Treaty Signed Under The Guns

Vietnamese occupation troops in Cambodia

Friday, November 20, 2009
Op-Ed by Anonymous

I listened to His Excellency Var Kim Hong's explanation on the border issue with keen interest. What got me thinking most was the way he based his committee's works around the signed treaty of 1985, between a Vietnamese installed regime, signed under barrels of the guns and only to be re-signed again in 2005. Here right away, one should understand that we start this process from negative - some lands along the border had already been initially signed away to Vietnam since that 1985 deal.

The Cambodian people must demand that treaty of 1985 be trashed. This particular treaty is not legit since it was signed under occupation of 275,000 Vietnamese troops. This government at the time was not legitimate, or ever recognized by the United Nations. Therefore, the treaty is a one-sided story. Unfortunately, as a result of such illegal act, Cambodians along the border areas have already lost much of their productive land to Vietnam. Case in point, just listening to the actual people and victims of land loss who called in to point out areas and villages that ceeded to Vietnam since January 7, 1979. For example, Mr. Sothea from Kompong Cham called in to point out to His Excellency Var that there were land losses at sruk Meh Muth in Phum Che Kech, Prek Sla and Chrok Kreng due to Vietnam encroachment policy. In this recent event in Chantrea district, the government still continues to deny the facts even when poles were planted deep inside the land of our farmers. You can hear the pleas and testimonies on RFA from the victims themselves, but not in the eyes and ears of this highly pro-Vietnam government. What more do Mr. Var needs to hear or see in order to know that Cambodian farmers along the border are being subjected to Vietnamese aggressive policy of land's confiscation?

When asked about old map, old treaty of independence, Mr. Var Kim Hong pointed out that there are some issues with map selections in applying to his works. He questioned to a certain extend the validity and viability of the French maps recorded during and after Cambodia's independence of 1953. He refused to work with a Cambodian expert on border issue, Mr. Seng Peang Se, because Mr. Seng is not part of the government agency. Given the knowledge and expertise of Mr. Seng on the issue, one has to wonder why the government is keeping Mr. Seng out of the process. One because, I am sure Mr. Seng would have pointed out or insisted on where the borderline should be properly marked based on his own past records and understanding. Now, one has to wonder why Mr. Var Kim Hong and his CPP-lead government do not want a Cambodian expert on border issue to be a part of the committee? It seems rather odd for a responsible government to not seek advice of a highly respectable expert and scholar on this issue. The more His Excellency laid out his case in defense of his works, he gave me the impression that we can not trust the French map, but Vietnam's redrawing one. One caller asked, Mr. Poeu Pheap, "Why poles were always allowed to plant deep inside Cambodian territory?"

On the question of the Paris Peace Accord 1991, the government gave very little significance to the signed documents concerning territorial integrty of which Vietnam was one of the signatories. It was just not something can be referred to on this particular matter. The Cambodian government does not want to refer to the 1953's map because in its view that it's not doable since it could create some problems with our neighbors. So, it prefers to continue its appeasement policy while Cambodian farmers along the Eastern frontier continue to face their future of uncertainties as a result of on-going land confiscation.

As I say again and again with conviction and understanding that, when it comes to defending the interests of Cambodians and our nation, Sam Rainsy Party is there. But, when it comes to defending Vietnam's interests and its territorial expansionism policy, you know who or what I am talking about.

One thing that we have be clear is that we do not have any qualms or whatsoever with the people of Vietnam. We do, however, have certained issues related to Vietnam's hegemonic policy as evidently shown in this case of recent land encroachment activities in Chantrea.