Back to Index

Hun Sen Moves Ahead
Cambodia prepares to try Khmer Rouge leaders - with some foreign help

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen is on a roll. Since achieving his ambition to be sole elected premier late last year, his new government has moved at a pretty brisk pace. The country has re-entered the U.N., joined ASEAN and recovered vital foreign donor support. Senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge have defected, and two are in government custody. For the first time in three decades, the country is basically at peace. But for all his triumphs, Hun Sen still lacks recognition overseas. He is more often dismissed as a communist quisling than credited as the man who set Cambodia on a course toward some semblance of normal, pluralistic development. Certainly, Cambodia still has a very long road to travel in that direction. Hun Sen has to impose the rule of law upon a brutalized society; rebuild a ravaged economy; end the cavalier destruction of the environment; and, finally, bring the Khmer Rouge leadership to court. Special Correspondent Dominic Faulder met recently with Hun Sen for almost two hours at the prime minister's residence, known as the Tiger's Den. Here is the expanded online transcript of their conversation:

FAULDER: We last spoke in early December and since that meeting a lot has happened for Cambodia. The country re-entered the U.N., a few days back entered ASEAN, it has recovered donor support, the war with the Khmer Rouge is finished and the country is basically at peace. It would seem on balance that an awful lot is going right for you in the first six months as prime minister. Would you agree with that?

HUN SEN: I agree with your assessment of the situation and I see it as the success of the triangular strategy. It is the beginning, and it is very important as it provides us the possibility to go on in a speedy way. In the governments of other countries, they need at least a hundred days to put in place the machinery to go ahead smoothly. For my new government, we seem to be speedy at the commencement. I compare it to a pregnant elephant. It takes a long time, but once the baby is delivered it can go very fast. We have scored a lot of achievements in just over five months. It is preliminary success but provides foundations to carry on in the right way.

FAULDER: This young elephant has many problems to face. When you wake up in the morning, what is your mental checklist of the problems that still remain in Cambodia? Where are the priorities?

HUN SEN: There are two main issues which remain in my mind before I go to sleep or when I wake up. The first is security and social order which is a question left behind by the war and which we have to tackle. After the Geneva conference [1954], the government took a long time to settle the problem of banditry left behind after the war. We have to tackle the question of security, and first of all the many modern weapons left behind. I think security and peace cannot be complete if there still remains banditry and kidnapping for ransom which cause fear among the people. The second concern is about making revenues cover expenditures. We have to be concerned about the payroll of the government workers and the armed forces, and whether there is enough medicine in the hospitals for patients. Security and the economy are two related questions which are always in mind.

FAULDER: Some people argue that for there to be real security the military and the police have to be reduced substantially, disciplined and brought into line. They are tied up with a lot criminal elements at the moment. What progress have you made in that area?

HUN SEN: During this past five months, we have achieved certain progress in the reform of the armed forces. Within the last three weeks, people in Phnom Penh have handed over 3,905 arms to the government. We can also note that weapons possessed by the armed forces and government officials at home have been removed and that also amounts to thousands. We admit that there are some elements in the armed forces and police that have committed mistakes, but they remain a minority. We will not tolerate such people but arrest them and send them to court. Right now, we have a campaign to reduce the size of the armed forces. We have started cutting down what are called ghost soldiers while at the same time applying rigid discipline to the remaining armed forces. When we refer to discipline, that includes how to use weapons. We have issued new sub-decrees prohibiting the use of arms in public places or along roads. Those from the rank of colonel have the right to use weapons [providing they have] mission papers. These are measures to reduce crimes which occur because of arms. When soldiers or police are barehanded, they have no means to abuse others.

FAULDER: It is very difficult to challenge these vested interests. You are demoting people or moving them aside. How long will this take? What kind of resistance are you meeting, and why was it not possible to begin this process earlier?

HUN SEN: In order to provide a politically neutral atmosphere for the election, we also disarmed thousands of former self-defense forces. But we allowed some people to keep arms, especially in areas where the Khmer Rouge were still active. The time then was not mature enough because war still continued in the country. Then our appeal was not effective - we could not convince people to take part and hand over their arms to the authorities. But after the end of the war with the Khmer Rouge, with security strengthened, we received signs from the people that the time was right to appeal to them to hand over their weapons. We need to promote this movement.

