Khmer Times, Opinion, 23 January 2023 (Link)
In his memoir, Lee Kuan Yew remarked that Cambodia’s “present leaders,” meaning Hun Sen, “are the product of bitter, relentless struggles in which opponents were either eliminated or neutralized. They are utterly merciless and ruthless, without humane feelings.”
This is the general view of foreign observers over Cambodian leaders. But was it a correct view about Cambodia and Cambodian leaders?
Back then, Singapore was not alone in despising Cambodian leaders whom they treated as Vietnam’s puppet. Many countries put sanction on Cambodia and the remaining few million Cambodian survivors. Many countries provided legitimacy and weapons to, and conducted trade with the Khmer Rouge. The anti-Vietnam and anti-communism sentiment had justified those countries’ being as Khmer Rouge sympathizers.
For now, we have the benefit of re-evaluating history in hindsight.
For now, we could understand that being a Khmer Rouge sympathizer was a mistake against the surviving Cambodian people.
This was the past mistake of foreign observers, and they should learn from that mistake by trying to understand what Cambodian leaders think. They have to remove their own stubborn and rigid ideological and geopolitical frames if they want to understand better about Cambodian leaders.
Was Hun Sen really Vietnam’s puppet? Was Hun Sen a communist dictator?
By reviewing Prime Minister Hun Sen’s five-hour testimony in the National Assembly on the border issues between Cambodia and Vietnam on 9 August 2012, and his 64-page written statement dated 8 September 2015, one would have wondered why would Vietnam spend more than 40 years to negotiate border issues with its puppet?
If one can read Prime Minister Hun Sen’s book entitled, “10 Years of Cambodia’s March: 1979-1989”, one can re-evaluate what was the situation and challenges that Cambodian leaders were facing, and evaluate their leadership’s approaches and perspectives.
From the book, one can observe that Hun Sen is not an ideologue. He is a pragmatist that cares the most for the nation’s survival and people’s livelihood. He adopted market economy and partial privatization well before Vietnam did. He initiated peace negotiation with the then-Prince Norodom Sihanouk despite internal opposition within his party. He invited the United Nations to broker Cambodian peace and to station in Cambodia despite the fear of losing sovereignty and foreign domination. He was not a dictator as he was trying to mobilize consensus and support from within his party since the beginning. His approach is still the same. He never made a decision in silo, with a complete lack of information or consultation.
All of these historical decisions defined the quality and capability of Cambodian leaders, and those surrounding them.
These historical books and events proved that many foreign leaders made a mistake towards Cambodia because they misunderstood and underestimated Hun Sen and his government.
Foreign observers should treat Cambodia as a nation, and they should not approach Cambodia through the perspective as parental advice.
“I am from advanced, wealthy and developed countries and therefore Cambodia should listen to me.”
This type of attitude is equivalent to the unconscious assumption that Cambodian leaders are illogical, irrational, selfish, unknowledgeable, savage, and don’t know how to run the country.
The fact that Cambodia has changed from war to peace, and from peace to prosperity is mostly stemmed from endogenous Cambodian wisdom that should be fairly re-evaluated. It was a wisdom crystalized from 40 years of struggles, survivals and thirst for development and catch-up.
Prime Minister Hun Sen is not a lonely man, nor a totalitarian who controls everything all by himself. The ruling elites are united by his leadership, that is the fact.
There are many brains and brawn to support peace and development over the course of 40 years. Looking at a single man, putting all the blames in him for all social ills, that kind of evaluation is unfair, unjust, inconsiderate and unreasonable.
Inconsiderate towards a man, inconsiderate towards a nation.
To look at Cambodian government is to evaluate the collective wisdom and knowledge of Cambodian leadership in sustaining the fragile society for over 40 years. Cambodia does not walk back, it only moves forward.
To understand Hun Sen and Cambodia, observers should put themselves in the shoes of Cambodian leaders. How would they run the country when it was just emerging from war, violence was rampant, infrastructure collapsed, human capital eliminated, country’s economy suffocated by sanctions? Why is there necessity to bear criticism, sanction or condemnation if you would have other better choices? What are the reasons and challenges that Cambodian leaders have been facing in making difficult decisions in terms of national security, nation building and national development?
Cambodian leadership, not only Prime Minister Hun Sen, had to adopt a tough approach to sustain the country, to protect peace and to keep the country in one piece.
If one reads Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs, one can understand that Lee Kuan Yew too had to take harsh approach to suppress the spread of communism in his country. In those times, no one talks about human rights yet; people only talked about anti-communism.
The commonality between Hun Sen and Lee Kuan Yew is the intolerance against social instabilities and unrest. They both shared an extremely strong instinct for nation survival. The instinct that was developed from the feeling of an abandoned and forgotten nation.
Different from Lee Kuan Yew, as he was coming out from war, Hun Sen even has an absolute intolerance against those who may destabilize the hard-earned peace for his fragile nation.
Surely, Lee Kuan Yew does not want to be compared with Hun Sen and nor does Hun Sen want to be compared with Lee Kuan Yew.
But observation on development and evolution of a country should look beyond a single man, single word, and single deed.
Ones should look at the results in the long-term perspectives to make proper evaluation and judgment.
Does Cambodia have more violence and bloodshed or less? Does Cambodia have less instability or reverse? Does Cambodia have more development or less? Does Cambodia stop moving towards democracy and give up its course? Is the abuse of power by powerful individuals increasing or decreasing?
In answering the above questions, no one can say that Cambodia is going backward, or giving up its course in developing toward a modern democracy with strong development.
Even for the next generations of Cambodians, they should learn to appreciate the courage and sacrifice of senior leaders in maintaining peace and security for the country.
To keep the country safe, to protect the society of the whole, they have sacrificed their reputation, becoming mean and harsh sometimes. They don’t care how much would the international society condemn or sanction them. They only care that Cambodia be in peace, and Cambodian people and the next generations live a better life than their generation.
They don’t need foreign approval, or recognition. They don’t fear foreign sanctions because they used to eat rice-less porridge already under the Khmer Rouge.
This is the level of courage and determination that Cambodian senior leaders have in firmly protecting Cambodian peace at all cost.
This is the pure sense of sovereignty and independence.
They are the good leaders by results. Not by rhetoric, not by looking good towards foreign observers, not by speaking the language that is music to the ears of foreign observers, not by making blank and destructive promises for electoral campaign.
Leadership needs to prove results for the people, and they should have the courage to brave all criticism against their decisions even if sometimes the results cannot be evaluated in tangible forms in the immediate term.
Peace is intangible and people tend to appreciate its priceless value only when it is already lost.
What Cambodia wants and needs is peace at all cost.
And it is time to engage and accept Cambodia as it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment