Jan. 7 'liberation' was day of infamy

PACIFIC DAILY NEWS

January 6, 2010

Jan. 7 'liberation' was day of infamy

By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth

Tomorrow is the 31st anniversary of the Vietnamese army's takeover of neighboring Cambodia's capital of Phnom Penh. The event prompted controversy; debates and discussion about the ramifications of that takeover continue today.

In 14 days of 1978, Hanoi's army, backed by aircraft, moved swiftly across the Cambodian border, sending Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge fleeing towns and cities. The Vietnamese captured Phnom Penh Jan. 7, 1979. Hanoi's troops remained in Cambodia for the next 10 years, until December 1989.

For the victims of Pol Pot's genocidal rule, which began April 17, 1975, and resulted in the deaths of upwards of two million people, destroying a culture and a society, Jan.7, 1979 was the day of deliverance by Vietnam. Surely, Vietnam was their "savior" and their "liberator" at a time when the world watched the horrors of the killing fields.

But others -- Cambodians and a host of foreign governments -- worried.

The world was still governed by the well-specified rule of law founded on the principle of absolute, comprehensive, permanent and inviolable sovereignty and independence. As Singapore argued before the
international community at the United Nations, the world is no longer safe, and peace and security are no longer assured, if a more powerful state is allowed to invade a weaker one like Vietnam had done. The Association of South East Asian Nations spearheaded calls for Vietnam to withdraw its troops from Cambodia.

As a result, the United Nations and other international organizations became a political-diplomatic battleground for many years between proponents and opponents of Vietnam's invasion.

And it was so that the anti-Vietnamese Khmer Resistance was born, first as separate armed bands with similar goal and, later, as a loose coalition of Cambodians of the fallen Khmer Republic, Cambodians of the monarchy, and the leftovers of the Khmer Rouge, in spite of their differences, to pressure Vietnam to withdraw, and to seek Cambodians' self-determination.

Unfortunately, the Paris Peace Accords, concluded in 1991, weren't implemented according to the agreements' stipulations and spirit by participating parties, including Cambodians.

Cambodian nationalists asked, since 1979, if Vietnam's goal was to "save" and "liberate" the Cambodian people from Pol Pot, what prevented it from surrendering a freed Cambodia and her people to work with the world community to build a new government and social order? Wouldn't Vietnam have received gratitude so profound by ceding to the United Nations the role of assisting Cambodians' self-determination?

For many Cambodians, Jan. 7 was a day of infamy. Pol Pot was replaced by those referred to as Cambodians with Khmer bodies but Vietnamese heads, the Khmer Viet Minh. This cohort, created by the Vietnamese Communist Lao Dong, trained at the Son Tay Military Academy and at the Nguyen Ai Quoc political school, led by a disgruntled regional field commander, Hun Sen, who sought Hanoi's support to return to power. It was, they felt, like replacing cholera with the plague.

Cambodian opponents assert that Vietnam attacked Pol Pot in 1979 because he became too independent of Hanoi. The invasion was initiated to bring the insolent back into line.

As French critic Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr said, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose," or, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

Look at the history of relations between Cambodia and Vietnam for affirmation.

The Vietnamese southward expansion after Nam Viet freed itself in 939 from Chinese bondage was described by Vietnamese scholar Nguyen The Anh in "Le Nam Tien dans les textes Vietnamiens," as a centuries-long phenomenon called "Nam Tien" (progression southwards), "one of Vietnam's history's constants." Anh described the "sparsely populated and accessible land available for (Vietnamese) rice growers" to the south as "favorable for encroachment."

Vietnamese "Confucian persuasion" was abandoned in favor of "an action resolutely imperialistic" to grab land and impose Vietnamese "administrative and cultural practice ... to better integrate (the new area) into the Vietnamese space."

Very briefly, historical records reveal that until the French protectorate was established in 1863, Cambodia was a battlefield for Thai and Vietnamese armies that fought on Khmer soil. Khmer dynastic quarrels led each Khmer side to seek support from Bangkok and Hue. Cambodia was known as a "two-headed bird" -- a tributary state to both foreign capitals.

In 1833, after Annam defeated the Thais in Cambodia, the Annamization began: Annam installed teenager Ang Mey as queen, Cambodia's capital was renamed "Nam Viang," Cambodia's reorganization followed Vietnamese administrative lines, authorities adopted Vietnamese names, customs and dress. In 1840, the Cambodian government was seated in Saigon, and Cambodia's name was changed to "Tran Tay" -- or western commandery.

Opponents of Vietnam's 1978 invasion see Hun Sen and his ruling Cambodian People's Party as a force seeking integration of Cambodia into the late Ho Chin Minh's dream of a federation of former French Indochinese states of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

The recently revealed "classified" contingency plan by Thailand for military action against Cambodia, should the Thai-Khmer dispute escalate, is seen by Professor Naranhkiri Tith as "exactly what Hun Sen wanted."

