Showing posts with label Hun Sen clinging to power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hun Sen clinging to power. Show all posts
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tyrants don't just cede power [-They just cling to power]
July 22, 2009
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)
Some people continue extralegal behavior simply because they can do so without consequences for their actions.
On the international stage, Cape Town-born Israeli diplomat Abba Eban has been quoted as having said, "International law is that law which the wicked do not obey and the righteous do not enforce."
Thailand-based Swedish journalist Bertil Lintner's "U.N. Mission To Nowhere," in the July 2 Wall Street Journal, noted, "History has shown authoritarian regimes never negotiate away their hold on power."
Thus, when North Korea engaged in a nuclear test on May 25, the U.N. Security Council "condemned (it) in the strongest terms, ... and tightened sanctions." And when North Korea test-fired a series of missiles on July 2 and then on July 4, the Security Council "condemned ... and demanded (North Korea) suspend all ballistic missile related activity and reinstate its moratorium on missile launches."
Until the next North Korean missile launches.
When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised a U.S. policy review on Burma, because, "Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn't influenced the Burmese junta, ... reaching out and trying to engage them has not influenced them either," human rights activists were relieved and waited.
And continue to wait.
In early July, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Burma with the hope that the junta would be willing to embark on some kind of engagement to make Burma's 2010 election more meaningful. Earlier, U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari had undertaken eight visits to Burma, described by Lintner as achieving "a few cosmetic changes and publicity stunts," followed by "business as usual."
Ban, who was warned against making the visit because it might "play into the hands of the ruling junta," wanted to visit Aung San Suu Kyi in Insein Prison, but "was kept waiting overnight on Friday in the Burmese capital Naypydaw before hearing about the refusal of his visit."
Although Ban later told reporters in Bangkok that he was "deeply disappointed," The Nation, Bangkok's newspaper, reported Ban saying that he was able to convey the world's concerns "very frankly" to Burmese junta boss Gen. Than Shwe, and that the Burmese "have not rejected any of what I proposed."
The Nation's editorial said Ban requested that "some 2,000 political prisoners be released" and "the upcoming general election be free and fair." The editorial stated, "there is nothing to suggest that the military top brass will heed his requests, much less anybody else's, regardless of the threat of more sanctions."
"The Burmese authorities have no qualms about handing out lengthy jail terms to anybody who gets in their way," the editorial stated. "Neither are they afraid to gun down protesters in cold blood. ... And so when the junta snubbed the U.N. chief, it was not a surprise."
While The Nation suggests the world community "needs to think outside the box," like exploring "ideas such as an exit strategy for the generals and power sharing," Lintner said, "Change in Burma is not going to happen through some kind of U.N.-initiated dialogue. ... The 2010 election is only designed to institutionalize the present order. Like other countries in Asia, change will come when someone within the ruling elite turns against the top leadership. ... There is little meaning in the U.N.'s false hopes for Burma."
And so, what difference is there between the North Koreans, the Burmese junta and Cambodia's Hun Sen?
Sen thumbs his nose at international frustration over his regime's lack of good governance, takes Western money but awaits China's unconditional aid rather than listening to Western scolding. He uses the 1991 Paris Peace Accords when they benefit his rule and tramples them when they do not.
In Khim Sarang's Feb. 8 report on Radio Free Asia, Sen boasted of his role in breaking up the royalist Funcinpec Party into 11 splinter groups, and warned all opposition parties that his men are hidden inside them.
Sen declared, "Now I am confirming that whoever that is, whichever party it is, if they dare interfere with the (Cambodian People's Party), then you will not be in peace. I will move in until I reach your last refuge directly. ... Those who attacked the CPP, do you know how many of them vanished? ... Retaliation means that we will hit you inside your last headquarters."
In a speech on July 7, Sen charged "some foreigners" with "unconsciously becoming the spokespersons of the opposition party and causing problems with foreign governments."
Sen's regime survives on lawsuits against citizens and opposition members. His court dismisses lawsuits he doesn't like, but upholds his; his legislature lifts immunity of opposition lawmakers; his executive branch sends people into hiding or runs them out of the country.
