logo
Fifty years after fall of Phnom Penh, history weighs on Cambodian politics

Fifty years after fall of Phnom Penh, history weighs on Cambodian politics

Al Jazeera17-04-2025

Fifty years after the fall of Phnom Penh to the Khmer Rouge rebel army, the events of April 17, 1975 continue to cast a long shadow over Cambodia and its political system.
Emerging from the bloodshed and chaos of the spreading war in neighbouring Vietnam, Pol Pot's radical peasant movement rose up and defeated the United States-backed regime of General Lon Nol.
The war culminated five decades ago on Thursday, with Pol Pot's forces sweeping into Cambodia's capital and ordering the city's more than two million people into the countryside with little more than the belongings they could carry.
With Cambodia's urban centres abandoned, the Khmer Rouge embarked on rebuilding the country from 'Year Zero', transforming it into an agrarian, classless society.
In less than four years under Pol Pot's rule, between 1.5 and three million people were dead. They would also almost wipe out Cambodia's rich cultural history and religion.
Many Cambodians were brutally killed in the Khmer Rouge's 'killing fields', but far more died of starvation, disease and exhaustion labouring on collective farms to build the Communist regime's rural utopia.
In late December 1978, Vietnam invaded alongside Cambodian defectors, toppling the Khmer Rouge from power on January 7, 1979. It is from this point onwards that popular knowledge of Cambodia's contemporary tragic history typically ends, picking up in the mid-2000s with the start of the United Nations-backed war crimes tribunal in Phnom Penh, where former regime leaders were put on trial.
For many Cambodians, however, rather than being relegated to history books, the 1975 fall of Phnom Penh and the toppling of the Khmer Rouge in 1979 remain alive and well, embedded in the Cambodian political system.
That tumultuous Khmer Rouge period is still used to justify the long-running rule of the Cambodian People's Party (CPP) under varying forms since 1979, and the personal rule of CPP leader Hun Sen and his family since 1985, according to analysts. It was the now ageing senior leadership of the CPP who joined with Vietnamese forces to oust Pol Pot in 1979.
While memories of those times are fading, the CPP's grip on power is as firm as ever in the decades since the late 1970s.
The ruling CPP see 'themselves as the saviour and the guardian of the country', said Aun Chhengpor, a policy researcher at the Future Forum think tank in Phnom Penh.
'It explains the making of a political system as it is today,' he said, noting that the CPP has long done what it required to 'ensure that they are still there at the helm … at any cost'.
Most Cambodians have now accepted a system where peace and stability matter above all else.
'There seems to be an unwritten social contract between the ruling establishment and the population that, as long as the CPP provides relative peace and a stable economy, the population will leave governance and politics to the CPP,' Aun Chhengpor said.
'The bigger picture is how the CPP perceives itself and its historic role in modern Cambodia. It's not that different from how the palace-military establishment in Thailand or the Communist Party in Vietnam see their roles in their respective countries,' he said.
The CPP headed a Vietnamese-backed regime for a decade, from 1979 to 1989, bringing relative order back to Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge, even as fighting persisted in many parts of the country as Pol Pot's fighters tried to reassert control.
With support dwindling from the Soviet Union in the last days of the Cold War and an economically and militarily exhausted Vietnam withdrawing from Cambodia, Hun Sen, by then the leader of the country, agreed to hold elections as part of a settlement to end his country's civil war. From 1991 to 1993, Cambodia was administered by the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC).
The Cambodian monarchy was formally re-established, and elections were held for the first time in decades in 1993. The last Khmer Rouge soldiers surrendered in 1999, symbolically closing a chapter on one of the 20th century's bloodiest conflicts.
Despite a bumpy road forward, there were initial hopes for Cambodian democracy.
The royalist National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful and Cooperative Cambodia Party – better known by its acronym FUNCINPEC – won the UN-administered elections in 1993. Faced with defeat, the CPP refused to cede power.
The late King Norodom Sihanouk stepped in to broker an agreement between both sides that preserved the hard-won peace and made the election a relative success. The international community breathed a sigh of relief as the UNTAC mission in Cambodia had been the largest and costliest at that time for the world body, and UN member states were desperate to declare their investment in nation rebuilding a success.
