Rhetorical Analysis – “Rule of Law” in Cambodia

In his essay, “Striking a Blow for Democracy in Asia,” Jeffrey S. Brand argues that Congress’ action of suspending much of its $35 million aid package to Cambodia will do nothing but strengthen Prime Minister Hun Sen’s position of power.

WATCO – Congress suspending its $35 million aid package to Cambodia on the promotion of democracy in the country?

Claim – Congress’ suspension of its $35 million aid package to Cambodia weakens the promotion of democracy in the country because eliminating funding for the “Rule of law” program keeps Cambodian people from learning how to support democratic institutions.

The most obvious audience is whoever reads the article, but Brand clearly wants the decision reversed, so someone in Congress or with the ability to influence Congress would be his main audience.

Brand uses persuasion in his article on a few different levels. He appears to be credible because he teaches law at the University of San Francisco (USF) and is also the director of the university’s Cambodia Law and Democracy Program. He uses an almost patriotic sense of emotion when describing the plight of Cambodians to learn how to support the functions of a democracy. This appeals to most (if not all) Americans who are grateful for their freedoms and liberties. He also outlines a brief history of the “Rule of law” program in Cambodia, along with the country’s political problems over the years, which adds a logical flow to his argument.

Another way that Brand’s argument is persuasive is that he uses a sufficient amount of facts and history to paint a picture of how government funding would promote democracy in Cambodia. His argument also seems typical of what someone opposing the suspension of financial aid would say, and his facts and historical background are accurately and concisely stated. Finally, his article is relevant to Congress because when he wrote that article the situation in Cambodia was obviously unsettled and somewhat up for debate.

I feel that Brand’s argument is persuasive enough to merit some extra thought and consideration about the benefits of withholding aid from Cambodia. He is obviously passionate about the issue and effectively uses facts and reasoning to express his stance. The only problem I have is that his position at USF may lead to a strong bias on behalf of the Cambodian people and the programs that are meant to help them. Those strong ties may make it difficult for him to think and reason objectively, which would in turn significantly weaken his argument.