Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
15 juillet 2010 4 15 /07 /juillet /2010 09:00

Presse de Son Excellence Sim Var, Institute of Southeast Asian Conference on November 3, 1987

Ladies and representatives of the press, welcoming you in this room of the Institute of Asian Southeast, central Committee of the movement for the support of Khmer freedom (Moulkhmer) you contact more thanks for having kindly accept to attend this Conference press on the occasion of its tenth anniversary.

These thanks are even more sincere than many apprehensions darkening the future of Cambodia where raging since 9 years an unjust war... And we say: an unfair, because it is the resultant of a tension between the R.P.C and U.R.S.S global hegemony in Southeast Asia fighting war.

Instead of directly battle between them, these two major powers have preferred fighting indirectly, home, small inlets country: one side is the NVN (supported by the Soviet Union) that has held since January 1979 our territory, the other Cambodian resistance movements supported by the R.P.C.

To help you understand the imbroglio Cambodian, that let me remind you here, briefly, the historical facts dating back to the year 1953: at this time, France had given its return to national independence in Cambodia. The following year was the Geneva Conference in which participated the five members of the UN Security Council powers. On this occasion, the King of Cambodia had urged this Conference for obtaining a status of neutrality to Cambodia "like Switzerland", said it. To repeat the people as neutral Cambodia would be untouchable.

These members of the Conference were more that amazed by demand of Norodom Sihanouk, because they didn't the Cambodia would be able to follow the example of Switzerland, their King himself ignoring all of this country and its system of defence. This does not prevented them surrender, having taken however the precautionary appoint an international control Commission, chaired by the delegate of India, assisted by the Canadian delegate, and the Polish delegate.

To 1963, Norodom Sihanouk authorized Nord-Vietnamiennes troops in the American Expeditionary combat to settle in sanctuaries in Cambodian territory. This is in flagrant violation of Cambodian neutrality claimed by same Norodom Sihanouk a few years earlier.

At the same time, gave the order to his army to carry weapons and munitions delivered by the R.P.C. maritime port of Kompong Som, for Vietnamese, which not happy to shelter us, moved up to commit abuses to the prejudice of the living near the border of Vietnam, Cambodia not soon to show their discontent.

Made aware of these facts, Norodom Sihanouk tried to oppose, but in vain, and Vietnamese troops continued to requisition harvests, Buffalo, or porters coolies oxen.

In 1969 he took fear; but this does not prevented him leaving, in 1970, abroad, on the pretext that he wanted to deal with valuable health.

In France, he then met the Prime Minister, General Lon Nol, who was in treatment at the American Hospital of Neuilly from an auto accident, and asked him to return to Cambodia to ameuter then abuse by the troops of the N.VN dissatisfied people.

LON Nol, despite his injuries, agreed to return to Cambodia to execute the order of the prince. At that time, it was to be the right arm of Sihanouk. Lon Nol therefore made on the spot to investigate concerned people who believed he found, in him, finally, a saviour.

Prince's goal was to show the world that the Cambodian people was exceeded by the behavior of the Vietnamese troops without having to enter the United Nations. Why is it so? Because at that time, facilitating the entry of the troops in question, he had returned the international control Commission who became an annoying witness. Therefore, Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia in January 1970, his spirit of immediate return, leaving it to others to solve this insoluble problem that he had created.

The crowd of disgruntled, after having demonstrated on-site frontier, rendered in Phnom Penh, whose inhabitants made common cause with it, to express his dissatisfaction of Parliament where their representatives were.

The service order, quickly overwhelmed, the crowd is transformed into riot, loot the North and South Vietnam, embassies and slaughtered Vietnamese residents wherever they are, in the street or at home.

Made aware of these facts, Norodom Sihanouk sent to Phnom-Penh telegram on telegram to condemn Government of Lon Nol and the National Assembly, whose members reacted by calling the testimony of the prince Sihanouk in his position as head of State, but Lon Nol resisted that pressure until the last minute, i.e. up to 18 March 1970.

Lon Nol put more nothing to save the position of the prince in the moment where the refusal to receive the two emissaries that he sent him to keep it informed of the exact situation. And yet, have decided really to cede only after having been threatened to arrest!

