Prince Sihanouk : Yet Another Chapter in the Many Lives of Cambodia’s Ruler

Prince Norodom Sihanouk’s return to Cambodia last month, after a 13-year exile, was as much a personal triumph of survival as a tribute to his diplomatic skills. For he persuaded diverse U.N. Security Council members and Cambodia’s Asian neighbors to agree to his formula allowing a U.N.-supervised peacekeeping mission to run his country until elections in 1993.

Sihanouk ascended the throne at 18, in 1941, on the death of his uncle, the king. In 1954, upon France’s retreat from Indochina, he prevailed on the French to grant Cambodia its independence. The following year, he abdicated in favor of his father, to take a more active political role as prime minister, but regained the title of head of state when his father died in 1960.

Sihanouk sought to keep his country neutral during the fighting in Vietnam. He played both sides against the middle, maneuvering between the communists and the United States in an effort to ensure his country remained unscathed. Though his leadership style was mercurial and autocratic, it nonetheless won him the worship of Cambodia’s masses, who now recall his reign as the “golden years.” But his effort proved ultimately unsuccessful.

In 1970, Sihanouk was overthrown by the U.S.-supported Lon Nol regime while the prince was in Moscow. He then allied himself with the Khmer Rouge guerilla movement and returned with them in 1975. Sihanouk, however, was kept isolated, helpless while one of history’s bloodiest regimes emptied the capital and killed millions of its citizens--including five of his children.

In 1979, when the Vietnamese liberated the country, Sihanouk flew to New York to plead Cambodia’s cause and subsequently lived in exile. He led a resistance movement while planning for the day when a coalition of diverse parties--including the hated Khmer Rouge--would return to rebuild the ravaged country as a democracy and free-market economy.

Since his return, there have been setbacks. A violent attack on the Khmer Rouge member of the national reconciliation government forced its first session to be held in Thailand. Last week, the country’s four factions met on Cambodian soil for the first time.

Throughout his political life, Sihanouk practiced a politics of inconsistency and unpredictability, which, he admits today, was calculated. He was practicing the art of survival for the leader of a small country vulnerable to the manipulation of big powers pursuing their own interests.

During a recent conversation, which lasted more than two hours, Sihanouk ate a five-course French dinner, attended by his wife, Prince Monique; his son, Crown Prince Ranariddh and his daughter-in-law, Princess Marie.

Question: It’s almost unprecedented for a monarch to be dethroned or a politician ousted and then invited by his former enemies to return to power. Why has this happened to you?

Answer: Because I never ceased to serve my country and my people with passion. I suffered with the people. Pol Pot didn’t oust or depose me, but actually begged me--twice--to remain chief of state. Yet after seeing what was happening to my people, I couldn’t accept--so resigned voluntarily to become the prisoner of the Khmers Rouges.

I never lost contact with Cambodia. Every year, as a chief of the resistance, the Tripartite coalition of Kampuchea, I visited the liberated zone, kept contacts with the soldiers, the officers and the people and accepted diplomatic credentials there.

I have always been honest and clean. And I built up modern Cambodia. Many people recall those times as our “golden age.” It is the reason Mr. Hun Sen, Mr. Chea Sim, Mr. Heng Samrin and their party wanted me to return here and see the continuation of the Saingkum (Sihanouk’s domestic policy of national construction and external policy of neutrality and non-alignment).

Q: Cambodia has gone through many stages: a colony, monarchy, Lon Nol’s reactionary rule, the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge and now you are back. Why did the previous governments fail?

A: Lon Nol’s republic was extremely bad. They owed their wealth and position to the monarchy, yet their error was the abolition of the monarchy and that was their costly mistake. Pol Pot was very cruel and lacked political intelligence. Had he led a Communist Party like Mr. Hun Sen’s, he might have been very successful and his party and regime could have enjoyed a long life. The strength of Hun Sen’s party today is that they have seen the turning point and recognize that, with Sihanouk, they can build up a happy and modern country. They are patriots. They have also recognized since the Soviet Union is crumbling, they can no longer count on the Soviet Union--while Vietnam also needs to move its direction to obtain aid from the rich countries including the U.S.A. and China.

Q: What type of society do you seek to create in Cambodia?

A: I’m getting old and I have learned much. During the ‘50s and the ‘60s, I focused on defending our independence, regaining our territory and building up a modern Cambodia. But I was not liberal enough. I practiced socialism, not communism, nationalized the banks and limited external trade mainly with state factories. We could boast we were self reliant and self sufficient but were slow in economic development.

A Hong Kong astrologer has predicted I will live only four more years, and shall die at age 74. So my time is limited in bringing about a peaceful, prosperous Cambodia. In the next four years, I want to implement liberal democracy and a multiparty system.

