Chomsky's Betrayal of ,Truths

' • 31

photogtaph5, invented atroci,r.ies, Chomsky's and so on. Of cours-e. 3!pOlog,ists have r ��eu ��jt� �rs�fe f:��= Cambodia �nto a land cf masn:.:re, betrayal of sta>:"vation and disease". It is in disput,able that tihe United States b.ombings made the Cambodian ,truths tragedy possib.}e� But wh.at re�pnn sihle person� let afIOne JintelieCluaL can doubt t1hat Camb.· between 1975 and 1978 suffered,a r-.eg,ime of terror',· with m.ass kill�, brut"l , m Q !Ir��ati�: :: cuIg!al 'srit:: �� ahoJi,tion of the family, 'the extrac tion of confessions, and torture" and atroOcities DIf all kinds? Many re�i,able OIlJ.serwers, jn-urnalists and relief-workers COThCUir in reporting these things, as do �ef.u.g€€ reports, which have been repeatedly check�d for consioStency. Of course, m:wy deaths resuhed from stal""ve'tion and disea'se, and from Chomsky's fav· ourite cause, "peasant revenge ", but the mass g awes SUf'rounding r purpose·built villages teJl their own .. S'tory, in any case well cor�h:nJMed, as do the reglime's albo�J{llon of printing presses, destruction of 'e books, and its order tha.t the poplda- o tion was to we-air blr.l.JCk. No reason- " able person can do,ubt that t,he Cam y bodian experiment wad a ghastly exercise in mass terro-r aud forced ; Steven Lukes collectivi7,ation. not merely of labour, but of life. e "It is the responsibility of intel What then a.re we to think' 01 lectuals", Noam Chomsky wrote Chomsky's suggestions tha.t the in 1967, "to sp€ak the truth and deaths in Cambodia were"attrihut· to expose Jies." His fine ('ssay'; able in large measure to peaSilrnt of those years brilliantly exposed revenge, undiscipli-rned milita·ry the ways in which liberal intel- units out of government control, s lectuals contributed to what he starvation and disease that, are rightly calle-d the "deceit and dis direct consequences of the United tortion surroideology," in particular, responsible observers and soholars, the role of the «free press" in and converting the Nurh that t-he «the engineering o-f con'sent", dis United States was indirectly respon crediting wcialism and communism sible into the l�e that it was direcfly by misdescribing the facts and so "effacing US responsibility". The But the responsi'bility of intellect· "mass media of the West", he uals is not only a matter of telling thinks, "has discovered Cambodia s ' the truth and exposing lies. It is travail. precisely because of its also a matter of us.ing la,nguage ideological serviceability". He responsibly. Chomsky is, after all, claims that" we have not developed a world authori.ty on me use of or expressed our views here on the language. Consider, however, these nature of the Indochinese regimes ", examp les of language ahuse. but of cOUrse he does and must have such views, since his aim is to show First, inappropriate analugy, in how the nature of these regimes has comparing the Camoodiaoll regIme, been distorted and misdescribed. not to the Nazis but to "France He does this by following an after liberation, where a minimum apparently rigorous but actually of 30,000 to 40,000 �ple were ludicrous method: demanding massacred within a few months " verifiable evidence '\ documen· with far less motive for revenge tary sources, etc. , and thus discredit and under far less rigorous condi ing refugee reports and "material tions than those left by tIle United that is subject to no check". He States war in Cambodia", Second, also exultantlY attacks observers fudging abstraction. as in the (such as Francois Ponchaud) fOl suggestion that "the worst atro-ci" " carelessness with regard to quotes, ties have taken place at the hands numbers and sources ". Of course, of a peasant army. recruited and such carelessness is always deplor driven out of their devasted village" able, but Chomsky pursues it here by United States' bombs and then with a pedantry that is grotesque, taking revenge against the urban • gIVen the circumstances, the meagre civilization [sic] that they regarded, results he attains and the consis- not without reason, as a oollaboi"ator c v u n in their destructi()Il and tJhelr long �� 6b:;r�e�� l� �u��:i�� {��I!