jayakhmer, > The war of 1979 and its aftermath generate this lingering question whether the > war was an invasion or liberation.
The war was both an invasion & a liberation, or, more precisely, an invasion & a rescue. Vietnam invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia. It had the right to do so because the 2 countries were in war. The liberation or more precisely the rescue of the Cambodian people from the genocide by the bloody hands of Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge were a by-product of the invasion. Although it was a by-product, it was a liberation or more precisely a rescue nonetheless. What would happen to Cambodia if Vietnam hadn't invaded?? A Cambodia with a population of less than a million all of whom are illiterate?? You bet!! Of the following 2 options, which one would you choose?? 1) Vietnam invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia, thus as a by-product ended his killing spree of the Cambodian people, & withdrew its troops from Cambodia 10 years later, 2) Vietnam didn't invade Pol Pot's Cambodia, & thus Pol Pot & Co continued their massacre of the Cambodian people. > Can we move beyond this debate? I think we can and we should. The Khmer Rouge & their sympathizers here in CamDisc will never move beyond this debate. They want & are trying to revenge Vietnam for ending their reign of terror. > 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. The UFNSK were Khmer Rouge factions who opposed the genocide. The opportunity arrived for them to rescue the Cambodian people when the Vietnam/Khmer Rouge war broke out. Who else can they ask for help to rescue the Cambodian people?? They knew that for Vietnam it was Vietnam's interest that was the most important. But again, who else would come to save the Cambodian people?? The Thais?? They treated the Cambodian refugees in Thailand as street dogs!! Can you rely on them?? > Was it an invasion or a liberation? It was both an invasion & a liberation, or more precisely an invasion & a rescue. > 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. Pol Pot, emboldened by his then so far success in his efforts to try to wipe out the Cambodian nation from the face of the earth without any resistance from the Cambodian people, didn't agree to Vietnam's request for negotiations to end the conflict. He even "invaded" Vietnamese villages along the border & massacred 1,000s of innocent Vietnamsese civilians. What do you expect?? Do you expect the Vietnamese to sit still & wait for the Khmer Rouge to come to cut off their heads?? What about you, if you're in war with Vietnam & you're stronger than it, wouldn't you invade it to try to end the war?? > 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. If the Vietnamese generals hadn't consulted with the UFNSK, what would you do?? They were in war against Pol Pot's Cambodia, if they hadn't consulted with Pol Pot's Cambodian opponents, what would you do?? They were in war against Pol Pot's Cambodia, who says they had to consult with Pol Pot's Cambodian opponents?? > 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.” That's right. At that time I lived in Saigon. I heard that the Vietnamese government even recruited the soldiers of the "ancient" regime to go to fight the Khmer Rouge. How about ther Khmer Rouge?? Oh yeah, they didn't recruit, they only killed. How "smart"!! > 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. See, how "intelligent" the Khmer Rouge leaders were!! > The Khmer Rouge’s systematic killing of its citizens made an invasion a > welcome > relief for many Cambodians. Not just for "many" Cambodians, it was for ALL non-Khmer-Rouge 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. That's right. > 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. The criticism is rooted in 2 sources: 1) the Khmer Rouge themselves, & 2) racial hatred. Number 1 is understandable. For number 2, it's very hard to educate the Khmers. It's virtually impossible to make them understand that the past is the past, that in the past the Vietnamese were bad to the Khmers and the Khmers were also bad to the Vietnamese, that it's ok & even good that they should look back at it to learn from it but shouldn't live in it, that now is the present & thus that they should take the present conditions into consideration. It's even impossible to convince them that had Vietnam not invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia, Pol Pot & Co would have eliminated all the non-Khmer- Rouge Cambodian people from the face of the earth, including even them. By "Khmers" I mean the Khmer Rouge & their Khmer buddies, both are here in CamDisc. > 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. They have already come to their own conclusion, a long time ago. For them, there's no need to read or research anything. > 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. - Right, the war was an invasion. - The Cambodian government is free to determine its own destiny. - Right, Cambodia doesn't owe Vietnam anything. - Good, Vietnam defeated the evil murderers Khmer Rouge. It accomplished its mission. It withdrew its troops from Cambodia almost 20 years ago, in 1989. > 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. Agree 101%. Just an addition: focus also on the present, in addition to 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. Everything is up to the Cambodian people, as long as the election is free & fair. The opposition parties must show the Cambodian people that they can be better than the CPP. The Cambodian people are of course smarter than the barbarians here in Camdisc. They even don't buy Sam Rainsy racial-hatred rhetoric, which he used in the futile hope that he could incite them to hate the CPP & thus to vote for him. > Based on past performance, 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. First of all, they must get rid of their naming their parties after an individual. I've never seen or heard any political party anywhere else in the world that's named after an individual. > With all due respect to 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. For the CPP, why should it change its leader (I believe you mean "the same leader" when you say "the same candidate") when that leader keeps winning?? > 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. Agree 102%. > 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. Agree 103%. Soriya On Dec 23, 1:00 pm, Jayakhmer <[email protected]> wrote: > Also posted atwww.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 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 performance, 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 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. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group. This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language. Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
