Table Of ContentL
STUDIES IN CONTEMPORARY SOUTHEAST ASIA
POLITICS AND POWER
IN CAMBODIA
l
i
The Sihanouk Years
MILTON OSBORNE
'I act according to my conscience which is absolutely
clear. Let those who disapprove of me come and take
my place or do away with me.'
7 April 1967 Prince Norodom Sihanouk
> >
1
LONGMAN
Longman Australia Pty Limited
Camberwell Victoria Australia
Associated companies, branches, and representatives
throughout the world.
Copyright © 1973 Longman Australia
This book is copyright. Apart from any.fair dealing for
the purposes of private study, research, criticism, or
review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part
may be reproduced by any process without written permission.
Enquiries should be made to the publishers.
First published 1973
ISBN 0 582 71040 5 (Cased)
ISBN 0 582 71041 3 (Limp)
Typeset by The Universities Press Pty .Ltd
Printed in Hong Kong by Dai Nippon Printing Co., ( Hong Kong) Ltd
_
.r
'-
'51-
4_.
_u
.
.
r
|
H
4
.'*
-
.r
u
|
I
CONTENTS
Preface vii
1 The Problem 1
2 The Traditional Background 12
3 The Years of Colonial Calm 24
4 Sihanouk's Growth to Political Maturity 38
5 The Sangkum Solution 55
6 Portrait of a Prince 70
'7 From Hope to Stagnation, 1960 to 1966 82
8 Towards the Abyss 96
9 Exit a Prince 108
Bibliography 118
Index 119
T
H
A
I
L
A
N
D
.
*
*
-I.
.
I l 1. l . I . l ,.. |-
6uoy9w
_F x~ '*-,;1
I
'°.. I
3; !
..#-.l
A
r-
> \_
.
l 4 O \_
4 1 M
..11 U)
nol1s* '.H." ** .*.. l3*0 -
PREFACE
When Prince Norodom Sihanouk was turned out of office in March
1970 this largely unexpected event gave sudden emphasis to the need
for further study of Cambodia's internal politics. For years Cam-
bodia and its princely leader had received attention mostly in terms
of foreign policy developments. The recent internal history of
Cambodia was the concern of a restricted few. After Sihanouk fell
the importance of the neglected or ignored domestic politics of this
Southeast Asian country was suddenly apparent. Not least, the
March 1970 coup d'étcat revealed the extent to which a widely accepted
picture of internal harmony within Cambodia under the Prince's
rule required substantial revision.
This book attempts a broad analysis of Cambodia's internal
.
politics during what may be accurately termed the Sihanouk years
In restricting analysis to internal politics there is a risk of artificiality,
but such artificiality is justified by the overwhelming weight of
attention to the country's external concerns that is already available
for study. The footnotes will make abundantly clear my debt to
other writers on Cambodian affairs whose interests have primarily
been in the external field.
Outside the scholarly and personal debts that can be acknowledged
in footnotes I must record my deep gratitude to a range of friends
and colleagues jar too numerous to be included here. The list in-
cludes many in Cambodia whom I first met in the years 1959-61,
when I served as a member of the Australian Embassy in Phnom
Penh, and who have continued to receive me with kindness in later
years. My own understanding of developments in Cambodia owes
much to the opportunities I have had to discuss the country's history
and politics with students at Monash University, in Australia, and at
Cornell University, in the United States.
vii
I am glad to record my thanks to the Australian Research Grants
Committee for providing me with funds to study in Vietnam and
Cambodia in 1969-70. The Department of History at Monash
University ensured that I was freed of responsibilities that might
have impeded my research overseas at that time. By inviting me to
spend the first half of 1972 as a Visiting Senior FelloW in the Depart-
ment of History at the School of Oriental and African Studies,
London, Professor C. D. Cowan gave me the opportunity to write
this book in the most advantageous circumstances.
As must always be made quite clear, I alone am responsible for the
statements made and the views expressed in this study.
