Declaration of Samdech HUN SEN

Declaration of Samdech HUN SEN,

Prime Minister of the Royal Government of Cambodia and

Command-in-Chief of the Cambodia National Armed

Forcers

Over the past few days after the defection of Khiev Sampha, Nuon Chea, former top leaders of the Khmer Rouge to the fold of the nation, there happens a variety of mixed reaction. On one side, the joy and peace resulting from the fact that they ceased to wage war against the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), and on the other, the dissatisfaction over the impunity of the Khmer Rouge leaders who have been responsible for the death of millions of Cambodians while they were in power from 1975 to 1979.

Faced with the reactions’ implication that I have changed my position to the problem of trial of the Khmer Rouge leaders. I wish to clarify as follows:

There has never been any time that I spare efforts to eradicate the Pol Pot’s genocidal regime, to prevent its return to power for the second time, to demand a trial of specified leaders of the regime to be taking place, to demand for an inclusion in the Paris Peace Agreement a sentence against the genocide regime, to use win-win solution for the pacification in the Khmer Rouge controlled areas for the sake of peace throughout Cambodia – all of which have been fulfilled in the aim of dismantling the political and military organization of the Khmer Rouge. Up to now, one could say that this terrorist organization has been eradicated in real sense, bringing about an end to the threat of possible return of the genocide. Peace prevails all over the country for the first time since there no longer exist the Khmer Rouge armed forces after World War II.
It is unfortunate that some individuals have forgotten the past. In 1979, the People’s Court of the then People’s Republic of Cambodia did put Pol Pot, Ieng Sary on trial. Together with other leaders of the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) in my capacity as Foreign Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Prime Minister, I had consistently proposed time and again to dismantle the political and military organization of the Khmer Rouge, and to bring them to trial. But, they instead were given the rights to the seat at the United Nations to represent millions of Cambodians who survived the killing fields and the souls of more than two million dead ones. In 1990-1991, I could recall with suffering that in the debates on the Paris Peace Agreement I was attacked and named a person of no will to end the war just for my suggestion to use in the Agreement the word "genocide." I was unfairly under pressure and was forced to sign the Agreement with the Khmer Rouge leaders, other Cambodia parties, and foreign signatories. At that time Khiev Samphan and Son Sen, who have now been demanded for a trial, and one of whom was dead, whole the other surrendered to RGC, were granted the privileges in the Supreme National Council (SNC) of Cambodia. Was it then an artificial morality in the Cold War era and the ideological confrontation?

May I recall that it was in fact a bad fate for the Khmer Rouge for their decision to boycott the elections in 1993. If they were to participate, whether they could get or could not get any seats in the Parliament, they could have been a legal political party already in Cambodia. The army, the administrative officials of the Khmer Rouge could have participated on an equal basis in the political life of the country because the Paris Peace Agreement requires in integration of former parties involved in the conflict, both the army and the civil administration. If the situation were to evolve in such a way, how many individuals of fake morality are there that would demand the trial of the Khmer Rouge leaders as they do now.

After the 1993 elections, RGC of the first mandate tries it best to eradicate the Khmer Rouge by peaceful means, which also included the amnesty granted to Ieng Sary under the power of the court verdict in 1979, in exchange for peace and national reconciliation.

After the rebellion in Anlong Veng and the death of Pol Pot, the war yet to be completely over. We have tried to encourage the rang and file of the Khmer Rouge to continue to defect. We did our best to communicate with our neighboring friends to hand over Ta Mok, Khiev Samphan, and Noun Chea to us since May 98 without any successes. the neighbors, who have kept the Khmer Rouge’s leaders, high and low levels, have always denied any presence of the Khmer Rouge leaders on their territories. But they said they would hand them over to us if we accept to reintegrate then back into the fold of the nation. In June 1998, we gave it a try to accept the return of Chan Yuran, , Mak Ben, Kao Bunheng, In Sopheap, Tiuon Tioeun. It took only 48 hours for them to be delivered to Pailin. At last, Khiev Samphan and Nuon Chea, together with their families, were in Pailin after 72 hours. I wish to stress that there has no international airport in Pailin for those people to travel in to the area from another country. And they also do not travel back out from Battambang to Pailin. They in fact travel by vehicles from the territory of a country into Pailin. Khiev Samphon, Nuon Chea, Chan Yuran, Mak Ben, Tiuon Tioeun, In Sopheap, Kao Bunheng, and many others are live witnesses. One could ask them where they were before their return to Cambodia. May I ask our friends for an apology that I have been forced to speak the truth for the sake of a real morality and not a fake one, and I do not have to mention where Ta Mok is now, if not necessary.

Few years ago, the game of war and peace was played noisily in Cambodia, in the United Nations, in the Paris Peace Conference, as well as in every other forums of negotiation, without taking into consideration of the morality and legal process nor the convention in-force for the prevention and the condemnation of the genocide. Hun Sen was isolated because of his stand against the genocide.