How long will this task take? For normal people, it will not take long. But bandits will try their best to retain their arms. We are taking two measures at the same time. As we collect arms, we also take measures to strengthen security and social order. In order to see that this kind of disease will not be repeated, we try to destroy the weapons. It is a type of transparency to convince people that arms collected do not just go in the front door and out the back. If we carry on with this actively until the end of the year, the majority of weapons will be given to the government which will keep or destroy them. We know for sure that bad people will still continue to keep arms. We need to continue because it's hard to locate hidden weapons, especially when they are hidden in the jungles and moved from place to place, especially in former Khmer Rouge held areas. Therefore we appeal to former Khmer Rouge to show us their hidden weapons.

We have gained experience from our history. After the Geneva conference of 1954, there were many weapons hidden and just brought out for the war in 1970. It's very hard to determine how long it will take, but I say with optimism that crimes and violence will be reduced step by step. Some people ask me why we need to destroy these arms when they are needed for security and defense of the nation. The fact is that I would like to show the public that these weapons will be destroyed, not just go through the front door and out the back. We can find a way of defending the people by law, by strengthening their morality. A state ruled by law is a strong foundation for the protection of our people, of our nation.

Look at what happened in London with the bombs, in America with the shooting of schoolchildren. It shows that even in the developed world such things can happen. Because of what? Because of weapons. It shows us how Cambodia needs to gain experience and destroy arms. Social morality had declined after the war in the 1970s, and the huge number of arms in Cambodia need to be destroyed. We believe in our policy not to use force to solve problems with neighboring countries, and we also believe that neighboring countries will not resort to force to solve problems with us. We believe this even more so now that we have joined ASEAN.

FAULDER: That is an important point. There is no external threat to Cambodia - you're surrounded by ASEAN countries. The Khmer Rouge pose no military threat whatever, they are finished. Will the reduced armed forces, say 50,000, be then used constructively to handle internal problems such as policing the forests of Cambodia which are being destroyed at a phenomenal rate [ironically with the involvement of the military]? Is that part of this armed forces' reformation?

HUN SEN: We hope that the remaining forces along with the people will create a good social atmosphere in a state ruled by law and development. I am very pleased with the actions taken in the past few months concerning illegal logging. Even though some elements of the armed forces have been criticized for involvement in illegal logging, it is still a small number. It is just a question of individuals. We have been using our forces against illegal logging and have scored achievements. We have to clearly distinguish between good armed forces and some bad elements. They have been fulfilling their tasks successfully for three months as tasked by the Prime Minister. The armed forces are ready to respond to suggestions from state institutions in relation to illegal logging or smuggling. The armed forces are now participating in the movement for national development, especially engineers building infrastructure and roads.

FAULDER: Since we are talking about logging, are there plans for some kind of accelerated environmental legislation. Cambodia seems very vulnerable to degradation. There was the Sihanoukville toxic dumping, in Koh Kong shrimp farming is out of control, and of course there is logging. What environmental program is on your agenda?

HUN SEN: The last meeting of the Council of Ministers seemed to focus on agriculture, development of rural areas and the question of the environment. Forestry and environment were the main topics. During the meeting, we took note that illegal logging has been substantially reduced but that there has been an increase in people cutting down to reclaim land for farming. Another problem is people chopping trees to make charcoal. Before we can make such a law, we need to take other measures including finding other substances for people to use for their cooking. We also have to find new jobs for people who used to chop trees for firewood and charcoal. Such measures won't be effective unless we can find new jobs. Otherwise stopping them is like destroying their rice bowls. Talking about putting an end to illegal logging is easy. When you carry it out, it is very difficult because it involves the living conditions of the people. At the same time, we need to change the habits of people who want to go on with their cultures of slash and burn, moving after a few years to another place.

FAULDER: Cambodia's entry into ASEAN did not go through as you expected twice: first of all in 1997 after the fighting and then again when you were hoping for entry in mid-December last year. Finally we have the ASEAN 10, a long talked about dream, but you've entered ASEAN at a time when it's probably never been weaker. All the members are preoccupied with their own headaches. In view of that, what do you feel ASEAN still gives Cambodia?

