Calling on Cambodia's
Sihanouk By Verghese Mathews
SINGAPORE - Ta Mok, a name familiar to a
generation of Cambodians, died in Phnom Penh in
the early hours of July 21. In detention since his
capture in 1999, the much-feared one-legged former
Khmer Rouge military commander died in a military
hospital of complications resulting from a long
history of high blood pressure, respiratory
illness, cardio-vascular problems and
tuberculosis.
While there were those who
mourned his death, there were arguably legions who
were both truly disappointed and deeply frustrated
that Ta Mok had taken along with him to the
hereafter
many
dark secrets of the three years, eight months and
20 days of the dreaded Khmer Rouge regime.
His untimely but not unexpected death is
without doubt a great loss to the forthcoming
Khmer Rouge Tribunal. He could surely have shed at
least some light as to why the Khmer Rouge did
what it did to its own people, what unfortunate
alignment of the planets motivated its frenzied
attempt to reinvent Cambodia, and why that
exercise went so dreadfully wrong.
Ta Mok
is not the only one to have cheated the tribunal
of a primary source, of which it has a very
limited number. The man accused of being most
responsible for the crimes, Pol Pot, Brother No 1,
died unceremoniously in suspicious circumstances
on April 15, 1998 - at a time when Ta Mok had
wrested control of the Khmer Rouge from him.
The loss of such a critical witness as Ta
Mok should sound the clarion call to both the
United Nations and the Cambodian government that
the tribunal should not be delayed any longer and
that every resource ought to be marshaled to
accelerate the process.
Apart from the
possible deaths of the remaining aging Khmer Rouge
leaders, there is residual fear in certain circles
that some if not most of them who live and move
freely in Cambodia will quietly disappear from the
country before the trial proper begins early next
year. This is not an unlikely scenario.
Media reports last month, for example,
that former head of state Khieu Samphan "had
packed up his pickup truck in the middle of the
night and left town" quickly gained currency and
raised anxiety among those who continue to harbor
doubts about the tribunal.
A subsequent
explanation that Khieu Samphan was merely
transporting a bed to his son's house killed
further international media interest in the
incident but failed to assuage the doubts of the
cynics.
Viewed in this context of
diminishing primary witnesses, the July 15 offer
of former king Norodom Sihanouk, now referred to
as Father King, to testify makes fascinating
reading and is truly intriguing.
He
declared on his website that he did not lack the
courage to appear before the tribunal and again
pointedly reminded everyone, "My family, my wife's
family and many people who supported Norodom
Sihanouk were tortured and killed by Pol Pot."
Will Sihanouk testify? It would be
difficult for Sihanouk not to steal the limelight
should he appear. Even his worst detractors will
grudgingly admit that Sihanouk is an extremely
astute politician who has been intimately involved
with developments in his country for the past
half-century. He is both enigmatic and
extraordinary. He also knows how to capture
attention.
An important point to note here
is the firm belief in some quarters that Sihanouk
is very serious, and that his was not a frivolous
offer. Sihanouk is a man of history, and as he
looks back at his colorful and eventful life, he
may pause to admit that one of the most
universally misunderstood and most trying periods
of his life was when he, Queen Mother Norodom
Monineath and the present king, Norodom Sihamoni,
ended up as virtual prisoners in the palace during
the Khmer Rouge rein.
It is entirely
possible, or so the belief goes, that Sihanouk, in
his sunset years, will view the tribunal, despite
his previous criticism of it, as one of the very
few remaining vehicles to put across his side of
the story for future generations of Cambodians and
for the international community.
There is
a view that as he is no longer king and since
constraints are fewer, he will be more forthright
in open court. This is not being fair to Sihanouk.
His track record here is clear. Even when he was
king and there were numerous constraints, he never
lacked in forthrightness.
On the contrary,
what has always been uppermost in the minds of
those who knew him, friends and detractors alike,
was that no one was ever sure what Sihanouk would
say. Even some of those who genuinely admire him
admit that Sihanouk is indeed unpredictable and
fearless - undoubtedly a potent combination.
Others have described him differently.
The highly respected political commentator
Milton Osborne titled his book on Sihanouk
Prince of Darkness, Prince of Light. In a
review of the book, the equally respected Martin
Stuart-Fox disagreed with that reference. He
gently chided, "The title is an extravagant one.
Sihanouk is neither a Prince of Darkness nor a
Prince of Light. Such cosmological/eschatological
overtones as these titles convey should not cloud
our judgment. What Milton Osborne actually
presents us with in this thoughtful and revealing
book is a leader whose flaws of character
contributed in no small measure to his country's
tragic history."
There will be those who
will disagree with that observation about Sihanouk
but will wholeheartedly accept that the real
tragedy of Cambodia was the Khmer Rouge.
Although Sihanouk is not required to
appear, and ultimately may not, there is no
denying that should he do so, his contributions
would be invaluable. There is equally no denying
that should he appear, there could well be anxiety
among some people and within some capitals.
Verghese Mathews, former
Singaporean ambassador to Cambodia, is a visiting
research fellow at the Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies.
