslavia, he points out that up til 1990,
Yugoslavia was a thriving socialist country where all the so-called
feuding groups lived relatively peaceably with one another. So why did the
groups start feuding after 1990? He asserts that US/European interests
wanted to destroy and divide socialist Yugoslavia, and accomplished that by initially seeding the
feuds, arming the bullies, and inflaming the situation. Then US media
bombarded the world with the evil man/feuding groups language, as a cover
story that all the believers, I mean readers, would accept.

'Cover story' is, I think, short for the words 'cover-up' story.  A cover-up
story is constructed to be so plausible that people believe
they've understand what's going on and thus don't need to question
further. There's a look of satisfied understanding---a kind of "OK, I
get it, you don't need to go any further". Thus what's
actually going on, isn't looked for or at. Cover-up stories have to be
plausible and believable. Herbert Brun wrote an article called
Against Plausibility, pointing out the power of plausbility in
preventing people from experiencing music composed under experimental
conditions.

Joshua Meyrowitz, a media whistle blower/Amherst professor of media
studies and friendly guy I met while stumping for Kucinich,  writes,
  "Historically, US adminstrations have decided on military actions they
wanted to take,and then invented the stories that the Congress and the
public needed to believe to support the actions".

The stories that people need to believe to support the actions.

Isn't the evil man/feuding groups a story we need to believe?It's a
plausible cover up that enables us to remain ignorant of the when--when,
under what conditions,  does a country become genocidal?

Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Brun---help. And anyone else out there--help.  What
could be an analysis of this problem that can lead us to solve it, not
repeat it? I'm not particularly looking for references for more books to
read, but for ideas and formulations that you may have.
Susan