%�� history of oppressi'()II". And third, he in any case relies when it suits Illicit conjunctions, as when Chom· his case}. sky writes that: "it is an effective tactic to focus Indeed, Chomsky in turn protects on real or invented atrocities himself again<;t refutation by the committed in underdevelQped ex facts, writing: colonies that use the phrase "When the facts are in, it may , socialism ' in reference to their turn out that the more extreme programmes of mass ffiOIbilizariorJ condemnations were in fact cor under authoritarian state control rect. But even if that turns out to ca'rry out iiflduS'trialiwtion and to be the case, it will in no way modernization," alter the conclusions we have reached on the central Question What, pray, are real and invented addressed here: how the available sentence? facts were selected, modified, or It is sa.(l to see Chomsky writing sometimes invented to create a these things. Iii: is �n)Dic. given the certain image offered to the United States' Government's present general populafi{Jn. The answer pursuit of its global role in support to this Question seems clear, and ing the seating of Pol Pot at the UN. it is unafhcted by whatev�r may And it is bizarre, given Ohomsky's yet be discovered about Cambodia previous stand for 3!l1aI'Chist-libertaff in the future." ian principles. In writin,g as he does What, then, of Chomsky's conclu about the POll Pot regime ill Cam sions? Of course, pIOIpaganda has bodia, Chomsky betrays not o-nly been IJTlBde Oout of t,he Cambodialfl the responsi.bilities of jntell€

\ ' .,

, "

rr, I 'l+r:,';-.Jc' o'cC'"ci., , -j ... "r<.'_ l,t!" ,I'>. lHl 1"(.'W"'· I"" (:OIl1111t:nl.';i,C ( , I 10 that issui.!. . simp1:,.-ley\,:" f

of organized tefl'Or. Yet, j!l th;-: D!{lfpiin _ t;.i C(��!yerned Astf'tl III l�/S. L'�lCfaan ll'H.\(l· Scho;ur� I "'�';;j':: t�lins: "It is quite deal' ihtlt wron:.� �lbo�lt an import,ult 'nSJlDct COi'nnn:ni::;m: tho(! ,of l(amptlctl tion or tb,) countf'y��de hy Unito:.:d help:::.... ! S�,ti ,�:-; bomh5, nhh(Hl)::h that call U-:.� it ::Ilo11?, d;·.!d,�i\'��1y. TJ!er� e...... i;.ienc,,-: :,L.) :no d()ub�in/, t!1at.the' W;,! ()� p1lillt$ c�c:ldy to :.nCIL\ EL LEIFER, Lond�)[l S chool (If EC(lno!nlc$ ��nd p,)!!t;c,tl Scienc.:!. HO�!��IWn Str('tt,

l.o!ld;)u \\',C2, _ .._-- --_._--_._-----_.,--.-. LL'tt.::r3 jn'/'" pHbUC(�I!(JlI :;lw!dd,' an"h',:: t!t tll':: IU{:i.-;:t (m n:.?,;d,i!: mor,,;n:.: · (IS l'o$siM� 'fin:!} 3h()uFd be as. �J/O: t (If! o;i� .:::ic�:: (m::" :;;/tui!?d lie t�r;t!elt r,:"* {If tb.:' F:I!H'�I" (mlp. Thf:! (�i?itfll' or nme,d $P.)T�>i {iI·. .' )'i��ht t:J C!lt [heir! if l1?":C-;;;C'::!:- :r. ;'U :�.l'.·' .': I:' I'"! i c.,,, "'1 I 13 The truth about Indochina

Noam Chomsky (right) replies to charges by Steven Lukes (left)

THES 7), In (November Steven The error is transparent. Our task arid is a more muted version of Lukes alleged that I am "conttibut· was to compare the evidence avail- �onc1usions of Cambodia specialists. ing to deceit and distortion sur· able with the picture that reached Thus, in a book published at the Kam rounding Pol Pot's regime ". refer- the public, and we demonstrated puchea.same time 1979). as ours (Be/orc ring to a chapter in my book with that there was a systematic bias, not Milton Osborne dis. E. The Political 10 EconomyS. Herman,Human Rights (1979). only with regard Cambodia.This cusses the g r im conditions of life of analysis yields no direct, tcmciu-,. of the' Khm�r peasantry. concluding He then wrote to me, requesting sions about the actual facts, but only that .. any attempt to understand commems. I sent him a point·by· about the waY3 in which available rural revolution in Cambodia" that point analysis, showing that the evidence is used. We made this did not take them into account "quotes" he gave in support of point explicitlY, and repeatedly, so would be .. dishonest und mislead his claims were, without exception. that there could be no confusion. ing", and that the terror was in fabrications or seriously distorted, Lukes even cites one such. passage: large part"surely a reaction to the and that nothing remained of his "When the facts are in, it may turn terrible bombing of Cornrn�nist.held . argument when these and other -out that the Dlore extreme con- regions1973." that went on untIl August errors were eliminated.Two months