Opposition lawmaker Mu Sochua's lawyer, Kong Sam Onn, needs to find some peace by sending apologies to Sen and seeking membership in Sen's Cambodian People's Party.
"He has recognized his mistakes and apologized," Sen said in a speech. Opposition newspaper editor Dam Sith has had to beg Sen for forgiveness and to drop all government lawsuits against him, with the promise to cease publication of the newspaper Moneaksekar.
It remains to be seen whether Sen's ego will compel him to make a martyr of Sochua, mother of three, by jailing her. That act just might rally proponents of civil rights everywhere.
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.
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)
"It remains to be seen whether Sen's ego will compel him to make a martyr of Sochua, mother of three, by jailing her. That act just might rally proponents of civil rights everywhere."
Some people continue extralegal behavior simply because they can do so without consequences for their actions.On the international stage, Cape Town-born Israeli diplomat Abba Eban has been quoted as having said, "International law is that law which the wicked do not obey and the righteous do not enforce."
Thailand-based Swedish journalist Bertil Lintner's "U.N. Mission To Nowhere," in the July 2 Wall Street Journal, noted, "History has shown authoritarian regimes never negotiate away their hold on power."
Thus, when North Korea engaged in a nuclear test on May 25, the U.N. Security Council "condemned (it) in the strongest terms, ... and tightened sanctions." And when North Korea test-fired a series of missiles on July 2 and then on July 4, the Security Council "condemned ... and demanded (North Korea) suspend all ballistic missile related activity and reinstate its moratorium on missile launches."
Until the next North Korean missile launches.
When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised a U.S. policy review on Burma, because, "Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn't influenced the Burmese junta, ... reaching out and trying to engage them has not influenced them either," human rights activists were relieved and waited.
And continue to wait.
In early July, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Burma with the hope that the junta would be willing to embark on some kind of engagement to make Burma's 2010 election more meaningful. Earlier, U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari had undertaken eight visits to Burma, described by Lintner as achieving "a few cosmetic changes and publicity stunts," followed by "business as usual."
Ban, who was warned against making the visit because it might "play into the hands of the ruling junta," wanted to visit Aung San Suu Kyi in Insein Prison, but "was kept waiting overnight on Friday in the Burmese capital Naypydaw before hearing about the refusal of his visit."
Although Ban later told reporters in Bangkok that he was "deeply disappointed," The Nation, Bangkok's newspaper, reported Ban saying that he was able to convey the world's concerns "very frankly" to Burmese junta boss Gen. Than Shwe, and that the Burmese "have not rejected any of what I proposed."
The Nation's editorial said Ban requested that "some 2,000 political prisoners be released" and "the upcoming general election be free and fair." The editorial stated, "there is nothing to suggest that the military top brass will heed his requests, much less anybody else's, regardless of the threat of more sanctions."
"The Burmese authorities have no qualms about handing out lengthy jail terms to anybody who gets in their way," the editorial stated. "Neither are they afraid to gun down protesters in cold blood. ... And so when the junta snubbed the U.N. chief, it was not a surprise."
While The Nation suggests the world community "needs to think outside the box," like exploring "ideas such as an exit strategy for the generals and power sharing," Lintner said, "Change in Burma is not going to happen through some kind of U.N.-initiated dialogue. ... The 2010 election is only designed to institutionalize the present order. Like other countries in Asia, change will come when someone within the ruling elite turns against the top leadership. ... There is little meaning in the U.N.'s false hopes for Burma."
And so, what difference is there between the North Koreans, the Burmese junta and Cambodia's Hun Sen?
Sen thumbs his nose at international frustration over his regime's lack of good governance, takes Western money but awaits China's unconditional aid rather than listening to Western scolding. He uses the 1991 Paris Peace Accords when they benefit his rule and tramples them when they do not.
In Khim Sarang's Feb. 8 report on Radio Free Asia, Sen boasted of his role in breaking up the royalist Funcinpec Party into 11 splinter groups, and warned all opposition parties that his men are hidden inside them.
