(Video) Selected Comments Samdech Techo Hun Sen, President of the Senate, at the conference on “Cambodia’s Future without Genocide: Protection and Response through Education and Healthcare” [Unofficial translations]
[1]
(1) Measures to provide protection, traffic in addition to security during each hearing required to select the Army Command as the tribunal court to try Khmer Rouge leaders
I should point out a bit as to how did we decided on the location of the Khmer Rouge trial here […] when the agreement between the United Nations and the Cambodian side came into force, what happened was that we had in mind this venue and the Chaktomuk conference hall – either to be worthy of setting up as the venue for the Khmer Rouge trial. Judging on the issue of how to take measures regarding protection of the hearing, traffic problems, when the court conducted the trial, and the provision of safety of the offenders, which is even more important, we decided to take this (army command headquarters) as the place […]
What we had to do for this venue to be a legal location since the tribunal is defined/required to be located in Phnom Penh in the agreement between the United Nations and Cambodia. At that time, this location belonged to Kandal province. To complete the task, I have to sign a sub-decree to transfer this part of land and the vicinity to Phnom Penh. Therefore, Phnom Penh has gained a few thousand hectares of land in this area from Kandal province. This is a history to remember […]
[2]
(2) The game of condemning both the Khmer Rouge and those who fought against the Khmer Rouge terminated by the Cambodian-UN hybrid court
The zero-sum game was settled by this hybrid court ruling and it was recognized by the UN Security Council. Earlier, they condemned the Khmer Rouge and condemned those who overthrew the Khmer Rouge at the same time. It is a mathematical calculation of 1 + 1 or 1-1 = 0 […] is this a political game to cover up the historical reality that has actually taken place on Cambodian soil? […]
I would suggest to the lawyers (to advise whether) in Cambodia it is possible or not to enact a law to punish those who (claim) that (in) Cambodia there has no genocide? Why do I say that? The trial ruled that “Cambodia has had a genocidal regime.” If the court verdict comes out this way, can we not put in place a law to claim that there was a genocidal regime in Cambodia. In Europe, for example, there is a law that says (whoever claim) that Hitler was not the head of the Fascist are punishable. In this understanding, should this kind of law be made in Cambodia? This is not an incitement to suppress the freedom of expression […]
(3) Any expression of support for the genocidal regime should be punished
[…] Is it possible to have a law in Cambodia (that criminalizes whoever says there had no genocide in Cambodia) […] or certain politicians would resort to repeating their old games to cause trouble in the society, […] the United Nations, with Her Excellency as the representative today claims that the court verdict is real, or it means that the genocidal regime (did take place in Cambodia) […] (while there are, however, those who insist that “there has never been (atrocity committed by) the Khmer Rouge and no one ever saved (the country from the genocide) […]” and if this is going on, the history will repeat itself […] it is not a ban on freedom of expression, but any expression that is in support of the genocidal regime should be punished […] I have been waiting 43 years for justice. It is not a joke. It had taken us from 1979 through to 2022 before the justice is served […]
[3]
(4) “The proper place of the Khmer Rouge is to be tried in the International Criminal Court, not a seat in the Supreme National Council”
I would like to explain this point a little bit for you […] related to this story of the Khmer Rouge, when the Paris International Conference (on the problem of Cambodia) began in 1989, I pointed out in my speech that “the most appropriate place of the Khmer Rouge is “the trial at the International Criminal Court and not a seat in the SNC.” At that time, the State of Cambodian (SoC) party, which I represented, demanded that the phrase “to prevent the return of the genocidal regime” be put in (the conference’s outcome document). Our suggestion had come to a stalling point. We are forbidden to talk about the genocidal regime […] the Paris Agreement was then stuck (at the point that the SoC party had (demanded to place in the document the phrase “to prevent the return of the genocidal regime” […]
(5) The party that opposed the Khmer Rouge maintained its position to hold the Khmer Rouge trial from the beginning to the end
This point can prove that the (Phnom Penh) government party, or the only party opposed the Khmer Rouge, maintained its position from beginning to end to prosecute the Khmer Rouge leaders. It is not something just came to mind. We have proposed to include in the Paris Agreement (the provision on) the prevention of the return of the genocidal regime. However, due to the stalemate, some friends went to seek help from Japan […] finally, HE (Hisashi) Owada had won his opinion over me. He told me that Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were in fact the ones to be tried, but if the agreement included the phrase “preventing the return of the genocidal regime”, the Khmer Rouge and some countries would not agree. Then we had reached the consensus to edit the wording to “preventing the return of the acts of the recent past” […]