HUN SEN: I think in many ways it paves the way for Cambodia to go forward in a better position. If Cambodia had entered in 1997, it would have brought headaches to its leaders. They were still concerned about the internal problems in Cambodia. If Cambodia had joined at that time, it would have been one of the difficulties for ASEAN. At the same time, Cambodia was not really prepared to join ASEAN because of its internal problems. Cambodia could not even find enough money to pay for the fees within ASEAN or to pay to open new embassies in ASEAN countries. So I think, with much consideration, that God prepared the best time for Cambodia to join ASEAN. Right now, Cambodia is in a very good position, but there are still problems in many other ASEAN countries. I feel that is a temporary condition that will last a short time, not a long time.

What is the attraction of joining ASEAN? There are four important elements. The first is regional security and stability. Everyone knows that ASEAN used to be a region of conflict - in old colonial times, or the cold war and times of ideological conflict. Almost all the big powers were involved in regional conflict. ASEAN itself initiated the policy of non-interference in each other's internal affairs, the condition which provides a good atmosphere for politics, for security, for peace and stability. We are very pleased to liberate Southeast Asia from being a region full of conflict, full of confrontation, to a region under one umbrella which is full of friendship, solidarity and co-operation. The second attraction is the spirit of community. ASEAN has the principle of consensus, and this is very important for Cambodia, a small and weak country. With this principle, Cambodia can be equal with other nations. Joining this community is very important. Cambodia can play an equal role with other partners in ASEAN. We need to further strengthen the principle of consensus in our ASEAN family.

Thirdly, Southeast Asia has been a region of economic growth in the past three decades. During these decades, small tigers, or economic dragons, have emerged in this region. Even though these small tigers and dragons have been wounded in the past two years, the wounds are being cured little by little. After gaining such experience, they can move forward, and Cambodia, which attaches itself to this community, will also profit. If we can have good co-operation with these countries, then we will shorten the time for our own development. For example, like neighboring countries, we are in a good position to transfer technologies or train human resources. The fourth attraction is international relations. ASEAN is not an isolated association. It has many partners and forums -- Japan, China, America or the European Union. ASEAN is an exit to the international world. Even though ASEAN faces some difficulties for the time being, in the long run these four attractions will be beneficial to Cambodia.

FAULDER: When we spoke in December, we discussed a tribunal for the Khmer Rouge. At that time you said you would like to see a tribunal in Phnom Penh, outside U.N. auspices with foreign assistance. Some other things have happened along the way. Ta Mok suddenly appeared, and there is confusion about how he came into Cambodia and exactly when. How long before he was arrested was he back in Cambodia?

HUN SEN: The arrest of Ta Mok was not by hazard. We had been planning to arrest Ta Mok whatever. If I am not mistaken, we had been trying to arrest him since May 1998 after he left Anlong Veng. But it is difficult to arrest someone who is trying to hide. The last method used by our military officials was to lay bait to attract the fish. We spent 27 days trying to arrest Ta Mok. That was from February 7 to March 6 when our military officials were very active. I think it was a unique case in the history of the world that we could arrest the military chief of the armed opposition. We managed to get the former prime minister [Nuon Chea] and the former head of state and chairman of the national assembly [Khieu Samphan] to surrender, and then we arrested the commander in chief of the armed opposition. We really intended to bring this to trial therefore we arrested this person.

FAULDER: If there was a 27 day period, as you just said, then the timing of the arrest of Ta Mok was not connected to the visit to Thailand of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. It was a coincidence.

HUN SEN: There was no such relationship with the visit of Madame Albright to Thailand - not even 0.1%. Whether we could arrest Ta Mok or not was subject to the government and the armed forces of Cambodia. You see, we need to commend the commander in chief of the armed forces and the commanders who carried out their tasks, not for one day or one month but for a very long time. It was not pressure or influence from any other countries on the policy of Cambodia that put an end to the problem of the Khmer Rouge or caused the arrest of the Khmer Rouge leaders.