During this time, the prince, sacrificing his cure, was in Moscow to be overprotective, unsuccessfully, for his personal, prior to travel to Beijing where Chou En Lai helped him conclude, with Pham Van Dong, a Pact to enable it to regain, with the help of the Vietnamese troops and the Khmer Rouge, his power he had voluntarily abandon defense weapons.

Beijing, Pham Van Dong made strong destroy the Cambodian army in less than a week, but in reality, it took more time that provided, since in 1973, the delegate of North Vietnam took the Paris Conference to require, probably with the Cambodia Sihanouk is neutral. What Kissinger was not disturb, because the USA were so eager to withdraw their troops from Indochina. And what had to happen arrived : Cambodia, not have an alliance with any, isolated, stripped, couls fall to a greater enemy in men and material. The collapse made 17 April 1975 with the entry of the Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh: today there are finished really long week of Phan Van Dong, a week that had lasted five years!

Why this return back? To point out the logical circumstances degradation of Cambodia. This is why we allow us to use the mass-média to hear our cry of distress to world opinion, with the desire that UN think at a Conference in the spirit of that which was held in Geneva in 1954.

In the meantime, whereas the khmer-red peril has changed in nature, and that consequently the grounds raised by the Vietnamese to keep troops in Cambodia does more. We allow us to seek the immediate withdrawal of troops and their replacement by the forces of the United Nations, as in Germany Federal. 

Partager cet article
17 février 2010 3 17 /02 /février /2010 05:58

Khmer nationalism 

I began this essay by asking me questions : What are our thoughts on nationalism khmer ?

Let me first of nationalism. According to Ernest Gellner, professor of social anthropology at Cambridge University this defines nationalism : " Nationalism is primarily a political principle, which asserts that political unity and national unity must be congruent. It is against this principle that nationalism as a feeling or movement can be better defined. Nationalist sentiment is the feeling of anger aroused by the violation of this principle or the feeling of satisfaction that comes its realization. A nationalist movement is a movement led by such a feeling".

In the minds of many of the Khmer, the glory of the Angkor period, gives us every right to think that our country remains a great country. Let us remember that this nation was built in a long process of evolution and complex, as Ernest Renan said that a nation is built by both the living and the dead. The Khmer Nation, in fact, since Fou-nan to Chen-la and Chen-La to Norkor Thom and Norkor Thom to Kampuchea yesterday and today had evolved, it is still evolving today and tomorrow will continue to evolve on the basis of progress and improvement, that is to say about the mix between old and new.  After twenty-one century of evolutions, we make a bitter report : We are not anymore a big country, despite the existence of the temple of Angkor. But it is curious to know what remains of Khmer nationalism after centuries of decadence.

Speak of nationalism, it is imperative to know beforehand what is a Nation? " We would have probably as much definitions, each regime and political power have its own definition. And to avoid returning to the retailer without end, we give here the definition that has an universal common value.

Ernest Renan writes : " A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, actually, are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One is in the past, the other in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories, the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, will continue to claim the legacy that has received undivided. Man, gentlemen, not improvised. The nation, as individuals, is the culmination of a long past of endeavors, sacrifice and devotion. Ancestor worship is all the more legitimate the ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past, great men, glory (I mean the real), is the social capital upon which one bases a national idea. "Better is the nation where the men spend their life in common and where the laws remain untouched. But what is the end of the nation ? The preservation and prosperity of its members. And what is the surest sign that it is preserved and prosper ? There is peace in social progress. 

Khmer nationalism justified by glory and pain :

The Khmer Nation is an old nation. It has its history in which there was the glory and suffering of common people. The temple of Angkor and the others are national pride. The joy of watching the Khmer temples wherever they are, is a reality, an eternal truth in the heart of Cambodia. When it comes to emotion, we can not betray the nature of man. But in the history of the Khmer, there was also at pains to tel l: The civil war, foreign aggression, decadence, etc.

The joy and the pain strengthen ties between the Cambodians. They are born khmer nationalism. Renan also said : "Having suffered together, yes, suffering in common unites more than joy. With national memories are concerned, mourning are better than triumphs because they impose duties, they order the common effort. " 

Khmer nationalism justified by the cultural value :

This topic is dear to the late Professor Keng Vannsak, sociologist and linguist khmer. His thesis was in contrast with that of French scholars. S. Levi, French scholar, writes :

"India gives its fables to his neighbors who will teach the world. Mother of faith and philosophy, it provides three quarters of Asia a god, a religion, a doctrine, an art. It is his sacred language, its literature, its institutions in the East Indies to the limits of the known world and then bounces back to Madagascar, perhaps the coast of Africa where this influx of immigrants Hindus seems to follow the footsteps clouded past.

