The G. W. Bush Foreign Policy in Asia
And Its Implication for Cambodia’s Survival: An Assessment
By
Naranhkiri Tith, Ph.D.
“The country
was a victim of the royal family as well as geopolitics. Feuds over the throne grew
in direct proportion to the diminishing size of the empire. Princes (and an
occasional princess) would plead to military aid from Siam or Vietnam to oust a
rival claimant. In return, the petitioning prince or princess routinely gave up
rights over Cambodian territory”
From, When the War was Over, Elizabeth Becker,
(1998)
Introduction
The purpose of
this paper is to assess the foreign Policy in Asia of the current US
Administration under President George W. Bush, and its implications for Cambodia
quest for survival. This paper also serves as the background document for
discussions during the annual meeting of WCC in Portland, Oregon, during
September 7-9, 2001.
There is still
a great deal of uncertainty as to the real direction of the present US
Administration regarding its policy toward Asia in general, and Southeast Asia,
in particular.
I.
Recent developments in US foreign policy in general and in Asia, in particular
1.
General observations
Since the
United Nations-sponsored general elections in Cambodia following the Paris
Agreements, in 1993, eight years of Bill Clinton as President the United States
combined with internal traditional inept leadership had done almost irreparable
damage to the chance for survival of the Cambodian people. Despite, the valiant
efforts that WCC had made in the past few years along with the strong support
of the US Congress and international NGOs to help the Cambodian people escape
the tyranny of Hun Sen’ s devastatingly destructive dictatorship, the CPP and
Hun Sen have nevertheless succeeded in consolidating their grip on power.
This partial
success in containing Hun Sen’ s deadly grip on the Cambodian society was the
result of the unfailing support from congressional friends (such as Congressmen
Benjamin Gilman, Dana Rorhabacher, Chris Smith, and Senators William Roth,
Jessie Helms, Craig Thomas, Diane Feinstein and their staff such as Paul
Berkowitz, Jim Doran, and others). However, these efforts were not enough to
really help the Cambodian people permanently escape from the CPP’ s destructive
and murderous policy and strategy.
This sad
situation developed, in large measure, due to the betrayal of former President
Clinton and his policy of short term political expediency that surrendered
democratic principles and those of civil society which constitute the basic
foundation of the American Society since its founding days. In addition, the
situation was complicated by Clinton’s widely known personal character flaws.
Hun Sen’ s hold
on power was also accelerated by the incompetence and corrupt behavior that are
characteristics of the non-CPP leaders, such as King Sihanouk and Prince
Ranariddh, and the expediency, inconsistency, and shallowness of Sam Rainsy’ s
political platform[i].
After the 2000
US presidential election, there was a lot of speculation and great expectation
among Cambodian-Americans that the new Republican Administration and the newly
Republican-controlled Congress would be able to better assist the Cambodian
people in their struggle for genuine independence and freedom. However, the
recent change in the US Senate (now under Democratic control) combined with the
emerging reality of the new Bush administration foreign policy turned out to be
very disappointing. Therefore, it has been very difficult for WCC to
continue to help the Cambodian people recover their freedom. What follows is an
attempt to explain the main factors underlying this rather pessimistic view of
the new policy environment regarding Asia and Cambodia.
2.
US policy toward Asia during the Clinton Administration
a.
The Clinton administration’s deadly policy of accommodation with
communist countries
As a former anti-Vietnam
War student, Clinton had fulfilled his dream by becoming President of the
United State of America and by implementing a US foreign policy based on the
notion that the US was guilty in fighting Communism in general and in Vietnam
in particular. This ideological and left-leaning policy led Clinton to give in
to any claims by Vietnam that it is the victim of Western imperialism.
His visit to
Vietnam before he left the office was the highest insult to those Asian
countries that had fought alongside the United States against communism during
the Cold War. Clinton’ s misrepresentation of US interest in the world and his
penchant for admiring the false promises of communism was clearly refuted by
those who benefited from the containment policy of the United States during the
Cold War era.
Without this
important US role in Asia in containing the communist conquest in Asia and
other parts of the world, it would have been very costly in human and non-human
terms for all those countries were spared of this human catastrophe of major
proportion. This human tragedy can still be seen in all countries that have
been making the transition from communism to a more open society, in the world.
