The issue is even languages themselves evolve. New words created, usage changes, etc. Different languages also have different expressions, some does not neatly translate to another. Names throw another wrench in the work too.

So what defines a language as a whole? Then from a mathematical perspective, what to say you can't combine the list of expression a language has to portray a more complex concept? The whole computer is built based on basic computations, for example. A letter is a number/binary sequence, combined with encoded information/computation (the machine code to process the data and the context of the information), also under the guise of binary sequences, is capable of being rendered on the screen as pixels, or even plugged as a whole into a ML model.

Humans also have a built in process to learn how to communicate as babies. We just absorb the stuff as babies too. How would this process play in terms of a universal language?

How would you even define communicate in general too, and why the alien mentioned having three languages. What's the differences and why were they created if universal communication is already a trait?

On top of that, what's unique about a species ability to communicate via one common language? How does this communication even "work"? Vocal/sound? Visual/light? Radio waves? And not being learnt meant the information was encoded genetically as well. Having a predefined genetic information to facilitate a species wide base encoding of information doesn't seem... Natural, to say the least, when you move to non basic natural instincts information. Learning vs instinct is a fascinating concept as well (I took a somewhat philosophical ML course that touched on this, it's awesome!)

It's an interesting idea, hence why there's so many things to explore! But there's also a lot of hard questions you'd need to work out too, to make the concept work with more depth I feel.

Didn't help the sanctions from piling on though. That chapter of history gets buried way too deep from public consciousness given who the supposed "democracies" were supporting.

Up until the end where the occupation turned extremely unpopular, and afaik plenty of Cambodians don't see that favorably today.

They still had a way better justification than the US got anywhere hilariously enough, but that didn't stop the sanctions. And Polpot were pretty much alive and well still at the end of the occupation, supported by Thailand.