Ruling jointly under a power-sharing agreement with CPP and FUNCINPEC co-prime ministers, the unsteady alliance of former enemies held for four years until ending in a swift and bloody coup by Hun Sen in 1997.
Mu Sochua, an exiled opposition leader who now heads the nonprofit Khmer Movement for Democracy, told Al Jazeera that the CPP's resistance to a democratic transfer of power in 1993 continues to reverberate throughout Cambodia today.
'The failure of the transfer of power in 1993 and the deal the King made at the time … was a bad deal. And the UN went along because the UN wanted to close shop,' she told Al Jazeera from the US, where she lives in exile after being forced to flee the CPP's intensifying authoritarianism at home.
'The transitional period, the transfer of power … which was the will of the people, never happened,' Mu Sochua said.
Following the coup in 1997, the CPP did not come close to losing power again until 2013, when they were challenged by the widely popular Cambodian National Rescue Party (CNRP).
By the time of the next general election in 2018, the CNRP was banned from politics by the country's less-than-independent courts, and many of the opposition leaders were forced to flee the country or ended up in prison on politically motivated charges.
Unhindered by a viable political challenger, Hun Sen's CPP went on to win all seats in the 2018 national election, and all but five of the 125 parliamentary seats contested during the last general election in 2023.
The CPP has also firmly aligned with China, and the country's once vibrant free press has been shut down, and civil society organisations cowed into silence.
After notching up 38 years in power, Hun Sen stepped aside as prime minister in 2023 to make way for his son Hun Manet – a sign that the CPP-led political machine has eyes on dynastic, multi-generational rule.
But new challenges have emerged in Cambodia's post-war decades of relative prosperity, huge inequality and de facto one-party rule.
Cambodia's booming microcredit industry was intended to help lift Cambodians out of poverty, but the industry has instead burdened families with high levels of personal debt. One estimate put the figure at more than $16bn in a country with a population of just 17.4 million and a gross domestic product (GDP) of $42bn in 2023, according to World Bank estimates.
Aun Chhengpor told Al Jazeera there are signs the government is taking note of these emerging issues and demographic changes.
Hun Manet's cabinet is shifting towards 'performance-based legitimacy' because they lack the 'political capital' once bestowed by the public on those who liberated the country from the Khmer Rouge.
'The proportion of the population that remembers the Khmer Rouge, or that has usable memories of that period, is shrinking year by year,' said Sebastian Strangio, author of Hun Sen's Cambodia.
'I don't think [the CPP 's legacy] is sufficient for the majority of the population born since the end of the Cold War,' Strangio told Al Jazeera.
Now, there even appears to be room for a limited amount of popular opposition, analyst Aun Chhengpor said.
In January, Cambodian farmers blockaded a main highway to protest against the low prices of their goods, suggesting there may be 'some space' in the political system for localized dissent on community-based issues, he said.
'[It] will be an uphill struggle for the fractured political opposition to thrive – not to mention to organise among themselves and, let alone, have the hope of winning a general election,' Aun Chhengpor said.
'However, there are indications that the CPP still somehow believes in the multiparty system and limited democracy in the way that they can have a say on when and how much democracy,' he added.
Speaking in exile from the US, Mu Sochua had a dimmer view of Cambodia's situation.
The same month as the farmer protests in Cambodia, a former Cambodian opposition member of parliament was shot dead in broad daylight on a street in Thailand's capital, Bangkok.
The brazen assassination of Lim Kimya, 74, a dual Cambodian-French citizen, recalled memories of the chaotic political violence of the 1990s and early 2000s in Cambodia.
Peace and stability, Mu Sochua said, exist only on the surface in Cambodia, where still waters run deep.
'If politics and the space for people to engage in politics is non-existent, what dominates then is not peace,' she said.
'It's still the feeling of war, of insecurity, of the lack of freedom,' she told Al Jazeera.
'After the war, 50 years later, at least there is no bloodshed, but that alone does not mean there is peace.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data

