A Change of Guard

សូមស្តាប់វិទ្យុសង្គ្រោះជាតិ Please read more Khmer news and listen to CNRP Radio at National Rescue Party. សូមស្តាប់វីទ្យុខ្មែរប៉ុស្តិ៍/Khmer Post Radio.
Follow Khmerization on Facebook/តាមដានខ្មែរូបនីយកម្មតាម Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/khmerization.khmerican

Tuesday 18 August 2015

The Questions the US Ambassador Did Not Want to Answer

Behind the smiles, unanswered questions. Outgoing US. Ambassador William E. Todd greeted Khmer Times Managing Editor James Brooke at AmCham farewell event Thursday night, hours before the Ambassador was wheels up for a new post in Washington. KT Photo: Jean-François Perigois
 
Khmer Times/James Brooke
Sunday, 16 August 2015
1150 views

PHNOM PENH (Khmer Times) – Last Monday morning at 8 am, I was shaving in a beach bungalow on Koh Rong Samloen. My cellphone rang. It flashed insistently: “US Embassy.” “US Embassy.”

Bill Todd, the outgoing US Ambassador, was tracking me down. It was my vacation. It was his last week in Cambodia.

Trying not to smear my iPhone with shaving cream, I listened to him say he did not like the questions I had submitted for a farewell interview. To be more precise, he had not read the questions, but a staff member did not like the questions.

Trying to be diplomatic, I said I did not want to use up newspaper space with ‘happy talk.’

He assured me that he was not aiming for ‘happy talk.’ But – and this is my paraphrase of his words – he did not want to leave town lobbing verbal hand grenades.

Today, in Washington, Mr. Todd settles into his new post - essentially the top official at the State Department for South and Central Asia. A professional diplomat, Mr. Todd did not want to wind up his three years here by leaving messiness in his wake, or problems for his successor, William Heidt.

But I am from the old school of journalism. We armored ourselves against criticism from on high by  repeating this self-serving mantra: “There is no such thing as a stupid question – only a stupid answer.”

In retrospect, I was probably naïve to think a professional diplomat would publicly offer his analysis of Cambodian domestic politics, or opine on another bilateral relationship, in this case, Cambodia-China. But a cardinal rule of enterprising journalism is: “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.”

In that light, I publish here the questions spurned Friday by the outgoing Ambassador – and my answers to my questions.

KT: Given the overwhelming levels of aid, investment and tourism from China, is the job of the US Ambassador here increasingly to serve as a counter weight to China, and its growing authoritarian influence here?

James Brooke: Well, this is a no brainer. But no one wants to say it out loud. With the huge amount of foreign aid, military aid, tourism and investment from China, the influence of the US and European Union has diminished. That could be seen two months ago, when Cambodia’s Foreign Ministry called the US Ambassador’s remarks “extremely insolent.” Foreign affairs is not a feel good affair. It is the realpolitik pursuit of national interests. Cambodia, a relatively small country, sandwiched between Thailand and Vietnam, plays its cards best when it is friends with one and all. One day, China may call in its IOUs. When that happens it will help to have healthy and strong relationships with other major powers. Over the last half century, Cambodia stumbled when it became too closely allied with one power: France, the US, China, Vietnam, etc.

KT: In your time here, have you seen Cambodia increasingly coming under conservative Chinese influence? 

James Brooke: Duh. What the Chinese advisors seems to edit out of their political advice is that ‘Asian values’ do not mean authoritarian values. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia, are healthy, multi-party democracies. 
 
KT: In recent weeks, some members of the ruling elite have watched a Chinese-made video “12 Steps to a Color Revolution.” It blames political change movements – from Hong Kong to Ukraine -- on Washington and London. What is your analysis of this point of view?

James Brooke: This is a classic response of entrenched elites demonizing calls for change. History is littered with examples: Spanish colonial authorities tried to seal early 19th century  Latin America off from the ideals of the French Revolution. In the 1960s American South, white politicians blamed ‘outside agitators’ for ‘stirring up our coloreds.’ In Cambodia of the 1960s, then-Prince Sihanouk repressed some of the political activists who became the ruling elite a generation later.

KT: In recent weeks, high ranking Cambodian officials have blamed the protests of 2013-2014 on foreign groups and governments stirring up Cambodians. What is your view of that period?

James Brooke:  With two thirds of Cambodia’s population under 30, domestic demographics – not foreign agents -- are the main drivers for change. 

KT: In Sept. 2013, as ruling party members took their seats in the National Assembly, your V-for-victory sign at the receiving line was interpreted in different ways. What was your intent?

James Brooke: It would have been interesting to hear the Ambassador’s explanation.

KT: During your time here, what surprised you about Cambodia? What kind of phenomena or trends have to capacity to surprise us in coming years?

James Brooke: This is known in American journalism as the softball question. Maybe I should have put it up top.

No comments: