School of Vice: No head of state or PM of one country whilst on an official visit to another country had ever been known to have delivered an entire speech in the host country's native language, unless the two states involved shared a common linguistic roots, say North and South Korea. Heads of state or heads of Opposition parties, from Nelson Mandela to Aung San Suu Kyi, would have normally chosen to give their speeches in one of the few internationally widely used language mediums such as French, and nowadays more often than not, English. Partly, this is because they had received their formal intellectual training through those languages and thus feel most adequate or confident using them on such important official occasions.
One may argue that this practice may historically reflect the legacy of European colonialism and cultural hegemony of the previous centuries. Yet, this 'reality' of colonial legacy may also explain Mr Hun Sen's subconscious and subservient mindset towards a country that has been de facto colonial master and usurper of 'his' own Cambodian nation and all its riches to the present day. In fact, one suspects that his decision not to speak via interpreters [his knowledge of English is sketchy at best] might have caused a certain amount of concern to his Vietnamese hosts themselves who would have preferred it that he conducted himself in accordance with conventional international diplomatic norms or protocols, notwithstanding his eagerness to please them as his hosts and political benefactors. The main reason behind this is that the Vietnamese [unlike Mr Hun Sen and his provincial entourage] are keenly aware of the reflected adverse publicity they would stand to receive from such ill thought diplomatic blunders and, the inevitable conclusions most thinking onlookers will have drawn from the same incidents.
How much this semi-illiterate man has done to degrade and profane all things held dear and sacred by his compatriots in his shameless pursuit of personal wealth, prestige and the delusion of power will be quite impossible to measure, or be fully comprehended by posterity since whist the fruits and benefits accruing to him and his exclusive trusted circles in kind and in those terms are largely visible, the means and sacrifices he has readily submitted in their exchange in lives, limbs, collective spirit, dignity and soul of a nation will always remain an unquantifiable and unfathomable loss and tragedy.
Diplomacy is a craft that the Vietnamese have traditionally used to perfection, especially, where they would feel the need to cover up great misdeeds or tragedies which could be historically and rationally traced back to their own stratagems and scheming. Just to give one such example: in the 1978/79 invasion of Cambodia [Democratic Kampuchea] 200,000 strong Vietnamese troops or 'volunteers' had been deployed in that blitzkrieg effort to oust the Pol Pot faction from power. Yet the Vietnamese refused to take credit for this historic action and instead attributed it to their backed nominal forces led by former KR commanders like Heng Samrin, Hun Sen et al, perhaps, partially with UN and international sanctions in mind.
With all this truth before us, we ask: how can the same person [yes, the very head of this regime who has collaborated to the fullest extent with this same predatory other nation in the wholesale destruction of the country he leads] now be claiming that it would be 'patriotic' for duel [or more] citizenship holders to renounce their non-Cambodian nationalities? With all Cambodians' experience of fleeing their country owing to what had taken place in the 1970s, in particular, as well as the well entrenched reality of impunity over random arrests, killings, imprisonments and detentions without a fair trial and so forth, is this not a deliberate move backward to Year Zero once again, so that Mr HS himself can go on doing what he does best: 'Close the doors and beat the dog?' Or is all this nonsense just a way of dragging his heels over urgent political reforms?
One may argue that this practice may historically reflect the legacy of European colonialism and cultural hegemony of the previous centuries. Yet, this 'reality' of colonial legacy may also explain Mr Hun Sen's subconscious and subservient mindset towards a country that has been de facto colonial master and usurper of 'his' own Cambodian nation and all its riches to the present day. In fact, one suspects that his decision not to speak via interpreters [his knowledge of English is sketchy at best] might have caused a certain amount of concern to his Vietnamese hosts themselves who would have preferred it that he conducted himself in accordance with conventional international diplomatic norms or protocols, notwithstanding his eagerness to please them as his hosts and political benefactors. The main reason behind this is that the Vietnamese [unlike Mr Hun Sen and his provincial entourage] are keenly aware of the reflected adverse publicity they would stand to receive from such ill thought diplomatic blunders and, the inevitable conclusions most thinking onlookers will have drawn from the same incidents.
How much this semi-illiterate man has done to degrade and profane all things held dear and sacred by his compatriots in his shameless pursuit of personal wealth, prestige and the delusion of power will be quite impossible to measure, or be fully comprehended by posterity since whist the fruits and benefits accruing to him and his exclusive trusted circles in kind and in those terms are largely visible, the means and sacrifices he has readily submitted in their exchange in lives, limbs, collective spirit, dignity and soul of a nation will always remain an unquantifiable and unfathomable loss and tragedy.
Diplomacy is a craft that the Vietnamese have traditionally used to perfection, especially, where they would feel the need to cover up great misdeeds or tragedies which could be historically and rationally traced back to their own stratagems and scheming. Just to give one such example: in the 1978/79 invasion of Cambodia [Democratic Kampuchea] 200,000 strong Vietnamese troops or 'volunteers' had been deployed in that blitzkrieg effort to oust the Pol Pot faction from power. Yet the Vietnamese refused to take credit for this historic action and instead attributed it to their backed nominal forces led by former KR commanders like Heng Samrin, Hun Sen et al, perhaps, partially with UN and international sanctions in mind.
With all this truth before us, we ask: how can the same person [yes, the very head of this regime who has collaborated to the fullest extent with this same predatory other nation in the wholesale destruction of the country he leads] now be claiming that it would be 'patriotic' for duel [or more] citizenship holders to renounce their non-Cambodian nationalities? With all Cambodians' experience of fleeing their country owing to what had taken place in the 1970s, in particular, as well as the well entrenched reality of impunity over random arrests, killings, imprisonments and detentions without a fair trial and so forth, is this not a deliberate move backward to Year Zero once again, so that Mr HS himself can go on doing what he does best: 'Close the doors and beat the dog?' Or is all this nonsense just a way of dragging his heels over urgent political reforms?
No comments:
Post a Comment