Logically, the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation between Sen's Cambodia and Vietnam is an important instrument for Sen to invite Hanoi's troops -- the "liberators" against Pol Pot -- to help fight the Thais on Khmer soil, a repeat of history.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201001060300/OPINION02/1060305

Cambodia needs 'systematic overhaul' of society

UPI Asia.com

By Gaffar Peang-Meth
Guest Commentary

Washington, DC, United States, — A “progressive and systematic overhaul” of its society is what Cambodia needs, according to Dr. Naranhkiri Tith, a specialist in country risk analysis, former civil servant with the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development and a former professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Overhaul Khmer society? Tith says that only by freeing itself from its past can Cambodia gradually resolve its economic, institutional, legal, political and social problems.

Cambodia has been a monarchy since the first century A.D. – except briefly under the 1970-1975 Khmer Republic under Lon Nol, and the 1975-1979 Democratic Kampuchea under Pol Pot. That is the legacy Tith refers to, although he knows that criticizing something that has been the only way and the only thought of a people for 2,000 years will not make him popular.

Yet Cambodia is the land of his birth, he insists, and no one is going to prevent him from thinking and applying his best thoughts to help bring change, even if he has to step on toes.

Actually, that’s what leaders do, says bestselling author, entrepreneur and blogger Seth Bodin. Leaders have curiosity, they ask questions, they challenge what is, and they commit to working to bring about change.

From the standpoint of former Czech playwright and dissident Vaclav Havel, who became the first president of the Czech Republic in 1993-2003, that’s what an intellectual does: to “constantly disturb … bear witness to the misery of the world … be provocative by being independent, rebel against all hidden and open pressures and manipulations … be the chief doubter of systems.” An intellectual “stands out as an irritant wherever he is,” says Havel.

And to borrow Burmese human rights activist Aung San Suu Kyi’s words, it is important for a person to have a “questing mind” that is always questioning and always seeking for ways and means to get out of and solve problems. For Suu Kyi, a questing mind is necessary to help withstand violence and oppression, especially in a society in which people are generally conditioned to obey without questioning the situation.

Khmer-born and Western-educated in Europe and the United States, Tith migrated to the United States in 1960-1961 because “I felt that I was not allowed to be myself,” he says. In other words, he could not grow.
Tith sees the “pervasive and crushing role of the monarchy,” combined with the conservative nature of Khmer society – “such as the belief in prophesies and the rigidity in social organization and behavior” – as contributing to the “inertia and the inability to allow new ideas and capable leadership and entrepreneurial spirit to emerge.” In the final analysis, this keeps Cambodia “perpetually underdeveloped,” he says.

For nearly five decades now I have reflected on Cambodia, which is also the country of my birth and of my primary and secondary education. I have thought about Tith’s descriptions of inertia and the inability to allow new ideas, capable leadership and entrepreneurial spirit to grow in Cambodia.

I remember reading a Cambodian statesman’s political analysis of Khmer history while doing research for my doctoral dissertation in the early 1970s, about Khmer valor, the Khmer Empire and the builders of Angkor, the Khmer “warrior race,” when Hindu influences were paramount. Then Buddha’s doctrine of peace, kindness, compassion and acceptance came to replace the old ways.

I have asked myself if there is a dichotomy within a person with an inner tug-of-war between the combative warrior personality and the peaceful Buddha-like personality.

I have read the late Khmer professor Sar Sarun’s “Proloeng Khmer” (1973) – and re-read time and again the translation, “Khmer Mentality,” in Tith’s website. Sarun describes the Khmer mentality as insensitive to social and legal rules except where there is coercion; an artistic spirit in a soft, fanciful and romantic state with a tendency to be confused about commitments.

I have asked myself, who and what is this Khmer whom Sarun was describing?
Visna Sann, author of “Who is Khmer?” (2005) wrote in Tith’s website, “Some Cambodians adhere to a policy of exclusion in which only 100 precent ethnic Khmers may be considered Khmer.” He described prejudices recounted by a Cambodian of Chinese heritage.

"I am disturbed by these examples of exclusion,” he wrote, “We cannot afford to exclude our own people.” Sann charged that Cambodia’s “policy of exclusion … has contributed to our country’s decline in the same way as Khmer fighting against Khmer.”

Tith includes in his website Marie A. Martin’s “Cambodia: a Shattered Society” (1994). She writes that, “respect for elders and for hierarchy remains sacrosanct” in Cambodia, and reminds us that, “In the traditions of Khmer moral training, to protest against a parent’s decision, to criticize one’s boss or spiritual master, to rebel against a husband is inadmissible.”