(6) The country committed mistake of recognizing the Khmer Rouge should admit that its policy towards Cambodia was wrong
In the past, people turned their blind eyes in the face of genocide. Later, they demanded that there must be prosecution of the Khmer Rouge without rational justification right after the Khmer Rouge dissolved both political and military organizations. I really admired that a few people (could hold such a political attitude). I should send a message to countries that have made the mistake of recognizing the Khmer Rouge or turning a blind eye to (a genocide in Cambodia) that they should admit that “at that time their policy towards Cambodia was wrong” […]
When the Khmer Rouge was strong, no one came forward to talk about the Khmer Rouge trial or to stop recognizing the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations. The votes at the UN, as we remark, happened in two different trends. During the coup d’état that overthrew Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the representation of Cambodia at the United Nations was (handed over) to the Lon Nol regime, the coup plotters. When the Lon Nol regime became weak that it controlled less than 10% of the territory, they still allowed Lon Nol to hold the Cambodian seats at the United Nations, claiming that the Lon Nol occupied the capital. The state of Cambodia, which occupied more than 90% of the country’s territory (including the capital), we were kept outside the United Nations. They say we were not legal. (They) interpret (the situation) in whatever way that fits (only) with what they want […]
(7) If the Khmer Rouge participated in the election and had a seat in parliament, who would be responsible for prosecuting them?
I do not know that during the opening session, in the discussion, if there was a question among researchers and scholars, if the Khmer Rouge participated in the election, and had the right as a political party, with the seats in the National Assembly, who would responsible to bring the Khmer Rouge to trial? Was there such a question? We should in fact thank Pol Pot for withdrawing from the implementation of the Paris Agreement. It was with such mistake that we had the opportunity to defeat the Khmer Rouge, both politically and militarily, through win-win politics. It was not achieved through UNTAC. When UNTAC withdrew, Cambodia was left with two governments at war. Through win-win politics, however, (we did what UNTAC failed to achieve) […]
(8) Cambodia ended the war with one side surrendering to the other leader’s house
If the Khmer Rouge participated in the election, had its legitimate political party, had seats in the National Assembly, which I think the Khmer Rouge could have at least two or three seats […] who then would demand the trial of the Khmer Rouge? […] people have seen this picture where four people sitting together – sitting next to the right-hand side of Hun Sen was Khieu Samphan, and to the left were Nuon Chea, then Ieng Sary. Khieu Samphan was the Head of State and Prime Minister, Nuon Chea was the former Speaker of the National Assembly, and Ieng Sary was the former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister […] in the world, had there been any end to a war, in which one side surrendered to the other leader’s house? Such a thing does not exist yet. It exists in Cambodia. Why there are those who blame us, and even blamed the former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali […]
(9) Accepting the surrender of the Khmer Rouge leaders at home to send three messages
I sent a helicopter to transport Khieu Samphan, Nuon Chea and other leaders. Mr. Khieu Samphan came with his wife, children, son-in-law and grandchildren. I needed to send out three messages that I had arranged such a meeting at my house. Firstly, I wanted to send a message to the Cambodian people that the war was over because top leaders (from the other side) had surrendered to the Prime Minister (of the other side). Secondly, I wanted to send a message to the few remaining Khmer Rouge forces to end the fighting as their leaders had come to my house. Thirdly, I wanted to send a message to the international community that it is time that people can come visit and invest in Cambodia, because the war in Cambodia ended. (In that situation), some countries rebuked my shaking hands with the Khmer Rouge. Without holding the grudge, I responded – “you should not forget that before the Paris Agreement, you let the Khmer Rouge walk on the red carpet and issued them diplomatic visas to enter your country” […]
(10) Forty-eight hours VDO recording already transcribed but would be released in 10 years from now
In Kyoto, during the time of former Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu and Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama, the Soc delegation consisted of six members […] and on the side of then Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk was Samdech Krom Preah Norodom Ranaridh, on the side of the KPNLF (Khmer People’s National Liberation Front) were Samdech Son San and HE Ieng Moly, and from the Khmer Rouge side were Khieu Samphan and Son Sen. The party was held in the same room, but with two tables. One table set for my delegation, and another table for the delegation led by Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk. There were six dishes.