On this historic event, Lee Kuan Yew has objectively and correctly observed
that:
“Although
American intervention failed in Vietnam, it bought time for the rest of
Southeast Asia. In 1965, when the US military moved massively into South
Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines faced internal threats from
armed communist insurgencies and the communist underground was still active in
Singapore. Indonesia, in the throes of a failed communist coup, was waging Konfrontasi,
an undeclared war against Malaysia and Singapore. The Philippines was claiming
Sabah in East Malaysia. Standards of living were low and economic growth slow.
America’ s action enabled noncommunist Southeast Asia to put their own houses
in order. By 1975, they were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had
there been no US intervention, the will of these countries to resist them would
have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist. The
prosperous emerging market economies of ASEAN were nurtured during the Vietnam
War years.[ii]”
Within this
biased conceptual policy framework, Clinton went on to appease China, North
Korea, and Vietnam, while neglecting the US former allies, such as Thailand,
the Philippines, and even Japan and Korea. More devastating for Cambodia was
the fact that Clinton was ready to allow Vietnam to retain the political
control of Cambodia. This policy was recently made public by former Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. In his recently published memoirs he
accused the US of changing its stance on the Vietnamese puppet government under
Hun Sen, after the 1993 UN-sponsored elections, allowing Hun Sen to muscle his
way back into the government as co-prime minister despite having lost the
elections to prince Norodom Ranariddh that:
“They must
have been satisfied that Hun Sen wanted to be independent from Vietnam and were
prepared to let him achieve power. The UN did not have the strength or will to
install Ranariddh in Power.”[iii]
b.
The new foreign policy of G.W. Bush
It is no secret
to most observers of US political activities that President George W. Bush does
not have a full grasp of foreign policy in general and of US policy toward
Asia, in particular. It is well known that the current US President is on
record for not involving as much as possible the US in foreign political activities.
This is equivalent to the policy and practice of isolationism. For instance,
during the electoral campaign, Mr. Bush advocated the withdrawal of US troops
from Bosnia.
At the same
time, after the elections, President G. W. Bush started advocating a new
approach to his foreign policy by giving priority and attention to those
countries that have a similar ideological background (open and civil society).
This is in clear contrast to the Clinton Administration that devoted a lot of
time and resources to those nations which are potential enemies (China, North
Korea, and Vietnam) of the US rather than to those nations that are friendly to
this country. This naďve and counterproductive approach to foreign policy by
the United States was satirized in a movie entitled “the Mouse that Roared”[iv] in which famed actor Peter Sellers was the star.
In practice,
what this new US policy for Asia implies is that the current US Administration
would realign its foreign policy toward a closer relationship with those Asian
nations - South Korea, India, Japan, The Philippines, and Thailand - that have
a common ideological and economic background. It will maintain a more distant,
if not confrontational approach, with countries that have a totalitarian regime
such as China, Vietnam, and Myanmar. This new foreign policy is a
complete reversal from the Clinton’ s doctrine of accommodation with communist
countries known in practice as “strategic alliance.”
On the surface,
this new foreign policy approach appears very promising, as it separate friends
from foes. However, under closer scrutiny, it is less appealing and even
downright dangerous for the world at large. It is well known that this current
President lacks experience in world affairs and is reluctant to commit the
United States, as the world economic financial and military super power, to
defending human rights and democracy. This, in turn, has created a void in
moral leadership in world affairs and represents a major flaw behind this new
foreign policy framework.
In addition,
the United States is still suffering from what is known as the “Vietnam
Syndrome”. In other words, Americans no longer have the interest, stomach or
the perseverance to go and fight anywhere to defend freedom and democracy, as one
historian has recently observed[v]. Furthermore, the US Senate is now
under the control of the Democrats, who are usually more accommodating to
communist nations, as was the practice during the Clinton Administration. The
G. W. Bush administration is even reluctant to be involved in the Middle East,
a traditional ground for active US foreign policy. By comparison, Asia and
especially Cambodia appear now to be too far off the US foreign policy radar
screen.
Moreover,
according to a recent survey, most Europeans believe that President George W.
Bush appears to have formulated his foreign policy based entirely on US
national interests and practically ignoring the rest of the world’s interests
or concerns[vi]. Such behavior by President Bush has negated
the traditional and moral role of the United States as the most powerful nation
on earth and the guarantor of democratic society and values in a fast world
becoming more and more cynical.