The points of discord Keng Vannsak with French scientists are not on the word "influence", that is to say, the influence of Indian culture with that of the Khmer, but rather on the word "no", c that is to say the absence of the culture of Khmer origin. When a nation has its own strong culture of origin, it can not be influenced by another culture on its own, but rather a deliberate choice on his part for its innovative culture.  For him, the examples don’t miss to demonstrate that this renovation is real, it known as the "nationalization".

Keng Vannask adds : "This is not a mistake for the very great civilizations, however, that borrow themes common to other civilizations. The literatures of peoples reflect and facilitate the interference between the currents of civilization. But that is precisely not those loans which, to be understood and accepted by all people, should be foremost, assimilated and refashioned by a "nationalization "long, deep and constantly renewed.

Thus the Ramayana India turned into Reamker khmer. And if the book title, characters and places of action still remain vaguely Indian names, content on the other hand, differs completely from the work of Valmiki.

Opposite the Buddhist literature, the transformation is not as radical. Nevertheless, some Jatakas are accepted and retained because they received a form and substance consistent with the Aesthetics and Ideology Khmer.

Such remodeling is a form of Khmérisation in art as in language, this khmérisation done by two main trends of the Khmer civilization namely: Realism and Rationalism. It is precisely these two trends have proceeded to the humanization of God Rama and given a systematic form of "argument" in Reamker.

But the Khmer Realism is not merely to bring the divine to the human, the sublime to the ordinary, wonderful reality. There is also a means of action. Efficiency is not a function of metaphysics, but the pragmatic one based on "accurate knowledge and prudent and be" useful. "

From 1970, this debate had flourished because Professor Keng Vannsak no longer the political barrier to increasing the sound of his voice to criticize the foreign scientists of all sizes, of course in the field of Khmer culture. But his only fault is that he never published articles on this subject, I said post, because it is highly likely he has written much. The publication with parsimony of his work makes defect to his supporters, because every time they faced on this issue with their opponents, it is difficult for them to make reference to specific ideas of their Guru. In any case, M. Keng Vannsak was a great patriot and nationalist conviction. Despite its flaws like any human being, it represents the youth of my generation, a symbol of "protest the dictates of power all its forms." In the minds of many, he is the scientist of the Khmer. During his lifetime, Radio Free Asia (RFA) was able to save many hours of conversation with him. The thesis Keng Vannsak is a form of 'Nationalism khmer "in the field of Culture.

Let's talk a little about our cultural nationalism. Yvonne Bonger wrote in his book (the Cambodian monarchy) said :

"Cambodia Angkor, as it is known to us by epigraphy appears as a deeply Indianized, at least at the level of the ruling classes." 

My view : We know that the penetration (in the middle of the fourth) of the major Indian religions in Cambodia, with two Hindu deities "antagonistic" and especially Vishnu ç iva and Mahayana Buddhism (Great Vehicle) with Bodhisattvas (candidate for the dignity Buddha), model and intercessors, undoubtedly a strong influence in the Khmer thought. This importance does not destroy the backbone of the Khmer society but rather complement the missing parts, which are: the science of government and philosophical thought which are two important elements for the progress of a nation. The coupling of two systems of society is born without any doubt the embryo of the Khmer civilization. Being in a stage of realization, our culture easily absorbs the Indian thought, which is expansive period of development. This combination creates a successful trust and mutual interests between the government and indigenous Brahmins with merchants coming to profess Hindu statecraft to Khmer monarchs. To be on good term with the local authority which is already in power, the Brahmins are forced to bend to their caste system, to recognize a certain value of Aboriginal culture and to ignore the practices of kings Angkor. So they are implementing the policy of assimilation of their belief in the commercial culture of the country. This policy has more appeal to Khmer kings and their courts because they do not see Hinduism as a direct threat to their temporal power, but rather to help the Monarchs become eternal. They readily accept, in effect, to convert to the religion of converts and later transformed into a doctrine of governmental their imperial kingdom.

Apart from the remains of temples prestigious parent Kampuchea today, we see no trace of caste Hinduism in Khmer society. At first seen and known of Khmer history, we are grateful that our kings of Angkor were right to remove a decent social boundaries between the Khmer to make our society more humane at the time of transplantation of Hinduism in our faith .