Firstly, Foreign Minister Nakayama was at the table with the tripartite (coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea). Deputy Foreign Minister (Hisashi) Owada came to the table with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Once the three dishes finished, (the Japanese hosts) had to change table […] (that) I have brought up (all this is) lest once I am not here anymore, no one would speak of it. That is the truth. I have made a 48 hours video recording and have had it transcribed (already). However, I will only let it out in ten more years. I will do more (talks) on some of the topics deemed necessary. Today I have raised some of the things and this video should be kept well (so that) not to lose something real like that for later. Only those who practically involved know the truth […]
(11) “Willing to let the hybrid court fail but not allowing the country to go to war again”
Another thing is the fact that they forced a trial without considering the consequences […] I spoke to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during his first visit to Cambodia during the negotiation when he mentioned the rule of expansion of prosecution to case 001, 002, 003, 004 (where such expansion would result in a widespread scandal). I told His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, “I am willing for the court to fail, but I do not want my country to be at war again” […] besides accusing the Cambodian leaders such as Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk, HE Keat Chhon, HE Hor Namhong, Samdech Chea Sim, Samdech Heng Samrin, HE Ouk Bunchhoeun, and HE Sim Ka […] they have many more cases to be charged in their respective order, and that might involve the former division commanders, the former regional chiefs, the former district chiefs, the former commune chiefs […] I said, “Excellency, would you mink think about this. Once tried and sentenced the 20 or 30 people and suddenly a war broke out, and tens of thousands more are losing their lives. Who would be responsible? There would not be a second win-win policy, Excellency” […]
[4]
(12) Organize a trial process under the Cambodian law and in the Cambodian courts
The idea of a hybrid Khmer Rouge trial underwent extensive consultation. Some said that it should be based on the South African Dr. Desmond Tutu’s formula which had some favors (according to the reality of the Apartheid regime). We said that way was not possible. Well, we are the ones who put forward the proposal to try to organize a trial that Cambodia has to own it, by the Cambodian law, and proceed in the Cambodian courts […]
John Kerry, accompanied President Clinton to visit Vietnam in 2000, […] traveled to Phnom Penh to meet me at my residence at the Independence Monument. What is (John Kerry’s) formula? It is the supermajority formula […] which is more than the two-thirds majority, and no one party would be able to exercise right of objection or to force unanimous approval without obstruction. A smart formula. We accepted it […] I met by phone with (the UN Secretary General) Kofi Annan to consult on Cambodia’s legal arrangements and how to get in in line with the agreement to be approved by the UN Security Council […]
(13) Achieved the goal of overthrowing, preventing, dissolving the organization of Pol Pot, bringing peace and, finally, a verdict that gives justice to the Cambodian people
A verdict that brought justice (regarding the overthrow of the genocidal regime in Cambodia) helped me to step down from the power of the Prime Minister. (Meaning) I reached the goal of overthrowing Pol Pot, preventing Pol Pot, dissolving the Pol Pot’s organization, bringing peace, and finally the verdict that gave justice to the Cambodian people. From a 25-year-old young man to lead a resistance movement and suffered insults and pain when I was holding the posts of foreign minister, then Prime Minister, from imposing sanctions, while they supported the Khmer Rouge to fight us until there is now the verdict, I thought I had achieved my goal. Of course, regarding the topic of economy to lead the country from a less developed country to a higher middle-income and higher-income country is a big deal, but the younger generation can do it […]
(14) The law to punish liars of the genocidal regime in Cambodia will facilitate the writing and education of history
Let the legislators consider together whether there should be a set of rules (from conviction for misrepresentation of genocide) to affirm and make it easier to write history for the younger generation. We have pinpointed that genocidal regime can be prevented through education. What if through education, some claim the history that the children are learning is not what it was? […] Politicians in Cambodia are so obstructive. The only one way to deal with that is to set the law. If anyone says “there was no genocidal regime in Cambodia,” how can the law convict and fine the person? I think that should do. Maybe it is the job for the Minister of Justice. I am not the Prime Minister, but I have the right (to request) it. I did not violate the power of the Prime Minister […] (where there is this law,) we can easily write history. The law will have to be the organic, with possible amendments only by the two-thirds majority […]
[5]
(15) Defending peace and preventing the seizure of power by undemocratic means will avoid war and/or genocide