2.
Consequences of the Bush’ s administration inward-looking foreign policy on
Asia
It did not take
long for other Asian powers such as China and Japan to detect this US policy
with its flaws and changes. The vacuum created by the current administration
which has based its foreign policy uniquely on the selfish interests of the
United States without due consideration paid to other world interests as
previously observed, has pushed China to move very quickly to fillthis
political, diplomatic, if not military gap.
Japan has taken
a more independent course of action regarding its relationship with China. Most
Asian countries are not expected to follow the United States in confronting
China, especially when they know that the US will not come to their rescue when
needed. If the Clinton is taken as any benchmark measuring the US commitment to
its alliance, most Asian countries are by now very reluctant to follow the
United States leadership in international affairs.
In this
context, China has recently sent its senior policy makers including President
Jiang Zemin, former Prime Minister Li Peng (in 2000 and 2001, respectively) to
pay official visits to countries in Southeast Asia that it considered as its
allies, and especially to Cambodia. Before going to Cambodia, President Jiang
also visited Laos, which is considered by Vietnam as its closest ally and
protector. These official visits are clear signs of a growing alliance
between some Southeast Asian countries (Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar) and China.
China is also sending signals to Vietnam that China would not look favorably at
Vietnam’ s efforts in maintaining hegemony on both Laos and Cambodia. More
importantly, according to analysts, China is looking to forge new alliances in
Southeast Asia to counterbalance the influence of the United States[vii].
It is important
to keep in mind that Cambodia has always had an important relationship with
China. King Sihanouk still maintains a residence in Beijing and regularly goes
there for vacation or medical treatment.
II.
The consequence of these policy realignment on Cambodia’ s security and destiny
1. China’
s increasing presence, influence and power in Asia
Against this
brief review of the background activities of the United States and China in
Asia, and in Cambodia in particular, it is now time to look at their impact on
Cambodia’ s chance for survival.
Internally, it
is undeniable that with the help of Sihanouk, Hun Sen has succeeded to
consolidating his murderous grip on Cambodia. There is no longer any
insurrection or challenge against the CPP-Hun Sen led government with the
exception of the CFF so-called attack earlier this year in Phnom Penh. The
economic, social, and political atmosphere has not fundamentally changed. This
tragic situation was well described by Henry Kamm, a reporter from the New York
Times, in his recent book:
“Today’ s
Cambodia is a basket case. It is a country that hardly nourishes and barely
teaches its ever-increasing people, nor does it bind its multiple wounds or
cure its many ills. In large measure its workers are exploited, its women
ill-used, its children unprotected, its soil stubbed with treacherous land
mines primed to kill. No equitable rule of law or impartial justice shelters
Cambodians against a mean-spirited establishment of political and economic
power, a cabal that is blind and deaf to the crying needs of an abused people.
Their leaders’ passions are private: to expand their might and riches. Unlike
most politicians elsewhere, they do not even profess high ideals that they then
betray. The betterment of the lot of the people whom they govern is rarely even
the object of the customary lip service paid by holders of power all over the
world. Cambodia’ s politicians scarcely pretend to serve the Cambodian people.[viii]”
Another aspect
of this bleak situation in Cambodia was also revealed in a letter dated August
1, 2001,that Mitch McConnell a Republican Senator from Kentucky sent to
President Bush, in which he raised the issue of justice in Cambodia under Hun
Sen dictatorship. He wrote that:
“The United
States finds itself in an untenable position in Cambodia, having brokered an
agreement between the United Nations and the Cambodian Government the formation
of the tribunal. Hun Sen has repeatedly dismissed calls from the United Nations
and human rights advocates that the trial must meet international standards of
justice.
If alarms
bells have not already sounded at the State Department, they should now. The
administration must make clear, in no uncertain terms, that a mockery of justice
for genocide crimes is wholly unacceptable. There cannot be two standards of
international justice – one for Cambodia and one for the rest of the world.
While US
assistance continues to be restricted to the Cambodian government, Secretary Collin
Powell should convey to Hun Sen that justice for crimes committed under the
Khmer rouge are as important and pressing as the investigations and
prosecutions of human rights violations that are continuing in Cambodia every
day. In an all-out effort to bring about meaningful political change, the
administration must extend concrete support, including technical and financial
assistance, to reformers and democrats in Cambodia to ensure the viability of
the political opposition and a vibrant civil society.”