Sen declared, "Now I am confirming that whoever that is, whichever party it is, if they dare interfere with the (Cambodian People's Party), then you will not be in peace. I will move in until I reach your last refuge directly. ... Those who attacked the CPP, do you know how many of them vanished? ... Retaliation means that we will hit you inside your last headquarters."
In a speech on July 7, Sen charged "some foreigners" with "unconsciously becoming the spokespersons of the opposition party and causing problems with foreign governments."
Sen's regime survives on lawsuits against citizens and opposition members. His court dismisses lawsuits he doesn't like, but upholds his; his legislature lifts immunity of opposition lawmakers; his executive branch sends people into hiding or runs them out of the country.
Opposition lawmaker Mu Sochua's lawyer, Kong Sam Onn, needs to find some peace by sending apologies to Sen and seeking membership in Sen's Cambodian People's Party.
"He has recognized his mistakes and apologized," Sen said in a speech. Opposition newspaper editor Dam Sith has had to beg Sen for forgiveness and to drop all government lawsuits against him, with the promise to cease publication of the newspaper Moneaksekar.
It remains to be seen whether Sen's ego will compel him to make a martyr of Sochua, mother of three, by jailing her. That act just might rally proponents of civil rights everywhere.
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.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Moving Beyond the 1979 War
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer
On the web at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer
On the web at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com
For most of my adult life, I have tried to reconcile the conundrum of the so-called Cambodia's "liberation." The war of 1979 and its aftermath generate this lingering question whether the war was an invasion or liberation. Can we move beyond this debate? I think we can and we should.
It would be easy to decide if the warring parties were all foreign forces against Cambodian's. The complexity increases exponentially when Cambodians collaborated with the invasion forces. Battalions of the Khmer Resistance Force of the United Front for National Salvation of Kampuchea (UFNSK) fought side by side with the Vietnamese forces.
Was it an invasion or a liberation?
To Vietnam it was a conquest and an invasion. It was Vietnam's Machiavellian approach to settling disputes between its weaker neighbors. What were border skirmishes between the former allies during the Vietnam War against the U.S. became a full-blown war between Vietnam and the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) as the two nations deeply divided between the Soviet and the Chinese camp.
"In September [of 1978] Le Duan made the timing of the Vietnamese plan clear when he told the Soviet Ambassador to Vietnam that the Vietnamese Politburo had decided 'to solve fully this question [of Cambodia] by the beginning of 1979,'" according to Merle L. Pribbenow II, a former CIA agent and a Vietnam expert, who hailed the invasion as "one of the most seminal events of the last half century in South East Asia."
To the UFNSK, the war may have been a rescue mission or a liberation.
In my mind, the war would have been a liberation if it was conceived and planned by the leadership of UFNSK. The UFNSK was promulgated as a resistance force in Snoul, Kratie on December 2, 1978 by which time the Vietnamese generals had meticulously planned the war, and the preparations for war were already completed. While it is conceivable that the Vietnamese generals may have consulted with its Cambodian counterparts, the records, thus far, showed that the Vietnamese generals were the brains behind the invasion.
In " The Tale of the Five Generals," Pribbenow II described the war planning and execution in breath taking details. "The Vietnamese army spent all of 1978 drafting and training new recruits, calling up reservists, rebuilding under strength units, and converting military 'economic construction' groups back into regular combat units."
Diplomatically, Vietnam made an informed calculation. To avoid fighting two wars at the same time, knowing that China would send troops to defend Phnom Penh if victory cannot be achieved expeditiously, the Commander of the General Staff, General Le Trong Tan and Party Secretary Le Duan traveled to inform the Soviet Union of the war plan in the summer of 1978.
" The only way China could stop Vietnam would be to send large numbers of Chinese Troops to defend Cambodia" Duan told the Soviet ambassador.
The next month, according to Pribbenow II, when the Soviet diplomat expressed concern over the possibility that Chinese would block the invasion, Senior Vietnamese Party official already concluded that China would not have enough time to dispatch large military units to rescue Cambodia.
The war was scheduled to begin on January 1,1979. The KR made a preemptive move by attacking Vietnam on December 21 and 22 of 1978. The Vietnamese and UFNSK force responded and capture Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979.