The first way to prevent genocide is to preserve peace. If peace can be maintained, there is no need to worry about genocide. I think there must be together (the prevention) of power seizure by non-democratic means. (If this can be done) it will prevent (genocide from happening) […] please do not forget that here were no the coup d’etat of March 18, 1970, there would have been no genocide. In the past, they would launch a coup at the incitement by foreign powers. At present, they no longer stage a coup but they are carrying out a color revolution. So, (if it happens, we just) crack it down because it leads to war and/or genocide […]
[…] There had been an attempt (of the color revolution) in 2013 in Cambodia […] I must remind the Commander of the Army, the Minister of Defense, the Commander-in-Chief of the Police that neutrality can only exist between political party and political party. If we offer protection to one political party, we must offer the same protection to the other. But there is no neutrality between political parties and the government […] in order to protect the 17 million people, do not be afraid to settle with one or two persons […]
I do not think it is necessary for me to walk around giving lectures here and there. Through my words today, I have shared a large number of facts. Those are a few groups ready to write a book (on this matter) […] I gradually share what I can openly […] today I reveal some more secrets for all of you. Please do not stage a coup to overthrow. Do not seize power by undemocratic means, which is the root of war and it is also the root of genocide […]
“What is happening in Gaza is not a genocide,” said the president of a superpower. If murdering human is not genocide, why should they accuse someone else of committing it. Dropping bombs everywhere but they say that is no genocide. What can one think of it to be? […] this has pointed out clearly that in the world there is no law enforcement. It only has the power of weapons. Whoever is strong, s/he will win […] as the former Prime Minister, I dare say it […] I have not yet finished political life. I’m still in politics. I have to talk about everything. It’s just that my voice is not an order. It is the Prime Minister who has that commanding voice […]
I used to sacrifice everything. I have sacrificed everything in my life swapping for the people’s lives and for peace for the people. I am not afraid to sacrifice power to exchange for long-term peace […] this transfer of power for the next generation does not bring fear for the Cambodian people. The economy continues to grow with controllable inflation. Therefore, the Cambodian people are not afraid to run away because of the transfer of power […]
[6]
(16) 54 years of continuing local mines clearance and will strive to participate in demining and removing unexploded ordnance under the umbrella of the peacekeepers, considered as a humanitarian work
I had lunch with Ambassador UENO Atsushi at the Embassy of Japan the other day. We talked about cooperation as well as training deminers abroad. We continue to do this work, but in 2025, Cambodia must also achieve the goal of a Cambodia without mines. It has been 54 years now (since 1970) that landmines in Cambodia have not been completely destroyed. We have used the time from 1993 until now to clear all the mines from our territory. We will continue to work with the destruction of landmines and unexploded ordnance through taking the role as peacekeepers abroad and through domestic jobs, where many countries, including Ukraine, are sending trainees. We continue to fulfil this as a humanitarian work […]
[8]
(17) Please do not make the third mistake on Cambodia
I always remind them (those who called themselves democratic) not to make the third mistake (in Cambodia). They have already made two mistakes. Firstly, […] calling themselves democratic, how many countries supported Lon Nol to stage a coup in Cambodia? […] secondly, they recognized and let the Khmer Rouge sit at the United Nations for 12 years and punished those who tried to rise up against Pol Pot […], and now that we have prosecuted them, please do not make a third mistake on us […]
(18) In the world, there is no single standard, if one suits China, one must be different from others
There is nothing else that we may need. We wish just to live in peace. For once, they accused us of going this direction, for another, they pulled us to that direction. There is no a single standard in the world […] in our region, whoever opposes China is a friend of others. As long as one’s policy is trending in line with China, one will always be in trouble. Well, I have to tell the truth. If we do not dare to tell the truth, why do you need to take a long expensive flight to sit here? […] in this world, the big suppresses the small. It creates a habit in each country. The big party suppresses the small party […] Have the big countries stop hurting the small countries yet? If they stop abusing them, well they can reprimand the big party that suppresses the small party […] (I have been too elaborative that) I am called a loquacious diplomat or politician […]./.
{Title} Excerpts of the impromptu speech of Samdech Techo Hun Sen, President of the Senate and Chairman of the Supreme Privy Council at the conference on “Cambodia’s Future without Genocide: Protection and Response through Education and Healthcare“
{Date & Venue} May 20, 2024, ???
