Sihanouk 'Win/Win' strategy benefits only him, but not Cambodia
Introduction:
Sihanouk is well known for his ability to survive. But, what is less known is the reason why he was able to survive with the political upheavals in Cambodia during the last 30 years. The other question is while Sihanouk was able to survive but at what cost to the Cambodian people.
For instance, Sihanouk had allied himself with the murderous Khmer Rouge thus allowing these Cambodian communists to commit one of the worst atrocities in human history. Although he had always denied that he was the one who legitimized the Khmer Rouge by shifting the blame to others, especially to the United States bombing in Cambodia in the late 1960s, his collaboration with China on the one hand, and the Khmer Rouge close alliance with China on the other hand make it difficult to support Sihanouk's denial, as former US Congressman Steve Solarz has rightly pointed out that while the US bombing of Cambodia was a factor in the success of the Khmer Rouge in taking power in Cambodia, Sihanouk giving support to this group of mass murderers was a powerful signal to the rally of Cambodian peasants to the Khmer Rouge. Solarz namely said that:
"The fact that Sihanouk joined forces with the Khmer Rouge gave Pol Pot an opportunity to recruit much more effectively among the peasantry because he could recruit in the name of the prince. My guess is that had as much if not more to do with the ultimate success of the Khmer Rouge than the American bombing."
More recently, he again allied himself with another group of pro-Vietnamese communists under Hun Sen and the CPP, thereby legitimizing this Vietnamese-puppet regime and thereby allowing them to plunder the natural resources of Cambodia. This, in turn, makes Cambodians as one of the poorest people in the world, despite an enormous amount of assistance amounting to an average of US$ six hundreds millions per year generously given to Cambodia by the international community since 1991, and to open the door for Vietnamese illegal immigration with the collusion and support of Hun Sen and his CPP.
The question is why did Sihanouk act in this manner, which may have saved Sihanouk's prestige or political power, but at a high cost to the Cambodian people. The answer can be given by looking at Sihanouk's motivation behind these apparent contradictory alliances.
Sihanouk always thinks that he and he alone can protect Cambodia's interests and independence. At the same time, he never separates his personal interests and those of Cambodia. Because, he always considers Cambodia as his private domain.
In addition, from carefully studying Sihanouk's practice of political maneuvers, one can observe that Sihanouk always believes in his own ability to out-smart his opponents. In so doing, he believes that he has a "win/win" strategy. For instance, he did not hesitate to ally himself with his worst enemies like Pol Pot or Hun Sen, because he was certain that he would be able to out-maneuver them. However, if for some reason he could not out-maneuver them, Sihanouk had a back-up strategy, which was to make sure that no other politicians in power were allowed succeed.
By doing so, he thought he could show the Cambodian people and the world that he is the only one who could solve the Cambodian problem.
I hope the following excerpts from a selected group of experts in Cambodian affairs would explain what I was trying to analyze in this introduction Sihanouk's mercurial behavior and chameleon-like politics and its deadly impact on the life of the vast majority of the Cambodian people.
Naranhkiri Tith, Ph.D.
Washington DC, 2005
___________________________________________________________________________
Comments on Sihanouk's revelations about his relations with the North Vietnamese, the Khmer Rouge, in his own words:
Sihanouk's recently written letter and a related article (posted below) reveals a number of important historical facts that could explain the endless tragic situation in Cambodia. This letter and a related article reveal among other things Sihanouk's:
- close alliance with the North Vietnamese
- close alliance with the Khmer Rouge
- close alliance with Hun Sen
These two sources of information reveal a number of important historical facts about Sihanouk's egotistic and egocentric behavior. First, Sihanouk proclaimed his pride in leading the fight against American imperialism during the "Cold War" by allying himself with Cambodia's worst and long time enemy, the Vietnamese. By doing so, Sihanouk totally and conveniently forgot one tragic and important lesson from the bad and disastrous behavior of the monarchy in the Cambodian history.
Throughout the Cambodian history, one can observe that whenever Cambodian kings quarreled with members of their family in pursuit of absolute power, which was often, they always went to ask for help from either the Thai or the Vietnamese. Of course, the Thai or the Vietnamese were always more than happy to come and "save" Cambodia. But, one must ask the next question that by requesting help from the perennial and mortal enemies of Cambodia, what was the cost to the Cambodian people?
Each time the Vietnamese or the Thai were requested to help the members of the Khmer royal family in their constant and deadly fight against each other, the Cambodian people always paid a high price in terms of loss of land and identity, worse even in terms of life itself, such as in the case of the Khmers from Kampuchea Krom.
This means that Sihanouk's alliance with the Vietnamese totally ignored this important and fatal historical mistake with disastrous consequences on the Cambodian people.