The law of Hinduism is absent in the daily life of Khmer, because it governs by laws rather than Khmer. Here's a sample: The "Words of the Wise" :

"- Rich, help the poor, as they help such pieces of cloth around a naked body.

"- Scientists, protect the ignorant, as they protect you like sampans to help a big wreck.

"- Powerful, also want on the weak,

"- Well fed, feed the hungry,

"- Blessed, think about the poor, such as anchors, sails and ropes to help the big ships that you are not to sink to the bottom of the ocean of life constantly agitated by storms ....

We know that cultural change is often a very painful experience, and also because of competing cultures were in conflict to capture souls, just as there were centers of political power that vied to bribe men and seize their territory during the transition period should be subjected to violence and conflict. However one notes that there were not violences, nor conflict in the conjunction between the culture of Khmer origin and that of India. The actual historical facts confirmed.

This is to show us that the Khmer Nation had not been afraid in the past to have contact with a civilization of Hinduism, one of the powers in the world. This insurance gives rise instead khmer nationalism. 

Khmer nationalism justified by fear :

Two famous political memoirs, "the Khmer mentality" Bun Chan Mol and "march west" Noun Kheun us today. The first, written in 1970, calls on his countrymen to abandon the practice evil Khmer selfishness. The second, written in 1971, shows that there is a danger to our country from neighboring countries, Thailand and Vietnam, while Cambodia was not able to achieve a liberal democracy in our system of government. These two calls are pathetic I think a maxim Khmer, in which our ancestors had wanted to remember the "evil khmer, whose goal is not to humiliate the Khmer people, but to give him the opportunity to draw lessons, to reform, improve and avoid, to the country tomorrow that disillusioned. This maxim is this :

  • Thais never give up the method,
  • Vietnamese never abandon hypocrisy
  • Khmer miserable never abandon defamation.

When the country is in trouble, M. Douc Rasy, an intellectual khmer writes: "It remains so to say that patriotism and a sense of belonging to the same community. It is both little and much the same time provided we know the highlight. If a widespread feeling, we can make a reason to live, then we will mobilize all forces available to us in his service. The reason will realize the hope of the future. "

The reason, in a weak position, should not be based on fear of others, but rather on self-confidence.

Since I have the age of reason, I always heard and I hear that Vietnam and Thailand have stolen and yet steal Khmer lands. I therefore ask what have we done so we can fly like that ? One tells me that the reasons are multiple :  civil wars, the failure of leaders, the absolute monarchy, the French colonization, Buddhism, etc. I ask myself another question: Does the Vietnam and Thailand, they had no such problems ? This question is taboo seen the concept of Khmer nationalism based on fear of others, but paradoxically whenever we had problems between us, we did not hesitate to ask others for help. In this confused state of mind that Kampuchea has also lost its empire.

He must know that the decline of the Khmer nation since the thirteenth century was not only military was that of the spirit of nationalist ideology and finally that of any economic organization, culture and politics. This decline is so profound to this day still causes and consequences are rarely fully analyzed, reduced to facts cited above. How this decline is she thinking ?

Now with the unification of the three Ky (Tonkin, Annam and Cochin China) and the emergence of industrial society in Thailand were the consequence of allowing both countries to dominate economically Kampuchea and sometimes their populations of having the feeling of being superior to the Khmer population.

Given this reality, fear of Vietnamese and Thai become our obsession of all time. Our debate revolve around this topic. It becomes a major issue for intellectuals Khmer. When one raises the question : What to do ? The answer is so simple to understand: Request assistance to the UN and the powerful countries, etc. But where are the Khmer in these debates ? They could not do anything. But are the voters ? They gave their votes to the CPP (2 / 3 of seats in the National Assembly) to govern Kampuchea freely. No, no, it was cheating. The CPP has bought the voices and threatened retaliation. But we hesitate not to validate in a timely manner, the results of elections for seats in the National Assembly. They also told me, it takes time to teach Khmer to know their rights and duties as citizens. We always forget that the Khmer today know better than anyone else's rights, because each time there is a dispossession of their lands and other violations nature of human rights, I note that they know will fight for their rights. Of course, they did not win because the gain, because their means used are illusory compared to the power of administrative and economic power. But that is another matter. I think that we ought to have any doubt about the ability of the Khmer understand the functioning of public liberty, whose rights and duties of citizens are principles. When the CPP won the elections, should not always believe that he cheated, he was also the Democrats Khmers ask themselves why they have accepted this situation. When we yield to the fundamental principles of democracy such as elections, should not be surprising that there is any slippage in the current regime to the political hegemony. That is the rub, the Democrats can criticize the ruling party all they want but when it comes from "Basic", they turn their backs to avoid seeing it. In this case, how can they be credible vis-à-vis the voters ? This acceptance is it not also a proof of lack of comfortable support of the populace so that they can vigorously defend democracy .

