Abhisit and Hun Sen: a clash of leadership styles

November 12, 2009
By KAVI CHONGKITTAVORN
THE NATION

Beyond leadership style and the generation gap, the current dispute has its roots in Thailand's past support for the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea that fought against the Vietnam-backed government when Hun Sen served as foreign minister

ON THE SURFACE, the squabbling between Thailand and Cambodia is about fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra and his shenanigans. Deep down, however, it is all about leadership style and the generations that Thaksin and Cambodian premier Hun Sen represent, as well as their views of the world. In addition, there are some old scores to be settled.

This is the first time in Asean's history that a young leader - Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is 45 years old and also the current Asean chair - has had to face off with the region's longest-serving leader. Both are veteran politicians in their own countries, but with different experience and vision. Within the Southeast Asian political context, Hun Sen's status amounts to that of a big brother, or phu yai in Thai.

Hun Sen considers himself a revolutionary hero. He has fought several battles in the unfortunate modern history of Cambodia - first as a Khmer Rouge cadre and later as the Vietnam-backed leader in the Heng Samrin government of the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, Cambodia's former name.

In 1979, at 28, he was the region's youngest foreign minister. He took over as prime minister in 1985, and has served in this position since then. He obtained his political training at the Nguyen Ai Quoc Institute, Hanoi. His thesis was on the true Cambodian revolutionary, which received praise for its theoretical grounding.

To him, a true revolutionary must protect the national interest and the country's independence and be able to utilise all factors, including personnel, to obtain objectives set out by the ruling revolutionary organ.

He has been reiterating to the Cambodian media, often in a forceful and angry voice, that when he was playing politics (meaning in the war of national liberation), Abhisit was just a little kid. In this sense, he is serious about his seniority and political acumen. During their several meetings in Phnom Penh, Pattaya, and Cha-am, the chemistry between the two leaders has not been right. Hun Sen thinks the Thai prime minister does not give him sufficient respect as one of the region's elders.

The controversial interface between Hun Sen and Asean-based civil society groups during the 14th Asean Summit at the end of February was a good case in point. Hun Sen, who almost boycotted the inferface, confirmed later that he did not want to destroy the summit, and wanted the Thai host to save face. Later on, Abhisit met separately with the Cambodian representatives. At the 15th Asean Summit last month in Cha-am, Hun Sen did not bother to show up at the interface. After all, he has dealt with a dozen different Thai governments and prime ministers since 1979.

During the Cha-am meeting, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban told Hun Sen and Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Nam Hong about Thaksin and his standing inside Thailand. He emphasised to them that Thaksin was a fugitive. In addition, it would be difficult for him to make a comeback. Apparently, his comments fell on deaf ears.

Thaksin's appointment as Hun Sen's personal adviser and economic adviser to his government came right after the Asean Summit on October 27. It showed the Cambodian leaders did not pay any attention to Suthep's information or views.

Somehow, Hun Sen strongly believes Abhisit is not sincere in engaging with him, especially on negotiations over the disputed Preah Vihear Temple. He also questioned the Thai government's motive over the temple's inclusion on the Unesco World Heritage list. So, in this current dispute, Hun Sen has deliberately upped the ante by making use of Thaksin, who will do anything to undermine the Abhisit government, compensating for what he does not have against his young nemesis.

Thaksin has international exposure and a track record of economic policies. It is a marriage of convenience. However, it will be difficult for Cambodia to learn anything new from Thaksin's economic views, as Hun Sen has pursued an economic policy that centralises his power and networks - similar to Thaksin's strategy.

In contrast, Abhisit is a cosmopolitan, polite and polished politician. He was three years old when Asean was founded. Who would have thought that this young Oxford-educated economist would become Thailand's 27th prime minister and lead the country at this most turbulent time? But he has handled the crisis in Thailand and also spoken on behalf of Asean at various international meetings.

At the Cha-am Summit, Abhisit urged Hun Sen to separate his personal affection for Thaksin from the national interests of both countries. Apparently, Hun Sen did not like this comment. At the same time, the Thai media had criticised the prime minister for taking no action against Cambodia.

However, last week Thailand decided to recall its ambassador and review ongoing and future bilateral agreements. Cabinet early this week agreed to cancel an oil and gas exploration deal with Cambodia signed under Thaksin. Thai media outlets and columnists have since hailed the government's actions.