FAULDER: So the visit to Thailand of Madeleine Albright and the arrest of Ta Mok, the fact that they were very close together was 100% coincidence?

HUN SEN: It was purely a coincidence. Even without the visit of Albright to Thailand Ta Mok would still have been arrested on that day.

FAULDER: You've already mentioned God, so we may as well talk about Deuch [Pol Pot's security chief]. How long have you known that Deuch was still alive?

HUN SEN: It's a big surprise to me. I seem to have been neglectful on this point. There was no name of Deuch in the list of the surrendered. We learned about Deuch through the foreign media, so we feel obliged to them for finding Deuch.

FAULDER: That's quite interesting. It opens the possibility that there are other Khmer Rouge who are still alive. It was also reported that people within your own armed forces were aware that Deuch was alive, and have known this for two or three years.

HUN SEN: I did not have such information before. We had information about Ke Pauk but not about Deuch. This must be a loophole. I think our military officials were not sure about Deuch. We seemed to focus more on dismantling the political and military machinery of the Khmer Rouge - focused more on putting an end to the leadership of the Khmer Rouge.

FAULDER: A situation that is quite interesting is emerging. You have [former Khmer Rouge military chief] Ta Mok, who seems to be quite talkative. You have Deuch, a born-again Christian who says he will cooperate in any way possible. Ieng Sary has said on record that he will co-operate with a trial, and I understand that Khieu Samphan has made similar comments. You are now moving towards a position where very important members of the Khmer Rouge would be willing to actually participate and discuss what really did happen in 1975 to 1979. Would you agree with that view?

HUN SEN: I think that will happen. Normally a crime committed needs to be investigated, clarified - talked about in a court of law. Ieng Sary said that he is prepared to appear in court to provide clarification. Deuch said the same, even though I did not hear from him personally but through articles in the newspapers. There needs to be further investigation before it is brought to trial. The trial cannot be held unless we have the persons who are to be its subject. Now Ta Mok has been arrested and is awaiting trial. For the other leaders of the Khmer Rouge, it is subject to the court of law. To my understanding, the real time to be investigated would be from 1975 to 1979. Normally you cannot separate events from one stage to another. I am sure the court will ask not just about activities during that period, but when they were born and what they have been doing until now.

FAULDER: With regard to the Khmer Rouge, you once said that when the fish are still in the water you don't discuss how many will be caught and how they will be cooked. Now you have caught them and know how many you have pretty much, how will you cook them, as it were? What exactly do you have in mind for a trial?

HUN SEN: I told you in 1996 that there was no need to talk about how to cook the fish while they were still in the water. I have fulfilled completely my task already by catching the fish, dismantling the political and military organization of the Khmer Rouge, arresting the Khmer Rouge leaders, and managed this in [such] a way that other Khmer Rouge are awaiting a call from the court of law. This is one of the successes. Another point we share pleasure in is that all the people who before said nothing about the trial of the Khmer Rouge - or even co-operated with the Khmer Rouge - have now turned to talk about trial of the Khmer Rouge leaders too.

The remaining question is [whether] to hold the trial by an international court of law or by a national court of law. The existing court of law of Cambodia issued the warrant of arrest for Ta Mok. If we do not use the role of the existing court of law, it means that we were wrong in detaining Ta Mok. I don't think we could wait for an international court of law to be set up because I fear that some countries would veto it or vote by abstention. According to our law, the government is entitled to detain an arrested person for only 48 hours. So if we waited for the warrant of the international court, we would be wrong right now to detain Ta Mok. But we also take into consideration the concern of our people, the concern of the international community who would like to see that this type of trial meets international standards. Therefore we initiated the idea that the process will be carried out by the existing courts of law in Cambodia with the international community's assistance. The assistance from the international community would include foreign judges and prosecutors who would take part in the proceedings. According to my thinking, foreign judges who would participate in this process in the three levels of the courts - the common court, the appeals court and the supreme court - would consist of not less than ten nationalities.

FAULDER: Which countries would you draw these judges from?

HUN SEN: We welcome judges from the countries that would like to come and help us. If any foreign countries wish to send their judges or prosecutors, we would welcome them. But we also need to draft laws to be adopted by the National Assembly to open the way for foreign judges and prosecutors to come and work in our courts. Then the courts can hold discussions with each other about who to take in the common court, who in the appeal court and who in the supreme court.