Democrats raise fears of others to justify their nationalism. But what are their "universal joint" ? M. Dy Kareth, an intellectual khmer known, has done well to raise issues of unity of thought Democrats Khmer as a subject of debate. We can not, in fact, to identify, with the exception of a few bases known: fear of others, anger against the ruling party, the feeling of satisfaction about the adverse powerful countries in the address the current khmer royal government, etc. These bases are known they "social capital" on which sits a common idea? Of course not, because these bases there are simply common denominators that serve only to carry out all actions occasional whose interests are congruent.But the lack of unity of thought on the country's history, a heroic past of great men, glory, a common will to continue to claim the legacy that has received undivided, etc. not allow the Khmer Democrats to work together on a future project. Do not forget that the Cambodians knew the word "Khmer Democrats" since 1947 and we are now in 2009, more than six decades, the Democrats continue Khmer always begging their identity. Currently both sides of the parliamentary opposition, claiming the title of Democrat, will find it difficult to agree their common policy. The ISP, with over a million votes and PDH, with 400,000 votes, in the last elections, everyone was still hoping to win solo for the next competition. It seems to me their willingness to work together would create more fear, coercion, duress, the interest that the formation of a new force to develop democracy in Cambodia. The other fear is it a factor of disunity? This is an important issue that deserves to be discussed.

M. Noun Kheun writes : "Nationalism is not only a sense of patriotism, it is also a movement to upgrade the national ideology and any other value that supports the achievement of the development of national strength in the political and economic. In this, our first duty is to strengthen our nationalism, which constitute the solid foundation of our nation. This foundation will be able to transform in efficient national ideology. In other words, for the word "nationalism" is in its true sense, we need all the elements listed above are met. In addition, the development of nationalism depends on that of democracy which allows people to participate in state affairs. This will enhance social justice. If there was no "duty", he never nationalism. In this condition, the sound of the word "patriotism" is more like the sound coming from a hidden drum, which nobody attaches any importance. "

Cambodia was a great nation. Today in size and number of its population, it becomes a small country compared to Vietnam and Thailand. We know that much of its territories were annexed by the two countries and a large number of Khmers living in these territories have become irredentist nationalists to defend their culture, but they do not claim autonomy Land their ancestors. This proves that the integration of "external Khmer territory in the political society of Vietnam and Thailand is well done. In addition, the amputation of Khmer territory during the period of French protectorate has also been recognized by the Cambodian government and international law. Today, tThe lot of Khmers who still might question the policy of expansionism Vietnam and Thailand : What it was yesterday, what it is today and what it will be tomorrow. Because he believed that both countries would not be afraid to usurp their rights on Khmer territory, they had the opportunity to do so. For this reason, the Khmer Nation has more need than ever to bring about "khmer nationalism" based on force and the national ideology. Both are the foundation of the Khmer nation.

Should be aware that nationalism is not an ideological invention to serve a political doctrine based on the rule of the nation and racism as the case of National Socialism of Adolf Hitler. "

What is the national force Khmer ? The national strength is not a force or aggressive neighbors, or a force of oppression of the population, it would be a force for social cohesion and of national unity.

What is the national ideology Khmer ? Khmer ideology based on the principle of « Realism » : The peace, national independence, territorial integrity, liberal democracy and Buddhism.

Finally, the strength and the national ideology seeking to give people a sense a unity and a landmark. The being of people founded the Nation. I am conscious in writing this essay that the problem of nation, nationalism put itself and put himself again to Cambodia. When Cambodia opened, when a new type of globalization, organization of the region of Southeast Asia, the world therefore, starts up, it is important to understand how it thinks the nation, it presents the report to the nationalism which is now suspected of being based on fear of others.
Partager cet article
31 janvier 2010 7 31 /01 /janvier /2010 15:26

The draft of the republican spirit. 