demnations were in fact correct. {" We cite David Chandler have pa�ed with no response, A But even if that turns out to be Paying off old scores or imaginary (TJlES, ,", ' ill t�' :" . , m·,ll i.?,,"',::," .. hY'· lt: ", b: ones part·" the killings. letter by23) Michael Leifer " ... v ... v played a , n"l "' w h d n h "but, to a large ·extent, I think, January adds new falsifications 10 and prompts me to comment pub- central question addressed here: American actions are- blame") lidy, though I am reluctant for �wo how the availab,le facts were and many others to the sa�e eff�ct, reasons: it is Lukes's responsibility, selected, modified, or sometimes induding refugees; and tncludmg to a image ' . not mine, to correct bis false state- invented create certain Ponchau.d, Lukes s favourIte, who general population". ments; space is unavailable to offered to the writes that peasants who1968 suffered Lukes writes that with this remark, .. demonstrate the most significant terdble atrocities in were Chomsky" prOteclS himself against pay back a point, namely. the remarkable COD- firmly resolved to sistency of misrepresentation. refutation by the facts"· Note the hundredfold the evil that had been, ingenious technique. Lu es begi S Here is one Lukes de- k � done to them." Recall that Lukes example_ by fabricating a osition hat e scribes our "ludicrous method: � J bitterly condemns us for raising the a r utes to I:?e. ' e � hi bl�es ur ', u ib 0 � !l possibility that" peasant Te\:enge" demanding "verifiable evidence f 'Ih S nc.atton, . di l explicit rejech(lO be one factor, alongside of documentary sources, etc, and l S onc uding th by reiectl I we may r . � j' others, in a<;C(�unting foJ:' post dlscre,' manner. one could prove anything showed). . • _ in Kier�an. wrote tha,� LuXes presen!3 what he calls our furthermore, we explicitly the '"'1973 brutal aut!lOotarlan trend. rejected the . position Lukes anrl' "twofold" conclusions: .. that the after was am:ibutable in. part numb b-utes to us. Our chapter begins atrocities and er '�oE kilHngs to the Pol Pot faction... not SImply witb the statew!lnt ble in;;: and desU'\lction of the cO\lntry ties and oppression. pritnarlly from respotlse'" to the US assault. Let ' us side by United Staees. borobs. tbe reports of refugees". We consider these claims. although that helped It alo�g ,de. . On of Itt warned against the very falsifica the scale atrocities, we cisively". And Heder1980. wrote the which Lukes engages:' drew no firm C'lnciuSions 11 tion in' except to same vein in July N�w to "People who have expressed scepti- say that the record was U sub· . First, Leifer .c.onvemen.tly the facts arude, cism about the press barrage are stantial.-and often gruesome." We predates Kiernan's 1979,whlcn commonly accused of refUSing. to Cited ..... estimates ranging from appeared in Dectlmber wen believe the accountsis of miserable .. possibly thousands" killed after our book was published. In t refugees, a line that much easier (Nayan Chanda, the highly regardede fact, the .esear,h Kiernan distusses to peddle than the tfutb: that they Correspondent of the Far Eas t rn went to I· Economic Review, was begun as our book are primarily raising questions which estimated surely knows. We a.lOO,COO" presS as Leifer f about the credibility of those who the population at as our l have referred to this 2,000,000 coul hardly ��PO ,',','- an�d ,P,,"h,,'Il �� ,,�, P'? it-' h.', book went to press) to article, or to Heder's suU later one...... ff ng v f f...g ' d w we " h killed (Jean Lacouture at about Secondly, never referred t�, 1- tbey are 'alleged to have said." We the same time as Chanda), indud- Reder" o. refute refugee accOWltS e US t gave voluminous evidence to demon- ing intelligence estimates on any topic g strate the lack of credibility of ' �. 0, ranging from thousands to hun- Thud, we nowhere atteplPtp.d to sources on which the media -uncriti- dreds of thousands killed, nurn_ refute refugee accounts at organu.ed g cany relled, also citing e amples I, x. bers also offered by Lacouture terror'" n ther.we discussed flhn,;y of quite credible reports of atrod· his 2,(l(ifr,OOO · when he ret.acted and sometimes fabricated documen e ties. We raised virtually no ques· As figure. noted above, we stated tation pro\'ided by commenlatvrS, d tions about refUgee testimony in ; that the higher figures · might noting that crucial quesri?ns. 9rtl i· fact, we critiched the media for 10 : 1�. l. prove to be correct. We then mained open as we wrot� failing to take account of such test!