|
Unofficial Translation
Selected Comments at the 30th Anniversary of “Growing Partnership” between Royal Government and Non-Government
Organizations
24 November 09
It is a great
pleasure indeed that I have the chance to participate in this very meaningful
and joyful celebration of the 30th Anniversary of “growing
partnership between the Royal Government of Cambodia and Non-Governmental
Organizations.” It has taken us a long and bumpy road before we have come this
far. Ms Eva Mysliwiec has just mentioned in her speech starting from when she
met me for the first time in 1980. I became Foreign Minister when I was 27 years
old in fact, in 1979. I was the youngest Minister indeed in the world. In just
two months from now I will be the one who has been the longest person serving in
the Government within 31 years.
As is
mentioned by Ms Eva Mysliwiec, we first started in 1980 with only 5 NGOs –
Oxfam, CIDSE, Church World Service, World Vision and AFSC (American Friend
Service Committee). Cambodia had then suffered unjust embargo after it survived
the genocide of Pol Pot. It is like we survived from the Pol Pot’s genocide, and
they pushed us to another death. Pol Pot’s crimes has been witnessing today and
tomorrow through the final decision by the Extra Ordinary Chamber in the Court
of Cambodia on the case of Duch or Kaing Gek Iev of the former S21 torture camp
of the regime.
For those who
supported Pol Pot in the past, and later continued to punish us, what sort of
moral and humanitarian responsibility they should have, if not resources that
are relating to development of the country. At least they should recognize in
their mind their responsibility as a moral obligation. Those who have come to
our rescue at the time that we were being punished politically and economically
have to be bestowed with our gratitude.
I wish to
thank the five organizations plus two international organizations – CICR and
UNHCR, and on the Cambodian people’s behalf, deliver our deep respect and
appreciation to the late Madame Onesta Carpene, who died three years ago and was
one of the pioneers in the Cambodian survival after the liberation, for her
tireless efforts. Let’s bow for her contribution and share with her our dream -
may she be here with us today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of
the Government and NGO in partnership.
Having said so
don’t take me to an extreme that I do not appreciate those works that are being
implemented by those who have come to help Cambodia after the Paris Peace
Agreement at all. What I have mentioned is to explore more the meaning of
“indeed when in need.” This was the highest value Cambodia provides to initial
actions that were taken by the non-governmental organizations as their
contributions to the country, people and government at that time.
Without
referring to political difficulties, I would just recall two most serious issues
we had to challenge together in those days – hunger, which was left from the Pol
Pot’s genocide and a constant threat to our people’s lives, and prevention of
Pol Pot’s return. Pol Pot was indeed no longer in Phnom Penh but its military
and political organizations were intact, with a Government that enjoyed support
from foreign countries to continue to occupy the Cambodian seat at the United
Nations. This had been a concern that without proper forces to protect the
country and people, Pol Pot might eventually return to power.
Secondly,
because of property’s ownership elimination under Pol Pot’s, whereas tools
needed for production had been disorganized and scarce, we were left with no
inheritance from the regime. In this case, let’s us see what former General Lon
Nol, President of the Khmer Republic, had had as state inheritance –
infrastructure, financial and human resources, etc. from Sangkum Reastr Niyum
(Popular Socialist Community) of Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk, who had built
the country 16 or 17 years after winning independence from France.
After five
years in power of the Lon Nol’s regime, Pol Pot, who took over the Lon Nol’s
regime, also had had the state inheritance to a certain extent. If they were not
to send people out of the cities, there remained to be factories and other means
of productions. But their vision and action were to eradicate private ownership,
not only materially but also sentimentally. They left us no freedom, starting
from our beliefs. The only thing we had was to be a machine or tool at their
commands.
If we were to
put then production relation into picture, we could compare them to those
between slaves, which were the Cambodian people, and slave master, which was the
Pol Pot’s organization. What do we have left from Pol Pot? We had family loss,
division and death. Our people did not have the right to choose whom to love and
to marry with. This has let me to conclude why was Cambodia able to get out of
this mess and to come this far?
There have
been many factors involved indeed. However one major reason I would single out
here is the fact that we have people’s participation. By saying so I would bring
to light the fact that people have joined in eradicating Pol Pot’s mode of
production in a very short time. It is factual that Vietnam had come to our
rescue, though some may disagree, providing their assistance to the forces of
the National United Front for the Salvation of Kampuchea led by Samdech Heng
Samrin, Samdech Chea Sim and myself. However, if our people did not participate
in overthrowing Pol Pot and his regime, could this task have been done?
What I wanted
to pinpoint here is the mode of production that was eradicated with a quick
replacement by new one. After Pol Pot’s collapse, our people took their
initiatives to redevelop a new mode of production by themselves without waiting
for the state intervention in reorganizing it. It just came out. Whether one may
or may not agree with it but our people were determined to do away with the Pol
Pot’s collective system which obliged practicing of common ownership. That is
why I say people’s participation has been a key and without it no success could
be guaranteed.
In theory, a
mode of production consists of two main elements – productive force and
productive relation. Just now I mentioned about the mode of production under the
Pol Pot’s regime is to be characterized as slave and slave-master or people and
organization relation. More from the theory, it is productive force that
determines productive relation. I do not intend to discuss Marxism-Leninism but
just to clarify relation from one phase to another in the case of Cambodia. They
say the stronger the production force, the more it demands collectivization.
Take for instance a handicraft production system has to depend on many other
factors in order to become an industrial setup.
