Political Interest wrote:To survive in politics one must be an opportunist.
Of course. But a leader is judged by results.
Hun Sen is a leader I respect (even if I do not like his policies, he is the same as Sihanouk, except he actually achieves most of his goals), he is the ultimate opportunist. He achieved most of his goals and in spite turning on his Khmer Rouge comrades, of his shameless alliance with the NVA and several coups he is widely popular in Cambodia today.
That is an effective leader. A survivor. A genuine tough guy that not only survives by his wits,bravery and political skills but thrives. I do not agree with most of his policies.
Did Norodom survive as a politician?
In Thailand, word of the king alone can overturn coups. Sihanouk never had this kind of power after the KR era and spent most of his exile in North Korea. Even had he told Hun Sen to step down, Hun Sen would have simply told him to go take a hike and that would be the end of the story.
I will give Norodom the credit that he had witty comebacks to journalists and foreign diplomats. He was also reported to be a cultivated man who played several musical instruments. Albeit I heard his original work was mediocre(see below).
el
In what respect? Under his leadership Cambodia was developing. Also he was not a Khmer chauvinist like Lon Nol or Pol Pot. It is known that he respected the place of Cham Muslims within Cambodia.
countrystudy.us/cambodia/15.htm wrote:nother critical observer, Milton E. Osborne, writing as an Australian expatriate in Phnom Penh during the late 1960s, describes the Sihanouk years in terms of unbridled greed and corruption, of a foreign policy inspired more by opportunism than by the desire to preserve national independence, of an economy and a political system that were rapidly coming apart, and of the prince's obsession with making outrageously mediocre films--one of which starred himself and his wife, Princess Monique.
Sihanouk was all of these things--patriot, neutralist, embodiment of the nation's destiny, eccentric, rigid defender of the status quo, and promoter of the worst sort of patron-client politics. He believed that he single-handedly had won Cambodia's independence from the French. The contributions of other nationalists, such as Son Ngoc Thanh and the Viet Minh, were conveniently forgotten. Sihanouk also believed he had the right to run the state in a manner not very different from that of the ancient Khmer kings--that is, as an extension of his household.
Norodom was not enough of a "chauvinist" as you say.
Cambodia has also significant Cambodian population in Vietnam who face discrimination by the vietnamese state.It it can get back this land by force of arms, it should do so. Pol Pot's mistake did not reside in wanting to take back ancient cambodian lands, but in his deluded estimation of the balance of power.
Even if you do not accept the Cambodian territorial cloaims, there was simply no excuse for allowing the stationing of Vietcong troops on Cambodia's territory. Opposing this (which is what Lon Nol did) is not chauvinism at all. It is a reasonable demand not to have foreign troops from a historical enemy on one's territory. That is what it means being neutral.
A divided Vietnam was unsustainabe.
Perhaps, but history change constantly. We cannot predict for more then a few decades (if that) at a time.
Cardinal Richelieu's main foreign policy goals was to keep Germany divided. Perhaps unification was been inevitable, but had he not broken diplomatic ranks with his religious fellows, german unification would have arrived much earlier, to the disadvantage of the French.
The time to stop the Vietnamese was right after independance when support against the reds ran at its highest in America.
In a position of weakness, a diplomat's job is to stall for time. had the US succeeded in achieving a stalemate, it is almost certain that Vietnam would still be divided today. A country can achieve a lot in 40 years.
- By wat0n