Correcting wrong views, assumptions on Sihanouk

Manekseka Sangkum: 

This is a refreshing piece on Sihanouk and his foreign policy blunders. As I wrote recently, the collapse of Sihanouk's regime [and along with it all the national sufferings and disasters that followed] was only partially the work of its and Cambodia's enemies. It is important to note that Hun Sen might not be the only politician with a vested interest in keeping Khmer people ignorant over the late monarch's dark legacy. There are also a handful of Sihanouk's admirers within the main opposition party's leadership at present who perhaps owe their political lives and connections to him via his created Funcinpec movement. It remains to be seen, however, whether these "Sihanoukists" or Royalists are genuine followers of the late monarch and are wholehearted monarchists, or are simply exploiting this royal myth for their own or their party's political benefit - as Hun Sen does. What is clear is that the almost unthinking veneration of Sihanouk's memory and cult among Khmer people over the preceding generations since his ascending to the throne at the age of 19 and, into this day among the youth may make it even harder for some to dispel the myth or indeed to have that myth dispelled for them. 

Remember that Sihanouk himself never offered a word in apology or even regret publicly to his "beloved Khmer people" despite having acknowledged their "unparalleled" sufferings; the making of which he had - unwittingly or otherwise - taken a leading part in. Despite my critical [his apologists would say overcritical!] written assessments of him over recent years, I do feel that the man was not evil by nature, or as brutal and unprincipled as many of his compatriots within the ruling CPP regime today. But, sound statesmanship is first and foremost [in my humble view] about looking after the basic and fundamental well-being of the common man - in a word: humanity - and if the afflictions and suffering of millions of people that formed his 'subjects' still had or have nothing to do with him, not even so much as to draw a few words in contrition, then I am unsure what a good 'statesman' is for. Note also that it is not only Cambodians who had succumbed to this myth and mystique of Sihanouk - to an extent. Due to his prolonged political reign, Sihanouk had been hailed as his country's "only and last hope", particularly, when many major powers were seeking a way to end the Cambodian crisis in the 1980s and 1990s. Ironically, or perhaps, unsurprisingly, many of these same powers are directly or indirectly endorsing the socio-political status quo in the country today despite being aware of Hun Sen's random brutalities and widespread rights violations against the people of Cambodia.

Was Sihanouk a victim of his own myth? Yes. How could a God-King admit to his own flaws? Was he a victim of his own vanity? Ask Richard Nixon! Was he a good 'human being'? Well, he was a bit like the biblical King David albeit a ruler with far worse personal excesses and public flaws. In a way, his dismal 'legacy' can be consigned to history and the people of Cambodia can move on without his memory or his living clans. But doing so will require intellectual honesty of Cambodian leaders at every station and in every sphere of society, and the willingness of all Cambodians to dislodge the myth[s] from the mind as well as the humility to embrace and live in truth - rather than falsehood.

....          

Correcting wrong views, assumptions on Sihanouk

Gaffar Peang-Meth, PDN April 8, 2016

(Photo: PDN file)

Some Khmer readers were mum over my last article, “Khmer people’s 1970 revolt,” for its implications for the Khmer monarchy and the late King Father Norodom Sihanouk, whom Khmers revered. As one in three Cambodians are between 15 and 29 years old, Premier Hun Sen has little problem keeping the nation ignorant of the country’s history so he can hang on to power.

Long-held erroneous views, assumptions and misimpressions need to be corrected.

A few years ago, a doctoral student asked me skeptically about my assertion in the Pacific Daily News about a 1965 Chinese military aid agreement by which “neutral” Cambodia allowed Vietcong-North Vietnamese sanctuaries on her soil in their war against the Americans. He was thankful I referred him to my 1980 doctoral dissertation at The University of Michigan.

A Khmer expatriate in Europe recently wrote to thank me in the name of “many overseas Khmers” for my regular columns and urged me to circulate a Khmer translation of the article: “Young Khmers deserved to be informed,” especially as Hun Sen twists history.

After an exchange of emails, I learned that his late father, a Khmer air force general, and I had crossed path for a few years under the Khmer Republic. The young man introduced me to the Khmer air force website, which carries the photo of Cambodian Gen. Lon Nol and China’s People’s Liberation Army Gen. Lo Jui-ching signing the military aid agreement I mentioned in the PDN article. Behind both dignitaries stood Ambassador Troung Cang (Khmer legal expert) and Khmer delegation members, and then-Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Chinese delegation. I secured permission for the PDN to run the photo with this article.

