School of Vice said...
Beside off-shore oil deposit, Cambodia occupies an important, potentially pivotal position within South East Asia's chessboard.
France wants to retain its political and economic influence over most of its former colonies. French troops also fought a few decisive battles with Siam that led to the latter being forced to return a few Khmer provinces back to Cambodia under French rule at the turn of the 20th century.
The Siamese rulers would not have returned any of these territories to Cambodia had they not been overpowered by the French navy and ground forces during those battles.
This episode has since been the source of much of Thailand's bitterness and is still a bone in the throat of Thai nationalism today.
Note: the Thais or Siamese government had had to bide their time throughout the period between the return of the western Khmer provinces to French Indochina and the time after the departure of France from Cambodia [in 1953] i.e. post-colonial era, to invade and re-occupy the Preah Vihear temple [in 1954] in the knowledge that independent Cambodia could not muster sufficient military means to resist Siamese military aggression on the ground. The current conflict is also rooted in this basic calculation over military disparities involving the 2 states.
The Thais had a costly clash with Laos in the eighties [1988] over very similar "watershed" boundary lines they claimed (still do) to have agreed with colonial France. Remember Laos and Cambodia had been under the same French Indochinese sovereignty and thus shared the same boundary line with Siam.
An unexpectedly strong Laotian military response resulting in combined losses of 1000 casualties eventually forced the Thais to the negotiating table, paving the way for the joint border commission formed by both countries to hammer out the disputed boundary in a peaceful manner. Now, Laos had a much smaller population than Cambodia has today!
Why should France give preference to Cambodia over her much more populous neighbours?
This is a crucial issue, and we have to study history, perhaps, to answer this question in any meaningful way. The strategic location that a country or state occupies sometimes offers indispensable value to interested powers like France, and this geo-political status by itself is worthwhile or not irrespective of its existing numerical value i.e. population size. The state of Israel, a client of the US comes to mind in this context.
To elaborate on this matter would take much time and space. However, to keep it brief, to have middle-sized powers like France and heavy weights like China and the US on your side, the onus is very much on Cambodia to determine what kind of future she wants for herself. It is a challenge for the Cambodian leadership as such. Until today, the country is still less than half way to independence from foreign yoke [Vietnam]; more authoritarian than democratic (Cambodia had only been briefly 'independent' during the post-colonial period that had been abruptly brought to an end by Sihanouk's secret deals with the North Vietnamese); more police state than an emerging democracy.
But, one suspects that much more important to foreign powers like France are the country's long term intentions or aspirations as these spell themselves out in geopolitical realities - i.e. the sort of realities desired by these powers.
Are Cambodian leaders conscious of these undercurrents? If they are, how prepared are they to pursue ends that might not be to the liking of their patrons, and yet in tune with their nation's true long term interests and aspirations? Or are they just content to see their country stuck in this prostrate half way house called purgatory?
France wants to retain its political and economic influence over most of its former colonies. French troops also fought a few decisive battles with Siam that led to the latter being forced to return a few Khmer provinces back to Cambodia under French rule at the turn of the 20th century.
The Siamese rulers would not have returned any of these territories to Cambodia had they not been overpowered by the French navy and ground forces during those battles.
This episode has since been the source of much of Thailand's bitterness and is still a bone in the throat of Thai nationalism today.
Note: the Thais or Siamese government had had to bide their time throughout the period between the return of the western Khmer provinces to French Indochina and the time after the departure of France from Cambodia [in 1953] i.e. post-colonial era, to invade and re-occupy the Preah Vihear temple [in 1954] in the knowledge that independent Cambodia could not muster sufficient military means to resist Siamese military aggression on the ground. The current conflict is also rooted in this basic calculation over military disparities involving the 2 states.
The Thais had a costly clash with Laos in the eighties [1988] over very similar "watershed" boundary lines they claimed (still do) to have agreed with colonial France. Remember Laos and Cambodia had been under the same French Indochinese sovereignty and thus shared the same boundary line with Siam.