{Topic tags} Not provided
{Tags} interior, national defense, Khmer Rouge, genocide, UN, Khmer Rouge tribunal, justice, law, education, color revolution, Japan, peace, Ukraine, Gaza, Palestine, win-win politics, integration, politics, administration, connectivity, Pailin, Anlong Veng, schools, western world, standard, China, father of democracy, Lon Nol, military coup, Norodom Sihanouk, diplomatic sanctions, economic siege, Myanmar, coup, landmine, war, political party, security, neutrality, power, government, parliament speaker, senator, Prime Minister, democrats, judiciary, Democratic Kampuchea, hybrid court order, ECCC, 6,000 Kilometers journey, demining, peacekeeping mission, history writing, history education, Sok An
{Text} Unofficial excerpts and translations
[1]
(1) Measures to provide protection, traffic in addition to security during each hearing required to select the Army Command as the tribunal court to try Khmer Rouge leaders
I should point out a bit as to how did we decided on the location of the Khmer Rouge trial here […] when the agreement between the United Nations and the Cambodian side came into force, what happened was that we had in mind this venue and the Chaktomuk conference hall – either to be worthy of setting up as the venue for the Khmer Rouge trial. Judging on the issue of how to take measures regarding protection of the hearing, traffic problems, when the court conducted the trial, and the provision of safety of the offenders, which is even more important, we decided to take this (army command headquarters) as the place […]
What we had to do for this venue to be a legal location since the tribunal is defined/required to be located in Phnom Penh in the agreement between the United Nations and Cambodia. At that time, this location belonged to Kandal province. To complete the task, I have to sign a sub-decree to transfer this part of land and the vicinity to Phnom Penh. Therefore, Phnom Penh has gained a few thousand hectares of land in this area from Kandal province. This is a history to remember […]
[2]
(2) The game of condemning both the Khmer Rouge and those who fought against the Khmer Rouge terminated by the Cambodian-UN hybrid court
The zero-sum game was settled by this hybrid court ruling and it was recognized by the UN Security Council. Earlier, they condemned the Khmer Rouge and condemned those who overthrew the Khmer Rouge at the same time. It is a mathematical calculation of 1 + 1 or 1-1 = 0 […] is this a political game to cover up the historical reality that has actually taken place on Cambodian soil? […]
I would suggest to the lawyers (to advise whether) in Cambodia it is possible or not to enact a law to punish those who (claim) that (in) Cambodia there has no genocide? Why do I say that? The trial ruled that “Cambodia has had a genocidal regime.” If the court verdict comes out this way, can we not put in place a law to claim that there was a genocidal regime in Cambodia. In Europe, for example, there is a law that says (whoever claim) that Hitler was not the head of the Fascist are punishable. In this understanding, should this kind of law be made in Cambodia? This is not an incitement to suppress the freedom of expression […]
(3) Any expression of support for the genocidal regime should be punished
[…] Is it possible to have a law in Cambodia (that criminalizes whoever says there had no genocide in Cambodia) […] or certain politicians would resort to repeating their old games to cause trouble in the society, […] the United Nations, with Her Excellency as the representative today claims that the court verdict is real, or it means that the genocidal regime (did take place in Cambodia) […] (while there are, however, those who insist that “there has never been (atrocity committed by) the Khmer Rouge and no one ever saved (the country from the genocide) […]” and if this is going on, the history will repeat itself […] it is not a ban on freedom of expression, but any expression that is in support of the genocidal regime should be punished […] I have been waiting 43 years for justice. It is not a joke. It had taken us from 1979 through to 2022 before the justice is served […]
[3]
(4) “The proper place of the Khmer Rouge is to be tried in the International Criminal Court, not a seat in the Supreme National Council”
I would like to explain this point a little bit for you […] related to this story of the Khmer Rouge, when the Paris International Conference (on the problem of Cambodia) began in 1989, I pointed out in my speech that “the most appropriate place of the Khmer Rouge is “the trial at the International Criminal Court and not a seat in the SNC.” At that time, the State of Cambodian (SoC) party, which I represented, demanded that the phrase “to prevent the return of the genocidal regime” be put in (the conference’s outcome document). Our suggestion had come to a stalling point. We are forbidden to talk about the genocidal regime […] the Paris Agreement was then stuck (at the point that the SoC party had (demanded to place in the document the phrase “to prevent the return of the genocidal regime” […]
(5) The party that opposed the Khmer Rouge maintained its position to hold the Khmer Rouge trial from the beginning to the end
This point can prove that the (Phnom Penh) government party, or the only party opposed the Khmer Rouge, maintained its position from beginning to end to prosecute the Khmer Rouge leaders. It is not something just came to mind. We have proposed to include in the Paris Agreement (the provision on) the prevention of the return of the genocidal regime. However, due to the stalemate, some friends went to seek help from Japan […] finally, HE (Hisashi) Owada had won his opinion over me. He told me that Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were in fact the ones to be tried, but if the agreement included the phrase “preventing the return of the genocidal regime”, the Khmer Rouge and some countries would not agree. Then we had reached the consensus to edit the wording to “preventing the return of the acts of the recent past” […]
