Turmoil in Cambodia
In light of the turn of events in Cambodia, one is almost tempted to believe that misfortune must be a part of that Southeast Asian country's destiny. The center of a great civilization at a time when Europe was living in the Dark Ages, the country later saw its area and influence drastically reduced by invading hordes from neighboring lands.
A French protectorate from 1863 to 1954, modern Cambodia managed to maintain its neutrality when it became independent although this became increasingly difficult during the Vietnam War. But its real troubles began in 1970, when army Gen. Lon Nol overthrew Prince Norodom Sihanouk as head of state and, with U.S. encouragement, attempted to drive out the guerrilla base camps which the Vietnamese had set up in eastern Cambodia.
In 1975 the Khmer Rouge, a radical faction of Cambodia's Communist Party led by Saloth Sar, alias Pol Pot, occupied the capital, Phnom Penh, and set up their infamous "killing fields" regime. This lasted until 1979, when the Vietnamese invaded the country, resisted by two anticommunist factions -- Prince Sihanouk's National Front and the Khmer People's National Liberation Front -- as well as Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese withdrew their troops from Cambodia in 1988 but the resistance against the Hanoi-installed government in Phnom Penh continued.
In 1991 it looked like real hope was finally dawning when, with active international encouragement, including from Indonesia, all the warring factions agreed to sit down in Paris and end their hostilities to build a better future for Cambodia. With strong ASEAN support, general elections under UN sponsorship were held in 1993, resulting in the formation of a coalition government in Phnom Penh.
Given all this, it is easy to understand the utter dismay and concern which leaders and observers all over the globe feel at recent developments. Six years after the long and arduous peace process brought forth the 1991 Paris Accord that ended two decades of civil war, Cambodia has once again plunged into a bloody conflict between factions that threatens to tear the nation apart.
Not that this was totally unexpected. Events in Cambodia over the past few decades give us a fair idea of the complexity of the country's modern political heritage. And as political analyst J. Soedjati Djiwandono so aptly said, it appeared that in 1993 the UN was more interested in holding the elections at any cost, rather than in accomplishing "preventive diplomacy" -- through peacemaking and peacekeeping. Therefore, it is unfinished business that has led to the present deterioration of the situation in Cambodia.
Presently, Cambodia's Second Prime Minister Hun Sen appears to have the upper hand, although the northern and northwestern regions of the country are still controlled by forces loyal to Prince Ranariddh. The latest reports from Cambodia appear to indicate that, left to its own course, the present clash between the two prime ministers has the potential of becoming a protracted conflict that would not only endanger the future of Cambodia, but also the security and stability of the entire Southeast Asian region. What remains to be seen for the moment is how both prime ministers will react to the international community's hope for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
The current developments in Cambodia could serve as a lesson for ASEAN, that although the strategic advantages of accomplishing the long-standing ambition of an ASEAN 10 by the inclusion of Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia, are undebatable, swift action is not always the most expedient, especially when risks are apparent. Fortunately, there is still time for reconsideration in the special meeting of ASEAN ministers beginning Thursday. Under the circumstances, the wisest course to take would probably be to consider the proposition that Cambodia's admission into ASEAN be postponed.