Reflections on 20 years of the Paris Peace Accords

Monday, February 21, 2011
Op-Ed by Antoine Phirun Pich,
Ph.D. Candidate, University of Ottawa

Twenty years after the Paris Peace Accords were reached, Cambodia still faces the inherent challenges of an emerging democracy while its people have been allowed to enjoy a certain degree of liberty (at least compared with the Khmer Rouge genocidal regime of the mid-1970s or the decade-long Vietnamese occupation that followed). However, to the outside observer, the country remains far from the democratic society based on the rule of law that drafters of the accords could have legitimately expected. This is partly due to the initial political circumstances that lead to the absurd formation of a bicephalous first mandate government, or the hidden military agenda of one of the signatory countries indubitably involved in the 1997 coup.

It is beyond doubt that Vietnam’s hegemonic ambitions over Cambodia have been the most prevalent obstacle to the effective implementation of the peace accords in so far as it has contributed to the establishment of an open door policy for Vietnamese nationals to settle across the country’s (eastern) provinces, thereby jeopardizing unity, independence and national identity. Due to the ethno-demographic distribution of modern Cambodia and its clandestine subservience to the neighbouring government, there can be no doubt that the “Vietnamese factor” will forever remain inseparable from the Cambodian political landscape. But given today’s communications technologies and coercive principles of international law, whether Vietnam will truly succeed in annihilating Cambodia in the same way as in the past remains an open question.

Pax Sinica? Impossible!

by Kim Jin Hyun            

Kim Jin Hyun [jinhkim@korea.kr] is chairman of the World Peace Forum and former president of Seoul City University.

Pax Americana, US dominance, and Western/ Atlantic hegemony are fading away. However, Chinese hegemony or Pax Sinica will never arrive. The Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the 2008 global financial crisis, the lowest interest rates in the history of the US and UK central banks, and the European Union and euro on the brink of disintegration -- all are signs of the ebb of US and Atlantic power and indications of a historical power shift. But what is next?

Without question, Asia will become the center of activity and the Pacific and Indian oceans will be a thoroughfare of human resources, international finance, and cultural exchanges. Because of this historical trend, many people believe China will be the next world leader -- as it was in Asia before the 19th century. However, China will never become a leader of a new order or create a Pax Sinica.

The US unipolar moment is passing, but it maintains hard and soft power supremacy and continues to be a balancer in a multipolar international system. The US and China will continue to cooperate and compete. If China wants to surpass the US, it must become the greatest country in the world or establish a continental coalition with Russia and India, or reorganize the G20 into an organization lead by the BRICs. But there are other important factors that transcend geopolitics: the role of individuals, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Julian Assange, Stephen Jobs, or even Osama bin Laden; the revival of city states; or the prospect of religious confrontation between Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Confucianism.

Can Mubarak Follow South Korea’s Path?

by Peter M. Beck

Peter M. Beck [beckpeterm@gmail.com] is a POSCO Fellow at the East-West Center and a Hitachi Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

As the world holds its breath to learn if the Egyptian people’s amazing struggle for democracy ends in a breakthrough or a bloodbath, President Hosni Mubarak would do well to consider the South Korea option. Ultimately, Korea’s dictators and democracy were both winners.

Like Egyptians, South Koreans endured decades of American-backed dictatorship.  In the spring of 1987, Korea’s military government held sham elections not unlike the ones held in Egypt last year.  However, in both places, a combination of repression and rising expectations proved a combustible mix.  If the actual trigger for Egyptians was the sudden overthrow of Tunisia’s dictatorship last month, Koreans drew inspiration from the “People Power” overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines the year before.

As in Cairo today, student-led demonstrations drew hundreds of thousands into the streets of Seoul 24 years ago.  Like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Korea’s Christians played a supporting role at the outset.  After weeks of clashes and teargas, on June 29 the government announced that a free and fair direct presidential election would be held within six months.  Given that almost exactly seven years earlier, the military unleashed a crackdown that killed over 200 citizens, the question we must ask is, what had changed?

When facing persistent social unrest, all dictators invariably undertake a cost-benefit analysis of cracking down versus opening up.  In 1980, Korea’s coup leaders correctly determined that there would be little or no cost for killing.  Indeed, within months of wiping the blood off of his hands, General-turned-President Chun Doo-hwan was one of President Ronald Reagan’s first foreign guests at the White House. Later that same year, Seoul was awarded the 1988 Summer Olympics.  Far from incurring any costs, Korea’s dictators were rewarded for their bad behavior.