- showed u 1, that the higher the ero· Finally note that Kiernan s pO lnt mony, citing 'many examples. We •. � mates the greater tbe publicity i with our tent never demanded U documentary perfect y consistent 01;11-a. they , tended to re<:eive, even after d . popular n sources .... but rather reviewed those ve suggestion that " t. they. were withdrawn as fabrka. " l that have been presented, showing ge" may hav6 been• one cfucra. tlO ns. , All• 0f ,." ,h., ,·n m.n" .crucial cases they I factor, regularly Ignore..d )i' Turning to our second "conc . were seriously misr"yresented or U· this is not untyplcal of I.etfe� s way �: sion", note that Lukes again m � �i� � as often ater quietly with facts. as documented the � � d�� ' seriously distorts "What wrote we a. chapter he misrepresents.. . . he urce is our discussion ot m ..... Ie This is only one e:wmple; but a ·t1971 so by Our twO volumes show �etatl ;I. study Charles Meyer on which intellectuals often typical one. Let us now consider . the ways in of reasoning. the rOots of peasant violence We tend to provide services for slate (I. equally gross errors Lukes correctly quotes us on our comment that" If a serious study prOPaganda We did �ot .el';pe::t rl{ al . I actual topic: United States global of the impact of Western imped · this to be a welcome conclUSIon. t life is II policy ond propaganda, not "the ism on Cambodi(l.n peasant is of some interest to note the intel· . undertaken, well be J J I £ t t n d hln' " someday it·may I e he re-ponse :.IS a �� ; that the violence lurking i h e :�; ��'!:; eJ discovered :;�r�s t t� cO�Sjs�'ent failure �vetl m Khmer smile is not or expressed our views here". He behind the . - . to consider the most sig1llficant obscure traits in of then writes:" but of course he does a reflection of i:xamples we. di$cu$s�d: ,:amely, A,. views. since peasant culture and psychology, but 'Y and must have such apologetics for ongmng VlOlenCLondon (PNL). r negotiating salary ture idea but It is still a hopeful l c n t The deciSIon is of great significar l!ism of Committee direction in which to travel. Not only Iton of evil with .no. redeemmg qual g:��f�dles� �I��:�te�ft�� a �e;i�� because ILEA officers are beginning misnamed Universi would such unity lead to greater ities" Their theSIS. m short. was the gone mad" see it as a pilot scheme for furtl . basis on which they made their case for course rationalizations likely amo nell and Committee strength in pay bargainin; It would also �ystema.tic bias in the media. (engaged hO k i ersus the DES with correspond to the emerging reality of a m "engmeering consent to the priori to � p �� hi:!1�� ::��I�� 3;�c�� ... the five London polytechnics. Ig uneasily in the single interdependent higher educa ties and �tr US bombing. But Osbornehas recent Mr Michael Crook. a member of t nothing to preserve tion system that is already replacing the .uct�res of contemporary South Bank polymers and rubber te( -sily autonomy and binary divide. state captlallsm"). To establish it they ly . written that the numbers (in his nology schooL said: "To have a rep( attacked the credibility of those re sample) killed by order of the author which contained errors and i logi! cording refugee testimony that refuted ities twere staggering and observes: statements and on which we hadI it. "What happened in Kampuchea went time to comment frankly made () Monty T�ey wrote: "Most of the well so far beyond the paying off of old blood bUll. " pubhclzed infor�ation concerning scores that an observer ends hv The South Bank argues that t n. He believes that fusal to accept this central recom postwar CambodIa derives from re reaChing an impasse in serching for am orignar decision reached after lengt "omise plan for a mendation and instead tO lay around ports of refugees - or to be more overall explanation for such a descent consultations by the Hayes worki, y toothless) author- with woolly and confusel comprom precise - from accounts by journalists into savagery." Part of the explana party should stand. The Hayes repc ted. Instead he has ises. and others of what refugees are alleged tion, he suggest. lies in "an absolute concluded polymers were well int t o.