The Khmer Rouge's systematic killing of its citizens made an invasion a welcome relief for many Cambodians.
On the one hand, the invasion stopped the killing. Without the invasion, the alternative could have been very gloom for many Cambodians. Clearly, the U.S. could not have rescued Cambodians from the KR – the Vietnam War was too fresh for the U.S to return to the region; the Soviet Union was already Vietnam's staunchest ally; and China supported the KR.
On the other hand, the invasion has been a constant source of criticism and mistrust for the current government many of whose members served in the UFNSK that became the government of Cambodia after the 1979 invasion.
In the coming weeks, the debates about the war will go on. As more and more information about the war is available, I encourage my fellow Cambodians to read, research for more information, and to come to your own conclusion.
I have concluded that the war was an invasion, and that the Royal Government of Cambodia, while pursuing a peaceful and friendly relation with Vietnam, should be free to determine its own destiny. Cambodia does not owe Vietnam anything. Vietnam did what Vietnam had to do to deal with the DK government. Vietnam defeated the KR. It accomplished its mission.
Cambodia based on its current bilateral relationships with the rest of the world and especially with China and the U.S. seems to be free of its neighbor's influence. It is up to all of us to find a way to put our past behind us and to focus on the future.
The prime minister has stated that he will be serving as prime minister again after the 2013 election. The implication is Cambodian People's Party (CPP) will win again. The prime minister may be correct in his prediction if the opposition parties fail to unite and fail to inspire a simple majority of Cambodians to vote for change.
Based on past performances, it is highly likely that the opposition parties will fail again unless they are serious about winning by making drastic changes in the messages and leadership.
With all due respect to the prime minister, the picture does not look quite right when CPP can only come up the same candidate. And it is equally sad that the opposition parties keep sticking to the same strategy with the same leadership election after election.
The future depends on all Cambodians to work together to find a common ground that moves the country forward. Cambodia may be poor comparing to the rest of the world, but it has enough resources and talent to move Cambodia to be developed nation. Cambodia simply needs to provide equal opportunity for all to participate in the process.
While election is one of the vehicles to bring change, term limit can do wonder in spreading the responsibilities to those who are qualified to serve and to lead the nation.
It would be easy to decide if the warring parties were all foreign forces against Cambodian's. The complexity increases exponentially when Cambodians collaborated with the invasion forces. Battalions of the Khmer Resistance Force of the United Front for National Salvation of Kampuchea (UFNSK) fought side by side with the Vietnamese forces.
Was it an invasion or a liberation?
To Vietnam it was a conquest and an invasion. It was Vietnam's Machiavellian approach to settling disputes between its weaker neighbors. What were border skirmishes between the former allies during the Vietnam War against the U.S. became a full-blown war between Vietnam and the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) as the two nations deeply divided between the Soviet and the Chinese camp.
"In September [of 1978] Le Duan made the timing of the Vietnamese plan clear when he told the Soviet Ambassador to Vietnam that the Vietnamese Politburo had decided 'to solve fully this question [of Cambodia] by the beginning of 1979,'" according to Merle L. Pribbenow II, a former CIA agent and a Vietnam expert, who hailed the invasion as "one of the most seminal events of the last half century in South East Asia."
To the UFNSK, the war may have been a rescue mission or a liberation.
In my mind, the war would have been a liberation if it was conceived and planned by the leadership of UFNSK. The UFNSK was promulgated as a resistance force in Snoul, Kratie on December 2, 1978 by which time the Vietnamese generals had meticulously planned the war, and the preparations for war were already completed. While it is conceivable that the Vietnamese generals may have consulted with its Cambodian counterparts, the records, thus far, showed that the Vietnamese generals were the brains behind the invasion.
In " The Tale of the Five Generals," Pribbenow II described the war planning and execution in breath taking details. "The Vietnamese army spent all of 1978 drafting and training new recruits, calling up reservists, rebuilding under strength units, and converting military 'economic construction' groups back into regular combat units."
