Related Coverage
By Mike Steketee
From: The Australian
January 01, 2011
IT was [Foreign Minister] Andrew Peacock's personal and emotional attachment to Cambodia that encouraged the then foreign minister to mount the first serious challenge to [Prime Minister] Malcolm Fraser's authority as prime minister.
Mr Peacock threatened twice in 1980 to resign over diplomatic recognition of the Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia, or Kampuchea, as it had been renamed under its leader Pol Pot.
The second occasion was when Mr Fraser (pictured) was about to call an election. If the threat had been carried out it would have caused maximum political damage to the government.
The issue involved one of those invidious choices that sometimes confront governments on foreign relations.
The true extent of the atrocities committed by Pol Pot was starting to become apparent: he presided over one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, with estimates of between 1.7 million and 2.5 million of the country's population of eight million murdered or starved to death between 1975 and 1979.
Technically, diplomatic recognition did not signify approval of the regime, but Mr Peacock believed Pol Pot to be so evil that he should not be acknowledged in any official relationship.
Mr Fraser's motivations were different. Vietnam had invaded Cambodia in December 1978, driving Pol Pot and his forces out of most of the country and installing a government under Heng Samrin. Vietnam received the backing of the Soviet Union and the Cold War was still in full swing, with Western concern about its intentions heightened by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 1979.
Mr Fraser did not want to give any comfort to Vietnamese aggression, let alone Soviet expansionism in Southeast Asia. It was a view shared by the US, China and Southeast Asian countries.
Contacted at his home in Texas, where he lives part of the year with his American wife, Mr Peacock revealed that it was his personal involvement with Cambodia that influenced his stand.
"I had first gone there with my mother when I was a teenager," he told The Weekend Australian. Subsequently he travelled there as a politician and was in the capital in 1975 with fellow Coalition frontbencher Ian Sinclair when the Khmer Rouge encircled the city, to which many Cambodians had fled. "The population of 700,000 to 800,000 had risen to about 2 1/2 million and the Khmer Rouge weren't letting any food in, so the population was starving," Mr Peacock said.
"It was a horrifying experience to witness what was happening to people there. At the same time, a couple of Australian yachtsmen were picked up and murdered."
When Phnom Penh fell, Mr Peacock and Mr Sinclair sought help from the US ambassador, who arranged for them to join the last of the Americans in a flight out of the country. "I suppose Cambodia had a little place within me," Mr Peacock said. "I was probably more upset professionally than I should have been."
He was also less of a Cold War warrior than Mr Fraser. "He has become much more liberal and moderate these days," Mr Peacock said of Mr Fraser. "You have to go back to that time and he had a narrower perspective of the world - put it that way. I have a huge regard for him now so I don't want to criticise him."
Added to this volatile mix were Mr Peacock's ambitions: successor to Robert Menzies in the Melbourne seat of Kooyong at age 27, he was a suave and able politician, widely portrayed as a future prime minister.
In a cabinet submission in July 1980 he said: "Our stance will be increasingly hard to sustain as international support for the new regime in Phnom Penh grows, as I think it will and as Australian support for DK (Democratic Kampuchea) continues to be attacked domestically because of the atrocious human rights record of the Pol Pot regime.
"I believe the domestic revulsion against the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime is a factor which should properly be reflected in our foreign policy stance on Kampuchea."
Mr Peacock recommended to cabinet that the government back UN acceptance of the Pol Pot regime's credentials for the forthcoming meeting of the UN General Assembly but agree in principle to withdraw Australian recognition afterwards. Instead, ministers decided there should be no change in government policy.
Mr Peacock already had expressed his view publicly, that Australia should withdraw its recognition from Pol Pot, meaning cabinet had humiliated him.
After the meeting, Mr Peacock offered Mr Fraser his resignation, but the PM refused to accept it. In September, he asked Mr Fraser to relist the issue for cabinet, but he refused. On the day cabinet endorsed Mr Fraser's decision to call an election, Mr Peacock threatened resignation again.
Twelve days later, he had a victory: cabinet agreed to a position similar to the one he had recommended in July. Australia would continue to recognise Pol Pot but only in the short term. The government did its best to keep on the right side of the Association of Southeast Asian nations, which wanted to allow an opportunity for an alternative government to emerge in Cambodia.
"Australia would be pleased to offer every assistance to the ASEAN countries to achieve this end, but the government wishes them to know, however, that Australia cannot indefinitely prolong its recognition of such a loathsome regime as that of Pol Pot", the cabinet decision said.
Mr Fraser had averted a political crisis. Shortly before the election on October 18, Mr Peacock announced Australia would withdraw recognition from Pol Pot. After the election, he asked for and got a change in portfolio - industrial relations. Six months later, he resigned and challenged Fraser for the leadership but was convincingly defeated in a party ballot.
There are no hard feelings between the two. "He knows I believed him to be a very good foreign minister," Mr Fraser said.
"The major concern (over Cambodia) was solidarity with ASEAN. Andrew's point of view was thoroughly legitimate but the argument was going to be a question of timing. We both knew that the recognition was going to change at some point."
