Post-War Politics of Cambodia on "Facing Soft Power Politics"

Soft power politics seems don’t come along with co-operative plan and mutual assistance in rhetoric only, but by enforcing through memorandums, treaties or agreements.

Cambodia has empirically derailed from the wave of “soft power politics” of the world. She is likely lacking ability in responding to current flow of soft power which comes along with international relations, foreign trade, the guarding of its citizens, conflict resolution with its neighbors and proper reaction to foreign consistent cooporative policy.

Politically speaking, soft power politics refers to the politics of cooporation, not confrontation as modern nation-states seek to put aside all violent means by adopting peaceful diplomacy and mutual interests through economic, cultural and social cooporation. The procedures have practically done through the platform of dialogue regionally and globally. Michael Hsiao and Alan Yang posited in the Asia-Pacific Journal focusing on Japan that China has been more practical in spreading “soft power politics” to its neighbors and regions particularly the Southeast Asian nations. As this policy has tremendously renovated after the cold war, China has physically strengthened its relations with ASEAN states since the 1990s within all fields including foreign aid, trade, infrastructure, politics, culture, tourism and environment.

Geopolitically, Cambodia is a member among regional associations such as the ASEAN which has extended to ASEAN Plus Three (APT) when China, Japan and Korea are included and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) etc. But in its sub-regional cooporation, it appears intricate for Cambodia to be a member of the Mekong River Commission (MRC) and the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Development Triangle. Cambodia is obligated to all procedures and co-operative frameworks to these sub-regional embodiments. Noticeably, many Cambodians are skeptical about Cambodia’s strength and intelligence to smoothly operate this unavoidable cooporative policy as well as the soft power innovation foreigners exposed.

Not many scholars or academic papers have deliberately detailed the “deficit” of Cambodia in handling with this impromptu skeptic. This article will singly look into the relationship Cambodia must undertake with its neighbors: Thailand and Vietnam.

Our children profit from our actions

November 3, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS (Guam)

"People power" is not beyond reach in Cambodia. Skeptics misunderstand people power and equate it with bloody rebellion. Khmers are Buddhists -- gentle and placid, who don't rise against a ruthless dictatorship.

The Albert Einstein Institution, committed to the defense of freedom, says: "Nonviolent action (also sometimes referred to as people power, political defiance and nonviolent struggle) is a technique of action for applying power in a conflict by using symbolic protests, noncooperation and defiance, but not physical violence."

My nine years (1980-1989) in the Khmer resistance against Vietnam's military invasion and occupation took me near death's door many times, but I never believed we could defeat the Hanoi armies that brought the Americans to a negotiations table earlier. But we did believe that an effective Khmer resistance would bring Hanoi to the negotiations table. That, in fact, happened.

Except, the Khmer nationalists never prepared themselves for post-1991 Paris Peace Accords.

Adding to the detrimental lack of careful strategic planning with necessary "next steps," they were trapped in denial, blaming, as many simply realigned themselves for political positions.

The game of "svar pa'at bai loeu mo'at po-pe" (monkey smears rice on a goat's mouth) continued until today: The monkey ate the farmer's rice and smeared rice on a goat's mouth so the goat would be blamed for eating the rice; the farmer didn't know better and took out his anger on the goat, forgetting that goats don't eat rice.

Population has power

I stood before my introduction to political science classes for 13 years, driving home the same point every semester, that a government's "right to rule" is based on the people putting it in power.