The following is Mr. MP's response to Mr. Jeldres' article "Cambodia’s relations with Thailand" posted in Khmerization blog earlier.
By MP
All historical facts as specific events, as lived or experienced by men are real empirical events: the experiences were real, the hardship or pleasure derived out of those events were genuine. By themselves, such events constitute irrefutable facts of history and therefore of its ‘truth’. By way of contrast, recalled events or facts are loaded with infinite meanings, motives, sincerity, prejudice, ignorance, denial, wisdom etc., all of which have the accumulating effect of rarefying and complicating our understanding of human interactions.
Without wanting to take issue with individuals or names, it is important that Cambodians and supposed friends of Cambodia alike endeavour to take dispassionate views of events be they of the present or past. Perhaps, this is asking the impossible given human beings’ tendency to reciprocate one another’s action, and their propensity to confuse personal sentiment with the wider interests affecting their community or nation. That aside, on balance it is fair to say that Cambodians are more repeatedly prone to committing this fatal mistake by allowing the power of patronage and all its entanglements to take precedence over core issues of national importance. That this is the case can be seen through patronage relations between the CPP regime and its supporters, and more disconcertingly between this regime and its Hanoi patron. The entanglements of which I refer bind not just supporters of the current regime, but also important elements of the Khmer monarchy as well as non-royalists previously united in the anti-Vietnamese front which has been surreptitiously, but mechanically and in a few simple stages dissolved as distinct entities with their emasculated parts or residue nonchalantly incorporated into that patronage system.
The view of historical facts with which we are dealing is being presented by a known observer of Khmer history and life-long friend of N. Sihanouk. It is believed that the Thai and Khmer monarchies have been able to maintain exceptionally cordial relations despite divergences in important areas between their respective countries. So perhaps, it is unsurprising that the undertones of this letter veer towards conciliatory angle and bypass some important details pertinent to both nations.
• To start with, although I have maintained the view that both Thailand and Cambodia have more in common than there are differences between them and that both governments should come to an accommodation that benefit their peoples, I do not believe that the two nations were placed next to each other by the ‘Creator’ or some other coincidental forces, but rather this had something to do with territorial ambition and aggrandizement of successive Siamese dynasties themselves.
• Second, historical conflicts between the two nations that had been created in support of this ambition and expansion still resonate and recycle traditional hostilities and rivalries between the two countries today and this ‘fact’ is reflected in not just the 5 square kilometres of land surrounding the Khmer temple of Preah Vihea alone, but also the thousands of kilometres of maritime waters off the Cambodian coast which has been claimed by Bangkok in its bilateral agreement with Vietnam who has also chalked out similar size of Cambodian maritime space for herself.
• Finally, no matter how civilised or decent Abhisit Vijajiva is, he is bound to and must advance his own country’s interests first and foremost unlike Cambodia’s myopic leaders.
By MP
All historical facts as specific events, as lived or experienced by men are real empirical events: the experiences were real, the hardship or pleasure derived out of those events were genuine. By themselves, such events constitute irrefutable facts of history and therefore of its ‘truth’. By way of contrast, recalled events or facts are loaded with infinite meanings, motives, sincerity, prejudice, ignorance, denial, wisdom etc., all of which have the accumulating effect of rarefying and complicating our understanding of human interactions.
Without wanting to take issue with individuals or names, it is important that Cambodians and supposed friends of Cambodia alike endeavour to take dispassionate views of events be they of the present or past. Perhaps, this is asking the impossible given human beings’ tendency to reciprocate one another’s action, and their propensity to confuse personal sentiment with the wider interests affecting their community or nation. That aside, on balance it is fair to say that Cambodians are more repeatedly prone to committing this fatal mistake by allowing the power of patronage and all its entanglements to take precedence over core issues of national importance. That this is the case can be seen through patronage relations between the CPP regime and its supporters, and more disconcertingly between this regime and its Hanoi patron. The entanglements of which I refer bind not just supporters of the current regime, but also important elements of the Khmer monarchy as well as non-royalists previously united in the anti-Vietnamese front which has been surreptitiously, but mechanically and in a few simple stages dissolved as distinct entities with their emasculated parts or residue nonchalantly incorporated into that patronage system.
The view of historical facts with which we are dealing is being presented by a known observer of Khmer history and life-long friend of N. Sihanouk. It is believed that the Thai and Khmer monarchies have been able to maintain exceptionally cordial relations despite divergences in important areas between their respective countries. So perhaps, it is unsurprising that the undertones of this letter veer towards conciliatory angle and bypass some important details pertinent to both nations.
• To start with, although I have maintained the view that both Thailand and Cambodia have more in common than there are differences between them and that both governments should come to an accommodation that benefit their peoples, I do not believe that the two nations were placed next to each other by the ‘Creator’ or some other coincidental forces, but rather this had something to do with territorial ambition and aggrandizement of successive Siamese dynasties themselves.
• Second, historical conflicts between the two nations that had been created in support of this ambition and expansion still resonate and recycle traditional hostilities and rivalries between the two countries today and this ‘fact’ is reflected in not just the 5 square kilometres of land surrounding the Khmer temple of Preah Vihea alone, but also the thousands of kilometres of maritime waters off the Cambodian coast which has been claimed by Bangkok in its bilateral agreement with Vietnam who has also chalked out similar size of Cambodian maritime space for herself.
• Finally, no matter how civilised or decent Abhisit Vijajiva is, he is bound to and must advance his own country’s interests first and foremost unlike Cambodia’s myopic leaders.
MP
1 comment:
Great article, good facts and points. Totally agree.
Post a Comment