2019-06-11 飞雪似炀花 17702
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:飞雪似炀花 转载请注明出处

Why did all ASEAN leaders say that Vietnam invaded Cambodia? How many countries supported Cambodia against Vietnamese invasion?

原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:飞雪似炀花 转载请注明出处

Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
You mean Prime Minister.
People die all the time. We are the architects of our own tragedies. Cambodia became Communist through Vietnamese help. Pol Pot then started killing Vietnamese settlers as spies. The previous government did nothing against an extreme Maoist cell which grew due to their focus on anti-colonialism. Everything has consequences.
We did not fight Communist tyranny. As long as they were killing each other, it was not our problem. When they came to our borders, we played the cards we were dealt with.
Cambodia would not be like North Korea. You have a poor grasp of geopolitics. Cambodia would have been depopulated, and the economy would have collapsed totally. Others could have just walked in and seized the resources.
You are arguing on the basis of a misplaced sense of morality. Morality is a societal construct. This is simply the consequences of action, a Darwinian natural selection. It is a lesson to all that we should be stronger as a nation, both economically and militarily; more ruthless with threats to the state; and more focused on the need to build supranational forums.


Stefan Onk
Sat · 1 upvote
Prime Minister, right. You are right that Cambodia wouldn’t be North Korea, however we do not know what Cambodia would look like today with a Chinese backing and no Vietnamese intervention. I am sure ASEAN countries could still consider it as a threat.
However, you would justify the Holocaust with a straight face in a given situation. No further questions.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
Cambodia was never a threat. The threat was Communist Vietnam. You really should pay attention to the discussion if you want to comment.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
No. Cambodia was a non-issue. It is a landlocked, poor nation of no geopolitical consequence then. Vietnam, on the other hand, was a contending power. This was always about the containment of Vietnam. And it worked. I get the impression that you do not understand the issues here, and are arguing out of needless emotion. Emotive arguments are never cogent nor coherent.


Stefan Onk
Sat · 1 upvote
Cambodia is not landlocked, Laos is. I am fully aware that back then it was about Vietnam, I just said that Cambodia could potentially be a threat today if the regime wasn’t stopped by Vietnam. It’s impossible to know that this could not have happen, but I am not even emphasizing this one.
Since you neglect ethical values and behavior in general I recommend you to find mental help.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
I stand corrected on that.
You are mistaken on the part that it is impossible to know. People, in large numbers, are eminently predictable. Cambodia dies not have the population base, nor the military capability to be a threat. The regime would have been considered a threat if it attempted to export their Maoism, but they were destroying themselves quite efficiently.


Le Tat Dat
Pol Pot was hiding in Thailand, of couse VPA would chase after him but he was under Thailand protection. I could say if Thai soldiers got killed by fighting Vietnam, they died for a murderous regime.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
Irrelevant. There is this thing called international law.


Le Tat Dat
True. Thailand could stop Pol Pot from enter Thailand but they chose to protect them, allow them to cross their border to attack Vietnamese.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
ASEAN chose to arm every faction fighting Vietnam. That was the point of the exercise. There is no good or bad in politics, only national interest.


Th? Nguy?n
Sat · 2 upvotes
Even supporting a murderous regime, correct?


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
You forget that the Vietnamese Communists killed a lot of people too. How are both sides different?


Th? Nguy?n
I repeat: We didn’t kill off 1/4th of any population whatsoever. Any proof for any Vietnamese Communist’s massacre? The only “massacre” that you people keep going on about is Hu?, which was so chaotic that even the people there weren’t even sure about how many really died by the NLF’s hands: Massacre at Hu? - Wikipedia
The funniest thing is that you people are still believing that old piece of Cold War propaganda when the US, the creator of the Domino’s Theory, has largely dropped it and moved on. Like, what kind of communism were you stopping when the Khmer Rouge WAS the Cambodian Communists?


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
This is not a murder competition, and you are digressing from the point. The issue, for ASEAN, was the threat of Vietnamese aggression then, and the proxy war between the USSR and China. The Khmer Rouge is an incidental factor.
Like I said earlier, we make no apologies. We did what was necessary to secure our position, and security. It is irrelevant how many Cambodians and Vietnamese died. That is what nations states do.


Th? Nguy?n
“You forget that the Vietnamese Communists killed a lot of people too. How are both sides different?”
It was you who turned it into a body count competition in the first place.
And that’s why I’m telling you the “Vietnamese aggression” thing was a Cold War rhetoric best left behind. We didn’t had any expansionist ideology at all. We never asked for any apology from ASEAN. We understand what they had to do as small countries. We literally JOINED ASEAN. We only ask for one when LHL literally dug up a 4-decade-old rhetoric against 2 other countries in an unrelated eulogy to a random Thai generals.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
The Prime Minister of Singapore is not going to give an apology. That would imply that ASEAN was wrong then. I agree that he should not have dug it up.