When the intellectuals wanted to establish the Khmer Republic in their country, reader, how did you they did not think of all the Republics of France after 90 years under its protectorate. During those long years of common life, the Khmers had probably heard the story of their protector, but not enough that their country because that was the major mode of thought at the time. Which means that every intellectual Khmer, eventually, had fashioned a kind French culture in its image. It happened as his guide and represents the type of thought ideal, offering the most perfect example of social success and the hallmark of men grown. Thus was born the modern Kampuchea new social stratum within the class Montrey (dignitary). Let us say: the intelligentsia Khmer. In Cambodia, the symbolism of modern life came straight from Paris. When someone was distinguished by its culture, were compared immediately to a French. Thus the word "French" was equivalent to the Khmer word "Best or Superior. But in general, intellectuals Khmer marvel easily from the foreign culture. For them, the best products always have a foreign background and bad are Cambodian. The republican spirit is in this concept? The events of March 1970, beginning they idea flagship or the chance over the republic? In any case, this idea probably privilege the path rather than the objective. So the Republic is a path towards progress and freedom. It remains far horizon of Khmer history, the transition required by the emancipation of oppressed people, pre-democratic society. This issue was raised in 1959 by Prince Norodom Sihanouk in the journal "Cambodian Reality" - October 23, 1959 : Cambodia will he a Republic? The prince is said to be ready to introduce itself the Republic if it proved popular in line with the wishes and the national interest. But for him, the Khmer people did not want because that ideology is of foreign origin and fate of the soul's lower "traitor" Son Ngoc Thanh. The people have only one wish: to enjoy the highest good, that is to say a big prince possessing possibly virtue ethics. That, according to Prince Sihanouk, who was the main purpose of the happy life of all Cambodians.

As for General Lon Nol, in 1970 he wrote in his report to the moral frameworks of the country that the Khmer people walking forward is a natural evolution in the history of mankind. Humanity has evolved primarily into tribes, then feudalism, then a monarchy and then republic.

Pierre Joxe, former French minister, said during his visit to Phnom Penh in September 1992 that "democracy can not be easily transplanted rice. The republic is it in the same case? Is it a universal idea? Before going into this great debate, it is interesting to ask a question: The proclamation of the Khmer Republic was there a tinkering for the occasion? or it was born of a contract of Republican thought that took root in Cambodia before the events of March 18, 1970?

August 9, 1945: Coup de force of Son Ngoc Thanh: Seven young people, Mey Pho, Nath Laing Say, Mom Koun, Mao Sarouth, Hem Savang, Kim Doré An, Thach Sary, were burst in full evening gallant King Norodom Sihanouk and declared that he want to see the King. However, Mr. Nong Kimny, loyal to the king, irritated by the noisy intrusion, would intervene and was immediately shot in the arm several balls. The King took panic and began at once knees before the insurgents who threatened him, gun in hand. King implored them and promised to abdicate. Seven had heated the royal palace before calling White Son Ngoc Thanh to take power. The latter had agreed with the king to save the throne. Seven young men were then arrested and jailed. All after their invasion of the central prison in Phnom Penh, had remained highly activists until death. What was Son Ngoc Thanh? Let us say, a Khmer of Cochinchine and anti-French republican stammering and combining liberal ideas with the pragmatic. Founder with Pach Chhoeun the newspaper Nagaravata. A smart conservative with a simple principle: "Everything must change so that everything remains the same." As the foundation of his nationalism, he was even simpler: "That the country is granted independence by any means." This principle led with the Japanese arrived in Cambodia to support them against the French. In 1942 Son Ngoc Thanh believed the time had come to demand independence and his friends preparing a coup. He organized a mass demonstration (two thousand monks) to protest against the arrest of a prominent monk, Hem Chiv. But the momentum of this movement was quickly broken by the French authorities for the support of Japan, where Son Ngoc Thanh had counted did not come. He was then sentenced to Pach Chhoeun December 19, 1942 by the Martial Court of the Saigon. With the help of the Japanese, he could flee to Thailand, then to Japan where he was a two-year course in the School of the Greater East Asia. On March 9, 1945, the Japanese army stationed in Indochina presented to Admiral Decoux, Governor General of Indochina, an ultimatum in which she asks him to bring the army under his control Indochina. Decoux it had refused to yield. Its resistance forced the Japanese army to use force to end French rule in Indochina. On March 12, 1945, with the agreement of Japan, the Kingdom of Cambodia had proclaimed its independence. In early May knew the Japanese were back to Son Ngoc Thanh Tokyo. June 1st, he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs. At the wish of the defeat of the imperial army, Son Ngoc Thanh had prepared his coup to take power whose purpose was to prevent the return of French colonialism in Cambodia. He gave perhaps the performance of the coup plotters in September dilettantes already mentioned. As for his role, he was making the dress policy event. This operation enabled him thus to become Prime Minister of the Kingdom of August 16, 1945. But this daring cost him the colonial prison because when French troops arrived in September 1945, Son Ngoc Thanh was arrested September 16,  for anti-Allies on the orders of General Leclerc and transferred to a prison in Saigon and then sent to France. The question now arises: Son Ngoc Thanh was it the spearhead of the Khmer Republican? According to Professor Keng Vannsak that had happened in France more than a month with Thanh during his visits supervised by the French police: Thanh never spoke of Republic. His major concerns were more on the draft country's liberation from French colonialism. But we must admit that in the contemporary history Khmer Thanh appeared as a prophet of the republic, not by his involvement in the ideological struggle, but rather by its radical opposition to Prince Sihanouk. Image that his supporters called "Danrêk”, contributed twenty-five years later, to build during the Khmer Republic.

