Once again in voluntary exile, opposition leader Sam Rainsy vows to return before the national elections. In an exclusive interview with Pierre Gillette for the Khmer Times French edition L’Hebdo, Mr. Rainsy explains by email that he did not return last month as planned at the request of his fellow party members who had word of “provocations” being prepared against him to put him in a difficult position. Despite his situation, Mr. Rainsy still supports the culture of dialogue, which he initiated with Prime Minister Hun Sen earlier this year. 

KT: You wrote that this is the fourth time in 20 years that you have been the target of expulsion from the National Assembly as a member of the opposition (1995) or as leader of the opposition bloc (2005, 2011 and 2015), which according to you is a violation of the Kingdom’s laws and the constitution. A few months ago, you wrote a eulogy for the culture of dialogue in this paper. Does what is happening today demonstrate that this culture of dialogue was but another political maneuver in the 20-year battle between you and Hun Sen? 

Mr. Rainsy: Not at all. The culture of dialogue has to be preserved and developed. Certainly, it’s young and fragile and goes through ups and downs that represent the normal vicissitudes of political life. But this culture of dialogue is the only alternative to the culture of violence that has undermined Cambodia for decades.

The culture of dialogue is also the base of democracy, which can’t exist without dialogue as a peaceful way to surmount differences through tolerance and mutual respect. Under the lead of Hun Sen and I, mechanisms have been created to institutionalize a dialogue in this spirit between rival parties in the National Assembly whose internal relations were just amended to include an official recognition of the opposition led by a minority leader in parliament. All of that was conceived for the long term, for other parties and other leaders to come, so that democracy can actually take root in Cambodia. 

KT: The tensions between you and the CPP followed protests by your supporters around the question of demarcating the border with Vietnam. It was after this moment that the prime minister accused you of saying one thing [promoting the culture of dialogue] and doing another [secretly encouraging protests over the border] and therefore accusing you of not being trustworthy. What is your response to that? What role did you play in the demonstrations?

Mr. Rainsy: The border issue is a profound problem with which Cambodians have been sensitive for centuries because it concerns the survival of a country caught between two powerful and enterprising neighbors. It’s a problem, among many others, that will have to be resolved by a national and international dialogue. Creating a scapegoat with unfounded and politically convenient accusations only hides the reality and defers an adequate resolution of the problem.

KT: How do you view the prime minister’s recent tough stance towards you?

Mr. Rainsy: There could be a few parts to responding to that question: the failed attempts to divide the opposition; foreseeable difficulties in manipulating the next election after the formation of a more independent and credible electoral committee; the worrying example of Myanmar where the democratic opposition just won the election convincingly; a realization of the growing displeasure of the populace for the current regime; a desire to derail the electoral process with a bout of violence.

KT: Certain political analysts see your refusal to return as a sign of a lack of political courage and leadership that weakens your position. How would you respond to that?

Mr Rainsy: First, we need to be clear about our objectives. For the united, democratic opposition, the objective is to win the next elections. So first these must take place; next, they have to happen in acceptable conditions in terms of being democratic. As the president of the only opposition party represented in the National Assembly, I have to make sure that these conditions are met. In terms of personal plans, for me it’s not about coming home for the pleasure of coming home or as a response to an emotional and timely expectation outside of all strategy. I will definitely be in the country before and during the next elections. But first I have to assure myself sufficient room to maneuver and to ensure that I don’t fall into the trap of provocation, the victims of which would be the members of the opposition. 

In every battle, even peaceful ones, one does not leave the adversary the choice of the playing field, the choice of the weapons to use and the choice of the moment of engagement. Under the current conditions I have to avoid this milieu of arbitrary decision-making and physical and moral violence and prefer the rule of law (according to international norms) and diplomacy with modern tools at our disposal. 

KT: You have highlighted the potential for violence that could have taken place at the airport to explain your decision not to return. However during the demonstrations of 2013, you knew that there would be tens of thousands of sympathizers. Wouldn’t it have been possible to manage your supporters that night at the airport?

Mr. Rainsy: We only expected provocations coming from the other side, like we saw on July 15, 2014. The violence that resulted allowed the government – which controls the courts – to reverse roles and to arrest and imprison a large number of opposition members. On November 16, 2015, while I was already on the way to the Seoul airport to take a plane to Phnom Penh, all the deputies and senators from my party met specially for this circumstance and begged me from afar not to return that day (or rather, that night) because they had word of provocations in the works.

KT: Under what conditions do you expect to return?

Mr. Rainsy: My personal situation on this front is secondary to the concerns and goals of my entire party.

KT: Doesn’t your absence from Cambodia risk weakening the strength of your union with Kem Sokha and those from his political bloc ?

Mr. Rainsy: The opposition is united and will remain so because the union is an absolute necessity in order to make the democratic change that we all desire.

 

From Khmer Times