One should also ask the question whether the Khmer Rouge could have become a real political and military force without Sihanouk's collaboration and alliance. The answer is clearly, NO.
The next question to ask is who brought Hun Sen to power in Cambodia after the fall of the Khmer Rouge? The answer is the Vietnamese.
Any honest observer would also know that it is Hun Sen who has been allowing the Vietnamese colonists to practically walk freely into Cambodia by signing a number of unequal treaties with Vietnam beginning in 1979. These treaties are no more and no less a total capitulation surrender of Cambodia's sovereignty to Vietnam.
Was Sihanouk aware of the content of these treaties? The answer is yes. Then he should not have be allying himself with Hun Sen while claiming at the same his desire to defend Cambodia's national borders?
Is this really honest and sincere vis-á-vis the Cambodian people for Sihanouk to claim that he is a true patriot by defending Cambodia's national sovereignty while at the same allying himself with Hun Sen, a well-known creation of Vietnam?
Now, let's look at Sihanouk's recurrent claim that he had to fight against American imperialism in order to save Cambodia. To understand this important issue, one needs to place it in the historical context of the "Cold War". In this historical context, one can observe that the communist countries, especially the former Soviet Union and their allies were as imperialistic and perhaps more destructive than the US. (For a good discussion on different interpretations of American imperialism see; G. John Ikenberry; Illusions of Empire: Defining the New American Order; Foreign Affairs, March/April 2004, posted under heading entitled "G.W. Bush Foreign Policy in Asia" in this site)
However, one should also ask which of the two kinds of imperialism had collapsed so badly from implosion due to internal contradictions?
The answer is clear. It was the Soviet type of imperialism that totally collapsed after 1989 resulting in enormous misery and hardship for the majority of people living in those countries. I know something about these countries from personal experience, as an IMF in charge of providing assistance in institutional building. I have worked in almost all these countries to help them make the transition from a communist system to a market system.
That is why the Central and Eastern European countries are all now adopting a free market system and a democratic government. So are the countries of the members of the former Soviet Union, such as the Baltic countries, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Islamic countries such as Uzbekistan, Kazakstan etc. More importantly, these countries slowly started to recover from the economic and social chaos resulting from false pretense, misconception, and mismanagement under communist philosophy and regime. The many crimes perpetrated by Communist regimes and parties in the world were well captured by a group of former French Communist intellectuals as follows:
"The history of Communist regimes and parties, their policies, and their relations with their own national societies and with the international community are of course not purely synonymous with criminal behavior, let alone with terror and repression. In the USSR, and in the "the People's Democracies" after Stalin's death, as well as in China after Mao, terror became less pronounced, and society began to recover something of its old normalcy, and "peaceful coexistence" - if only as "the pursuit of the class struggle by other means" - had become an international fact of life. Nevertheless, many archives and witnesses prove conclusively that terror has always been one of the basic ingredients of modern communism. Let us abandon once and for all the idea that the execution of hostages by firing squads, the slaughter of rebellious workers, and the forced starvation of the peasantry were only short-term "accidents" peculiar to specific country or era. Our approach well encompass all geographic areas and focus on crime as a defining characteristic of the Communist system throughout its existence." (For additional information on the crimes committed under the name of humanity by the Communists see: Stephane Courtois, (editor); The Black Book of Communism; Crimes, Terror, and Repression,; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999)
Cambodia and Laos, unfortunately, have remained in practice, communist, and are still under the tacit control of Vietnamese imperialism and communism, with the support of Hun Sen/Sihanouk.
It is generally agreed among honest scholars in Asian affairs, that before defecting to the Vietnamese, Hun Sen was an officer in the Khmer Rouge army with the rank of regiment commander in the Eastern Zone of Cambodia.
Yet, Sihanouk, despite the existence of these historical records, recently claimed that Hun Sen and his wife did not join the Khmer Rouge but instead had joined his own movement of liberation, when he wrote
"Samdech Hun Sen and Lok Chumteav Bun Rany Hun Sen when they were young decided to flee to the jungle after listening to my message." (See an article entitled "Retired King: 'Lon Nolist' Should Face Tribunal and defended Hun Sen as not a communist, but one of his faithful followers" , posted below)
According to this statement, Sihanouk clearly implied that Hun Sen was neither a communist nor a Khmer Rouge. This just could not be any further from the truth according to the existing historical records, as mentioned earlier (See BBC's profile of Hun Sen posted below).
While America may not be totally innocent in its intervention in Cambodia (including its carpet bombing of the Eastern zone in that country) during the "Cold War", one can safely say that the danger for Cambodia did not come mainly from far away America as Sihanouk had often claimed, but from next door Vietnam, as explained earlier.