FAULDER: This is a complicated business. What model would you base this on? Would you try and establish a special procedure for dealing with the Khmer Rouge?

HUN SEN: We have legislation which provides about the organization and operation of all levels of court in Cambodia. In order to open the way for foreign judges and prosecutors to work in them, we need also to have complementary laws. In the complementing law, we need also to include some international conventions we have signed already, especially the convention on preventing and condemning the crime of genocide. Only in this way can we respond to international standards because in Cambodia we do not have any legislation which deals with the crime of genocide. We cannot avoid new laws being adopted by the National Assembly.

FAULDER: Is it not simpler to have legislation to enable a special tribunal to be convened to deal with this special problem which relates to a small number of Khmer Rouge?

HUN SEN: Some lawyers also had such an idea - that a special law be drafted and adopted just for this special case.

FAULDER: But you don't like it?

HUN SEN: According to what I have been thinking, if we incorporate it into the existing law system of Cambodia it would be difficult. We would need to have a separate and special law on that.

FAULDER: A criticism of the court system in Cambodia in the past is that cases are brought, that the judgment is pretty much decided beforehand and that the whole process is very quick. When you are discussing something as very complicated as the Khmer Rouge, will those cases when they come to court be allowed to run for a lengthy time so people can actually listen to what the Khmer Rouge have to say, to what their explanation is, and understand, if you like, what the real complexities are of this particular subject?

HUN SEN: I had two ideas. The first is that foreign judges and prosecutors could participate in the common court, appeal court and supreme court - that means from the beginning until the end. The second idea is that such hearings would be broadcast live throughout the country. The Cambodian constitution prohibits execution, therefore in the amended law we can also sentence a person to five hundred years imprisonment.

FAULDER: Why?

HUN SEN: I saw this case in America in which a wicked person was imprisoned for four hundred and fifty years. There was a person who came from Jamaica and took a rifle and shot others. The sentence for killing one person was for this amount of years, so for however many people he killed it was added up and became four hundred and fifty years. So for Ta Mok's case it would be millions of years.

FAULDER: But what is the purpose of the trial? Is it punishment? As you say, you cannot adequately punish somebody for killing that many people? Is it punishment or is it understanding? What is the purpose of the trial?

HUN SEN: Accountability, to have justice done for the Cambodian people, and punishment for those responsible for this crime of genocide.

FAULDER: What are your relations at the moment with the United Nations. They must be a bit strained since you haven't followed their line on the tribunal issue.

HUN SEN: What is the United Nations? They do not have unity or even one idea within the U.N. Security Council. How could I follow them? What should we do? We have now arrested Ta Mok. If there is no unity within the U.N. Security Council, how long must we wait to establish a court and try Ta Mok? Hammarberg is just a person; he is not the United Nations. It is not at all a dispute between us and Hammarberg or with the United Nations. It is a question of the sovereignty of Cambodia, a member of the United Nations. The three lawyers sent by the United Nations, they do not constitute the United Nations. How can we listen to the [Perm] five countries which cannot find unity? We also have our sovereignty - responsibilities to our nation.

FAULDER: So you are saying that if you follow the U.N.-recommended path from the three jurors, the Khmer Rouge would not be brought to court at all.

HUN SEN: If we follow these people, how long will it take for the international court of law to be established? Do you think it could be done before these old people in the Khmer Rouge die? I don't think such a decision can be passed by the U.N. Security Council. If it is established, then they will appeal to the international world to help Cambodia for the trial of the Khmer Rouge. It would then be registered as assistance to Cambodia. For example, $50 million just to hold the trial of the Khmer Rouge leaders. If such assistance is to be given to Cambodia, we would prefer it to be used for the development of our nation, for building roads, infrastructure.