Diplomatically, Vietnam made an informed calculation. To avoid fighting two wars at the same time, knowing that China would send troops to defend Phnom Penh if victory cannot be achieved expeditiously, the Commander of the General Staff, General Le Trong Tan and Party Secretary Le Duan traveled to inform the Soviet Union of the war plan in the summer of 1978.
" The only way China could stop Vietnam would be to send large numbers of Chinese Troops to defend Cambodia" Duan told the Soviet ambassador.
The next month, according to Pribbenow II, when the Soviet diplomat expressed concern over the possibility that Chinese would block the invasion, Senior Vietnamese Party official already concluded that China would not have enough time to dispatch large military units to rescue Cambodia.
The war was scheduled to begin on January 1,1979. The KR made a preemptive move by attacking Vietnam on December 21 and 22 of 1978. The Vietnamese and UFNSK force responded and capture Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979.
The Khmer Rouge's systematic killing of its citizens made an invasion a welcome relief for many Cambodians.
On the one hand, the invasion stopped the killing. Without the invasion, the alternative could have been very gloom for many Cambodians. Clearly, the U.S. could not have rescued Cambodians from the KR – the Vietnam War was too fresh for the U.S to return to the region; the Soviet Union was already Vietnam's staunchest ally; and China supported the KR.
On the other hand, the invasion has been a constant source of criticism and mistrust for the current government many of whose members served in the UFNSK that became the government of Cambodia after the 1979 invasion.
In the coming weeks, the debates about the war will go on. As more and more information about the war is available, I encourage my fellow Cambodians to read, research for more information, and to come to your own conclusion.
I have concluded that the war was an invasion, and that the Royal Government of Cambodia, while pursuing a peaceful and friendly relation with Vietnam, should be free to determine its own destiny. Cambodia does not owe Vietnam anything. Vietnam did what Vietnam had to do to deal with the DK government. Vietnam defeated the KR. It accomplished its mission.
Cambodia based on its current bilateral relationships with the rest of the world and especially with China and the U.S. seems to be free of its neighbor's influence. It is up to all of us to find a way to put our past behind us and to focus on the future.
The prime minister has stated that he will be serving as prime minister again after the 2013 election. The implication is Cambodian People's Party (CPP) will win again. The prime minister may be correct in his prediction if the opposition parties fail to unite and fail to inspire a simple majority of Cambodians to vote for change.
Based on past performances, it is highly likely that the opposition parties will fail again unless they are serious about winning by making drastic changes in the messages and leadership.
With all due respect to the prime minister, the picture does not look quite right when CPP can only come up the same candidate. And it is equally sad that the opposition parties keep sticking to the same strategy with the same leadership election after election.
The future depends on all Cambodians to work together to find a common ground that moves the country forward. Cambodia may be poor comparing to the rest of the world, but it has enough resources and talent to move Cambodia to be developed nation. Cambodia simply needs to provide equal opportunity for all to participate in the process.
While election is one of the vehicles to bring change, term limit can do wonder in spreading the responsibilities to those who are qualified to serve and to lead the nation.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Hun Sen whishes Sam Rainsy to remain as opposition leader until 100-year-old so that he (Hun Sen) can remain as PM as long also
Hun Sen (L) vs. Sam Rainsy (R)Hun Sen wishes Sam Rainsy to live to 100-year-old
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Everyday.com.kh
Translated from Khmer by Socheata
Hun Sen sent his wishes to opposition leader Sam Rainsy to have the strength to compete in the upcoming election. In a speech given during the inauguration of a university in Banteay Meanchey province on Friday, Hun Sen said that he sent his good wishes to all the people, but for the opposition leader, he wishes him a good health and that he lives until 100-year-old. Hun Sen declared that: “As long as you (Sam Rainsy) continue to be the opposition leader, I (Hun Sen) will continue to be the ruling party. There is nothing wrong with that, if the PM remains the same, so does the opposition leader.” Hun Sen said that the election of an incumbent or a new person is the decision of the people. Hun Sen added that he needs to face strong people, and he does not want to touch weak people. Hun Sen added: “I don’t want to meet someone who is alive but not strong and weak but not dead either.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
