RA: Striking a Blow for Democracy in Asia

The audience: readers of the Washington Post during September 1997. Since the Washington Post is the largest newspaper in Washington D.C., many readers are congressmen and senators. I believe that the author is trying to reach the politicians. They are people who read about world events and politics. They are interested in the spread of democracy and peace. They are old enough and well enough acquainted with US history that they know about past wars in Asia, and many of those will remember Vietnam. Since the Washington Post is the largest newspaper in Washington D.C., many readers are congressmen and senators. I believe that the author is trying to reach the politicians who are undecided about their stance on the issue of rule-of-law funding in Cambodia.

The argument: Suspending funds to rule-of-law education will make it harder to reform the government because refusing to offer aid to Cambodians will not entice Hun Sen to move in a democratic direction.
Implicit Assumption check: Whatever does not entice Hun Sen to move in a democratic direction will make it harder to reform the government.

Ethos/Pathos/Logos: This argument contains a great deal of emotional appeal (pathos) when the author reminds his audience about the "tragedy" and "irreversible disaster" that was the Vietnam War. He also reminds his audience that the US has a responsibility to stand up for human rights, a subject that comes with an affixed emotional attachment. No one can see the phrase "human rights" without some kind of emotion coming to mind, and people tend to think of torture or abuse and neglect of innocent children. Part of the author's argument is that we need to avoid that. He also refers to the fact that one quarter of the nation's inhabitants were "murdered by Pol Pot and his henchmen." He uses words that are loaded with emotional connotations.
The author also builds credibility (ethos) by making it known that he serves as director of the USF Cambodia Law and Democracy Program. He mentions that 20 Cambodians that studied at USF (presumably under his direction) now teach rule-of-law in Cambodia. He makes it seem like his program has effectively extended into Asia and has been copied by other organizations in Cambodia.
The argument is also fairly well organized logically (logos). The author provides a chronological history of the dilemma, and within a few sentences tells his audience that the fate of Cambodia lies in the hands of a few politicians with a very, very important decision to make. He tells us where federal money is going and why it is stopping, and he tells us exactly what the consequences will be if the plan to rescind funding is not altered or reversed. The flow of the argument is very natural, like one point leads to another without much interruption. The audience does not need to think particularly hard for the argument to make sense. The author makes it clear who the beneficiaries of the aid are, which helps the audience to think more about the people and less about the government of Cambodia.

STAR: I believe that the evidence and the argument in this article are sufficient to convince most of the audience that rule-of-law aid in Cambodia is not optional and should not be conditional. It is also typical of what experts say. The author is an expert in the subject according to the University of San Fransisco. Many political analysts would likely say the same thing if the politicians would consult them about the subject. The sources cited are done so in a very general manner. There are no specific data that would influence the outcome of the argument. The information seems like it comes from a government agency, because the author has access to exact numbers of how much money is involved in the decision. Everything in the article points to one common thread, so I would judge that the information in the text is all relevant. I could not find a sentence that was out of place or inappropriate.

Overall, this article is effective in convincing political fence-sitters. Politicians always want to distance themselves from any decision that carries with it such negative feeling from the public. Anything that resembles Vietnam or that inhibits the prosperity of democracy or that leads to inhumane treatment of an already victimized people is the worst enemy of a politician, because they cannot afford to be associated with those things. Pathos and Ethos are the most powerful arguments in this article, and those are the feelings which politicians follow. They rely on informed professionals to help them make their decisions, and they strive to make decisions that will be received well by the masses.