Th? Nguy?n
We asked for an apology for his foot-in-mouth-titis, not for ASEAN’s past action. The netizens only dug the entire thing up because LHL dug it up in the first place.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
And you are not going to get it. It is naive to expect that. Hurt feelings have no currency in international relations. When a head of state apologises for mentioning a course of action, it implies that said courseof action was politically wrong. It also implies that all the countries involved in said course of action were wrong. A government spokesman will explain it away, and we will all move on with the next news cycle.
If, however, Vietnam were a major trading partner, or a regional power, and the political interest dictated thus, Singapore would apologise. However, the power dynamics are not in that favour.


Th? Nguy?n
Fri · 5 upvotes
Exactly zero evidence. It was just a Cold War era propaganda expanded from the Domino's Theory, which has been repeatedly proven to be false.
The thing is, if Vietnam had really had that kind of ambition, it wouldn't have stopped at Cambodia regardless of any ASEAN, China, or US intervention. The US public no longer had any taste for a SEA war. China been there done that. Back then, ASEAN military was bloody weak compared to the Vietnamese military, which used to be the fourth largest standing army at the time. If we had really had that expansionist mindset, nothing could have realistically stopped us.
Vietnamese people are just sick of wars. We don't like wars. We dont fight wars unless it was literally foisted onto us. The Khmer Rouge killing field and their massacres along our borders, we have known that and been the target of that since 1975. But when we tried to tell UN and ask for UN intervention, they shut us down completely and said that we faked the massacres as a front for our “expansionist” ambition. So after 3 years and 30 000 Vietnamese civilians dead, we went to war against the Khmer Rouge and only did the absolute minimum necessary to dispose the Khmer Rouge.
I can stand the word “invasion" because it's English usage can be a good thing like the Normandy invasion, unlike its official Vietnamese equivalent of “x?m l??c", which cannot be used in any positive way. But the timing, the occasion of the post, the purposeful way he dug up the “Vietnamese expansionism" context, the radio silence, and the post by a guy in your Parliament calling people to spread that little piece of Cold War propaganda, which literally said Vietnam “ruined” Cambodia, I cannot stand it.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
You will just have to get used to the fact that different countries have different views on different issues. The rest of us are not subjected to the Communist Party's state propaganda. ASEAN, then, saw it differently, and acted accordingly.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
Again, that is also irrelevant, since it is an opinion, and a childish attempt at an insult. The role of the government is to secure the interests of its own country. We have done well, by being more ruthless, more single-minded, than everyone else. That is necessary to succeed.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
I am a political realist, and a sociopath. Since when, in any of my writings, have I ever said anything about standing up for weaker countries, or anything of that sort? We are all here to win, to succeed, and if that means sacrifices have to be made, so be it. That is what international politics is about. Even Vietnam is in ASEAN because of mutual interest. ASEAN standing up to China is better for Vietnam, than Vietnam alone standing up to China. There are no good guys, I friends, only mutual interest.


Th? Nguy?n
Sat · 1 upvote
“Irrelevant. There is this thing called international law.” - Also you when Vietnamese people tell you that we did it for our survivals.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
Stating that Vietnam invaded Cambodia is not against international law.


Th? Nguy?n
It wasn’t about international law. Supporting a murderous regime is also against international laws. It was about how when it comes to national security, you think that only Singapore’s national security is a legitimate reason for military action. You outright dismissed our national security and the 30 000 dead Vietnamese civilians at the border as “irrelevant”!


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
I am not defending anything. I mentioned international law because that is how the game is played. International law means whatever the winner needs it to be. We won.


Chan Wy
Fri · 2 upvotes including Terence Helikaon Nunis
Thank you for putting everything into perspective. I remember clearly than that if Thailand border is breached, Singapore will have to support Malaysia army totally for the last stand.


Le Anh Tuan
Tks for bringing another context from yours/Singaporean view but it may not be a good idea for the PM to bring up that painful/controvesary period of Asean history while Asean needs more collaboration than division at the moment.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Fri · 1 upvote
I agree. I see no benefit in digging up old wounds.


o Tranlong
We shouldn't send any troops to cambodia, at first General said that, well i guess we shouldnt send our people either. But things over control when Khmer killed so many Vietnamese people and even attacking into Vietnam land. By having support by China, Us, Thailand and Singapore. Those countries are responsible for over 3mil Cambodian killed. Vietnam did not invaded Cambodia, it is simple as we were self defense situation. It is funny that they benefits their own and support the massacre millions of lives. Good on you singapore and thailand those puppet of china and us.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote from Vo Tranlong
You forgot the part where Vietnam initially supported Pol Pot, and clandestinely helped him to power.


Vo Tranlong
Yes! We teach them guerrilla stategies. We teach them to improve their military fighting style. But we did not support their terrorirsm!!


John Ng
Sat · 1 upvote
Vn was a salary man doing the Russian job (Ru rival China). Overwhelming Vn forces would have taken sea if not attacked at China border. Was Vn miscalculation Ru cant attack China at north border cause hard weather in feb/79. Miscalculation then carried expensive price with sanctions in a decade and worst poverty. Few politicians made mistake, innocent citizens paid for it! Sad being salary man and communist brothers killing each other.


Hieu Do Trung
this ignore the fact that Vietnam is a war torn country(just reunite in 1975 after 100 years war), and it has no incentive to invade Cambodia without being harass daily. Saying Vietnam was a threat was pure ignorance.