June 1972 Milton Osborne
viii
Chapter One
THE PROBLEML
Historians seldom agree on the exact significance of a particular
development. In the future, the cause and the significance of Prince
Norodom Sihanouk's fall from power, in March 1970, will be a matter
for continuing debate. Yet whatever the terms of that debate, and
whatever the degree of agreement achieved, there is ample reason
already for arguing that Sihanouk's loss of power was a major
turning point in the recent history of Cambodia. Moreover, even for
the most sceptical foreign observer of the years when Sihanouk was
the dominant figure in Cambodian politics, the fact of the coup
d'état, the identity of those who planned it, and the speed with which
change was accomplished were matters for some surprise. All of
these, cumulatively, provide a new point of departure for a con-
.
sideration of developments in Cambodia since the Second W'orld War
The coup of 18 March 1970 offers a new perspective from which to
examine Cambodian. affairs. Or, to seek another illustrative meta-
phor, Sihanouk's sudden physical disappearance from the Cambodian
political scene has given students of his country a new lens through
which to examine past events.
The danger of all metaphors is that at the same time as they aid in
the understanding of a complex event they simplify excessively.
Yet, in Cambodia's case, to Write of a changed perspective, or of the
sudden unexpected use of a new lens through which to view develop-
ments, has real point. For these two metaphors emphasize that the
reviews which are now being made of developments in Cambodia
during the 1950s and 1960s are concerned, to a very considerable
extent, with continuities as much as changes. Sihanouk's overthrow
has not changed the events of the past. It has made observers aware
of points of significance that, in large part, were either ignored or
insuflieiently understood previously. Even the most disenchanted
1
2 POLITICS AND POWER IN CAMBODIA
observers of Prince Sihanouk's 'Buddhist Socialism', and of the in-
creasingly difficult relations which he had with the politically active
members of the Cambodian population, hestitated to speculate, at
least in public fashion, on the possibility of his political demise.
This fact, in itself, made the suddenness of Sihanouk's departure the
more surprising. For years, commentaries on Cambodian politics
emphasized the importance for Sihanouk's survival of the great
popularity he enjoyed among the peasantry. But, when members of
the Cambodian political élite chose to act against him, with firm
control of the country's armed forces, the impotence of the peas-
antry's passive support was clearly shown. While dissatisfaction and
dissension existed among those holding high office under Sihanouk,
the loyalty of his Minister of Defence, General Lon Nol, had long
seemed beyond question. Yet it was Lon Nol who emerged, im-
mediately after Sillanouk's deposition, as the most powerful of those
who had been prepared to strip the god-king of his aura.
Cambodia, and its politics, have not been unique in Southeast
Asia in the extent to which they have excited controversy, among
scholars and more casual observers alike. Indeed, many of the
assumptions which have lain behind the controversies over develop-
ments in Cambodia have been similar to those held, for instance, in
relation to Indonesia or Vietnam. Commenta.tors argued about the
nature of political developments in Cambodia in terms of their sup-
posed significance for the wider contest which was perceived between
Communism and anti-Communism in the Southeast Asian region.
Cambodia's proximity to the war in Vietnam gave added impetus to
analyses couched in these terms. For supporters of United States
policy in the Indochinese region, Prince Sihanouk's international
policies were, more often than not, seen as wilfully dangerous, or at
best unsympathetic. For those who were critical of American
policies-a group of commentators of considerable size, many
nationalities, and varying degrees of probity-the Prince and his
policies were frequently portrayed as wise and courageous. Those
who wrote from a pro-American bias were frequently unready or
unable to comprehend the complexities of the Cambodian political
scene and unwilling to accept his justifications of Cambodia's foreign
policy. Leaving to one side those who were avowed propagandists
for anti-American causes and cynical journalists who knew that a
favorable account of Cambodia would ensure their return to the
country, the commentators who saw the best in Cambodia were the
mirror image of the critics. To understand all, in their case, was not
only to forgive all; at worst, it was also to risk disregarding the
complexities of Cambodia in the same manner as less tolerant
observers. The resulting sympathetic distortion was just as mis-
leading'