The importance
of China as a regional economic and military power is growing every day. In a
recent article published in a Singapore newspaper, a Japanese scholar and
futurist, Kenichi Ohmae, pointed out that China is fast becoming one of the
most important competitor in the production of consumer goods in the world
within the next decade or so[ix]. This in turn will create enormous
problems for the rest of Asia, as these countries will have to compete for
capital and technology, which tend to go more toward China, at the expense of
the rest of Asia.
It is clear
that China would soon become a very important trading partner of Southeast
Asian countries competing with the United States. In this context, no Asian
country can afford to ignore China not only as a military power but also an
economic power. In addition to trade, China has been encouraging emigration
into Southeast Asia. The new movement of immigration from China into Southeast
Asia has recently been as important as the last large wave of Chinese
immigrants, which took place in the 19th century, when it was at its peak.
In Cambodia,
the new Chinese immigrants have been very numerous and active in all forms of
economic activities. Although, Chinese have always been well integrated into the
Cambodian society, this new wave of immigrants has created some concerns among
Cambodians as they might represent potential competitors in the employment
market which is already very narrow. This new immigration of Mainland
Chinese combined with the increase in illegal immigration of Vietnamese into
Cambodia could create a political problem and instability down the road for
Cambodia. Eventually, Cambodians could well become a minority in their own
country.
1. Hun
Sen and the new Chinese presence and policy
It is common
knowledge that Hun Sen was picked by the Vietnamese to rule Cambodia. In turn,
Hun Sen makes sure that Vietnam’ s interest in Cambodia will be protected.
During a recent interview by Nayan Chanda of the Far Eastern Economic Review,
Hun Sen was asked to pick two of the most influential personalities in his
political life. His answer was Mahatir Mohammed, and Kaysone Phomvihane, former
Prime Minister of Laos.
Hun Sen said
that the reason why chose these two Asian strong men was because he said that
these men gave him the “win-win” formula to remain in power. Under closed
examination, it is not difficult to understand Hun Sen’ s choice of these two
Asian autocratic rulers. The “win-win” formulae given by Mahatir simply means
that first and foremost, a leader must do anything to keep himself in power,
including the elimination of the opposition, physically or otherwise. In the
case of the “win-win” formulae given by Kaysone, it means that Hun Sen must
stick to Vietnam’ s protection, because, Vietnam would be the only country that
could guarantee Hun Sen’ s grip of power and safety, even by armed forces when
and if necessary (invasion).
With China’ s
growing influence and importance in the region and in Cambodia, it is clear
that this represents a huge problem for Hun Sen, as China is sending signals to
Vietnam, as mentioned earlier, that it is China which will be the keeper of law
and order in Asia and not Vietnam. Hun Sen cannot ignore Vietnam, his
benefactor and protector. It may even be dangerous for him to do so. Hun Sen
could be replaced should he starts to show signs of disloyalty. However, he
cannot ignore China either. In the end Hun Sen may have to go and temporarily
be replaced by another pro-Vietnamese CPP member, such as Chea Sim or Sar
Kheng. But, eventually, China hand may win it all, especially with King
Sihanouk’ s maneuvering and backing.
Would Cambodia
be better off with the Chinese or with the Vietnamese? My answer is neither.
That is why Cambodian-Americans must make sure that Cambodian democratic
principles remain alive and vibrant in Cambodia. Sooner or later China and even
Vietnam would also become open societies. Cambodia’ s pursuit of freedom and
democracy must be realized and developed not for the sake of pleasing any
particular country including the United States, but because it is the only way
for Cambodia to survive in the long run. This view on the future development of democracy and civil society
in Southeast Asia was recently clearly expressed by Mr. Surin Pitsuvan, a
former minister of foreign affairs of Thailand, in an article in Asiaweek, as
follows:
“But Southeast
Asia needs more than a revival of its economies and financial structures with
foreign help. That will only lead to even further crisis. We in the region must
create our own capital, develop our own science and technology, nurture our own
managerial and integrate our markets.
The domestic
transfer of power in Indonesia and the Philippines, the landslide victory of a
populist government in Thailand and the percolating tension within Malaysian
politics are signs of the push and pull of the global environment. A positive
side effect of the financial crisis has been the realization that Southeast
Asia is part of the global community and marketplace. To keep up with that
environment, reforms on all fronts are urgent, event though they call for
adjustment, even pain. The test of leadership is quick and effective
installation of reforms. Procrastination or avoidance is not options.