(6) The country committed mistake of recognizing the Khmer Rouge should admit that its policy towards Cambodia was wrong
In the past, people turned their blind eyes in the face of genocide. Later, they demanded that there must be prosecution of the Khmer Rouge without rational justification right after the Khmer Rouge dissolved both political and military organizations. I really admired that a few people (could hold such a political attitude). I should send a message to countries that have made the mistake of recognizing the Khmer Rouge or turning a blind eye to (a genocide in Cambodia) that they should admit that “at that time their policy towards Cambodia was wrong” […]
When the Khmer Rouge was strong, no one came forward to talk about the Khmer Rouge trial or to stop recognizing the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations. The votes at the UN, as we remark, happened in two different trends. During the coup d’état that overthrew Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the representation of Cambodia at the United Nations was (handed over) to the Lon Nol regime, the coup plotters. When the Lon Nol regime became weak that it controlled less than 10% of the territory, they still allowed Lon Nol to hold the Cambodian seats at the United Nations, claiming that the Lon Nol occupied the capital. The state of Cambodia, which occupied more than 90% of the country’s territory (including the capital), we were kept outside the United Nations. They say we were not legal. (They) interpret (the situation) in whatever way that fits (only) with what they want […]
(7) If the Khmer Rouge participated in the election and had a seat in parliament, who would be responsible for prosecuting them?
I do not know that during the opening session, in the discussion, if there was a question among researchers and scholars, if the Khmer Rouge participated in the election, and had the right as a political party, with the seats in the National Assembly, who would responsible to bring the Khmer Rouge to trial? Was there such a question? We should in fact thank Pol Pot for withdrawing from the implementation of the Paris Agreement. It was with such mistake that we had the opportunity to defeat the Khmer Rouge, both politically and militarily, through win-win politics. It was not achieved through UNTAC. When UNTAC withdrew, Cambodia was left with two governments at war. Through win-win politics, however, (we did what UNTAC failed to achieve) […]
(8) Cambodia ended the war with one side surrendering to the other leader’s house
If the Khmer Rouge participated in the election, had its legitimate political party, had seats in the National Assembly, which I think the Khmer Rouge could have at least two or three seats […] who then would demand the trial of the Khmer Rouge? […] people have seen this picture where four people sitting together – sitting next to the right-hand side of Hun Sen was Khieu Samphan, and to the left were Nuon Chea, then Ieng Sary. Khieu Samphan was the Head of State and Prime Minister, Nuon Chea was the former Speaker of the National Assembly, and Ieng Sary was the former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister […] in the world, had there been any end to a war, in which one side surrendered to the other leader’s house? Such a thing does not exist yet. It exists in Cambodia. Why there are those who blame us, and even blamed the former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali […]
(9) Accepting the surrender of the Khmer Rouge leaders at home to send three messages
I sent a helicopter to transport Khieu Samphan, Nuon Chea and other leaders. Mr. Khieu Samphan came with his wife, children, son-in-law and grandchildren. I needed to send out three messages that I had arranged such a meeting at my house. Firstly, I wanted to send a message to the Cambodian people that the war was over because top leaders (from the other side) had surrendered to the Prime Minister (of the other side). Secondly, I wanted to send a message to the few remaining Khmer Rouge forces to end the fighting as their leaders had come to my house. Thirdly, I wanted to send a message to the international community that it is time that people can come visit and invest in Cambodia, because the war in Cambodia ended. (In that situation), some countries rebuked my shaking hands with the Khmer Rouge. Without holding the grudge, I responded – “you should not forget that before the Paris Agreement, you let the Khmer Rouge walk on the red carpet and issued them diplomatic visas to enter your country” […]
(10) Forty-eight hours VDO recording already transcribed but would be released in 10 years from now
In Kyoto, during the time of former Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu and Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama, the Soc delegation consisted of six members […] and on the side of then Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk was Samdech Krom Preah Norodom Ranaridh, on the side of the KPNLF (Khmer People’s National Liberation Front) were Samdech Son San and HE Ieng Moly, and from the Khmer Rouge side were Khieu Samphan and Son Sen. The party was held in the same room, but with two tables. One table set for my delegation, and another table for the delegation led by Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk. There were six dishes.