However, in
the case of Cambodia, after the fall of the Pol Pot’s collective system, we have
had a reversal development to this theory. The weaker the productive force
prompted the productive means to be collective. A group of 30 households for
example had only two pairs of oxen, they had been happy to share their means of
production. The means of production were so limited but our people were united
and shared them so as to survive the worst. This has proven that it is not
always true that collectivization happened only when the productive force grows
stronger. It could also happen when it is weaker as well.
There had been
no country with higher number of orphans than Cambodia according to the number
of its population. Countries ravaged by both world wars in Europe, or in the
Korean War in the 1950s or those ethnic cleansing wars in Sera Leone and Rwanda
did not seem to have higher orphan figure like Cambodia. How did Cambodia deal
with this situation? Families in Cambodia had taken care of orphans who were
either their own or not their own bloodline relatives. Then NGOs came in and
helped. Local NGOs did not exist yet at the time. No orphan had been left to
die. I am so proud of this. We set up what we called “Rose” Centre which was
truly orphanage. We called it a different name to make orphans feel that they
have a bigger family and they are not left uncared for.
The state
capacity was limited and could not do the job all by itself. A bigger and more
effective duty and care had in those days been provided by Cambodian families
for every other reason. As of now some people do not know who their parents are.
They have been well brought up and educated according to their abilities and
wisdom. Some have graduated from high schools and from universities too. Some
are now pilots, etc. Again I mention this in order to illustrate our history to
you about the case that can be a success because we have people participation.
One more
example would be our win-win policy. It is a story of great success and there
does not seem to be successfully implemented elsewhere yet. Again if it were not
for the people’s participation, it would not have been such a success. Take for
instance, the policy was there, but if the Khmer Rouge forces did not cooperate
or a part of the Royal Government did not support it, how could it be
implemented to this level of success? Or if the people under different factional
occupation disagreed, how could we achieve a unity between forces. From A to Z,
I would again stress that participation, including those by NGOs from the
hardest time to the present, is key. We have a lot to talk about. Thirty years
is a long time. It is half a life time too. I started working with NGOs on
behalf of the Government of Cambodia since when I was 27 and now I am 57 years
old.
Another point
I wish to share with you in this solemn anniversary event is about my time as a
Foreign Minister who had to face with many awkward situations. Once I was in
Moscow. I was never allowed to meet then Soviet or other leaders of the Eastern
European socialist states on ground that they considered me, literally speaking
Cambodia, to be a liberal. In Paris, I was considered to be a communist and I
was treated no different to way I was in Moscow. I came to a determination that
no matter what classification they gave to me, I would be still Hun Sen and I
have got nothing to lose for being myself, or Cambodia to lose for being
Cambodia. Cambodia has got nothing else to lose more for than it did already.
Betting one’s
life for liberating and rebuilding the country, while one of my eyes has lost,
my only child then died, my wife and relatives had been missing, what would cost
me more, even my life? It would not be too much or too little to lose even my
life then for the country’s liberation and development. My late mother and grand
aunt came to see me when I returned from the Khmer Rouge’s stronghold at Pailin
in my mission to complete a reunification there. They were worried I was to be
assassinated. I said to them it would be an ill fate only to me and a few of my
colleagues there, if the mission did not work. But if it worked we will have the
whole country united. If I were not to go there, how could I convince our people
there?
I also would
take this moment to thank Ms Eva Mysliwiec for the book she authors “Punishing
the Poor” which I think that it will serves the best interest for research on
Cambodia and I truly and strongly agree with her that it was a real punishment
on the poor. Many NGOs have been working on their plans according to different
phases of development of Cambodia. Many families in Vietnam, at the time that we
were just liberated packed their food or utensils and sent to Cambodia, which in
those days and circumstances had been valuable and thankful as they saved
millions of Cambodians from death.
As is
mentioned by Ms Eva, in the course of working together, we discovered mass
graves one after another in the 1980s. Remains have been collected as evidences
and stored in various places in the country. I had to fight for the preservation
of those evidences after there was a move to cremate them en masse. In 1981 and
1982, they said those remains were fake ones and were recreated for media
purpose. How painful it was when the truth was unrecognized and fault was blamed
on the victims. I think it is now time to show their sorrow, at least as a moral
obligation or else, why should we try the Khmer Rouge? However, the court
continues. In 1980s, we had less than 30 NGOs while as of now we have up to
3,207 NGOs, among which 1933 are non-governmental organizations and 1274 are
associations. I would assure you that I am open to appreciate every
contribution. I wish to make a note here though that some organizations have
disguised under NGOs in conducting their political actions. Why else they do not
come out as political parties? We have political pluralism as well as NGOs and
associations. I think these are some of the experiences we have learned from
working together in the last 30 years as cooperation in this Government-NGO
partnership has evolved from one stage to another. Many works we have done
together from institutional and human capacity building to rule of law,
democratization, good governance, anti-graft and many sectoral issues relating
to agricultural development that are being pursued the Royal Government and
helped by NGOs.
Preparing a law on “NGOs” is underway in a careful manner that after passing it
will ensure a fully responsible action by NGOs as well as way to manage the more
than three thousand organizations as well as issue of transparency relating to
their sources of financial assistance. The Royal Government is also happy to be
knowledgeable of the share contributed by development partners, and NGOs is one
of the sources. Having access to such a record would allow us to compile
together actual figures that we together put into all fields of investment. This
will surely help us ensure transparency and a smooth operation thereon ... /.
EndItem |