Al Jazeera

time19 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data

The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them. On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court's ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA). In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law. In both cases, the Supreme Court's three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority's decision. DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic 'bloat'. Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump's re-election, DOGE was designed to 'dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies'. At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity. But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE. The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts. In addition, DOGE's sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems. Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump's re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire's tenure as a 'special government employee' in the White House. That falling-out has left DOGE's future uncertain. One of DOGE's controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Early in Trump's second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation. Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old. They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration's confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report. Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it 'the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time' and calling for its elimination. In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information. Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person's identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy. Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had 'never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA's entire record systems'. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a 'more tailored' approach. 'Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,' she wrote in her ruling. 'Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.' The judge's ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information. The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE's access. The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander's temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision. But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts. 'Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,' Brown Jackson wrote. She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any 'irreparable harm' would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data. But by granting the Trump administration's emergency petition, she said the court was 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process'. The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws. The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group. It argued that DOGE's sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE's structures had kept it insulated from outside probes. 'While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE's authority leaves that an open question,' CREW said in a statement. The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings. While a US district judge had sided with CREW's request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court's decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed. 'Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade,' the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled. It also said that the courts needed to exercise 'deference and restraint' regarding 'internal' executive communications.

Trump announces second round of US trade talks with China next week
Trump announces second round of US trade talks with China next week

Al Jazeera

time21 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Trump announces second round of US trade talks with China next week

United States President Donald Trump has announced a new round of trade talks with China in an apparent bid to dial down a bitter battle over tariffs between the world's two biggest economies. The president said on social media that the meeting would take place in London on Monday, his announcement coming one day after a rare leader-to-leader phone call with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping appeared to calm rising tensions. 'The meeting should go very well,' said Trump in a post on his Truth Social platform, adding that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet the Chinese team. The talks will mark the second round of negotiations between the two countries since Trump launched his trade war this year, targeting China with levies of up to 145 percent. Beijing struck back with countermeasures of 125 percent. Following talks in Geneva last month, both sides agreed to temporarily bring down the triple-digit tariffs, with US tariffs cooling to 30 percent and China's to 10 percent. But the temporary halt is expected to expire in early August and Trump last week accused China of violating the pact, underscoring deeper differences on both sides. US officials have accused China of slow-walking export approvals of rare earth minerals, which the country had limited after the tariff war broke out, triggering alarm among US companies. Other US concerns include alleged fentanyl trafficking, the status of democratically governed Taiwan, and China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. On Wednesday, Trump said on Truth Social that Xi was 'VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH'. However, he reported a 'positive conclusion', following his long-awaited phone call with Xi on Thursday, which likely paved the way for further high-level trade talks – though a swift resolution to the tariffs impasse remains uncertain. The Chinese foreign ministry said Xi asked Trump to 'remove the negative measures' that the US has taken against China, alluding to his administration's decision to revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the US.

Why does Donald Trump seem to be fixated on foreign nationals?
Why does Donald Trump seem to be fixated on foreign nationals?

Al Jazeera

timea day ago

  • Al Jazeera

Why does Donald Trump seem to be fixated on foreign nationals?

United States President Donald Trump has imposed a travel ban on 12 countries, with restrictions on seven more. And it's not the first one of its kind – Trump issued a similar order in 2017 that focused on Muslim-majority countries. He says the latest initiative aims to protect national security, but critics say the ban is racist and has nothing to do with safety. So what is really at stake, and what might Trump gain from the ban? Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom Guests: Yael Schacher – Director for Americas and Europe, Refugees International Steven Heller – US immigration lawyer Johanna Leblanc – National security law and US foreign policy specialist

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store