Firstly, Foreign Minister Nakayama was at the table with the tripartite (coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea). Deputy Foreign Minister (Hisashi) Owada came to the table with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Once the three dishes finished, (the Japanese hosts) had to change table […] (that) I have brought up (all this is) lest once I am not here anymore, no one would speak of it. That is the truth. I have made a 48 hours video recording and have had it transcribed (already). However, I will only let it out in ten more years. I will do more (talks) on some of the topics deemed necessary. Today I have raised some of the things and this video should be kept well (so that) not to lose something real like that for later. Only those who practically involved know the truth […]
(11) “Willing to let the hybrid court fail but not allowing the country to go to war again”
Another thing is the fact that they forced a trial without considering the consequences […] I spoke to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during his first visit to Cambodia during the negotiation when he mentioned the rule of expansion of prosecution to case 001, 002, 003, 004 (where such expansion would result in a widespread scandal). I told His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, “I am willing for the court to fail, but I do not want my country to be at war again” […] besides accusing the Cambodian leaders such as Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk, HE Keat Chhon, HE Hor Namhong, Samdech Chea Sim, Samdech Heng Samrin, HE Ouk Bunchhoeun, and HE Sim Ka […] they have many more cases to be charged in their respective order, and that might involve the former division commanders, the former regional chiefs, the former district chiefs, the former commune chiefs […] I said, “Excellency, would you mink think about this. Once tried and sentenced the 20 or 30 people and suddenly a war broke out, and tens of thousands more are losing their lives. Who would be responsible? There would not be a second win-win policy, Excellency” […]
[4]
(12) Organize a trial process under the Cambodian law and in the Cambodian courts
The idea of a hybrid Khmer Rouge trial underwent extensive consultation. Some said that it should be based on the South African Dr. Desmond Tutu’s formula which had some favors (according to the reality of the Apartheid regime). We said that way was not possible. Well, we are the ones who put forward the proposal to try to organize a trial that Cambodia has to own it, by the Cambodian law, and proceed in the Cambodian courts […]
John Kerry, accompanied President Clinton to visit Vietnam in 2000, […] traveled to Phnom Penh to meet me at my residence at the Independence Monument. What is (John Kerry’s) formula? It is the supermajority formula […] which is more than the two-thirds majority, and no one party would be able to exercise right of objection or to force unanimous approval without obstruction. A smart formula. We accepted it […] I met by phone with (the UN Secretary General) Kofi Annan to consult on Cambodia’s legal arrangements and how to get in in line with the agreement to be approved by the UN Security Council […]
(13) Achieved the goal of overthrowing, preventing, dissolving the organization of Pol Pot, bringing peace and, finally, a verdict that gives justice to the Cambodian people
A verdict that brought justice (regarding the overthrow of the genocidal regime in Cambodia) helped me to step down from the power of the Prime Minister. (Meaning) I reached the goal of overthrowing Pol Pot, preventing Pol Pot, dissolving the Pol Pot’s organization, bringing peace, and finally the verdict that gave justice to the Cambodian people. From a 25-year-old young man to lead a resistance movement and suffered insults and pain when I was holding the posts of foreign minister, then Prime Minister, from imposing sanctions, while they supported the Khmer Rouge to fight us until there is now the verdict, I thought I had achieved my goal. Of course, regarding the topic of economy to lead the country from a less developed country to a higher middle-income and higher-income country is a big deal, but the younger generation can do it […]
(14) The law to punish liars of the genocidal regime in Cambodia will facilitate the writing and education of history
Let the legislators consider together whether there should be a set of rules (from conviction for misrepresentation of genocide) to affirm and make it easier to write history for the younger generation. We have pinpointed that genocidal regime can be prevented through education. What if through education, some claim the history that the children are learning is not what it was? […] Politicians in Cambodia are so obstructive. The only one way to deal with that is to set the law. If anyone says “there was no genocidal regime in Cambodia,” how can the law convict and fine the person? I think that should do. Maybe it is the job for the Minister of Justice. I am not the Prime Minister, but I have the right (to request) it. I did not violate the power of the Prime Minister […] (where there is this law,) we can easily write history. The law will have to be the organic, with possible amendments only by the two-thirds majority […]
