Royal predicament or willing accomplice?

Editorial by School of Vice

We recently commented upon the role and usefulness, or lack thereof, associating with the continued presence of the Cambodian king on this ceremonial and farcical throne, and reflected upon the pressure - both political and personal - in relations to China and its client regime in Phnom Penh. 

In the seventies and eighties, foreign observers from statesmen such as Edward Heath [former British Prime Minister] among others to diplomats felt that Sihanouk [Sihamoni's father] was simply being too closely tied to China through personal debt of favour towards his host - Beijing - to be in any realistic position to steer his country away from under the sway of Chinese influence or, indeed, away from the Communist bloc. 

Politicians may ask Khmer people for understanding and sympathy for the present monarch's 'predicament' and 'enforced' subservience to the Hun Sen regime, and on the face of it, the King is just another hostage of the regime like all others whose unquestioned obedience it either exacts by means of bribery, duress or a combination of all these. Yet, there is no credible or noble reason why the King himself must continue to slavishly perform such a role, knowing full well the damaging implications and dangers doing this poses to the critical interests of his 15 millions plus subjects. 

It might seem to apologists of the monarch that personal appreciation and gratitude over Chinese hospitality in the past through to the present day and, this servile tool or puppet he has become are two separable facets of him, but in fact, they are inextricably two sides of the same coin. The father who willingly or unwillingly accepted China's gracious helping hand and support also at the same time oversaw and contributed to his small nation being plunged into an abyss of disaster and tragedy. 

Whilst China is indeed an indispensable ally of Cambodia, historically and into the foreseeable future, embracing her to the exclusion of others, particularly, the Western world, would mean caving in to Chinese hegemony and dictates whatever these may entail, which if Cambodia's own experience as well as those of many recipients of Chinese hegemony are anything to go by could only eventually land the country in another rough and unhappy terrain, if that's not already the case.

So if we are right in reminding Khmer people of China's precipitous involvement in Cambodia's internal affairs in the past, and feel justified in condemning that fact, we should also be prepared to do likewise in relations to those continuing to accommodate and facilitate this influence, including the King who still regularly goes to Beijing for his periodic health checkup.  

It's no coincidence that the CPP regime recently passed the lèse-majesté law to both conceal its real ignoble intentions and protect one of its prized political-propaganda assets.

So, the question that begs asking is: does the king deserves his compatriots' indulgence and sympathy? 

***