The Cambodian left and the republican spirit: For the unprecedented gesture of Seven young Khmers, in 1991, Professor Keng Vannsak has commented in writing in his paper "Bah Bone": The Republic does not build a coup or by improvisation or with the apparatus of the former regime. The tragic end of the Khmer Republic, which proves that installs without a "national thought Republican anti-royalist" and without a struggle, overall, to uproot the very essence of the monarchy, will eventually succumb to either the restoration of monarchy or totalitarianism to another.

However, the coup of August 9, 1945 allowed, six years later, a catechumen of the Church Marxist Khmer seize the ball and attempt an attack on two fronts, one of King Sihanouk and of the ideological struggle. In Paris, in August 1952, in the special issue of the journal of "Khmer student", an open letter was published to criticize the King Norodom Sihanouk, Prime Minister, and denounce the Khmer monarchy for treason National and oppression of people. Two objections were raised:

1.     Collaboration with the French power for its own interests at the expense of national independence, its maintenance to the throne;

2.     The evils of the Khmer monarchy causing the Khmer people in the river of hell and keep them in slavery.

The second point is interesting to consider because it relates, perhaps, with the republican spirit Khmer. Was there a poisoned drink as said Prince Sihanouk ? or virgin honey, a symbol of "renewal" as the alleged author of this address ? Here is the abstract:

"The suffering of the Khmer people is born of corruption in the Cambodian monarchy. The royal palace is the place where reigns supreme administration dishonest sucking the country's wealth and property of people. We can deduce that the survival of the monarchy depends only on the practice of peddling influence. The King has no need of moral knowledge. Just have the strength to be able to wage war for its maintenance as long as possible on his throne. If it is threatened by the other pretenders to the throne, his solution is to go seek help from foreign countries to crush opponents. If the King thinks so, it is normal that his Montrey also think like him. Prostrations and bows are considered the only way to get a promotion. Dishonesty is a common practice in the Kingdom. It is rooted from the top of the state until the terminal base. The royal policy is that of oppression and destruction of national interests and people.

In the resumption of the same theme, Pol Pot wondered about the evils of monarchy in his article entitled "Monarchy or Democracy," published in 1952 by the journal of Khmer Students in France.