� all institutions In the lasi few months he has paid to have said. On the basis of such determination on the part of the grated with other South Bank e relievesand hopes, out thousands of millions of public reports, these observers draw conclu Khmer Rouge leadership to erase the ring work. unlike the courses own proposal for a money to bail out companies such as sions about the scale and character of past" F�� efore..po.we.rful.. au- BritishSteel and British Leyland to atrocities committed -in C-amhoffi..a.. 1fte facts are -c-eming m, ami "th� : . .(. This week South Bank lecture to do so. The whole rescue failure, unkind critics might conclusions which are then circulated more extreme condemnations" are' were presenting a final brief to a speic hority was to take �ug�est. Yet he appears strangely un (often modified) in the press or the being proved correct. But Chomsky six-man committee headed by M theprote .sslOn and willing to invest a small sum of money, halls of Congress. For example. Barron claimed and claims that this should "in Ann Ward, chairman of the ILE trigumg and special £IOm. in possible success by estab Paul present some examples of what no way alter the conclusions we have further and higher education sub Call �st groups. lishing an engineering authority which they claim to have heardfrom refugees ade-one--5tGGd-a-fa reached". His argument. presumably, mittee. which will make a final decisic )mmittee m ir chance of contributing to and then conclude that the government is that it was was plausible 0 disbelieve shortly. endation-thecrea- greater efficiency in British industry. of Cambodia is bent on genocide, a �ority what has now turned out to be true. ILEA officers.however, believe tt to implement Nothing couldbe more depressing than co�c1usion whicn.is then presented ill But what is it now plausible to think courses should now be concentrated < u.endationsmade in for a reform designed in par1to heal the vp.nous forms by commentators. Simi� about Pol Pot's Cambodia? The-writers PNL for a number of reasons. ts keystone. So it is Br:itishdisease falling victim itself to larty Ponchaud. cites examples of re cited abQYe.... on whom Chomsky has and Sir Keith's re- thiS ennervating germ. fugee reports and concludes that the relied. are in no doubt. Is Chomsky?

T1iE1TMESHlttHl'.RF_OUCATIONSUPPLEr>I� IM.Sl LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Un The dispute about atrocities in Kampuchea S Sir, -IIIour stu of US fci�isnpolicy engaging in aPologetics fot the Khmer let), or .'if the deaths in Cambodia concerllin$ the Khmer Rouge Ih31 are alld ideolog (� oliticaJ Economy of Rouge. In response (March 6), I were not the resull of .. stematic eilh.!rpomive, Of Ihat deny familiar Cl Human Rig x IS, 1979), E.S. Herman reviewed examples of his evidence, slaughter and starvationH. \�e did nOt claims about the scale of atrocities: eg, and J distinguished two typesof blood. showing Ihat it was a m:h�tf�:��'!!d��tf)'(THES March 2�), Lukes silently December7 ( speCifically lnted OUt tion at8.2 million (highetthan tk e 1975 dencethat is dubious or 5impl fabri. abandons all the "evidence" 1 reviewed that in this case too he �ad grossly estimate) in January 1979, when our isa eated. Atrocities _that we cou ld mili. in print, tacitly conceding its true misrepresented what we wrote. In book went to ress; or the CtA, whicn inc\'; ate or let mi nate are ignored or denied character, and offers further examples, n he e L estimated Pol �ot killings at 5O-100,OCIJ 0 1980 tego the US-supported massacres in no less specious. ::e::I� t� t�: c��1:��ts ��h in its demographiestudYi or relief w� Timor), whne iliosebeyond our reach Lllkes begitl$ by slatin$ that I perfectclarity. agencies that estimate the current elicit great outpourings of humanita- claimed that we were "exclUSIVelyeo;!- Lukes states that we "fail to discredit l e ,b rian sentimentand outrage (eg, Pol POt cerned wit,h demonstrating the 'sys.- the evidence � of refugees presented by rts �A?i�� :o��a!n;t��!