[5]
(15) Defending peace and preventing the seizure of power by undemocratic means will avoid war and/or genocide
The first way to prevent genocide is to preserve peace. If peace can be maintained, there is no need to worry about genocide. I think there must be together (the prevention) of power seizure by non-democratic means. (If this can be done) it will prevent (genocide from happening) […] please do not forget that here were no the coup d’etat of March 18, 1970, there would have been no genocide. In the past, they would launch a coup at the incitement by foreign powers. At present, they no longer stage a coup but they are carrying out a color revolution. So, (if it happens, we just) crack it down because it leads to war and/or genocide […]
[…] There had been an attempt (of the color revolution) in 2013 in Cambodia […] I must remind the Commander of the Army, the Minister of Defense, the Commander-in-Chief of the Police that neutrality can only exist between political party and political party. If we offer protection to one political party, we must offer the same protection to the other. But there is no neutrality between political parties and the government […] in order to protect the 17 million people, do not be afraid to settle with one or two persons […]
I do not think it is necessary for me to walk around giving lectures here and there. Through my words today, I have shared a large number of facts. Those are a few groups ready to write a book (on this matter) […] I gradually share what I can openly […] today I reveal some more secrets for all of you. Please do not stage a coup to overthrow. Do not seize power by undemocratic means, which is the root of war and it is also the root of genocide […]
“What is happening in Gaza is not a genocide,” said the president of a superpower. If murdering human is not genocide, why should they accuse someone else of committing it. Dropping bombs everywhere but they say that is no genocide. What can one think of it to be? […] this has pointed out clearly that in the world there is no law enforcement. It only has the power of weapons. Whoever is strong, s/he will win […] as the former Prime Minister, I dare say it […] I have not yet finished political life. I’m still in politics. I have to talk about everything. It’s just that my voice is not an order. It is the Prime Minister who has that commanding voice […]
I used to sacrifice everything. I have sacrificed everything in my life swapping for the people’s lives and for peace for the people. I am not afraid to sacrifice power to exchange for long-term peace […] this transfer of power for the next generation does not bring fear for the Cambodian people. The economy continues to grow with controllable inflation. Therefore, the Cambodian people are not afraid to run away because of the transfer of power […]
[6]
(16) 54 years of continuing local mines clearance and will strive to participate in demining and removing unexploded ordnance under the umbrella of the peacekeepers, considered as a humanitarian work
I had lunch with Ambassador UENO Atsushi at the Embassy of Japan the other day. We talked about cooperation as well as training deminers abroad. We continue to do this work, but in 2025, Cambodia must also achieve the goal of a Cambodia without mines. It has been 54 years now (since 1970) that landmines in Cambodia have not been completely destroyed. We have used the time from 1993 until now to clear all the mines from our territory. We will continue to work with the destruction of landmines and unexploded ordnance through taking the role as peacekeepers abroad and through domestic jobs, where many countries, including Ukraine, are sending trainees. We continue to fulfil this as a humanitarian work […]
[8]
(17) Please do not make the third mistake on Cambodia
I always remind them (those who called themselves democratic) not to make the third mistake (in Cambodia). They have already made two mistakes. Firstly, […] calling themselves democratic, how many countries supported Lon Nol to stage a coup in Cambodia? […] secondly, they recognized and let the Khmer Rouge sit at the United Nations for 12 years and punished those who tried to rise up against Pol Pot […], and now that we have prosecuted them, please do not make a third mistake on us […]
(18) In the world, there is no single standard, if one suits China, one must be different from others
There is nothing else that we may need. We wish just to live in peace. For once, they accused us of going this direction, for another, they pulled us to that direction. There is no a single standard in the world […] in our region, whoever opposes China is a friend of others. As long as one’s policy is trending in line with China, one will always be in trouble. Well, I have to tell the truth. If we do not dare to tell the truth, why do you need to take a long expensive flight to sit here? […] in this world, the big suppresses the small. It creates a habit in each country. The big party suppresses the small party […] Have the big countries stop hurting the small countries yet? If they stop abusing them, well they can reprimand the big party that suppresses the small party […] (I have been too elaborative that) I am called a loquacious diplomat or politician […]./.