I don’t mind about my personal power. I just wish to enjoy a good reputation--not just as the father of national independence and the father of peace and reconciliation but also the third title, which I wish to get from my people spontaneously, and that is to be the father of liberal democracy. In the economic sphere, if we want to develop quickly, we should imitate Thailand. Why? Because you see the results there. Their people are happy and are enjoying an economic boom, with a very high per capita income. It is true there exists corruption but we cannot avoid it. Cambodia must become a free-enterprise, free-market economy nation, attracting investment from the wealthy nations. Not just joint venture, but 100% investment from America, France, Japan, Thailand and Singapore and others with a guarantee of non-nationalization.

Q: You’re not afraid they will exploit Cambodia?

A: No! Absolutely not. You know the Cambodians, Pol Pot tried in vain to change the way of life, the philosophy of the people. Yet they remained the same. The Khmers Rouges exploited our forests and our national wealth, such as gems. It is far better to allow rich countries in and they will pay tax. Foreign firms will create more jobs in Cambodia, introduce technology and equip our country. In a few years, we will be one of the most prosperous countries in Asia and in the Third World.

Q: What role can Japan play in the reconstruction of Cambodia?

A: Japan can help us in all areas. They can give us new bridges and repair our damaged roads. In the investment sphere, Japan can establish their own factories and industries here: bicycle, truck, tractor and bulldozer assembly plants; equipment to build reservoirs and canals and machines to dig wells. We have ample water in the soil but suffer from drought for six months of the year in the villages far from the Mekong or Tonle Sap rivers. They could also assemble automobiles here. Japan could also establish light industries related to our natural resources such as timber and rubber. And they could help us with tourism.

Q: Are you confident the economic level of the people will grow rapidly enough to stem any dissatisfaction that might cause the Khmers Rouges to make some gains--as they might be seen again as the party dedicated to helping the poor, such as the cyclos (pedicab drivers) and the peasants in improving their lives?

A: The cyclos were even happy under Lon Nol because they earned money. Among the peasants perhaps, I can admit, some of them might have appreciated the Khmers-Rouges policy, but under their regime they also always lived in fear of death, torture or punishment. Under a free-market economy, if the state earns much money, some of the prosperity must be channeled to the peasants. We must provide them with water in the dry season so they can also become rich. We must construct a barrage for them, build more village schools, hospitals, modernize their agriculture, protect them from agricultural imports, create cooperatives and in general equip them in such a way so the can take care of themselves.

Q: Would you like to see the monarchy restored?

A: I am very republican. To be king or not depends on the people. The people want me to be king but there are some, like Son Sann, who oppose it. But Hun Sen is intelligent (and supports a return to the monarchy). He knows the feelings of the people. To have a constitutional King is also very good. It would be a very wise tactic of Hun Sen if he wished to neutralize me and Prince Ranariddh, my “crown prince,” to make Sihanouk a king. Hun Sen is a good prime minister and he deserves to exercise power. Please look at the king of Thailand. His Majesty has done and continues to do a lot for the welfare of his people, and, in the politic life of the nation, his influence is beneficial.

Q: You explained why you invited the Khmers Rogues back into the fold--so as not to make them outlaws. Do you think they will behave democratically? Or do you continue to mistrust them?

A: There are still, besides Pol Pot and Leng Sary, many Khmers Rouges who remain very Pol Potien, but they are intelligent people. They know the situation is no more the same. When they took power, the United States couldn’t play any role in Southeast Asia nor intervene any longer here. The Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Soviets were pro-Khmers Rouges at that time. Now, on the contrary, the international community won’t allow them to regain power. If the Khmers Rouges dared to make a coup d’etat, this time the international community would invite Vietnam to save the Cambodian people. Now the Khmers Rouges have to make an adaptation, a change of their policy. Thy are cruel, the are tough, but fortunately they are intelligent.

Q: Would you wish to see Pol Pot go on trial someday?

A: You cannot catch him. You cannot arrest him. And to condemn him morally is something useless.

Q: But the Thais might be persuaded to give him up in the face of world opinion.

A: Oh they don’t mind. The Khmers Rouges Army is good as a barrier between Vietnam and Thailand. The Thais feared Vietnamese influence on Cambodia. One thing the Thais can’t accept is to have a common frontier with Vietnam. If we have a pro-Vietnam Cambodia that means the Thais have practically a common frontier with Vietnam.

Q: But aren’t you grateful to Vietnam for liberating the Cambodian people from the Khmer Rouge?

A: It’s a most complex question. Even as a prisoner of the Khmers Rouges faced with torture and death, I had to resist and fight against the invasion of my country by a foreign country. The Vietnamese colonized Cambodia under the pretext of saving my country from the Khmers Rouges yolk. So it was my duty to lead the resistance against the invaders. However, frankly, without such intervention of Vietnam I would not be receiving you here tonight. I would be dead. And, more importantly, the people of Cambodia would be dead. It is something very horrible. Today, I think it is in our interest, for the purpose of maintaining a safe, peaceful Cambodia, to have friendly relations with our three neighbors, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.

Q: And your new style?

A: You have noticed, since 1990, I ceased to be the “changing prince.” That was just tactics you know. I had to make maneuvers. But now I will not get angry so easily any more, particularly against the press. If I don’t like something I shall just smile.