�� i:; th, massacres). While there are excep- temalic bias' in Ihe Westernmedia and Barron·Paul. Poncbaud. etc. Nor did claim that Pol Pot reduced the popula- "'m; lions, this tendency· is strikin� and that (we) did not give [OUf) 'views welry,aswemadeexplicit. Rather. we tion to 4 million. It is again rcvealing plays a $i nific.antrole in creatlflg an· eoncerningIhe Pal Pot regtme ".What showed that Barron·Paul are totally that Lukes a... oids real cases and con' b< � I th ideologica climate supportive of con· wrote was that our primary concern unreliable when subject to verification eodsquotes to try to support his claim '" tinuingatrocities. was the propaganda system, but that and that Ponchaud's book. white '·set. that we offered apologeticsfor Pol Pot. As one example in our book,We we also indicated Our ".highlytentative lous and worth reading". (s�ecifically, Lukes asks finally what 1 think we th dealt with Khmer Rouge atrocities conclusions" about the facts, which Wltb re ard to tbe atrOCities m Cambo- should now believe about Pol Pot's th (volume II, chapter 7), showing that were "similar to those of US intem· dia. w �ich Ponchaud graphically reo Cambodia. t would be glad to discuss m tht reaction fil5 the general pattern gena:analYsts whom we cited, and of cords from the testimony of ref1 ees). this wilh a person who accepted the G quite well. Since these atrociticseould Ftan�is Ponchaud", in the santized b nevertheless deeply flawe ., for basic ground rules of rational and beattributed to an officialenemy and American edition of his book. reasol'lswe document. We al$O noted honest discussion. But plainly there is there was little that eould be done Lukes then presents his new "evi· the significantfact that work of this no reason for discussing thIs matter th about them, there was massive denun. dence". He tittS our description of nature (particulatly, Barron·Paul) with Steven Lukes,as he has amply " ciation. eonsistcnt fabrication of evi· how the Vietnameseand Cambodians would be d�missedout of hand, given demonstrated. " dence. obliteration of past history faced tht problems left at the wat'S what we documented, if devoted to an 01 (inc!uding the US role), refusal to end. We wrote that in contrastto the ex e s ��A�Ydlo�SKY • e�aluate the credibility of those trans- Vietnamese, "the victors in cambodia rukU::cife�;�� m��:t 'that "the Department of linguistics and Phi!· ,. milling evidence (as we would do undertook drastic and often brutal apparent unifonnity of refugee testi· osophy " routinel ... in the case, �y. of tml measures to ao:omplish this task f mony is in part at least an artefact MasSachusetts Institute of Technology b warfare' charges against the 'S in retuflling the �pulatioil from t� e reflcC1in media bias�. failing to add Cambridge, Mass. . a J urban concentrations to whl.:h they " Korea). and selectiOn 01 the most that we J,emonstrated this by extensive Sir. - I refer to the di ute between [, utreme condemnations from the had been driven by US bombard· citationof refu�ee reports and scholar- Ste... en Lukes, Noam (!:homsky tl al ranlleof available evidence. We also mem _ simply forcing the urban Iy studies (inc uding Ponchaud's reo over the nature of Chomsky's writings , describ-ed theludiaous pretence that a popularion to the countryside where ports, when one attends 10 their eon· on Kampuehea. it eat debate was ra n over Khmer they were eompelledto live the liVes of tents). Chomsky's position has been dis- tl Kouge atrocities, wit� tt e courageolls poor asan15 •••". measures that Theremainder of Lukes's effortcon . astrous ever smce the Khmer Rouge , defenders of human ri ltS eom el1ed carrier: a "heavy cost". How does this sisl5 of quotes from others, some true, victory in 1975. Bycontinually.concen· to combat powerful �fCes 0 rferi e n e e f some false, aU irrelevant to our cha tcr trating on mistakes which ournalists ; apologetics for Pol Pot. Since rca� � r:�� :e�s��!!,ll �� OJ to what [ wrote, along wit� a examples were notably lacking, exam· e;.tculpation of them? A little Clever and writers made and on t� e war in reiteration of Leifer's false statement, whieh westein governmenl5explOIted , pIes were fabricated. editingsuffices. Omitting the eontexl, to which I haVe already respOnded, f We bel!:anour chapter on Cambodia Lukeswrites that OUt "thesis .