Today Hun Sen suffers another blow for his success in dismantling in the military and political organization of Pol Pot, creating a complete peace, mobilizing a movement of national reconciliation, while forgetting about the trial of the Khmer Rouge leaders. In is not that I forget to mention about it. But I have yet to say because I am now having to talk about peace before anything else in accordance with the need of the nation nad people for peace.

It is quire ironical and it is not hard for. Those people who are lacking the spirit of responsibility, who are sort of fake morality or political opportunists. A Khmer saying goes "I would not dare to scare the buffaloes away while they are eating rice in the paddy field, but I would do so once they walk away. I would not dare to catch the crocodile in the water, but I would do so once it is dead". While the Khmer Rouge was strong politically and militarily, and was a real threat, everyone bows their heads to accept the Khmer Rouge and refrains themselves from using even the word "genocide". When we mobilize our forces to fight the Khmer Rouge, we were condemned, and pressurized to negotiate to bring the Khmer Rouge into the elections under the form of National Solidarity Party of Khiev Samphan in addition to the amnesty to be provided to the Khmer Rouge leaders. But it is the same group of people who have condemned us for receiving Khiev Somphan and Nuon Chea back into the fold of the nation, while the later do not bring with them the organization of the Khmer Rouge at all, but wish to live as ordinary citizen. Precisely speaking, this group of people are disappointed when facing the collapse of the Khmer Rouge organization because they can no longer use them for political balance against the Government.

My position is that the trial of the Khmer Rouge is a fait accompli and to be proceeded. A fait accompli, I mean that the verdict of the People’s Court in 1979 is still valid, and recognized by the royal decree which provided amnesty for Ieng Sary in 1996. To be proceeded, I mean a court that is to be set up the recommendation of the national and foreign jurists who are actually doing the job. I am one of the people who supports the investigation on the crimes of the Pol Pot’s genocide that it definitely be punished. But I am not acting as a plaintiff to accuse this that person on behalf of the prosecutor seconded to the court. We have to seek answers to various questions such as what type of court to be set up, national or international? Where shall it be located, in Cambodia or abroad? Will they use Cambodia or foreign judges and prosecutors, or a mixture of both? Will the trial be based on the Cambodian or International laws? etc. Based upon my minor knowledge, only the prosecutor is entitled to impeach this or that individual. As politicians, we should exercise our activities within the given limit.

Based upon the reasons listed above, I decided to welcome Khiev Sampan and Nuon Chea back in to the fold of the nation for the sake of putting and an to war, moving forward the national reconciliation, and also annihilating the political and military organization of the Khmer Rouge.

In my welcoming letter, as well as my letter to HM the king, to Samdech Krom Preah Norodom Ranariddh, and to Samdech Heng Samrin, I mention only about peace and national reconciliation, and I did not mention anything about the court process. I have provided no guarantee to any particular persons to be free from charges of the court. In my own statement on December 28, 1998 to the cabinet’s meeting, I even mentioned that I dare not provided any guarantee even to my wife or my children from any charges of the court because I am not sure if they could not in the later date commit offences, which has to be charge by the court. I thing it conveys sufficient meaning that I respect the independence of the court.

In connection with amnesty and the arrest of Khiev Sampan and Nuon Chea. I wish to clarify this as follows:

There have been no issued court verdict for the two of them. this means that it is not at all necessary to propose for an amnesty prior to their return,
There exist yet the arrest warrants for the two of them,
They both volunteer to return to the fold of the nation and abandon their fight against the RGC. They have not been arrested in the battle, so they are not prisoners of war.

If we were to arrest them, the RGC would become a coward commander and in discipline just for the arrest of the military officials who surrendered from the fight and asked for a peaceful life. it should be seen as a morality of the strong officers against the weak. Otherwise, it is a warning signal to other solders not to defect to the Government anymore because we have not kept to our promise-a promise that we made without violating the power of the court, but in it respect.

The real victory of peace does not mean killing all the enemy but to do everything possible so that the enemy stop fighting in a peaceful way. The real victory of the Government is not to hold all opponents as prisoners but to find the best means for them to contribute to the national construction for the sake of poverty alleviation. No sound of fighting does not sufficiently mean peace, but we have to make everyone free from fear. As for morality and legality, they should not be flexible in accordance to the political circumstances as the Khmer Rouge problems are in Cambodia.

The best chest player is the one who knows how to move a large number of pawns in support of each other from point to point to secure victory, but the morality of the best chest player should not be moved seen it is the instinct nature of the human being.

I sincerely hope that my clarification is sufficient for an understanding of the past, the present and the future.

Phnom Penh, 01 January 1999

HUN SEN