To demonstrate that the current row has nothing to do with bilateral relations or the temple dispute, Hun Sen ordered the withdrawal of Cambodia's elite Brigade 911 paratroop unit from the border. Security forces on both sides of the border have been told to stay calm. For the past week, border trade has continued as usual without any disruption. The pullback has puzzled the Thais but not Cambodian insiders, who understand Hun Sen's brinkmanship.

Disruption of cross-border trade and casinos would harm both countries' revenues. Border casinos generate billions of baht of income for the Cambodian power elite. But Hun Sen was more succinct in saying that border trade benefited Thailand more than Cambodia. If the Thai government closes the border, he told the Cambodian press that he will make sure that not even "one pig" from Thailand will be able to cross the border.

Beyond leadership style and the generation gap, the current dispute has its roots in Thailand's past support for the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea that fought against the Vietnam-backed government when Hun Sen served as foreign minister. After he returned from Tokyo to attend the Mekong Summit, he told the Cambodian media that Thailand did not care when he asked for the extradition of Ieng Samrin and Khieu Samphan, top Khmer Rouge leaders, who at one time hid inside Thai territory.

Cuba still has a score to settle with the KR which fought its PRK-client state

History, the Implacable Judge

BY ARNALDO MUSA
Periodico26 (Cuba)

The name Pol Pot is related to genocide and massacres. The youngest generations perhaps haven’t heard of the systematic murder of between 1.7 and 4 million Cambodians (half of the population) between 1975 until 1979.

The time of permanent violence began in 1970 with the US military intervention and support for corrupt governments and extended until 1989. During this time education for children and teenagers was suspended, public health was virtually non-existent and Cambodia took over the top of the list of the poorest countries in the Far East.

Nowadays, with the beginning of the trial of the most notorious killers in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh, the matter returns to the forefront 30 years after the fall of Pol Pot and 20 since the defeat of the opposition bands that tried to retake or seize power without popular consent.

The Khmer Rouge Genocide Tribunal began its sessions with the trial of Kaing Guek Eau, director of the Tuol Sleng jail in the capital (today the Genocide Museum), where 16,000 innocent people were tortured to death.

This year the trials will also begin against Khieu Samphan, ex President of the State Presidium of Democratic Kampuchea; Leng Sary, ex-foreign minister; Leng Thirit, ex-minister of Social Affairs, and the late Nuon Chia, second in command under Pol Pot. Some tried to elude responsibility blaming the crimes on the leader, giving him full responsibility for the excesses of the regime; but they couldn’t free themselves from history, the most implacable judge.

SOMETHING TO NEVER FORGET

Pol Pot and his circle of power were not revolutionaries. They imposed a regime based on isolation and the eradication of urban populations, conceiving only in a peasant country.

They went to such an extent that since its victory in 1975 the regime prohibited all types of modernity in the country. The cities were emptied by force and the Cambodians obliged to move to work camps. The population of Phom Penh fell from two million to 25,000 in just three days.

Money was banned and the central bank disappeared. Motor vehicles were also eliminated and religion was prohibited. Communications with the outside world were cut off, postal service ceased and schools and hospitals were closed.

People that wore glasses and those that spoke a foreign language or had a higher education, were interned for "reeducation." The majority were killed by a regime that considered neighboring Vietnam as its main enemy, attacking it repeatedly and killing many of its citizens.

NOT JUST THE POL POT REGIME

Analysts, including US linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky, believe that not only should the living Khmer Rouge leaders be tried by the International Court, but also the US secretary of state at the time, Henry Kissinger, and other authors of the US bombardment of Cambodia, —which killed more than 600,000 civilians—, as well as their support of the criminals after Vietnam and Cambodian patriots managed to expel them from power in 1979.

For years, the United States and Great Britain supported Pol Pot in exile in Thailand, managing to keep alive a counterrevolution and mercenary groups, principally in the border areas. During this period, Washington and London supported the representation of the genocidal Cambodians at the United Nations.

Later they unsuccessfully tried to manipulate the efforts to form the tribunal that would judge the criminals. In that context, Vietnam demanded severe punishment for those who led the genocide and today’s Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said: "Nobody should escape justice. The Khmer Rouge must be brought before the Tribunal. But those that supported them should also be there."