•, asserts that we "relied"on Kiernan and Hed. by point!ng oul that "there is no that Pol POI'S regime was 'simply et; a falsehood docs not become true ��e��e:tt��0� fr��1��0�: diffIculty in dqcumentingmajor atroci· forcing the urban pulation to the by reiteration. He then states that "The important issue -Whether or not gro� !iesand oP �ession, primarily from the countryside .... " �etc as we· wrote); facts are coming in. and 'the more abuses of human rights were being reports 0 trefugees" and that "the nolhinJt'more than this. This proves extremc condemnations' are bejn committedthere. • au�tiU � I assume, given his intellect. that had _� 01 tit Cambodia is that we denied Pol Pot actrocities. proved con-eel.But Chomsky cJaime Chomsk actually gone' 10 talk to Ec· :wb�tamialan often gruesome." and Lukd proceeds.. to state that our and claims that this should 'In no way Kampuct can refugees in Thailand he . DOtingfinally that "Wl1en the facts are thesisasserts that the deaths in Cam· alter the eonc1usions We haVe would haVe reallzed thai a terrible in. it may turnthat out the mote extreme badiawefe not the resultof systematic reached· ... He interprcts this state.. crime was indeed being eommiued, eondemnations were in fact correct." slaugbter and starvation 0i anized by . men! asmeaning that "it was plausible His !itica1 influence is such that he Sin�.:"'c were aware that our �ritical the state but rather attributaf, Ie in large to disbelieve what has now turned out coida; have played an Important art in .a.nalysi$ of the pr:J anda barrage measure to peasant revenge. undisci- to be Irue". But we meant what we ml'ght be misinte n!:f:j by care!es&Or plined mmtaryunitsout of govefllment wrote, not what he wishes we' had mobmzi opinion against the {hm':f unscrupulousrea � ers, we emphasized control. starvation and disease thafarc Rou�e. �ad world opinion. left as well written: ourconc1usionshad todo with as n t. been $0 mobilized (as hap- repeatedlythe obvious point that expo- direct consequences of the US war, or the way the evidence available was pener , for example, in thc case 01 sure of prop anda implies nothl;,g other such factors" (this. a uote from used, and these condusions stand even 1973) about the rl!� ity that is being ex· our book). Now 10 the �acts. The if Ihl! more cxtreme condemnations Chile after then muth greater ploited. Thus, after ,notin.s: that the context is II diSCllssion of Senator essure couldhave been brought to were to prove true, exactly as We I:!,ar_ at leasl upon the Khmer Rouge's more extreme eondemnatlOns mrat McGovl!m'scall for military interven· explained in the quote given above. principal sponsorin Peking. prove correct, Wt added that al tion on the grounds that 2 million Suppose, infact, that the evidence now . u n t h us o peopleor more Were "systematically commg in did support the more ex_ Instead, Chomsky's well·known :� ��vv� ��ch:a �� :h� ��t��i � e�� Slaugntered or, starved liy their own tfeme condemnaltons.Then my eon· views helped lull many p!:ol?:lethrou h. tion addressed here:how the avail!ble rulers". We noted that he would clusion would bethat we were correct out the world into the Idle Illusion t� at facts were selected, mOdified.or $Orne· presumably not haVe made this recom- in writing that "it may tum 01.11that the the horror stories about me Khmer limes invented to create a certain mend(Ltion which was at once eon· more e;meme condemnations are in R0 e were either planted b he CtA, offered to the general popula. demnedby� SCambodiaspecialists)if fab1c cated by journalistsor �tho That �ro�t� the nurobers killed were Jess, sa by a fact correct".Lukes's increasingly des· is a sorryrole. Steven Lukes is abw- 7.1980), 100 j):erate'effort to misunderstand the lutely right to criticisehim. In 17It THES (NoVember factor of (referring tolean lacou· trivial point we emphasized � again Steven Lukesclaimedthat Iwascontri· ture's positionthat a factor of 100 or is quite revealing. �l1I��rl\WCROSS buting la "deceit and distortion" by 1CX.Xl a relativelyunimportant mat· It would be quite easy to citereports /', "." ' 17 Park.hiURoad, .�.ndo!lN.W.3, .