There is no
short cut to solving Southeast Asia’ s problems. The effort will involve a new
and different value system: a rational approach to our economics and to our
resource management; transparency in our governance; accountability in our
administration of public affairs. Some Southeast Asian leaders and elites are
still oblivious to the imperative of democratic change – or choose to ignore
it. If they persist in doing so, the road to a new round of prosperity for
Southeast Asia will be long and perilous”[x]
In this
context, there are tangible proofs that civil society organizations are getting
stronger in Cambodia. However, King Sihanouk and Prince Ranariddh continue to
represent major problems for the emerging civil society. The alliance between
Hun Sen and the royal family is one of the main obstacles to addressing the
major problems such as the continuing deterioration of the economic, political,
and social conditions in Cambodia. The other main problems are the increasing
number of illegal Chinese and Vietnamese. Some Cambodians living in Europe
(UCD) have suggested that all overseas Cambodians should form a coalition in
order to prepare and encourage a popular uprising in Cambodia. This is a very
appealing suggestion to most emotionally charged Cambodians. But, is it
realistic and feasible? WCC should take up this very sensitive and
importantissue for discussion and prepare a reply to Mr. Ea Kuon of UCD.
III. Some
concluding remarks
What can WCC do
to help nurture democracy and a civil society in Cambodia? How should WCC deal
with this new inward-looking political environment that is now pervading the
political landscape in America to help direct US policy toward a more open
outlook toward Asia and especially toward Cambodia?
In a recent
report entitled “the United States and Southeast Asia: A Policy agenda for the
New Administration,” (2001) produced by the Council on foreign Relations under the
direction of Robert Manning, a number of interesting findings and suggestions
were made to President Bush. These findings and recommendations can be the
basis for discussions among WCC members in order to find a way whereby WCC can
contribute to help Cambodia survive and regain freedom from Hun Sen’ s deadly
grip and terror.
A.
The most significant findings:
B. The most significant recommendations:
Endnotes
[i] This
inconsistency and expediency is reflected in his suggestion after his so-called
private visit to Vietnam that Cambodia should look up to Vietnam as a shining
model for economic development. This author has been many times to Vietnam as
part of the IMF team to advise Vietnam on economic policy can categorically
testify that Vietnam is not a shining example for any countries to follow.
Also, during his recent visit to the USA, Sam Rainsy, unilaterally, without a
priori consulting his own party senior officers suggested that the US should
stop financing the Khmer Rouge trial. He definitely ignores the fact that
without any genuine justice there cannot be any fair elections in Cambodia.
Justice must come first before the elections, and not the other way around.
[ii] Lee
Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965-2000,
(HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 2000
[iii] Lee Kuan
Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965-2000, (HarperCollins
Publishers, New York, 2000
[iv] What I
termed the ‘Mouse that Roared’ principle is a caricature of the US foreign
policy which was based from a story in a movie starring Peter Sellers. In that
movie, a king of a small fictitious European country whose country was in bad
need of foreign aid in order to develop its declining economy. In order to be
able to benefit from that US assistance, the king decided that the best and
fast way for his country to obtain that aid was to declare war on the United
States. Obviously, the US would win the war. But, in turn, the US would be
willing to come to the rescue of the defeated country by providing economic and
financial assistance, as the US did after World War II in Europe.
[v] The
Washington Post, “Empire or Not? A Quiet Debate Over US Role” by Thomas E.
Ricks, August 21, 2001
[vi] New
York Times, “Survey Find European Public Critical of Bush Policies” by Adam
Clymer, August 16, 2001
[vii]
Agence France Presse (AFP), “China, Vietnam Play Out Old rivalry in Cambodian
visits”, (November 12, 2000), and The Voice of Cambodia Radio International
(VOCRI), “China’ s Li Peng to visit Cambodia”, (May 9, 2001)
[viii] Henry
Kamm, Cambodia: Report From A Stricken Land, (Arcade Publishing, New York,
1998)
[ix] Straits
Times, “Asia’ s Next Crisis: ‘made in China’”, (Singapore, August 2, 2001)
[x] Asiaweek;
"Democracy First" by Surin Pitsuwan, September 7, 2001