Putting Pol Pot on trial
A rare chance exists to hold Pol Pot, one of this century's most notorious mass murderers, accountable for his crimes against humanity and the Cambodian people. Many hurdles must still be overcome before he can be brought before an international tribunal. But current realities of Cambodian politics and international diplomacy make this an opportune moment to try.
Getting Pol Pot to trial could be difficult. He could be murdered at the behest of senior political figures and others who fear that he could implicate them. Even if he is taken into government custody, China, which has supported him for three decades, could use its Security Council veto to block the formation of an international tribunal.
But, encouragingly, both halves of Cambodia's feuding government are asking the United Nations to create an international court with the authority to try Pol Pot. The first prime minister, Prince Ranariddh, and the second, Hun Sen both want him out of the country, believing that his continued presence could provoke violent unrest. Both men were allied with him at different times in the past, a factor that should make it harder for either to try to score political points over his present handling.
China is not the only country to have supported Pol Pot. From 1979 to 1991, Washington indirectly backed the Khmer Rouge, then a component of the guerrilla coalition fighting the Vietnamese- installed government. The fact that so many foreign powers were indirectly associated with the Khmer Rouge could, paradoxically, smooth the way to agreement on a UN tribunal. All Security Council members, for example, might spare themselves embarrassment by restricting the scope of prosecution to those crimes committed inside Cambodia during the four horrendous years of Khmer Rouge rule.
Not since Nuremberg have the main architects of such wholesale killing been put before a court of law. Trying Pol Pot for the crimes he is accused of masterminding would be an extraordinary triumph for law and civilization.
-- The New York Times