"It is understandable how such a mentality can lead to an abuse of power but also how dangerous a lack of wisdom and scruples can be, for once the link of confidence is broken, the divorce is irreparable and the authority is forever rejected. Younger persons must keep quiet,” wrote Martin.

"And adolescents have no chance to express themselves, much less to argue. It is not surprising if later they allow themselves to be trampled by an ‘elder’ who is in the wrong or less competent than they are, if they remain defenseless in the face of a national tragedy or prefer to let a foreigner speak or act in their place,” said Martin.

Of course, all these are not really pleasant to hear. But Tith isn’t afraid to confront them. As the saying goes: “The past is behind, learn from it. The future is ahead, prepare for it. The present is here, live it.”

--
(Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. He currently lives in the United States. He can be contacted at peangmeth@gmail.com. Copyright Gaffar Peang-Meth.)

Ideas meaningless without commitment

PACIFIC DAILY NEWS
A Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D

Last week I wrote in this space about bestselling author, entrepreneur and blogger Seth Godin's ideas on how personally to foment change.

When you seek to change what is into what you want to see, you cannot expect those who subscribe to the status quo not to be upset with you. You are seeking to change the world they think is good for them. Just as still water ripples in wider and wider circles when the surface is disturbed, your good idea will reach an expanding network of like-minded individuals as each passes it along to friends and colleagues.

As Newton's first law of motion says, a body in motion tends to remain in  motion and a body at rest tends to remain at rest. Sooner or later, even those who subscribe to the status quo will begin to accommodate themselves to that new idea as more and more people see it as a better alternative to the old world.

Recall the affirmation that what stands between you and your goal is your belief that it is possible and you can do it.

In the book, "The Voice of Hope," Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi said, in her conversations with Alan Clements, since many people have been conditioned to obey without questioning the situation, she
always urges people to keep a "questing mind" -- a mind that is not just questioning but seeking answers to what is and why it is so. She asserts that when people think and look for "ways and means of doing

something," they "will" find those means. For her, a "questing mind"  helps to withstand violence or oppression, or what is contrary to what one believes is right and just. "Action comes out of thought," she

asserts.

Suu Kyi, who believes every person is capable of having a questing mind, says she agrees with everything former Czech playwright and former dissident Vaclav Havel, who became the first president of the Czech Republic, had to say about the role the intellectual in society: "The intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against
all hidden and open pressures and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems ... and for this reason, an intellectual cannot fit into any role that might be assigned to him ... and essentially doesn't
belong anywhere: he stands out as an irritant wherever he is."

Remember Godin, who sees in leaders men who have curiosity, ask questions and build a culture that gives people something to identify with. Leaders are leaders because they challenge the status quo and commit to working to make the change.

There was an interesting article, "The Power in 11/9," in the New York Times  last month by Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas L. Friedman. He talked about a manifestation of people power in Germany that brought down the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and united the East and the West: "Germans showed how good ideas about expanding human freedom -- amplified by people power -- can bring down a wall and an entire autocratic power structure, without a shot." And he sees the American "9/11" as "bad ideas -- amplified by a willingness of just a few people to commit suicide -- can bring down skyscrapers and tie a great country in knots."

Friedman sees the "low-grade civil war" in the Arab-Muslim world, as "bad ideas versus bad ideas amplified by violence, rather than bad ideas versus good ideas amplified by people power." There is "no true war of ideas ... just a war," in such places as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, with religious extremists fighting with state security services, while the ruling regimes don't take on "extremist ideas by offering progressive alternatives." And when the peoples in those countries take to the streets, Friedman wrote, they usually do so to demonstrate against another people "rather than to unify their own
ranks around good ideas."

Friedman's concluding remarks: "Where there is people power wedded to progressive ideas, there is hope -- and American power can help. Where there is people power harnessed to bad ideas, there is danger. Where there is no people power and only bad ideas, there will be no happy endings."

Not long ago, my niece e-mailed me to ask if I really believe ideas can be so powerful they can bring down a dictator. My answer was an absolute yes, but ideas are meaningless unless they are put into action with
energy and commitment by those who want to make the change. Collective action is required for mutual benefit. All that's needed is the spark.

The trouble is while many see the goal as desirable, not everyone is willing to chip in to work toward a goal, but expects others to do something about it.

I cannot find a better quote -- and I quote because the words quoted are so inspirational they can move the earth under our feet, and I can never hope to say it better in my own words -- than the one by civil
right activist Martin Luther King Jr., when he pleaded with African-Americans not to remain still but to do something, anything:

"If you can't fly, run. If you can't run, walk. If you can't walk, crawl. But by all means, keep moving."

A Khmer proverb goes: A curved wood can make wheel, a straight wood, a spoke, and the wood that is twisting and crooked can make firewood.

No one is without usefulness.

A Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where
he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200911250300/OPINION02/911250332