If my observations on these historical events are correct, then one should ask the fundamental question about Sihanouk's claims that the reason why he allied himself with the Vietnamese, with Khmer Rouge and now with Hun Sen was for the pure sake of his love for Cambodia and the Cambodian people.
Please, read this letter and article carefully, and make up your mind as to whether or not what I wrote here is correct or not correct.
I wish you all good reading!
Washington DC. September 11, 2005
Naranhkiri Tith, Ph.D.
The Sihanouk Paradox:
Introduction:
It is not an easy task to assess Sihanouk as a person and as a political leader. He is the most important, enduring, and dominant political leader in post independent modern Cambodia. But, judging him we must, as he has been the only Cambodian leader that has had full control of Cambodia for nearly sixty years. Cambodia has been going through a number of fatal crises under his long tenure of power. Yet, Sihanouk always claimed that whatever he did, it was always in the interests of preserving Cambodia's independence. For instance, he said that he had never joined the Khmer Rouge in the 1970's. But, it was the Khmer Rouge who joined him. He totally and conveniently forgot to say that it was he who allowed the Khmer Rouge to use his name to attract new recruits among Cambodian peasants to join their army and party. Ultimately, Sihanouk will do whatever is best for his interest and survival, regardless of what happens to Cambodia and the Cambodian people
(See an article posted below titled "Debating Responsibility for Khmer Rouge").
Even today, although less powerful, he still has a tremendous influence in all aspects of Cambodian life, unfortunately, mostly in a negative and disastrous way for the Cambodian people. He is always the one that creates problems, and then positions himself to be the sole person who can solve that problem. In this context, as recently as in February 2005, he suggested a "solution" to settle the political dispute between Sam Rainsy and Hun Sen/Ranariddh regarding a lawsuit that Sam Rainsy made against the great Cambodian dictator and his shadow puppet, the president of the National Assembly.
What did Sihanouk do in that proposal was to suggest a status quo, that Sam Rainsy should drop his lawsuit and that Hun Sen/Ranariddh should also drop their lawsuit against Sam Rainsy. In other words, Hun Sen and Ranariddh can continue to ignore the law and to loot and plunder the country, at will (See an analysis posted below titled "Once More, Sihanouk's Deceitfulness is revealed".
Sihanouk is a contradiction personified. He is bright and yet narrow minded, affable and yet vindictive, International and yet very Cambodian to the core. I think the Australian historian, Milton Osborne, has come up with the best and most fitting description of Sihanouk which is also the title of one of his books:
"The Prince Light and the Prince of Darkness"
Perhaps, the most devastating trait of Sihanouk's character is his suppression of the potential of all Cambodians not belonging to the royal family to be fully successful in any fields of endeavor. Like his ancestors, Sihanouk would interpret any achievement by a Cambodian commoner as a threat to his fame and absolute power. The following excerpt from a manuscript written by Sihanouk entitled "From the Cup to the Dregs" perfectly illustrated how Sihanouk's complete monopoly of achievement and power could make or break any common Cambodian at will, as follows:
"I could not understand how the "grandees of the Kingdom", who owed everything, not to their merit or their talent, but to my protection, and that of the monarchy, could dare to do without me to help their fragile bark navigate amongst the mortal reefs of the American-Vietnamese war (while awaiting the conclusion of an agreement which would, I was firmly convinced, put an end to this war)."
(Norodom Sihanouk; From the Cup to the Dregs; Undated memoirs given to me by Sihanouk with his dedication)
The suppression of the identity of the vast majority of Cambodian people is well reflected in an excerpt from a book entitled "Civilization of Angkor" written by an English Archeologist, Charles Highman, as follows:
"It is very difficult to pin down the status of the workers. Some could be bought and sold, some were war captives, while others may well have been in the service of the noble family for generations and were assigned to develop a new foundation. Tied labour is not unusual in South-East Asia. As recently as the Ayutthaya period in Thailand, which ended in the eighteenth century, workers were tattooed to record their assigned place of work and to maintain a stable workforce. There are reminders of this in the inscription from Phnom Kanva, Battambang, which describes how Viruna, a worker who had escaped from the estate where he was born, had his eyes gouged out and his nose cut off. It was also customary in listing workers to include their children and even grandchildren. Workers are often listed as being responsible for either the fifteen dark or the fifteen light days of each month on a rota system, and could work on land assigned to them, according to one text, in their own time."
The loss of identity, in turn, has suppressed any development of future leaders outside the royal family in sufficient number from which Cambodia must and can rely upon to better defend itself and to allow it to survive, especially in time of major crises, as Cambodia has been facing since the 1960's.
