The Interpreter
23 August 2013
The post-election standoff continues in Phnom Penh. This week's visit to Cambodia by the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi
('to further the bilateral ties and cooperation between the two
countries') underlines the salience of the comment by Youk Chhang, the
respected head of the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam):
'Cambodia is caught between the tiger, China, and the crocodile,
Vietnam, and needs to find its own ground'.
The recent election campaign was notable for the extent to which old wounds were opened, as Sam Rainsy
and his colleagues in the Cambodian National Rescue Party (CNRP) sought
to portray Prime Minister Hun Sen and the Cambodian People's Party
(CPP) as tainted by their links to and policies towards Vietnam.
The strength of this observation is given further emphasis by
thoughtful commentary from another writer linked to DC-Cam, Dy Khamboly.
The author of the first history of the Khmer Rouge period to be allowed into Cambodian schools (A History of Democratic Kampuchea, 1975-1979), Dy Kamboly has laid out some of the dangers associated with rewriting the past to focus on the supposed evils of the Vietnamese rather than facing up to the history of the Khmer Rouge.
This is a sensitive issue, bearing as it does both on the readiness
of Sam Rainsy and the CRNP to denounce Vietnamese influence in Cambodia
under Hun Sen's government, and on the reality of what occurred while
the Khmer Rouge was in power.
The most striking instance, one that received international attention, was the claim made in May by leading CNRP politician Ken Sokha that S-21, the Tuol Sleng extermination centre, was a Vietnamese fabrication put in place to justify its invasion after Vietnamese forces ousted the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979.
While Kem Sokha has attempted to retreat from this ridiculous
allegation, CNRP candidates (and most notably Sam Rainsy as the party's
leader) claimed during the election that Hun Sen was responsible for an
undocumented flow of Vietnamese immigrants into Cambodia and was ready
to accept Vietnam's unjustified claims to Cambodian territory. And Sam
Rainsy has not hesitated to refer to the Vietnamese regularly as 'yuon',
a deeply pejorative term.
The extent to which these claims played a part in the CNRP's surge in
electoral support is difficult to assess, but there is little doubt
that a deep-seated ethnic antipathy towards the Vietnamese is part of
the outlook of many, indeed probably the majority, of Cambodians,
because of resentments going back several centuries. What's more, playing
the 'Vietnamese card' does pose real problems for the vision of the
past that Hun Sen and his associates wish to present: that Cambodia was
rescued from the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese in 1979.
So history is in play in contemporary Cambodia, and in a very complex fashion.
As Dy Khamboly suggests, the CNRP's thrust could lead to a failure to
confront the reality of the Khmer Rouge period and the actions
Cambodians took against their compatriots.
Yet Hun Sen has consistently argued that Cambodians 'should bury the
past' while maintaining a close relationship with Hanoi. At the same
time, he has developed with China the closest relationship of any Southeast Asian
country. Here, too, history adds a disturbing edge to contemporary
debate. For during the Khmer Rouge era Beijing was Democratic
Kampuchea's closest ally, maintaining a thousand or more 'advisers' to
the Pol Pot regime.
There can be no winners in these history wars.
Cambodia today, just as it has been for at least two centuries, is too
weak to determine its own destiny without external support.
For all the many reasons Hun Sen's regime has been open to criticism,
his attempt to maintain good relations with both Hanoi and Beijing has
been surprisingly successful. It is tempting to suggest that Sam
Rainsy's confrontational approach to Vietnam, should he find himself in
power, would appeal to Beijing, on the basis of 'the enemy of my enemy
is my friend', but that seems too facile a judgment.
What is clear is that for any Cambodian government to cast Vietnam in
the role of an enemy is a dangerous policy against a much stronger
neighbour. Not only does such a policy risk Vietnamese retaliation, it
runs the risk of Cambodia's own sizeable Vietnamese ethnic minority
becoming a target of violence, as has happened in the past.
4 comments:
Term yuon =yieknamese No racist! You should understand terminology before you say NCRP are "Racism"@ Milton Osborne.Please you're i Farang/barang,what did you know the term Yuon? We called yieknamese Yuon for century.Its simply mean yieknamese= Yuon= yiekcong=yiekminh.They loved to eat your pets= dogs!
Yobal Khmer
If you think you're a PM elect, can't you think like a real politician? Your best ability is to serve as a local chief only Sam Rainsy.
"Not only does such a policy risk Vietnamese retaliation, it runs the risk of Cambodia's own sizeable Vietnamese ethnic minority becoming a target of violence ..."
Exactly, it's ground for a prolong invasion.
Mr Milton is one of the foreign "experts" Brad Adams from human rights watch spoke about, who conscious or unconscious promote status quo.
Another foreign "expert" who only gets his information from other "experts".
impressive in a dinner party full of people with titles who never been in Cambodia at best.
Dangerous CPP supporter at worst.
Post a Comment