IT was [Foreign Minister] Andrew Peacock's personal and emotional attachment to Cambodia that encouraged the then foreign minister to mount the first serious challenge to [Prime Minister] Malcolm Fraser's authority as prime minister.
Mr Peacock threatened twice in 1980 to resign over diplomatic recognition of the Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia, or Kampuchea, as it had been renamed under its leader Pol Pot.
The second occasion was when Mr Fraser (pictured) was about to call an election. If the threat had been carried out it would have caused maximum political damage to the government.
The issue involved one of those invidious choices that sometimes confront governments on foreign relations.
The true extent of the atrocities committed by Pol Pot was starting to become apparent: he presided over one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, with estimates of between 1.7 million and 2.5 million of the country's population of eight million murdered or starved to death between 1975 and 1979.
Technically, diplomatic recognition did not signify approval of the regime, but Mr Peacock believed Pol Pot to be so evil that he should not be acknowledged in any official relationship.
Mr Fraser's motivations were different. Vietnam had invaded Cambodia in December 1978, driving Pol Pot and his forces out of most of the country and installing a government under Heng Samrin. Vietnam received the backing of the Soviet Union and the Cold War was still in full swing, with Western concern about its intentions heightened by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 1979.
Mr Fraser did not want to give any comfort to Vietnamese aggression, let alone Soviet expansionism in Southeast Asia. It was a view shared by the US, China and Southeast Asian countries.
Contacted at his home in Texas, where he lives part of the year with his American wife, Mr Peacock revealed that it was his personal involvement with Cambodia that influenced his stand.
"I had first gone there with my mother when I was a teenager," he told The Weekend Australian. Subsequently he travelled there as a politician and was in the capital in 1975 with fellow Coalition frontbencher Ian Sinclair when the Khmer Rouge encircled the city, to which many Cambodians had fled. "The population of 700,000 to 800,000 had risen to about 2 1/2 million and the Khmer Rouge weren't letting any food in, so the population was starving," Mr Peacock said.
"It was a horrifying experience to witness what was happening to people there. At the same time, a couple of Australian yachtsmen were picked up and murdered."
When Phnom Penh fell, Mr Peacock and Mr Sinclair sought help from the US ambassador, who arranged for them to join the last of the Americans in a flight out of the country. "I suppose Cambodia had a little place within me," Mr Peacock said. "I was probably more upset professionally than I should have been."
He was also less of a Cold War warrior than Mr Fraser. "He has become much more liberal and moderate these days," Mr Peacock said of Mr Fraser. "You have to go back to that time and he had a narrower perspective of the world - put it that way. I have a huge regard for him now so I don't want to criticise him."
Added to this volatile mix were Mr Peacock's ambitions: successor to Robert Menzies in the Melbourne seat of Kooyong at age 27, he was a suave and able politician, widely portrayed as a future prime minister.
In a cabinet submission in July 1980 he said: "Our stance will be increasingly hard to sustain as international support for the new regime in Phnom Penh grows, as I think it will and as Australian support for DK (Democratic Kampuchea) continues to be attacked domestically because of the atrocious human rights record of the Pol Pot regime.
"I believe the domestic revulsion against the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime is a factor which should properly be reflected in our foreign policy stance on Kampuchea."
Mr Peacock recommended to cabinet that the government back UN acceptance of the Pol Pot regime's credentials for the forthcoming meeting of the UN General Assembly but agree in principle to withdraw Australian recognition afterwards. Instead, ministers decided there should be no change in government policy.
Mr Peacock already had expressed his view publicly, that Australia should withdraw its recognition from Pol Pot, meaning cabinet had humiliated him.
After the meeting, Mr Peacock offered Mr Fraser his resignation, but the PM refused to accept it. In September, he asked Mr Fraser to relist the issue for cabinet, but he refused. On the day cabinet endorsed Mr Fraser's decision to call an election, Mr Peacock threatened resignation again.
Twelve days later, he had a victory: cabinet agreed to a position similar to the one he had recommended in July. Australia would continue to recognise Pol Pot but only in the short term. The government did its best to keep on the right side of the Association of Southeast Asian nations, which wanted to allow an opportunity for an alternative government to emerge in Cambodia.
"Australia would be pleased to offer every assistance to the ASEAN countries to achieve this end, but the government wishes them to know, however, that Australia cannot indefinitely prolong its recognition of such a loathsome regime as that of Pol Pot", the cabinet decision said.
Mr Fraser had averted a political crisis. Shortly before the election on October 18, Mr Peacock announced Australia would withdraw recognition from Pol Pot. After the election, he asked for and got a change in portfolio - industrial relations. Six months later, he resigned and challenged Fraser for the leadership but was convincingly defeated in a party ballot.
There are no hard feelings between the two. "He knows I believed him to be a very good foreign minister," Mr Fraser said.
"The major concern (over Cambodia) was solidarity with ASEAN. Andrew's point of view was thoroughly legitimate but the argument was going to be a question of timing. We both knew that the recognition was going to change at some point."
No comments:
Post a Comment