The Outlandish Beliefs of Malcolm Caldwell
Roxanna Brealey, Senior Sub-Editor, BA History and Politics
Malcolm Caldwell joined SOAS University as a history lecturer in 1959 until his death in 1978. Caldwell appeared to be a pretty typical SOAS lecturer with appraisals across the board. A former student of his, Ian Brown, claimed that he was ‘loved by students and colleagues.’ He was involved in radical activism, such as chairing the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (1968-1970) but was also heavily engrossed in his research, founding the Journal of Contemporary Asia.
However, there was a more outlandish side to Caldwell and that was his ardent support for the Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime and the idolisation of its brutal dictator, Pol Pot. The Khmer Rouge (1975-1979) was a communist party whose aim was to implement a peasant-led agrarian revolution. To implement their utopian society, Pol Pot and his cadres administered death and destruction across the country, committing a genocide against the Cambodian people. During their four year rule, a fifth of the population was killed, roughly 2 million people.
There were several core groups that were persecuted under Pol Pot’s authorisation. Ethnic minorities such as Christians, Buddhists and Muslims were heavily targeted in order to create a Cambodian master race, similar to the Nazi conception. The intelligentsia were also targeted as their intellectualism was deemed a threat to the revolution. Whilst the intelligentsia consisted of occupations such as doctors, lawyers and academics, it also applied to people who wore glasses. All of these groups, including political opposition, were sent to prisons and never seen again. The true nature of these prisons was well known; they were execution chambers. Why would Caldwell support such a horrific regime? Two reasons: he believed that the reports of the genocide were fabricated, and his strong dedication to his ideology blinded him from seeing fault with the regime’s mode of revolution
Caldwell was dismissive of any testimonies given by fleeing refugees stating in an article published by The Guardian that ‘A refugee may give an honest account (to the best of his own knowledge) without it necessarily being accurate,’ essentially refuting reports of executions and torture as Western propaganda. Additionally, he was a staunch critic of American imperialism within the region, heavily emphasising the importance of liberation movements. In the very first issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia, he stated that ‘the future must be in their hands, whether it accords with one’s preconceived theories or not,’ expressing that it was not at the hands of the West to decide what was an ethical mode of revolution. If death were to occur as part of the revolution, in Caldwell’s mind, it was not the West’s responsibility to judge.
However, the implications of the supposed agrarian revolution are clearly within the remit of what should be critiqued. Pol Pot ordered city dwellers to go live in the countryside in collectivised farms in horrific conditions. Disease was rife and was exacerbated by the fact that most doctors had been executed as part of the war on intellectualism. Food was confiscated and quotas were often unmet, famine and torture was part and parcel of the new peasant lifestyle.
In December 1978, Caldwell was formally invited to Cambodia by Pol Pot, which was an extremely rare opportunity considering that the country was closed off to almost all Westerners. He travelled with a group of journalists on a highly artificial tour of the country which only strengthened his defence for the Cambodian revolution, despite the fact that it was clear the regime had something to hide. It is ironic that Caldwell was able to effectively scrutinise American propaganda, but when it came to Cambodia he seemed to have lost that ability.
On December 22nd, Caldwell was granted a private audience with Pol Pot and was subsequently shot that same evening. There are plenty of theories surrounding the circumstances of the murder, whether it was by the order of Pol Pot or was part of a counterrevolutionary plot orchestrated by Cambodian soldiers.
Whilst we will never know the true culprit or the definite motive behind his murder, Malcolm Caldwell’s presence as a SOAS lecturer leads us to reflect upon the outlandishness of certain historical SOAS figures and their polarising historical past, whether that be politically left or right.