An interview with Prince Sihanouk

Press, 24 October 1980, Page 12

An interview with Prince Sihanouk

On October 31, Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Kampuchea will be 58. That is comparatively young for a politician who has been prominent in his country’s political life for almost 40 years. Some have written him off as a “has-been,” either because they think his royal background is anachronostic for Kampuchea’s current problems or because they think he is too old. Professor W. E. WILLMOTT, who met the Prince last month, found him still vigorous, and deeply committed to Kampuchean independence. This is the first of two articles in which Professor Willmott reports on his interview.

Having met Prince Sihanouk in 1971, on a previous visit to Peking, 1 wrote to him last year and received a cordial invitation to meet him again. As soon as I arrived in Peking, I rang his office and was answered by an old friend, Mr Pung Peng Cheng, who was Director of National Education when I lived in Phnom-Penh in 1963 and is now Private Adviser to Prince Sihanouk. Mr Pung Peng Cheng informed me that Prince Sihanouk would be happy to meet with me and my daughter on September 1. Prince Sihanouk lives in the old French legation, an irony of history that is not lost on him, since France occupied his country for a hundred years and had him crowned king - of Kampuchea in 1941. Mr Pung Peng Cheng met us and led us to a reception hall where Prince Sihanouk was waiting. After greeting us, Prince Sihanouk motioned us to armchairs where we sat for an hour and a half of conversation. Prince Sihanouk spoke in lively and colourful English, a surprise to me, as our last interview had been conducted in French. My brief questions provoked long and ardent comments, only the sense of which can be conveyed in the following outline.

Prince Sihanouk began by accusing the Pol Pot regime of killing two million of his countrymen. They started in 1975 by killing their “enemies number one,” the cadres and officers of Lon Nol and some of the royal family. He believes his own J: fe and those of his immediate family were spared only because Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai intervened on his behalf. “I am sure I owe my life to Mao and Zhou,” he said. Willmott: Now Khieu Samphan is the leader of the Kampuchean Communist Party. K . C . P ) . Sihanouk: They have not changed anything. Khieu Samphan is the theorist of the K.C.P. He wrote a thesis which said that progress in Kampuchea is possible only if the upper classes are liquidated and he meant their physical liquidation. Therefore he is no different from Pol Pot. They are all responsible: Pol Pot, leng Sary, Khieu Samphan, Son Sen, Madame leng Sary, Madame Pol Pot — they are all the same, all killers. Willmott: T hen why were they popular before 1975? Sihanouk: There are three reasons. First, because Sihanouk supported them. In 1970, the Khmer Rouge numbered only a few hun-

dred: that was nothing among the seven million Khmer people, until my millions joined them. I told my people to support them, even though they were Red. because they were true patriots and because they were not corrupt. Lon Nol said he opposed me because I was corrupt, but his regime was ten times as corrupt as mine. Second, the American bombing: peasants’ homes were destroyed, the pagodas were destroyed, their cattle were destroyed, so they sided with the Khmer Rouge because they opposed the bombing. Third, the Vietnamese invasion: Nguyen Van Thieu sent soldiers into Kampuchea to support Lon Nol, and they did very bad things. They stole cattle to eat, they destroyed buildings, they stole Buddhist relics from the pagodas and took them back to Vietnam. That is why the people supported the Khmer Rouge. We must not forget that we won the war with the help of the Vietnamese, and it would have been impossible without their help. It is like two gangs that join to make a coup, but after the victory they fall out over the division of the spoils. For instance, in Capone’s day in Chicago, two gangs could join together to rob a bank, then they would fight over the take. Another example, the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in fighting Nazi Germany, but since Germany was defeated they have been enemies. Kampuchea is unique in the world because it has been a satellite of all sides. It was a satellite of America under Lon Nol, then it was a satellite of China under Pol Pot, and now it is a satellite of the Soviet Union under the Vietnamese. Albania was never a satellite

of China. Enver Hoxha was always very independent. Willmott: Why could China not control Kampuchea if it was a satellite? Sihanouk: The relationship between satellites and master is always ambiguous. For instance, the United States could not control Thieu, and they cannot control Chon Du Huan, the South Korean di- • ctator now, just as they could not control Park Jung Hi before him. The satellite is sometimes the master. I asked Madame Zhou Enlai

recently why the Chinese did not stop the killing in Kampuchea. She said . that they couldn’t interfere in an independent country. But now the communists have failed because of their mistakes, so China will tell them they must follow China’s advice if they want support. That is why they now repudiate communism ■ and socialism and say, “We are nationalists now.” They dress in Western style instead of Mao jackets: they are more American than the

Americans. But they have not really changed. There is a Khmer saying: a wolf will never be a dog. a tiger will never be a cat. You can call a wolf “dog,” but it is still a wolf; you can call a tiger • cat.” but it is still a tiger. They are changing their clothes just to mislead the West. Unfortunately, the West is very naive, so thev believe that they have changed, but communists never change. Willmott: Some of the more liberal communists died, such as Hu Nim. Sihanouk: Yes, Hu Nim and Hou Yuon were both more liberal, so they were killed. But they were not liberals: a communist can never be a liberal. If you are a liberal, you are not communist. Of course, there are some noncommunists who are also not liberals. For instance, Marcos is not a liberal, but he is anti-communist. Chon. Du Huan is not a liberal, and he is also anti-commun-t ist. But communists are never liberals. It is just that some communists are more intelligent than others. Hou Yuon" and Hu Nim were more intelligent. Hou Yuon was killed on the day that Phnom-Penh was liberated, (April 17, 1975) because he opposed the complete evacuation of the city. I was told this by my friends in Phnom-Penh-Hu Nim was killed because he wanted some Buddhism to stay to mislead the West He was not pro-Buddhist, but he opposed the total destruction of Buddhism: Pol Pot wanted to end all beliefs immediately. Hu Nim also wanted Kampuchea to modernise. Pol Pot did not want any Western technology because he said it was an infection. He wanted no tractors, nothing. Hu Nim was more intelligent.