(For the negative legacy of history on the present day Cambodia, please see An Uncertain Legacy: the Khmer Paradox by B P Groslier in "Special articles section")
_______________________________________________________________
Once More, Sihanouk’s deceitfulness is revealed
February 20, 2005
I am sending this email to let you see how the so-called Sihanouk's "solution" to the recent Sam Rainsy' s stripping of his parliamentary immunity by Hun Sen and Ranariddh, compared to the solution proposed by the international community comprising resolutions by the US Senate, the Australian Senate, and a motion by the European Parliament.
It is clear that the so-called Sihanouk's "solution" is to favor a status quo that is to allow Hun Sen and Ranariddh to continue to plunder the Cambodian people and to suppress the opposition with impunity. Sihanouk's proposal for this crisis is the same as those he had proposed for the Khmer Rouge trial. That is not to have any trial at all. He first invoked the reason that the trial is a waste of money. Then, he came up with the idea that the trial will push to remnant of the Khmer Rouge to go back into the jungle to start a war against the government of Cambodia. This is what Sihanouk is all about. He has no respect for any law or moral principle. His only interest is to save himself and his family.
Below are the documents to backed up for what I have just analyzed.
Naranhkiri Tith, Ph.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Community Response to Hun Sen and Ranariddh’s Persecution of Sam Rainsy and his party
I. US Senate Resolution on Cambodia (1)
On 17 February 2005, Senators Sam Brownback and Mitch McConnel introduced a Resolution on Cambodia (S. Res. 65) "Calling for the Government of Cambodia to release Cheam Channy from prison, and for other purposes".
The Resolution also - "Calls upon the Cambodian National Assembly to reverse its recent action to strip the immunity of opposition parliamentarians Sam Rainsy, Cheam Channy, and Chea Poch; - Urges the Secretary of State, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, international financial institutions, and democracies around the world to continue to publicly and forcefully condemn the Cambodian National Assembly vote;
- Urges international donors to consider imposing appropriate sanctions against the National Assembly and the Government of Cambodia unless and until it reverses its recent action;
- Calls upon the Secretary of State to impose visa restrictions on members of the Cambodian National Assembly and their families who voted to strip the immunity of Sam Rainsy, Cheam Channy, and Chea Pok, consistent with the President's Proclamation of January 12, 2004, regarding the denial of visas to corrupt public officials and their families; and
- Calls upon Prime Minister Hun Sen and Cambodian National Assembly President Norodom Ranariddh to cease and desist their efforts to undermine democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Cambodia."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. European Union expresses concern about lifting of parliamentary immunity (1)
On 10 February 2005, the Presidency of the European Union – Luxemburg on behalf of 25 European nations – issued the following Declaration:
"The European Union, friend and partner of the Kingdom of Cambodia, expresses concern about the actual political situation characterised notably by the multiplication of actions brought before justice by the political leaders against each other, by the recent suspension of the parliamentarian immunity of three opposition members and the arrest of one of these parliamentarians.
This situation does not seem favourable to a balanced functioning of the institutions, to the respect of the democratic opposition's rights, to the national reconciliation and to the recovery of the country engaged in the construction of a state of law.
The European Union makes an appeal to the leaders of all political parties to work together in a spirit of responsibility and concord in the interest of all Cambodian people. The European Union will continue to follow the situation."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 February 2005
III. Australian Senate adopts Resolution on
(1) Cambodia
On 10 February 2005 the Australian Senate unanimously adopted the following Resolution on Cambodia:
"The Senate
(a) notes
(i) that a closed session of the Cambodian National Assembly, under the direction of Prime Minister Hun Sen, has removed the rightful parliamentary immunity of leading opposition figures, including Sam Rainsy, and
(ii) the subsequent arrest of Sam Rainsy Party Member of Parliament, Cheam Channy; therefore
(b) calls on the Australian Government to immediately make representations to the Cambodian Government to:
(i) have parliamentary immunity reinstated, and
(ii) ensure the safety of Mr. Rainsy and his colleagues and the release of Mr. Cheam Channy without condition."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 February 2005
IV. King-Father proposes a 5-point solution to the current crisis (1)
In a February 10 open letter written in French from Beijing to National Assembly President Norodom Ranariddh and Prime Minister Hun Sen, King-Father Norodom Sihanouk proposes a 5-point plan to solve the current "political drama":
1- Ranariddh and Hun Sen, as "good Buddhists and wise statesmen" declare that they grant their "pardon to those who have hurt [them]".
2- The parliamentary immunity of Sam Rainsy, Cheam Channy and Chea Poch are to be immediately reinstated.
3- All lawsuits filed by political leaders against each other are dropped.
4- King Norodom Sihamoni, who is also the Supreme Commander of the Army, officially grants his pardon to Cheam Channy, who is to be released [from jail] and to become again a full-fledged member of the National Assembly.
5- With the implementation of this National Reconciliation scheme, the SRP will remain an opposition party.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who cares about public education!