Heavy punishment has already been put on the leaders of the Khmer Rouge. There remains only the last stage. Starting from a political and military organization which controlled the country, which had the right to represent Cambodia at the United Nations, it became just a political and military organization which could take part in the Paris Peace Agreement. And then it became dismantled with leaders like Pol Pot and Son Sen dying without even finding a place to be properly buried. Ta Mok has been arrested whilst the other leaders have surrendered to live as ordinary citizens. It is de facto punishment that has been put on the Khmer Rouge. If the world was crying about the trial of the Khmer Rouge in 1979 like they are today, then I think there would not have been more killing in Cambodia. You know who supported the Khmer Rouge's survival, bringing hardship to us.

FAULDER: That's in the 1980s, and prior to that China was also involved during the Khmer Rouge's most controversial period. Obviously it's important for Cambodia to have good relations with China, and officially the Chinese say this is an internal affair of Cambodia's. When you meet with the Chinese, do they put pressure on you to abandon the idea of a tribunal?

HUN SEN: One thing, I do not normally talk with China on the question of the Khmer Rouge. To my understanding, the leaders of China never attempt to interfere in others' affairs. Since I made acquaintance with the leaders of China, I did not feel under any pressure from these people. On the contrary, it's other people who try to pressure or influence on me. It's not easy to put a person like me under such pressure.

FAULDER: You have had your differences with the U.S. yet you choose to educate your children there. Hun Manit, your eldest son, graduates from West Point this month. How do you explain this?

HUN SEN: On the 29th of May my son will graduate. He will be awarded a diploma from the military academy of West Point. My wife and relatives, including my father, will make a trip there. He has been approved already to take his MA at New York University, so it will be a month for my pleasure.

FAULDER: Hun Manit is the first Cambodian to graduate from West Point is he not?

HUN SEN: According to Cambodian records and information from West Point itself, Hun Manit is the first Cambodian who has enrolled and completed his studies at West Point.

FAULDER: Sometimes there seems to be tension between you and the US, but your favorite son is educated in America. Some people find that contradiction interesting. How do you explain it?

HUN SEN: Normally, I am not the one who creates tensions with America. But asking to be a friend of America is very, very difficult. Sometimes I talk with American friends and ask why is it so difficult when I just ask to be friends with America. I am not asking to be enemies. Why is it difficult just to ask to be friends? When we talk with the personnel of the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh and other people from America, they consider Cambodia the best country for providing co-operation on the question of MIAs. There are Americans unaccounted for in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and even Korea. In Cambodia, we started to have such co-operation in 1983 when I received letters from [American MIA activist] Madame [Ann Mills] Griffith during my visit to Tanzania. It has been fifteen or sixteen years already that we have provided such good co-operation on a purely humanitarian basis.

Actually I am not tense with America, but I find difficulties asking to be a friend. But I wish to see my children graduate in America. Besides one of my daughters who completed high school in America and returned for marriage, I will send another two children there to be educated in addition to the existing two in America. There is no barrier to people-to-people relations, and we would like our people to be trained there.

Sometimes people wonder what is Hun Sen really. My recall is full of bitter sufferings. When we were in Moscow, we were criticized as liberalists. We were not classified among socialist countries when we were allowed to meet former Soviet leaders. We were classified among developing countries. When we were in Paris, we were called communists. Therefore I always ask myself who I really am. In communist countries I was called a liberalist and in liberal countries I was called a communist. Finally I had to tell myself Hun Sen is Hun Sen. Hun Sen belongs to the Cambodian people. You may see that development in Cambodia is also attached to my life. We managed the country from a Phnom Penh with only seventy people [in 1979] to a Phnom Penh with a free market economy like other countries. We have organized elections. Compared to other countries, Cambodia is unique in the number of political parties. We have 54 political parties but only 39 participated in the election. We have five million eligible voters, so if we talk about percentages we have [proportionately] the highest number of political parties. So whatever name they want to put on Hun Sen is up to those people, but you can see what really is happening in my country.

FAULDER: In view of the bombing of Cambodia and the American contribution to the environment which created the Khmer Rouge, is it appropriate for American jurors to be included in any court that you set up? Would you exclude them?

HUN SEN: I think we should not object to the participation of American lawyers, judges or prosecutors in this process because I believe American lawyers enjoy independence. Even presidents, they do not hesitate to charge them once they have committed mistakes. If they so wish, we would welcome American judges or prosecutors. We believe in their independence and professionalism.