An unexpectedly strong Laotian military response resulting in combined losses of 1000 casualties eventually forced the Thais to the negotiating table, paving the way for the joint border commission formed by both countries to hammer out the disputed boundary in a peaceful manner. Now, Laos had a much smaller population than Cambodia has today!
Why should France give preference to Cambodia over her much more populous neighbours?
This is a crucial issue, and we have to study history, perhaps, to answer this question in any meaningful way. The strategic location that a country or state occupies sometimes offers indispensable value to interested powers like France, and this geo-political status by itself is worthwhile or not irrespective of its existing numerical value i.e. population size. The state of Israel, a client of the US comes to mind in this context.
To elaborate on this matter would take much time and space. However, to keep it brief, to have middle-sized powers like France and heavy weights like China and the US on your side, the onus is very much on Cambodia to determine what kind of future she wants for herself. It is a challenge for the Cambodian leadership as such. Until today, the country is still less than half way to independence from foreign yoke [Vietnam]; more authoritarian than democratic (Cambodia had only been briefly 'independent' during the post-colonial period that had been abruptly brought to an end by Sihanouk's secret deals with the North Vietnamese); more police state than an emerging democracy.
But, one suspects that much more important to foreign powers like France are the country's long term intentions or aspirations as these spell themselves out in geopolitical realities - i.e. the sort of realities desired by these powers.
Are Cambodian leaders conscious of these undercurrents? If they are, how prepared are they to pursue ends that might not be to the liking of their patrons, and yet in tune with their nation's true long term interests and aspirations? Or are they just content to see their country stuck in this prostrate half way house called purgatory?
3 comments:
I think Russia is a long time good friend of Cambodia. It has good heart with Cambodia and it's weapon technology is much better compared to that of china.
Let me insert some of the true facts from my reading classified information. the author mentioned Cambodia gain breif independence through "secret deal between Sihanouk and the North Vietnamese". This event happened as mentioned but it was false and tricked by the North Vietnam regarding secret deal. Cambodia doesnt need North Vietnam to gain independence but because knew the event will happen this way; it tricked Sihanouk to agree to secret deal. This was a smoke screen done by the North Vietnam. According to Dr. David Chandler, France requested United States assistant; United States and France cooked up a scenerios to make Cambodia felt like they won the war and gained independence from France. While United States supplied weapon and technical support to Cambodia and France under direction of the United States to pretend to loose the war. It was a tactic of replacing new player; however after gaining independence Sihanouk did 360 on United States. This was the begining of Khmer horror incidents lead to the killing fields. Some how, North Vietnam knew this secret information the event ready to unfold that way took the opportunity to exploit Cambodian leader so it's secret deal Sihanouk was nothing but a hoax.
Make sense Warrior Blood. Before Cambodia gain independence from France, Vietnam was very involved in meddling with Cambodian governmental affairs. The colonial French was being very influencial by the Vietnam when making decision pertaining to the interest of French Indochina. France ignored Prince Sisowat Monivong as the next king of Cambodia and opted for a less qualify candidate, Prince Norodom Sihanouk. France crowned Prince Sihanouk as the next king of Cambodia in 1941 when he was in his mid 20's. This decision was undoubtedly base on the political chess play of Vietnam. Vietnam strategically placed certain key individual of Cambodian government at certain job position, all for the purpose of allowing Vietnam to have an advantage. Afterward, it was a matter of France decision. Since Vietnam was such a love child of France, the decision to sign over Kampuchea Krom( Cochinchina or south Vietnam)to Vietnam was certain. As expected, France ultimately favorited Vietnam and ignored Cambodia plead. King Sihanouk did almost nothing to save Kampuchea Krom. Afterward, Hanoi, Vietnam waged war on its own France colonial master. 1954 Geneva Conference signed between France and Hanoi, Vietnam. France was booted out of Indochina. Cambodia's Kampuchea Krom became south Vietnam and Cambodia was left with smaller territory then she had prior the French arrival as colonial protector. Should Cambodia blame France? It's important to ask who had the most gain from all of this? France or Hanoi, Vietnam?
Post a Comment