Ngoc Vu
Vietnam vs khmer rouge was a “proxy war” . ??? Do you even understand what proxy war mean?


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · Sat
Obviously. Since I said it.


Ngoc Vu
1h ago
Vietnam didn't attack khmer rouge under Soviet union’s order. It attacked because khmer rouge did attack first and kill thousand Vietnamese. How it's a proxy war?


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · 1h ago
My explanation is already there, in my answer.


Ngoc Vu
1h ago
“We must also remember that the fight between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge was a proxy war between the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, both nuclear powers” it's not an explaination. It's just merely assumption on your part.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · 1h ago
Read the rest.


Ngoc Vu
1h ago
Has Vietnam attacked khmer rouge because of Soviet said so? NO! It attacked for it own interest and to save the Viet people.
“the rest” what?
Whether or not the support from Soviet. We would attack khmer rouge anyway.
It is not a war over the ideology.
How do you define “proxy war”


Khanh Nguyen
52m ago
One famous quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evils is for good men to do nothing". Not only Singapore did nothing to stop genocide but also supporting the evils and that is a fact that was not of course mentioned in his heroism message .. a hypocrite I'd say.
Playing a card along with evils was not the only option that Singapore had to choose, sadly that Singapore choose playing along with evils but strikingly endorsed and praised by many Singaporeans like you.
Imagine that a mass killing in your neighborhood, instead of stopping the killing, you even hand out more weapons and ammo to the evil for further killings .. and that was exactly what your government did back then.
Where do your moral stand ? if an evil comes to Singapore and make killing fields, how would you feel if everyone else not just stand by and do nothing but also supporting the evil to continue killing you ?
Sadly, That's world we are living in - people will sleep with evils to achieve their goals/objectives.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
Original Author · 41m ago
The entire basis of our foreign policy is not to depend on others to help. Countries get involved out of self-interest, not morality. We have to make it within their interest to help us. There is no such thing as altruism in international politics, only gain and profit.


Khanh Nguyen
29m ago
Thank you, you just reiterate my statement “ Sadly, that’s the world we are living in - people will sleep with evils to achieve their goals/objectives”



Bill Chen, We were soldiers once and young
Answered 18h ago

See the dark blue patch? That’s ASEAN in 1978. The green patch is Vietnam, while the ice-blue next to it is Cambodia.


With this map in our minds, let’s do a bit of point and tell.


First, ASEAN is not a defense alliance like NATO. There is no one-for-all, all-for-one arrangement in armed conflict. Instead, the ASEAN Declaration sets out co-operation, amity, and non-interference as basic founding principles.


Here I would like to note the difference between principle and policy. A principle is a rule which MUST be followed whereas a policy is a guideline that CAN be followed. In other words, principles are red lines that must not be crossed.


In the case of ASEAN, the basis for the existence of ASEAN disappears if any of the founding principles are violated.


Two, Vietnam joined ASEAN in 1995, Cambodia followed in 1999. Their accession means they FULLY ACCEPT the principles of co-operation, amity, and non-interference. They are still ASEAN members today.


In practice, the Vietnam and Cambodia of 2019 would have NO CHOICE but to support ASEAN’s view that 1978 Vietnam's presence in Cambodia was illegal, and the Association’s vigorous UN lobbying in the subsequent decade on behalf of the government in exile headed by Prince Sihanouk. ASEAN operates exclusively by consensus.


Three. It is telling the Cambodian occupation by Vietnam formally ended in 1991 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. Vietnamese troops had already begun withdrawing from Cambodia in the late 80s, as support from the Soviet Union waned in the sunset years of the Soviet bloc.


Vietnam didn’t care about liberation. It was a sponsored proxy war.


Does anyone seriously entertain illusions that Brezhnev cared about several million Cambodian skulls when his former boss Stalin ordered the Holodomor that starved 7–10 million Ukrainians to death or the mass deportation of millions more kulaks, more than half who died as a direct result?
Welcome to great power politics.


Four, this man:


had this to say about PM Lee’s remarks on General Prem’s passing:
His statement reflects Singapore’s position then in support of the genocidal regime and the wish for its return to Cambodia. Singapore was the host of the tripartite meeting that led to the formation of the coalition government of the Democratic Kampuchea, which had prolonged the war and the suffering of Cambodian people for another 10 years. It’s an act against the survival of the Cambodian people. His statement is also an insult to the sacrifice of the Vietnamese military volunteers who helped to liberate Cambodia from the genocidal regime. His statement reveals to the Singaporean people and the world that leader of Singapore had indeed contributed to the massacre of Cambodian people.
—Hun Sen, 2019


This is a young Hun Sen in the 1970s. He joined the Khmer Rouge in 1970. The Cambodian genocide happened between 1975–1979. Hun Sen jumped ship and emerged as the DPM of the Vietnamese-installed puppet government in 1979.


Read his remarks again, particularly “contributed to the massacre of Cambodian people”.


If I were him, I would not have translated the Cambodian text into English. This was meant for domestic consumption.


As for liberation, guess which country’s orbit is Cambodia in today?