A few months before publishing the open letter to King Sihanouk in the journal Khmer Student, March 13, 1952, Thiounn Thioum had defended his thesis for a doctorate in Law at the University of Paris. His thesis topic was: The monarchy in Cambodia. His presentation was legal in nature rather than critical of the monarchical system, as he himself explained in his foreword that may otherwise entitle his work: "Studies of the sources of law, law and power in the former Cambodian public. The Khmer monarchy, Mr. Thioum knows very well because his father was a very powerful figure during the reigns of two kings, Sisowath and Monivong. The marriage between his experiences in the monarchical universe Khmer and legal knowledge enabled him to give weight to his thesis, which was seen thereafter, the left Cambodia as a scientific reference condemning the Khmer monarchy in decline. The open letter published in the journal Khmer Student "and the trial of Pol Pot were the vulgar version of the thesis Thioum. The taboo was broken for the first time. This time, it was no longer a rumor, but a university thesis which explicitly sets out a power system based on divine right. Power through which the king had the right to life and death over his subjects. Pol Pot was talking about the story Thmenh Chey to show that a child of the people named Thmenh Chey, can defeat a king ignorant Thmenh Chey dares to oppose the crown. The solution is called in his essay: The people's revolt against the divine power and people can overcome such Thmenh Chey.

The year 1952 seemed a crucial year for criticizing the monarchy since King Sihanouk, deprived of power in the constitutional straightjacket, trying to get an ending with a coup June 15, 1952. It was dissolved for the second time the National Assembly, whose Democratic majority was in conflict with it. Its purpose was ludicrous devolution of parliamentary power to him. As a result, he transformed the constitutional monarchy in one of his personal power. He practices a politics of cynicism: "Who is not with me is against me." This act had outraged the Khmer youth who was on loan at the time to defend democracy and the constitution. A severe agitation manifests itself in all schools. A kind of political earthquake in a country struck by the fear of the sacred person of the king. Was it really a plot by the left against the Khmer King Sihanouk?

To answer this question, we must first know the left Cambodia. It consisted of a handful of Khmer students in France. They met to study Marxism. They swallowing, in fact, that knowledge which transformed them into fake Marxists. Who were they? The names are not unknown today, such as, Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), the Thiounn, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan, Hou Youn, Hu Nim, etc. Were they Republicans at heart?

I repeat that there is no question of Pol Pot and his fellow pioneers of the republican spirit Khmer. I remember that things are so clear that I speak here of those sinister names, because I will argue that these people are only opportunistic short that explained the evils of monarchy in verbosity. And although ' they are not judged for their crimes now, I still believe in a different form of justice as Bernard Henry Levy said: Justice of the historian of the truth.

Poor left Cambodian born crossfire between Chinese and Vietnamese revolutionary, who deprived her of having its own national identity. It was left blaming the responsibility of the easement because of Mao and Ho and was used as a launching pad for Marxist ideology in Cambodia. This obedience put to sleep his nationalism. The saga of his birth in 1930 is ambiguous. It was then considered a branch of the Vietnamese Communist Party and had never succeeded in defining a policy consistently and regularly. His victory in April 17, 1975 was more like a Pyrrhus victory which still weighs the threat of Communist Party of Vietnam. In fact, Pol Pot sought to break the tender to touch his share of glory of Communism in Indochina. He received the green light from Beijing, Hanoi but did not meet this request. Instead of being cautious to silence, Pol Pot began a policy of revenge against his own people under the ironic gaze of the Vietnamese. This practice completely destroying the lifeblood of the country and the Khmer soul. A wealth of Hanoi for allegedly giving a lesson of solidarity between peoples Indochina to China and realize his dream of being the master of Cambodia. On January 7, 1979, the most resistant to the cause of Ho were driven from Phnom Penh by the Vietnamese soldiers to replace them with more docile. The break-up into two camps (the Maoists and pro-Vietnamese) was consumed as well. Despite this split, this left obliterated forever in the eyes of Cambodians commitment. In addition, in their history, both sides continue to need the monarchy to survive. They claim to endorse their choice justified by the context and circumstance. In fact, they are neither Republican nor Nationalist. They are opportunistic and have the opportunity doctrine. They always acted in the shadow of Prince Sihanouk and under the watchful eye of Beijing and Hanoi. Under the light of their victory of April 17, 1975 and January 7, 1979, we saw their true colors. This is the dark side of the Cambodian left and so ends the saga of their revolution reduced to dimension deadly. Certainly, one or both have a responsibility before history for more than two million dead innocent Khmers. 

Paris, April 1997
Partager cet article


  • : Le blog de Sangha OP
  • : រូបថតកាលជានិសិត្ស នៅសាកលវិទ្យាល័យ ភ្នំពេញ -មហាវិទ្យាល័យ អក្សរសាស្ត្រ និង មនុស្សសាស្ត្រ (ផ្នែកប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្រ) - ទស្សវត្សរ៏ ៧០
  • Contact