March 17, 1975

March 18th marked the 40th anniversary of the coup that was led by the anti Sihanouk group in srok Khmer in 1970, namely Lon Nol, Sirikmatak, In Tam, etc.

History shows that prior to the event that led to the deposed of Sihanouk, Sihanouk himself was out of the country on some pretexts that only he could have known. Knowing Sihanouk’s style of governing the country, one can safely assume that he must have known that something was brewing. As in the past, when things got out of hand, he would dramatically seek refuge in Angkor or some resorts in Europe hoping that his “children” would see it right to behave as he would want them to and that things will take care of themselves by the time his “children” ask him to come back. He was wrong on that fateful day of 1970. His “children” had had enough of him and they decided to dispose of him and his mercurial style of leadership.

According to some historians, Lon Nol was a reluctant participant. He was “forced” to sign a decree that denounce Sihanouk. Whether or not Lon Nol was a willing participant we will never know. The only thing that we know is that he was voted by the new parliament to head the new government and that he eventually became the president of the Khmer Republic.

That much we know for certain.

As to the recent haranguing of the current government that Lon Nol was a traitor I find it hard to swallow. In my opinion, the recent speech made by the prime minister of Kampuchea was an attempt to pacify Sihanouk while at the same time legitimize his own party standing.

There is no need to do that. The current government is deemed legitimate by many countries around the world and as far as Sihanouk is concerned, we know what he did and did not do. Therefore, to blatantly falsify historical facts is to insult the intelligence of those who had perished in the civil war and of those who have survived.

Lon Nol was indeed a traitor, but not a traitor to Kampuchea. He, in a sense, stabbed Sihanouk in the back. But that is between Sihanouk and Lon Nol. Those who have known him (or of him) know that he was patriotic.

Thus, to set the record straight we should say that Lon Nol was a traitor to Sihanouk, not a traitor of srok Khmer. However, if we insist to adhere to the logic of the prime minister, then we can say that Lon Nol is a traitor just as Sihanouk was a traitor to Son Ngoc Thanh or Preap In or Sam Sary. Furthermore, we can even say that those that defected to Vietnam in the late 1970s were also traitors -- they were traitors to Pol Pot.

You see the logic here? Sihanouk was not Kampuchea. He governed Kampuchea but he himself was not Kampuchea or the embodiment of it (though I am sure he likes to think that way). To betray Sihanouk is not the same thing as to betray Kampuchea.

By now I hope I can convince some of the readers that Lon Nol was not a traitor. Rather, he was patriotic. But being patriotic does not necessarily mean that one is capable and this is true for Lon Nol and his administration. Incompetency, corruption, and nepotism was the norm of the day.. and still is.