Cambodian Gen. Lon Nol, seated left, and China's People's Liberation Army Gen. Lo Jui-ching, seated right, sign a military aid agreement. Ambassador Troung Cang (behind Cambodian flag) and then-Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai (behind China flag), are among other members of the Chinese delegaton. (Photo: Courtesy KhmerAirForce.com)

Losing neutrality

The website states that upon arriving in China, Gen. Lon Nol received instructions from Prince Sihanouk to “discreetly confirm” Khmer authorization to use “Kompong Som (Sihanoukville) port facilities for arms and supply transit” for the VC/NVN in Cambodia.

“Disappointed, Lon Nol informed members of his delegation: ‘This accord makes us lose our neutrality. Our prince allowed the ‘thmils’ to come into our country.’”

Cambodians must remember the adage: “In politics, there is no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.”

Cambodia’s “permanent interests” in the Cold War, and in the Vietnam War that ended in 1975 with communist takeover and the United States’ withdrawal from the region, should be “strict neutrality, national sovereignty, independence.” Cambodia’s chief of state opted for a zig-zag foreign policy course of action.

The United States defined its interests to include a U.S. withdrawal from the region; the Chinese and Vietnamese, to remove the U.S. from the region. As such, Cambodia was of value only as long as she served their respective interests in their struggle.

Sihanouk’s twist-and-turn

Prince Sihanouk’s foreign policy course of action was carefully thought out: Heaven destined Vietnam Cambodia’s eternal neighbor. On Feb. 21, 1964, Sihanouk wrote in Les Paroles de Samdech Preah N. Sihanouk (January-March): “In all frankness, it is not to our interest to deal with the West which represents the present but not the future. … Our interest is to deal with the camp which will one day dominate the whole of Asia — and to deal with it before its victory.”

In March, demonstrators sacked the U.S. Information Service Library, besieged the U.S. Embassy, tore up the U.S. flag and burned parked cars. In June, Sihanouk told a press conference in Paris: “The four-fifths of our frontiers with South Vietnam are occupied, in a permanent or occasional fashion, by the troops of the National Liberation Front.” In 1968, Sihanouk declared “no objection” to a U.S. presence in the region as a “counter-weight” to China, which “inspired and directed “local communist activities.”

March 18, 1969, marked the first U.S. B-52 bombing strike, called Operation Menu — launched over a 25 square kilometer area where the VC/NVN sanctuaries were located three to five miles inside Cambodia. Menu lasted until May 26. The total civilian population was reported to be 4,247.

On March 28, Sihanouk showed reporters a detailed map of the location of Vietnamese communist forces “by entire battalions and regiments” along the Khmer border from northwestern Rattanakiri to the southern sea.

On March 18, 1970, Cambodia’s Parliament voted unanimously to strip Prince Sihanouk of power. On March 23, the angry Sihanouk called on Cambodians to join him and the Khmer Rouge against the Lon Nol government. In 1973, the U.S. bombing ended. On April 15, 1975, the Khmer Republicans surrendered to the Khmer Rouge.

‘Complicit in the mass murder ’

Award-winning freelance journalist Nate Thayer, known for his interviews with Pol Pot, wrote on his blog on Feb. 15, 2016, that “at least one million” Cambodians had died in the wars that “preceded and succeeded Pol Pot’s tenure,” and that during Pol Pot’s rule for three years, eight months and 20 days, “at least 1.7 million” people were killed. Thayer said an estimated 30,000 to as high as 150,000 Cambodians were killed by U.S. bombings.

A self-declared fan of U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, “save when he makes ignorant, goofy, uninformed declarations” accusing Henry Kissinger for responsibility for the U.S. bombing that resulted in Pol Pot’s mass murders, Nate Thayer also hit hard at ruling Cambodian People’s Party spokesman Sok Ey San for calling Sanders’ statement “correct.”

“No, Mr. Sok Ey San, Sanders is not correct,” Thayer wrote, “And, you sir, are the mouthpiece for a gaggle of ex-Pol Pot loyalists who were complicit in the mass murder of your own people. Cambodia’s suffering and Cambodia’s failure is the fault of Cambodians.”

Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., former deputy chief of general staff of the Khmer People’s National Liberation Armed Forces, taught political science at the University of Guam for 13 years. Retired in 2004, he now lives in the U.S. mainland. He can be reached at peangmeth@gmail.com.